piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
b-jazz (2025-12-22 00:15:46+00:00): These (4) changesets on one of the top golf courses in the country were littered with some extensive bad mapping. Some really well defined sandtraps were deleted and replaced with harsh, blocky low-node-count ways. Existing,  golf course elements (with lots of history) were deleted and replaced with other elements that crossed over all sorts of other elements they shouldn't have. Multipolygons had tags duplicated on outer members since new mappers don't understand relations yet. 

I've reverted all four changes and will happily work with RezGolf to get legitimate changes implemented. Rez, let's talk.
pwbriggs (2025-12-19 07:59:37+00:00): Thanks for this. These ramps used to be mapped the way you described, but I thought (based on aerial imagery) that these lanes were reconfigured. The way I'm seeing these lanes, there's an exit only lane for a while, and then there's a normal exit (i.e. not forced by exit only lane) out of that exit only lane--that's the first ramp off 99, heading to harbor island. Then, a little later, that exit only lane feeds into a new exit, that dumps into west seattle bridge.

So that's what I changed it to last month in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174749238. Did I accidentally use old imagery and update to the previous configuration? Are you using imagery or (recent) personal experience to describe the current configuration?

Thanks again for working on this--data accuracy is important!--and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
grantslatton (2025-12-19 16:10:20+00:00): I can't figure out how to view before/after of a changeset, so just describing verbally:

This exit is on my daily commute. The current configuration is that both exits become separated from I-99 by a solid white line, then that lane gets split by a solid white line (widening wedge shape) dividing the one exit lane between the two exits.

Before my change, the traces were configured such that Harbor Island exit pulled off from I-99 at a Y junction pretty early, and only much later the West Seattle Bridge exit pulled off from at the last moment.

My change moved the Y-junctions northwards to match the solid white lines, but the ontology is still wrong (and was wrong before), because in reality both exits pull off from I-99 in a single lane that later splits.

So before, the main I-99 trace had two Y junctions, one for each exit, but the real ontology would be I-99 having 1 Y junction for the single exit lane, and then that exit lane getting a Y junction to split between the two exits.

That said, I made a similar edit elsewhere on my commute and was told OSM only cares about physical barriers, not solid white lines, in which case it was more correct before my change.

My motivation here is that Tesla uses OSM data for their self-driving, and the configuration before my change is misleading if you are a self-driving car that also cares about obeying solid white lines, because it implies you can get onto the West Seattle Bridge exit at the last second instead of needing to take the merged exit lane that later splits.

Feel free to revert my change etc, I'm new to this.
pwbriggs (2025-12-19 19:45:35+00:00): Oh, I see what you're saying. Not sure exactly how this should be. But I thought the single white line was just a lane marker? I read the dotted line as "warning, exit only ahead" and the solid single white line as "exit only imminent, avoid changing lanes here", and the split of the lines (could be considered a double white line) as "definitely don't cross here." Not sure if my understanding of the lines is correct, but I see that single white line that changes dotted > solid just before Harbor Island exit as only a warning of an imminent split and discouraged lane change, but not an actual split of the exit yet.

Again, I'm not super familiar with how to map this situation, but consider as a reference the I-90 exit to Rainier south: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1388977594 (you can hit "edit" to see the aerial imagery under the data). There's a solid white line for a while (after the dotted line "warning"), but the exit ramp doesn't actually split off until the single white line splits into a triangle.

So I guess my question is, is a solid white line really the start of the split even before the triangle? And then, for your Tesla, shouldn't it already be in the exit only lane heading towards west seattle bridge? Or is it not lane-aware, or not using lane data in OSM (as far as I can tell the turn:lanes=* and destination:lanes=* are correct on the lead-up to the exits).

Thanks for the details. I'm not an expert here either, so I'm happy to be working through it with you.
NeisBot (2025-12-18 07:23:59+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 78 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/431837213 v13 | 13 crossings
https://osm.org/way/491131056 v3 | 12 crossings
https://osm.org/way/611432993 v1 | 10 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/4832808725 v6
https://osm.org/node/5788923355 v4

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176073924
NeisReview (2026-01-03 12:15:30+00:00): ✅ Should by fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/176121116 | Thx @ratrun
mavl (2025-12-19 16:02:33+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок добавляет непрямоугольное здание. На спутниковом снимке esri (которым вы пользовались) здание прямоугольное.
Ozon OSM7 (2025-12-19 18:15:47+00:00): Добрый день, спасибо за замечание. Видимо, не выпрямились углы
giftifada12 (2025-12-18 14:29:19+00:00): New York
NeisBot (2025-12-18 07:24:08+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 15 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/491131056 v4 | 9 crossings
https://osm.org/way/722842072 v4 | 3 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176074880
Nine-tailed (2025-12-20 21:35:26+00:00): Добрый вечер, вы поправили парковку возле ТРК Небе, но ваши испраления не бьются с последними снимками Есри, в источнике у вас вообще указан Бинг, у которого на месте ТРК все еще сельхоз поля.
Beerron (2025-12-21 07:21:30+00:00): Здравствуйте! Признаюсь, не знал о существовании снимков ESRI, и их доступности в редакторе iD. Благодарю за информацию!

Поскольку снимки Bing отстают от жизни, рисовал по памяти, и, как теперь вижу по снимкам ESRI, допустил неточности, особенно — в своих примерных оценках ёмкости парковки.

Признаю, что мне следовало бы в качестве источника указать осмотр местности (survey), и добавить fixme.

В обозримое время у меня вряд ли будтет возможность посетить окрестности ТРК Небо в г. Мурино, но теперь есть снимки ESRI, ещё раз благодарю что оповестили меня об их существовании.

Что же касается моих ошибок, постараюсь внести соответствующие правки.
Beerron (2025-12-21 07:23:23+00:00): Довесок: по памяти рисовал лишь то, что видел с уровня земли. Проводить аэрофотосъёмку не имею возможности.
Beerron (2025-12-22 02:49:56+00:00): Подправил границы парковки по снимкам ESRI.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1451008262
DaveF (2025-12-19 09:46:38+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1459443374
There is already a train station tag.
NeisBot (2025-12-18 07:24:15+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 11 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/164421021 v21 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1090425876 v2 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/12949611904 v2
https://osm.org/node/9987770550 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176075577
pitscheplatsch (2025-12-20 16:57:14+00:00): Should be fixed by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176121116
Sylabowy Kot (2025-12-18 11:35:50+00:00): Please stop adding all of these over detailed information about your job for every changest.
Prasanna Msamy (2025-12-21 09:34:46+00:00): Thank you for the valuable feedback. Please feel free to point out similar suggestions in future as well. 
Regards,
Prasanna Devi Madasamy
user_5359 (2025-12-18 06:56:56+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please be careful! You moved the node https://www.osm.org/node/6801680033 more than 100 meters over streets and buildings. 
I moved the node back to the original position.
NeisBot (2025-12-18 07:01:56+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Dog daycare and boarding facility in Knoxville"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-12-18 09:28:57+00:00): ❌ Fixed by https://osm.org/changeset/176079645
MassCartog (2025-12-18 19:45:41+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. The feature you removed in this changeset is valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Even decommissioned trails should not be removed until they no longer exist. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property
Pachangas (2025-12-18 20:58:51+00:00): Thanks for the reply. Yes, I am new to OSM, at least as an account-holder, but I fully expected my attempt to delete the trail from the map would be in vain. I certainly "understand" OSM's absolutist philosophy that everything that "exists on the ground" is thereby "valid" for mapping. It's a great theory. In practice of course this means this trail is now at high risk of literally disappearing (being decommissioned and shut down). All the hard work that went into creating it will be wasted, and no one one will be able to enjoy it, including the person who discovered   it and felt compelled to make it public on OSM. For what? Not for the good of the trail, that's for sure. Too bad this individual couldn't just enjoy this amazing trail in the woods, maybe even share it with his/her friends, appreciate and be grateful for all the work someone put into building it, and leave it at that. But nope, instead this first thought is to post it on the internet. But hey, that's the world we live in. Anyway, I know there's nothing I can do about this. It's not an OSM problem; it's a people problem. And people will be people (in this case, not considering the consequences of their actions). I guess the only way to keep some trails off OSM is to not build them in the first place, leaving nothing for these poor saps to discover and map (and presumably enjoy). How sad would that be. Best of luck and thanks.
MassCartog (2025-12-19 00:56:59+00:00): Thanks for the honesty, sound like you are here to knowingly commit vandalism, and motivated by hiding unauthorized/illegal trails on public land. I'll be honest, it's hard to sympathize with the hard work when we are talking about what I suspect is an illegal act. I'd suggest going to the forest rangers and getting approval before damaging the forest in any way you see fit.

And yah, maybe this trail will get closed, but generally these trails are not closed because people hate fun biking trails, but because they damage to the forest. Good sections trails are designed with the contours of the land in mind. Rogue trails rarely account for that. This one seems to be a more or less straight shot right down a steep hill, hard to imagine this won't become a channel for water and erosion. I hope the people who built it considered that.

The forest would be a much sadder place if everyone believed unauthorized trailblazing was acceptable.

But that's not the point here on OSM. On OSM we just map what exists, we don't delete data because it's personally inconvenient.

Please keep individual attacks/comments off OSM. The person that originally mapped this has done nothing unethical or Illegal, no need to speculate about them.
Pachangas (2025-12-19 04:32:07+00:00): Thanks for the reply.

Oh yes I was definitely attempting to remove this trail from the map, for the reasons I cited (I didn't realize that was considered "vandalism" in OSM nomenclature). It's clearly a user-built trail, and thus sensitive access-wise. Trailforks has a process for removing/hiding trails, so thought I'd give it a shot, but like I said, I never actually expected it to work given the "open source," community-generated nature of OSM. All good. 

Yeah I hear you on the rogue trail building. In this zone it's actually hikers not bikers that have "built" most of the illegal trails. Many have found there way onto OSM. But yeah, as a result lots of really poorly routed trails out there, which is definitely a bummer. And I certainly can't argue with the point the forest would be a much sadder place if it was crisscrossed with bootleg trails: hiker, biker, moto, or otherwise. 

Lucky for us the local bike club is working with land managers to hopefully get this all sorted out, come up with a master plan, but you know how that goes, may take years. That's why in the meantime I thought might be best to keep the unsanctioned stuff off public maps. So yeah, that was my "motivation," for whatever that's worth.

But all good. I appreciate you taking the time to engage with me about this. 
Take care.
Koreller (2025-12-23 11:08:56+00:00): Hello Saamat,

Where did you find thoses figures ?

Have a good mapping
Saamat (2025-12-23 12:49:03+00:00): Hi,
You may find it here:
https://www.stat.gov.tm/population-census
This is a page for the 2022 census and stats of Turkmen population in Turkmenistan. It's documents you have to download. The one the most important for us is the "1. ILATYŇ SANY WE ÝERLEŞIŞI." It references all lawfully recognized settlements and their "population," I used this documents to add a lot of settlements on the map using soviet maps, local sources and deduction as names change regularly and we're light years from what it was at the time of the Soviet union. I only add settlements I have no or little doubt about.
I also use this document for the population although it should be considered with a lot of precautions. This census has been widely criticized by external actors as not accurate and falsified to boost the numbers of the actual population of Turkmenistan, I still use it because it's the only recent official document existing.
If you have any question about it or how to use it let me know.
Koreller (2025-12-25 18:12:08+00:00): Thank you for your quick and detailed response! Okay, that's fine with me then, good work!

However, next time, could you please specify the source of your information? For example in you changeset ‘census of Turkmenistan 2022’. This will allow anyone looking at the changeset to understand where it comes from, which is particularly useful in the case of disputed figures.

Or even better, specify it with a "source:population" tag, as I did here some time ago: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7117363/history/12 (with a "Wikidata" mention on my changeset source)
PavMax (2025-12-18 06:18:53+00:00): This changeset is a mistake and I uploaded it accidentally. Trying to revert it.
TinPetreković (2025-12-18 12:46:36+00:00): The node that was accidentally created has been removed along with the incorrect tag in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176093433
PavMax (2025-12-18 06:30:16+00:00): Reverted my changeset 176077627 uploaded by accident
Dimitar155 (2025-12-27 16:45:18+00:00): Hi MountSneffels!

The roundabout that you've moved also has a few paths and a service road which you haven't moved. Can you check it out? 

Happy mapping,
Dimitar
MountSneffels (2026-01-02 17:48:43+00:00): Hello Dimitar155,

Thank you for the reminder. I have gone ahead and updated the surrounding features, and will keep this in mind for future updates like this one.

Happy mapping!
NeisBot (2025-12-18 07:01:58+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Insurance office"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
eggie (2025-12-18 10:12:04+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
compdude (2026-02-09 20:48:33+00:00): WA 99 should not be tagged as a trunk road. Please change this back to how it was before, thanks!
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-02-09 23:41:18+00:00): Wait, what? Why? How come?
compdude (2026-02-10 01:45:39+00:00): Please see this wiki article: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/2021_Highway_Classification_Guidance#Trunk

It says that trunk should only be used on expressways (divided highways with at-grade intersections) in "areas with high population density" (i.e. urban areas). The only part of SR 99 that meets that definition is the stretch of Aurora Avenue between the north end of the SR 99 tunnel and where it hits the first stop light at the intersection with Winona Ave N on the north end of Green Lake. This section needs to also have the expressway=yes tag.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-02-10 07:26:31+00:00): General consensus says that highway=trunk is not exclusively for expressways. Speaking of, I'm 99% (no pun intended) sure that I added expressway=yes tags to SR 99. Ending the trunk designation at that location would leave a stub. However, since SR 99 appears to be an important statewide route, I felt like trunk would be the best way to tag SR 99 until I-5.
Sergei Amuzinski (2025-12-24 10:01:56+00:00): #mapbox_roads_attributes
Sergei Amuzinski (2025-12-24 10:36:02+00:00): The edit was made based on licensed Mapbox sources.
mona_mohsen (2025-12-21 13:56:28+00:00): Hello,  mkarau;
Thank you very much for your help in updating the OSM maps in the United Arab Emirates. I noticed that you added some tags, such as the layer tag. This modification is illogical because the value you added here (w1190118766, w500406075) is meaningless; it indicates that the road is at ground level and therefore its use is not recommended, as explained on the wiki page for the layer tag (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer#:~:text=See%20also-,Guidelines,Features%20at%20layer%200%20should%20not%20normally%20have%20a%20layer%20tag.,-Do%20not%20use).
Regards
mona_mohsen
kingkingHK (2025-12-18 10:11:44+00:00): Feels like a descriptive name; are you sure?
seewhyso (2025-12-19 03:54:59+00:00): Quite certain it's not for the Chinese (as the name of an tourist spot). The English name could be reviewed. My view is that it is an established common name for the tourist attraction (see the press cutting at the separate OSM notes)
eggie (2025-12-18 09:21:13+00:00): Dag Hilbert.. Zijn hier nu twee atm's?
Mvg..
eggie
Hilbert S (2025-12-19 12:14:51+00:00): Ja, klopt. Ben ff wezen kijken. Er zijn twee atm's van Geldmaat.
Eentje buiten in de hoek. Hier kun je geld opnemen. Volgens mij kon je hier eerder ook storten, maar dat kan nu niet meer voor zover ik kon zien (heb verschillende pasjes geprobeerd).
En eentje binnen in de Bruna. Hier kun je geld opnemen en geld storten.
eggie (2025-12-19 12:22:56+00:00): Ahhh... duidelijk!
Gr eggie
Bobbi123 (2025-12-18 10:27:35+00:00): Danke dir.

Nur ist das jetzt noch eine Brücke oder nicht eher ein Durchlass? Ich denke Zweiteres, was man noch anpassen müsste.
Daham (2025-12-18 10:40:23+00:00): Hmm, wahrscheinlich lohnt es sich, dafür noch bis nächstes Jahr zu warten, bis alles endgültig fertig ist. Dann ist der Eindruck besser - ich vermute mal, daß da zB noch ein Geländer hinkommt, dann sieht es mehr wie eine Brücke aus.
confusedbuffalo (2025-12-24 10:04:28+00:00): This is still marked as a tobacco shop, did you mean to change the category as well?
maro21 (2025-12-19 19:03:05+00:00): Sama nazwa nie wystarczy, brakuje jeszcze shop=supermarket.
Pooh01 (2025-12-20 19:47:25+00:00): Dzięki za czujność - wrzuciłem building=supermarket i zapomniałem o shop. Poprawione!
0000FF berries (2025-12-22 11:13:14+00:00): Καλησπέρα, καλώς ήρθατε στο OpenStreetMap και να είστε καλά για την προσθήκη :) 

Ανήκω στους εθελοντές του OpenStreetMap και σας γράφω γιατί αναφέρατε ότι θέλετε κάποιος να δει την αλλαγή που κάνατε. Οι περισσότερες ετικέτες που βάλατε είναι μια χαρά! Έκανα μόνο μια μικρή αλλαγή (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176257932) στο πως γράφονται οι ώρες λειτουργίας και το τηλέφωνο (+30 211..). Αν οι ώρες λειτουργίας αλλάξουν στο μέλλον, μπορείτε να χρησιμοποιήσετε το https://projets.pavie.info/yohours για να προσθέσετε τις καινούριες. Αν έχετε απορίες, μπορείτε να μας στείλετε μήνυμα στην ελληνική κοινότητα του OpenStreetMap εδώ: https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/gr/68 

Αν θέλετε, μπορείτε να βελτιώσετε στον χάρτη της γειτονιάς στην οποία είναι η επιχείρηση, προσθέτοντας π.χ. αριθμούς διευθύνσεων, καφετέριες, δέντρα, κ.τ.λ, είτε απο την ιστοσελίδα www.osm.org, είτε από apps οπως StreetComplete, EveryDoor και άλλα.

Ευχαριστούμε και πάλι :)
pwbriggs (2026-06-11 18:26:06+00:00): Why did you overwrite a bunch of fixme=* tags with "Needs name"? For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6121903/history/6 had a useful and meaningful fixme that you seem to have unintentionally removed.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-11 19:31:32+00:00): I'm not sure, to be honest. Like you said, it was probably unintentional.
A bunnch of residential highways lacked a name=* tag, so I added a fixme=* request. Feel free to revert any edits that damaged existing fixme=* requests (but make sure to keep mine as well).
Cabvibe (2025-12-18 09:08:57+00:00): CabVibe to nowoczesny i uczciwy partner TAXI w Katowicach, który zapewnia kierowcom pełne wsparcie i komfort pracy. Auta są zadbane i gotowe do jazdy, dostęp do wszystkich aplikacji (Uber, Bolt, FreeNow) pozwala elastycznie zarządzać trasami, a karty paliwowe i serwis zwiększają bezpieczeństwo i oszczędności. Cotygodniowe wypłaty, jasne zasady współpracy i elastyczny grafik sprawiają, że CabVibe jest idealnym wyborem dla każdego kierowcy, który szuka stabilnej i komfortowej pracy.