piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2025-12-16 05:30:44+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: "Photography studio in Gastonia"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-12-16 16:57:07+00:00): ❌ Corrected by https://osm.org/changeset/175991979
NeisBot (2025-12-16 05:30:46+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: "Boutique store in Atmore AL"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-12-16 16:56:36+00:00): 🔴 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the original contributor or remaining promotional text in description tags by https://osm.org/changeset/176015036
TinPetreković (2025-12-16 11:09:25+00:00): Accidentally created node and altered tags were fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175999845
gscholz (2025-12-17 07:05:59+00:00): Hi LouisS34,
this changeset has left behind errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=3.32756&lat=43.48159&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=175981713

As you may know, this kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps. Can you please fix this?

I also recommend to watch out for warnings your OSM editor ID shows. See above for more.

Kind regards
Guido
silversurfer83 (2025-12-18 13:40:01+00:00): Moin Werner :)

du hast darum gebeten, dass sich jemand diese Änderung ansieht.

Im großen und ganzen sieht es ganz ok aus. Ein paar Fragen bzw. Anmerkungen hätte ich jedoch:

- Quelle "offizielle GPX": Was heißt das? Von wem ist sie und darf sie für OSM verwendet werden?

- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1458858189 hast du als "Fußweg" erfasst. Ich kann auf den Bildern, die dort zur Verfügung stehen (Mapillary, Kartaview,...) leider keinen "blauen Lolli" erkennen, der dort einen offiziell ausgewiesenen Fußweg anzeigt. Sollte es sich eher um einen Trampelpfad oder einfach einen naturbelassenen Weg handeln, der nicht mit zweispurigen Fz. zu nutzen ist, dann ist "highway=path" (Pfad) hier besser. Auch die Lage könnte wohl besser einen Meter oder zwei nach Norden an den Rand des Feldes geschoben werden, so wie ich die Luftbilder interpretiere.

- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1458858162 sicher, dass das "nur" ein path ist? Hier sieht das Luftbild eher nach Feldweg aus, aber ich gehe davon aus, dass du vor Ort warst.

Joar. Das wars soweit. Die Wanderrelation ist sehr umfangreich, da kann ich nicht so viel zu sagen. 

happy trails
LordGarySugar (2025-12-22 18:24:31+00:00): Hi, it would be preferable if buildings were not imported from mapwithai / microsoft buildingfootprints when they still need to be split further - for example semidetached and terraced houses as is the case here. Thanks.
NeisBot (2025-12-16 05:28:27+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 27 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
https://osm.org/way/821943212 v2 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/821943208 v2 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/821943211 v2 | 3 crossings

Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/7674530879 v3
https://osm.org/node/3722680153 v4

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=175982369
NeisRevert (2025-12-16 16:54:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/176014949
where the comment is: "Revert of unintended geometry change"
Ewen Hill (2025-12-16 00:53:42+00:00): Nice work Cody
FajrAl (2025-12-17 12:16:31+00:00): Lebih baik batas administrasi dibuatkan geometri baru; tidak menggunakan/menumpang geometri jalan, selokan, atau air sungai.
ChrissW-R1 (2026-01-11 16:38:50+00:00): That's right. But I didn't add or remove any relation members here. I only removed a duplicated node, which makes lines and polygons invalid.
Heather Piwowar (2025-12-27 00:35:27+00:00): Thanks for adding this! I'd like to add the details that it doesn't allow e-bikes, and only allows 2 bikes per sailing. What tags do you think would be best for this?  (webpage with details: https://support.hullo.com/support/solutions/articles/151000216604-can-i-bring-a-bike-onboard)
TinPetreković (2025-12-16 12:04:30+00:00): Wrong tags fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176002398
TinPetreković (2025-12-16 12:26:06+00:00): Accidentally created node was removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176003368
Weisshs (2025-12-16 05:15:52+00:00): That's odd, very few of my changes showed up from my JOSM edit. This is my first contribution, I'll try to fix it.
KennyDap (2025-12-16 05:41:42+00:00): Fix Vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175988849
willkmis (2025-12-16 04:05:48+00:00): I don't really understand why you removed the building tag here, POIs are commonly tagged as both the building and what's inside of them. And if you want to separate them, please at least draw a separate building=roof way rather than deleting valid data.
Codesurfer (2025-12-16 15:44:46+00:00): Hi, I'm updating carousel information and didn't see information on mapping carousel as a building. I only removed the building=yes tag and kept all other tags and added the correct name. attraction=carousel has limited information on mapping carousels. Based on your comment, I've changed the way to building=roof and have added a node for the carousel with original info. Thanks for the review!
QuiLe (2025-12-16 03:04:20+00:00): Changeset looks good, consider adding fire_path=yes if this is only for firetrucks and works as a fire lane or access path.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175985664
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-16 04:19:39+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19174
quincylvania (2026-01-20 15:17:29+00:00): Hi, did you mean to add water areas over the boulder islands? It's not clear what's going on here.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-01-20 21:25:41+00:00): ? I'm not sure what you're asking.
quincylvania (2026-01-20 21:43:29+00:00): Sorry, I should have included a link. In this changeset you added water areas like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1458917115 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1458917107 which prevent the islands from showing. I'm wondering if this was intentional?
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-01-21 06:06:14+00:00): No, I did not mean to hide the islands in Lake Mead.
quincylvania (2026-02-10 13:58:17+00:00): Thanks for your response. I fixed up the area in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178361486.
NeisBot (2025-12-16 03:10:52+00:00): Hi jetbridge guy, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 80% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 36 aeroway(s)
- 36 building(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=175986015
jetbridge guy (2025-12-16 03:28:39+00:00): Yes, it was intentional, all other airports on OSN have the jetbridges as not buildings but jetways.
woodpeck (2025-12-16 08:54:44+00:00): These are mobile to a certain degree, right? And what you have mapped here is their configuration on whichever date the aerial imagery has been taken? Does that make sense? Is that not like mapping the location of an airport bus?
ITBeyond-Michelle (2025-12-16 03:22:30+00:00): very sorry - I have made a mistake. Please reverse/restore the deleted track section in this changeset. I cananot work out how to do that. I misinterpretted a report. The section of no track is at the southern end linking onto the wanderous trail. I will review asap but need Dawn creek track restored please.
nevw (2025-12-16 04:18:26+00:00): Hi, I have reverted the changeset.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175987331
Frank Peng (2025-12-16 03:41:16+00:00): This changeset reverts https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168962776
Joseph R P (2025-12-21 22:44:55+00:00): There probably shouldn't be a natural area encompassing all of Las Vegas as not the entirety of the city is sand. This tag should only apply to desert sand on its own rather than the ground on which the city is built on top of.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-12-21 23:19:52+00:00): Oh, okay. Should I delete this polygon, too?
NeisBot (2025-12-16 04:00:37+00:00): Hi junyongchoi, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 141 addr(s)
- 51 building(s)
- 1 landuse(s)
- 1 leisure(s)
- 1 man_made(s)
- 3 name(s)
- 3 power(s)
- 1 source(s)
- 1 sport(s)
- 1 wikidata(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=175986974
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-16 04:03:03+00:00): DWG revert - improper deletions

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175987078
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-16 04:04:34+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19173
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-18 06:47:09+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19186
Baloo Uriza (2025-12-16 15:02:09+00:00): Looks like this got dropped in the middle of a street.  Is this on the pole at the south end of the median?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175987260
Rwags (2025-12-16 21:31:34+00:00): Yes it's in the median
Baloo Uriza (2025-12-16 15:02:01+00:00): Looks like this got dropped in the middle of a street.  Is this on the pole at the north end of the median?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175987269
Rwags (2025-12-16 21:30:33+00:00): Yes it's in the median
Gregory Peony (2025-12-16 05:28:22+00:00): Hi the footprint you added here represents a building, but it should be squared.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175987683
Gregory Peony (2025-12-16 05:32:24+00:00): After tracing and tagging features which are likely square or round, please remember to square their corners `q`, or circularise them `o`, because it is almost impossible and time consuming to draw shapes so percisely manually. Buildings with metal or pitched roofs tend to have square corners; round buildings are identifiable by the distinctive cresent shaped shadow they cast. Unless the building is clearly a different shape then it's best to assume that it should be rounded or its corners should be squared. In the ID Editor, you can `right click` for access to editing functions. Since roofs tend to overhang walls trace the initial shape slightly smaller to allow a buffer for any change in size which may occur. In JOSM use the [buildingstools plugin](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/BuildingsTools). In ID you must draw the shape accurately enough if you want every corner to be squared. This [video about squaring features in ID](https://youtu.be/Xs5wX592E1o) has more information and a demo.
dcskobuffs (2026-02-24 14:56:42+00:00): Hola Pepe Sánchez de Wu,

Se han añadido considerablemente las etiquetas foot=no en las carreteras de Córdoba. Si bien las restricciones peatonales en la Avenida de Circunvalación Agustín Tosco coinciden con la política wiki de OSM, las restricciones peatonales en carreteras primarias y secundarias no lo hacen al observar imágenes de Esri World, así como imágenes terrestres de la zona (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-31.357662845389&lng=-64.203508794278&z=19.517574779158096&pKey=154140219928828&focus=photo), ya que se ven numerosos cruces peatonales y aceras.

La realidad del terreno muestra que estas zonas son transitables y, por lo tanto, foot=no restringiría el acceso peatonal y las rutas para ese modo de transporte. Teniendo esto en cuenta, me gustaría saber si tiene información adicional sobre cómo se están añadiendo estas etiquetas peatonales y si hay planes para digitalizar las aceras y las vías peatonales por separado. Si no planea añadir estas características, ¿qué criterios o referencias se utilizan para estas restricciones peatonales?

Gracias y espero su respuesta.

Dcskobuffs

—

Hello Pepe Sánchez de Wu,

There has been considerable additions for foot=no tags throughout highways in Córdoba. Although the foot restrictions on the motorway Avenida de Circunvalación Agustín Tosco match OSM wiki policy, the primary and secondary highway pedestrian restrictions do not when looking at Esri World Imagery as well as ground imagery through the area such as (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-31.357662845389&lng=-64.203508794278&z=19.517574779158096&pKey=154140219928828&focus=photo), as many crosswalks and sidewalks are visible.


The ground truth show these areas are walkable and thus foot=no would restrict pedestrian access and routing for that mode of travel. With that in mind, I’m curious if you have any additional context on how these foot tags are being added and if there are plans to digitize the sidewalks and footways separately. If you do not plan to add these features, by what criteria or references are being used for these pedestrian restrictions.

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you.

Dcskobuffs
dcskobuffs (2026-03-03 15:21:58+00:00): Hello again,

I wanted to ask again about the foot=no tags added throughout highways in Córdoba. Looking at ground imagery such as (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-31.360122682471996&lng=-64.203941971083&z=17.735705270527706&pKey=808791350061405&focus=photo&x=0.5035676759354477&y=0.49297764012536593&zoom=0) on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169431060, not only is a sidewalk visible but appears a bus stop is now restricted because of the foot=no tags. With the current tagging in place plenty of other destinations are now restricted from pedestrian access.

If you believe the foot tags should stay in place, how would you feel about adding footways alongside these highways?

Thanks again,

Dcskobuffs

Hola de nuevo,

Quería preguntar de nuevo sobre las etiquetas foot=no añadidas en las carreteras de Córdoba. Al observar imágenes terrestres como (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-31.360122682471996&lng=-64.203941971083&z=17.735705270527706&pKey=808791350061405&focus=photo&x=0.5035676759354477&y=0.49297764012536593&zoom=0) en https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/169431060, no solo se ve una acera, sino que también parece que una parada de autobús está ahora restringida debido a las etiquetas foot=no. Con la señalización actual, muchos otros destinos tienen ahora restringido el acceso peatonal. Si crees que las señales peatonales deberían seguir en su lugar, ¿qué te parecería añadir aceras junto a estas carreteras?

Gracias de nuevo,

Dcskobuffs
maddog107 (2025-12-16 05:44:23+00:00): Golf=water_hazard not gold
Gregory Peony (2025-12-16 05:31:10+00:00): The footprint in the NW represnets a building the SE one envelopes two. Each footprint should represent a building. Please watch [this video about imagery interpretation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ-vUwtS3A8). Sometimes buildings may appear to share a common wall, but this is sometimes an illusion; only map them with shared nodes if you have reason to believe that they really do touch.

Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
Baloo Uriza (2025-12-16 14:41:50+00:00): Not bad except I doubt suite 101 is the entire building, and advertising copy is inappropriate in OSM.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175988146
martien-176 (2025-12-16 20:16:04+00:00): Hi, thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. You requested a review of your mappings. 

The buildings you mapped are well done as to their location. But pay attention to the squareness of the corners. Most buildings do have right angled corners and we need our mapping to reflect that. 

Also, please map each building as a separate object. Do not combine multiple nearby buildings into one. Zoom in so that you can see the outline of the roofs and look for the gaps between the buildings or different roof colors to help determine where one building ends and another begins.

Please check out these sources for more info: 
- Buildings--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o
- Roads--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBLwb2nisJQ 
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit

Thanks so much for your contribution, Martien, HOT global validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175988648
QuiLe (2025-12-16 05:46:18+00:00): Thanks for your contribution and for adding address tags!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175988699
Taya_S (2025-12-16 07:29:05+00:00): Reverted deletions

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175991722
Baloo Uriza (2025-12-16 14:40:38+00:00): Reverting changes from Metrolink (new name) to Tulsa Transit (old name)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176008996
subham_lyft (2026-04-09 16:16:45+00:00): Hi Baloo Uriza,
Hi, I’m Shubham, Santoshi’s teammate on the OSM team at Lyft. Sorry for the delayed response & thank you very much for your insight and feedback. Regarding the edits, I added the roads based on the available evidence. After adding them, a warning appeared stating that “Bus route MetroLink Tulsa looks like a common feature with non-standard tags,” and I mistakenly clicked on “upgrade the tags” instead of ignoring the issue.
I sincerely apologize for this oversight & thank you so much for your time, feedback, and contributions to OpenStreetMap.

Happy Mapping!
Best regards,
Shubham
evgenykatyshev (2025-12-16 10:22:39+00:00): I've reverted this edit because both maps.gov.ge and Yandex's Mirrows (https://yandex.com.ge/maps/-/CLw7nFyv) show that it's house number 57, not 80b. If you have any proof, please tell me about it.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175997907
iandees (2025-12-16 16:12:33+00:00): Hello. Thanks for your work on the map. Typically roads leading to parking lots or schools should be highway=service or highway=unclassified, not secondary. I've adjusted this classification for you.
Taya_S (2025-12-16 07:25:38+00:00): Reverted deletions. Please see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19175

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175991626
pierfrancescop (2025-12-16 10:13:33+00:00): edit fatto alle 1:42, quindi non garantisco
user_5359 (2025-12-17 16:19:43+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/node/13380377898 (one of twenty six objects). What is the mean of the tags
Coin = Familial
Nouveaux = locaux
?
Max-Kritic (2025-12-17 17:36:03+00:00): Une erreur merci
Taya_S (2025-12-16 07:25:39+00:00): Reverted deletions. Please see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19175

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175991626
divaddivag (2025-12-16 17:45:32+00:00): C'est cool! De mon coté je vais être plus vigilant car il y en a vraiment beaucoup et le plus souvent bien tenues. En attendant, j'ai rajouté une balise pour visualiser les images géotagguées sur le 14: https://wikimap.toolforge.org/?cat=Public_bookcases_in_Calvados&subcats=true&subcatdepth=1
Du coup j'ai mis la BaL de Tour-en-Bessin dans une catégorie qui m'intéresse: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Information_boards_using_OpenStreetMap . Si tu tombes sur un panneau qui reprend ou semble reprendre OSM pour la carte, n'hésites pas un faire un petit shoot🙏 A+ D
rempshaener (2025-12-16 21:32:14+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.
Du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Nur eine Anmerkung zu https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13380486447:
Hydranten sollten nicht mit Straßen, Gebäuden u. ä. verbunden werden. Das lässt sich leicht beheben: im Editor markieren und „E“ drücken – das löst den Hydranten von der Linie. 
Vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen.
Viele Grüße
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-12-20 23:57:27+00:00): Please don't move connections to the merge point. This changeset removed valid routes due to excessive intersection movement
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175991927
Eraque22 (2026-01-03 07:40:09+00:00): my apologies.  I didn't mean to cause any inaccuracies.  Thank you for the feedback.
eggie (2025-12-16 10:51:08+00:00): Dag Marc,

place_of_worship  was al getagd op het gebouw.  Ik heb de adresnode leeggemaakt. Alle info staat nu op het gebouw zelf zoals bij kerken wel gebruikelijk is.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-12-16 10:53:55+00:00): Beide kerken aangepast. Het staat anders dubbel als kerk getagd.
Marc Olzheim (2025-12-16 11:02:11+00:00): Ah, sorry, ik had niet door dat kerken op het gebouw moesten i.p.v. de address node.
eggie (2025-12-16 11:07:29+00:00): Niet altijd.. Soms heeft een kerk 'inwoning' bv in een verzorgingshuis en dan gebruil je wel de adresnode. Of er zijn meer kerkgenootschappen die van één gebouw gebruik maken.
Het ligt er dus aan.

Groet
eggie
RodrigoVi (2025-12-16 11:43:23+00:00): L'utilisation de préfixes (comme was:* https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Pr%C3%A9fixe_cycle_de_vie  et old_name) auraient permis de conserver l'historique sans supprimer le nœud.
ScottWalkerAU (2025-12-16 10:51:27+00:00): Hi - building:levels = 0 feels like a typo, should be 1?

You also don't need to specify state / postcode / suburb unless it's intersecting boundaries.
CartoElezen (2025-12-16 11:05:04+00:00): Oh, yeah my bad. I checked the wiki even but completely missed "A building (part) with only one ground level will be tagged with building:levels=1", I was blindly going off the picture there, thanks for catching that.
woodpeck (2025-12-16 08:51:13+00:00): Instead of deleting buildings and then re-drawing them, you might use the JOSM "modify geometry" tool to move them to the right place.
Tordanik (2025-12-30 15:46:48+00:00): In diesem Changeset hast du versehentlich das Gebäude des Adalbert-Stifter-Gymnasiums gelöscht (Multipolygon-Relation und äußerer Umriss). Ich habe das eben wieder hergestellt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176634472
Rainero (2025-12-30 18:15:44+00:00): Ups, das war ein Fauxpas. Ich erinnere mich, dass der Validator die doppelten inners (2 identische Polygone übereinander) angemeckert hat. Dass ich dabei das MP fürs ganze Gebäude beseitigt habe, war nicht beabsichtigt.

Vielen Dank für deine Korrektur!
ScottWalkerAU (2025-12-16 10:34:53+00:00): Hiya - you can use the "square buildings" button (Q) to make corners snap to right angles. Which is almost all corners of residential buildings