piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
JJIglesias (2026-03-11 00:19:47+00:00): Revise el Link q me enviaste y sigue mostrando 12971. No se que enlace distinto tienes pero en ningun lado de las paginas web ni las fichas en PDF muestran 13131 habitantes
MarcoR (2026-04-14 07:29:13+00:00): Con questo changeset e altri hai re-inserito degli edifici presi da OpenStreetMap nelle stesse posizioni creando degli inutili duplicati (ad esempio https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/383266835, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1487270243 e https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1489477555); in altri changeset hai poi aggiunto il CAP agli edifici ma in Italia gli indirizzi (e i CAP) non andrebbero aggiunti agli edifici (vedi https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Addresses#Regole_specifiche_per_l'Italia)
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179649420
vecchiemaniere (2026-04-14 18:06:54+00:00): Mi spiace. Come posso rimediare?
MarcoR (2026-04-14 19:51:40+00:00): Grazie per la risposta; se te la senti ci sono degli strumenti che permettono di annullare interamente più changeset in un colpo solo; uno di questi è https://revert.monicz.dev/ che di solito funziona perfettamente ma in questo periodo ogni tanto si blocca.

Secondo me i changeset che dovrebbero essere annullati sono quelli del 10 marzo 2026 (179649420, 179649423, 179649428 e 179649432) e quelli del 16 marzo 2026 (179955679, 179955683, 179955689 e 179955690).

Se vuoi posso provare a farlo io.

Buon mapping,
Marco
vecchiemaniere (2026-04-14 20:20:58+00:00): Non vorrei fare ulteriore casino. Posso chiederti di provare tu?
MarcoR (2026-04-15 06:28:12+00:00): OK, provo ad annullare io; potresti ricevere un bel po' di messaggi (in teoria uno per ogni changeset annullato) che puoi ignorare tranquillamente :)
MarcoR (2026-04-15 08:48:49+00:00): Questo e gli altri 7 changeset sono stati annullati da un altro utente con i seguenti changeset: 181352111 181352118 181352123 181352128 181352133 181352404 181352626 181352628

Se noti qualche problema scrivi pure; se vuoi continuare a mappare sei il/la benvenuto/a.

Grazie e buon mapping,
Marco.
vecchiemaniere (2026-04-15 08:52:44+00:00): Intanto grazie per l'aiuto. Sicuramente continuerò a mappare. Non posso farne a meno. La mia idea è anche quella di leggermi bene le regole per quanto concerne gli indirizzi. Penso che ci lavorerò
NeisBot (2026-03-10 17:04:03+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13634379421 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Counseling center"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-18 17:33:12+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180071779
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
Taksine (2026-03-12 10:19:22+00:00): 站点名称无需加”站“字
ColbyTheWorldTraveler (2026-03-11 23:23:06+00:00): Looks good! Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179650338
NeisAgent (2026-03-11 18:29:58+00:00): 🕵 The changeset tags appear to reference Google Maps or another Google mapping service as a data source.

Please note that using Google Maps, Google Street View, or similar Google services as a mapping source is not allowed in OpenStreetMap due to license restrictions.

More information: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google

If the data in this changeset was derived from Google Maps or another incompatible source, the edits may need to be reverted.

If this is a misunderstanding and the data was collected from permitted sources (e.g. local survey, Bing imagery, local knowledge, etc.), please clarify in a reply.
新福島 中之島かとう歯科 (2026-03-11 18:35:56+00:00): Hello,

Thank you for your message.

The information I added was not taken from Google Maps or Google Street View.
It was entered based on publicly available information and my own local knowledge of the clinic.

Therefore, the data was not derived from any restricted Google services.

Please let me know if any additional clarification is needed.

Best regards
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-11 18:37:41+00:00): Thanks for your reply!
NeisBot (2026-03-10 17:21:51+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 97 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1133911356 v1 | 45 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1133911355 v1 | 44 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1146126464 v3 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/10571456105 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179650531
iandees (2026-03-10 17:26:10+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
Bienson (2026-03-11 05:15:31+00:00): Auch wenn "Kreuz der BUGA 1959" nicht der richtige Name ist (oder wieso wurde er gelöscht?), kann es als note=* gerne stehen bleiben.
OlasMapy (2026-03-10 19:15:19+00:00): czyzby wandalizm
bartgron (2026-03-10 19:20:43+00:00): Na pewno jest sporo błędów i błędny opis zestawu zmian
Zwyklak (2026-03-10 19:40:33+00:00): Tutaj pakiet ścieżek do wejść do budynku, poprawa geometrii dróg
Zamów na https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=179651144
Zwyklak (2026-03-10 19:41:09+00:00): + usunięcie nieprawdziwego wejścia do budynku Podgórna 83
CAM-Gerlach (2026-03-11 01:15:04+00:00): Seems like NeisRevert somehow added the spammy description back here that the original SEO spammer had actually removed.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-11 07:49:53+00:00): Hi CAM Gerlach,

thanks for pointing this out.

In this case, the user changed the description from the added node (v1) to an updated version (v2), which was not properly covered by my bot’s rule set and therefore caused the incorrect revert. I have fixed the rule so this should not happen again.

Best regards.
CAM-Gerlach (2026-03-11 16:19:42+00:00): Thanks Pascal! Yep, I figured the issue had something to do with the SEO account making a revised version that still triggered the bot again, which then automatically reverted back to the previous revision, but that version also had (more egregious) spam. Thanks for fixing that corner case!
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-11 16:58:09+00:00): You're welcome! I think there are sadly still a few corner cases like this. I designed the bot with the goal of not reverting an entire changeset, but instead trying to keep any "good" tags from a changeset. However, doing a full revert would definitely be much simpler for such spammy edits ... 🙂
CAM-Gerlach (2026-03-11 19:23:49+00:00): > I designed the bot with the goal of not reverting an entire changeset, but instead trying to keep any "good" tags from a changeset. However, doing a full revert would definitely be much simpler for such spammy edits ... 🙂

Yeah, that definitely makes sense especially for a bot like this that doesn't require human effort. That was also the approach I've taken in the past with SEO spam changesets, trying to manually preserve what I could and fix or remove what I couldn't. On the other hand, on the advice of the DWG members I've worked with lately helping deal with hundreds of SEO spam changesets/accounts I've also done more full reverts in situations where the SEO spam was more egregious, complex, or there wasn't much of value to preserve (like in this case, where it was just a node with no top-level tags and just a name and website), and to avoid rewarding SEO spammers by doing what they should be doing for them.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-13 14:38:21+00:00): Yeah, I can definitely agree with that as well. I’ve changed a few rules in the bot so that it now tends to revert changes back to the previous tags instead of trying to detect spammy tags and remove them individually. Let’s see how well that approach works out. 🙂
NeisBot (2026-03-10 17:37:11+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 39 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1476141437 v1 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1476141435 v2 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/636759909 v4 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/12542400418 v2
https://osm.org/node/13540502882 v3
https://osm.org/node/12542400413 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179651176
willkmis (2026-03-10 18:39:42+00:00): Hi, please be careful not to drag nodes and delete things unintentionally like this, your edits go live immediately. I am reverting this
willkmis (2026-03-10 18:42:08+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179653761. Feel free to re-add the camera, but be careful not to touch other ways if you don't mean to!
ottwiz (2026-03-16 19:43:47+00:00): There was no on-site survey - it's a mistake - I'm always converting task boundaries from Simple Tasking Manager as GPX files in JOSM so with highlighted color i can see the border of where I'm mapping - but it seems i forgot to remove the autogenerated "survey" tag from it
IvaKraljić (2026-03-11 18:27:57+00:00): The source tag for the truck restrictions has since been added in the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179717152. #OptimoRoute
mueschel (2026-03-13 13:41:43+00:00): 

Hi,
you added many tags like "opening_days" or "closing_time". These are not used in any other place. Please check the wiki for the correct usage of "opening_hours":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours
❤️‍🔥 (2026-03-13 10:01:22+00:00): hi, can pedestrians still walk between the two road segments?
Logan Wowwee (2026-03-14 22:30:37+00:00): Yes, I have added pedestrian access. Cheers
Bienson (2026-03-11 05:17:14+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179672800, da du einfach den Namen des Kunstwerkes gelöscht hast.
FriedhöfeDortmund_68654 (2026-03-11 19:41:10+00:00): das ist ein Test ob dann endlich der Name Trauerhallen Hauptfriedhof im friedhofplan angezeigt wird.
Baloo Uriza (2026-03-23 14:29:46+00:00): Are these "names" like "Lawrence County High Point" really the names or are these descriptions?  If it's the latter, could you please change the name tag to the description tag?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179651975
felipeeugenio (2026-03-11 14:21:57+00:00): Por fav or no juntar los landuses con Ríos y calles. La propiedad no llega hasta esos puntos. No hacer las cosas tan rápido por favor.

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179652380
JakovBušić (2026-03-10 20:19:41+00:00): Roads that were split unnecessary in this changeset have been merged back together in 179657223. "OptimoRoute"
rarad74 (2026-03-10 19:37:46+00:00): Hi
Please DO NOT add again roundabouts withouth specific tags as junction =roundabout. Thank you.
LakeAkush (2026-03-11 17:45:26+00:00): Hi rarad74,
Thank you for reaching out.  I will be mindful of this tag junction=roundabout for future edits.
Bienson (2026-03-11 01:54:32+00:00): Bitte NRW Liegenschaftskataster für Gebäudeumrisse verwenden.

Außerdem unnötiges Multipolygon bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20307349/

Und verschobener Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13622431762/
doms2a (2026-03-11 08:40:33+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, wie gehe ich denn damit um wenn an Gebäuden wirklich ein Fehler vorliegt? Also wenn zum Beispiel jetzt ein kompletter Gebäudeteil fehlt? Ich habe dort nämlich noch ein außenstehendes Treppenhaus hinzugefügt was vorher fehlte. Muss ich sowas dann dem NRW Liegenschaftskataster melden?
Bienson (2026-03-12 01:13:48+00:00): Das neu eingetragene Treppenhaus ist ja offensichtlich im Liegenschaftskataster-Bildmaterial vorhanden, es hat bisher nur in OSM gefehlt. Wenn es tatsächlich Abweichungen gibt, dann mithilfe des Luftbildes eintragen. Meist sind diese Abweichungen aber eher überstehende Dächer oder Verzerrungen im Luftbild.
doms2a (2026-03-13 15:04:57+00:00): ah okay alles klar, danke für die Info!
jhuang97 (2026-03-16 06:34:59+00:00): Hello Tre, I would prefer if you did not delete sidewalks like this, see my comment under changeset 178516175.
NeisBot (2026-03-10 18:09:59+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/4265843765 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Moving company office"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-19 05:33:09+00:00): 🤔 The text has been updated, though I’m not entirely sure it’s an improvement.
Davileci (2026-03-12 05:53:48+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/135948103
HellMap (2026-03-12 14:16:55+00:00): Hello,

As mentioned before, changing the stops does not update the routes themselves. Please either update the transport routes when editing or leave a note or a review request so they can be reviewed and fixed. Otherwise, you are leaving an incorrect route layout and missing stops.

I have fixed the routes here.

Thanks
nevw (2026-03-10 20:59:15+00:00): Hi, I have deleted a duplicate defibrillator you entered here. If there are two of them in the same place, let me know, and I will revert my change.
willkmis (2026-03-10 18:44:31+00:00): Is Glen Echo really currently a theme park? I don't think there are any rides except for the carousel, otherwise it's more of a cultural center. Maybe disused:amenity=theme_park?
Joseph R P (2026-03-10 19:59:28+00:00): I added the tag not based on the rides necessarily but rather because  of its entertainment focus with various amenities including show venues, restaurants, the carousel, a playground, an aquarium, and art studios. This is also out of my hesitation to instead add amenity=arts_centre since it doesn't serve as one venue but rather a property with multiple venues and attractions of varying types.
willkmis (2026-05-03 23:16:06+00:00): Just to follow up on this, I visited Glen Echo this weekend and it convinced me that it is definitely not currently a theme park by OSM definition. I think the wiki definition of amenity=arts_centre describes Glen Echo reasonably well as a venue for a variety of art exhibitions/performance spaces, so I retagged it as such, still dual-tagged with leisure=park.
Wildsharky (2026-03-13 06:09:01+00:00): Revert of 179651176
JJIglesias (2026-03-10 21:58:12+00:00): Slds. No se de donde estas sacando los datos pero según CPV2024 la población de Pailón es de 13945 habitantes, NO es 17048 habitantes como colocaste. Ninguna población significativa de Bolivia ha duplicado su población entre los Censos del 2012 y 2024.
5m4u9 (2026-03-10 22:49:06+00:00): Hola, Aquí muestra 17048 https://cpv2024.ine.gob.bo/index.php/principal/principales-resultados-v3/.... 

No estoy usando esta página sino los datos en bruto que está en otro enlace y que concentra los otros datos de los otros censos.

Las ciudad principales no hay subido mucho, pero si las ciudades satélite o intermedias como palión, arbieto (3578->20257), sipesipe (14294->37558), puerto villarroel (13031->22915), entre ríos (13956->28508) en sus areas urbanas.... 

creo que son por dos razones... 1) migración campo alejado/disperso a ciudad más cercana y no tan costasa y 2) el censo actual aplicó por 1ra vez la distritalización de los municipios y absorción de pequeñas poblaciones cercanas y se convirtieron en otb's urbanas dentro del áera urbana aprobada... el caso que recuerdo más es sipesipe.

ya habáamos hablado de esto, muchas poblaciones pequeñitas alrededor de sipesipe ahora son barrios/otb's. en este caso las poblaciones urbana-rural se invirtió...
JJIglesias (2026-03-11 00:43:37+00:00): Si entiendo lo de los pueblos (village) y aldeas (hamlets) que pasaron a formar parte de Towns y Citys y no hay problema con eso. 

Yo he bajado todas las poblaciones "oficiales" incluidas en el CPV2024 por cada Departamento según el INE y los he convertidos en datos Excel, y son los que estoy haciendo cross-check con la tabla maestra que llevo del CNVP2012 y su relación con OSM. 

El tema es q lo publicado por el INE NO incluye geodata ni tampoco el NUEVO código de referencia INE, esa parte hay que hacerla manualmente...
NeisAgent (2026-03-11 18:30:03+00:00): 🕵 The changeset tags appear to reference Google Maps or another Google mapping service as a data source.

Please note that using Google Maps, Google Street View, or similar Google services as a mapping source is not allowed in OpenStreetMap due to license restrictions.

More information: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google

If the data in this changeset was derived from Google Maps or another incompatible source, the edits may need to be reverted.

If this is a misunderstanding and the data was collected from permitted sources (e.g. local survey, Bing imagery, local knowledge, etc.), please clarify in a reply.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-30 06:53:38+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam POI with advertising/malformed tags and source=* of Google Maps, which is prohibited by both OSM and Google policies (see https://osm.wiki/Google ), in changeset 184836936

https://osm.org/changeset/184836936
Kovoschiz (2026-03-10 18:50:50+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179642577
iandees (2026-03-10 19:14:50+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
Wildsharky (2026-03-13 08:32:28+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179680450
NeisBot (2026-03-10 19:04:32+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13574658727 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Florist shop"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-19 05:33:09+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180089513
(Restore previous tags. No changes)
arafqus (2026-03-10 19:15:11+00:00): #CasbahUpdatePlan
n76 (2026-03-10 19:50:14+00:00): What was your logic on making this change?

While it is a dual carrageway with one limited access entrance/exit at the dump. It does not meet the functional standards of a motorway. Nor does it meet the OSM convention on highway connectivity.
Yushclay (2026-03-11 00:11:26+00:00): Ok, I'll undo it.
arafqus (2026-03-10 19:14:43+00:00): #CasbahUpdatePlan
Guinevere23 (2026-05-02 08:00:12+00:00): This construction has not yet been approved so has been changed  to construction site incorrectly on the map
NeisBot (2026-03-10 19:34:24+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13612980555 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Banquet hall"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-19 05:33:10+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180089515
(Restore previous tags. No changes)
NeisBot (2026-03-10 19:39:51+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13577557895 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Permanent makeup clinic"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-19 05:33:11+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180089516
(Restore previous tags. No changes)
Wildsharky (2026-03-13 08:38:16+00:00): Reverted in changeset id: 179688732
Wildsharky (2026-03-13 08:42:38+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179729943
NeisBot (2026-03-10 19:49:01+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13612602040 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Restaurant and Bar"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-19 05:33:14+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180089519
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
GinaroZ (2026-03-10 21:26:38+00:00): Why have you changed these roads from unclassified to tertiary? And why use a changeset comment which doesn't reflect the changes?
RR80 (2026-03-11 16:41:09+00:00): A couple of these on a second look were mistakes. However the others I didn't see why the tertiary class just petered out partway? Neither route looses any importance where the change was.
NeisBot (2026-03-10 19:51:57+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13612886752 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Custom home builder"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-19 05:33:14+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180089520
(Restore previous tags. No changes)