piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2026-03-05 09:19:39+00:00): Hi,

I don't think it's correct adding Multilingual names in the Netherlands.
Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2026-03-05 09:32:04+00:00): It's okay .. I noticed in the wiki that major capital cities are an exception.
tguen (2026-03-07 03:25:10+00:00): Hello,

Which Wikipedia page is your source, "Purple Heart Trail"? (Note that Wikipedia is not a primary source.)

This looks more like a designation than a name to me. https://www.purpleheart.org also gives the "Purple Heart" designation to cities and counties.

Also I can't find any mention of this name from ODOT or Oregon GeoHub.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-03-07 06:27:43+00:00): Apparently, it was designated by a law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_5_in_Oregon#Route_description
compdude (2026-03-17 21:20:28+00:00): This name should be on the official_name=* tag since it is not used by the general public. This is no different than the "So and So Memorial Highway" names.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-03-18 00:20:44+00:00): The official_name=* key is already occupied by the value "Korean War Veterans' Memorial Highway." Adding that would make two names for the highway, which I don't think is possible (or true).
tguen (2026-03-19 02:11:29+00:00): wdym? This changeset moved "Korean War Veterans Memorial Highway" to official_name when "Robert Hugh Baldock Freeway" was already there. (I've since removed the latter.) 

Also see https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_366.924

It seems to be both possible and true. "Pacific Highway #1" should be official_name also. (Why so many names, ODOT?)
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-03-19 02:25:03+00:00): I know, right?! I would have added all three to name=* if it weren't for the fact that it would cause validation errors and it would be too long of a string. Which of these names should apply to the whole freeway? In other words, which of these three designations would be best fit for name=*?
tguen (2026-03-21 08:13:44+00:00): I've never heard anyone call it anything other than I5, so probably none.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-03-22 03:37:39+00:00): Adding these names to alt_name=* with name=* being left blank will cause validation errors ("Alternative name without Name").
compdude (2026-03-22 04:48:43+00:00): You can add the noname=yes tag to avoid the validation error.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-03-22 17:14:08+00:00): But that's not true, as I-5 in Oregon does have a name. In fact, it has three!
compdude (2026-03-22 17:18:05+00:00): The name=* tag should be something that is actually used by the general public. California is probably the only state with named freeways whose names are commonly used by the general public. 

This is not the case in OR.

I don't believe you are from OR (neither am I, but I do live in WA), so you should defer to local mappers on this.
Brian'sPants (2026-03-24 09:41:04+00:00): For what it's worth, I live in Oregon (and drive it regularly) and I've never heard it referred to as anything other then I5, or seen any signage with those legislated names.

I don't know what the standard practice is but it seems these kind of names would be more appropriate for a route rather than on the way it's self. Especially for something like a major interstate, the generic designation should have priority. I would assume the route would come up for anyone searching for "Purple Heart Trail".
Moonfire (2026-06-10 04:30:15+00:00): Also an Oregon resident here and have never heard it referred to as anything else than I-5. I have seen signage in a few places specifying the memorial names but would not consider it proper for the name= key. Additionally, I hadn't ever heard of the ODOT internal name "Pacific Highway #1" until I saw it on this edit. A bit of digging with the right keywords eventually led me to a few ODOT documents analyzing traffic and the like as well as this handy ODOT cross-reference chart: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Data/Documents/Routes-to-Highway-Cross-Reference-Table.pdf
Looking further at highway tags, I found ref:penndot= for some Pennsylvania DOT internal numbering and since these are unsigned and widely unknown, I think they would be more suited to something similar and ODOT-specific like ref:odot= .
tguen (2026-06-26 02:46:08+00:00): A lot of these road names are not valid. Please retag/remove them.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-26 19:16:12+00:00): Well, I didn't make up these names. These names were originally in alt_name=*. It's the classic JOSM error of "alternative name without name." What should be done about these?
Natfoot (2026-03-13 23:29:53+00:00): looks good, you could also add the marked crossing to the node in the center or continue the path to the other side of the street even if there is no sidewalk yet to connect it with. Looks good. thanks for editing.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179375640
crushtheserpent (2026-03-05 02:36:40+00:00): I prioritized connections to neighboring cities, speed limits, and minimizing adjacent roads of the same class in making changes to Cudahy's road hierarchy. This is why Clara Street and Santa Ana Street (east of Atlantic Avenue) are tertiary roads, while Santa Ana Street (west of Atlantic Avenue) is a secondary road and I downgraded Elizabeth Street to residential. 

While Santa Ana Street east of Atlantic Avenue looks like a tertiary stub, I think it's important to have it marked as tertiary to reflect its higher speed limit (30 mph) and connecting a city park to a primary road & a secondary road.
NeisBot (2026-03-05 02:33:39+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 26 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1206041696 v1 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1206036395 v1 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/860641857 v1 | 5 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/11175917789 v2
https://osm.org/node/8021721905 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179375771
NeisReview (2026-03-13 05:33:35+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/179420369
フーヴァー　リー (2026-03-05 06:52:56+00:00): 这不对吧？枫泾2路变城际公交了？
DanhengOSM (2026-03-05 10:59:07+00:00): 哥们让上海土地减少，浙江土地增加……
smallCat (2026-03-24 03:01:33+00:00): 已于https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180332516 回退
pwbriggs (2026-03-05 23:01:59+00:00): Hey, I see that you deleted pier 48. However, there are still buildings and roads mapped on the pier, and I was not aware of this being removed. I've reverted your entire changeset; please acknowledge if this is really what you meant to do and we can work on getting the map accurate.

Please note that OpenStreetMap is a real, live database and test edits are not allowed.

Thanks and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179418741
NeisBot (2026-03-05 02:39:40+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 8 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/94328980 v15 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/37101404 v1 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/431462380 v5

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179375830
NeisReview (2026-03-13 05:33:36+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/179420392
dknelson9876 (2026-03-07 01:26:02+00:00): Hi jodapop,

Please note the point on the wiki page for natural=sand that using it for baseball diamond infields is incorrect, and for that purpose you should use surface=* instead
jodapop (2026-03-07 01:56:32+00:00): Thank you for the correction. I will be sure to go back and correct the mistakes.
007Transformer (2026-03-06 07:18:07+00:00): Revert of  179429774
Jarek 🚲 (2026-03-06 03:43:51+00:00): Thanks for catching and fixing this!
NeisBot (2026-03-05 03:42:42+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/13619331252 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-13 05:33:34+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179789182
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
Baloo Uriza (2026-03-05 18:20:09+00:00): Not exactly sure where you're getting curves out of an obviously square-cornered driveway.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179376962
rsitoni_Lyft (2026-03-09 09:50:56+00:00): Hi Baloo Uriza,
My name is Ravinder from the OSM mapping team at Lyft. Thank you for pointing out the issue and for correcting the mistake. Regarding my edits, I mapped the ways using Bing Maps aerial imagery & I chose not to mark the section as one-way because I couldn’t see any clear signage or markings that confirm it is one-way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/761401626#map=19/35.477947/-97.522494&layers=P). As a result, I kept that part of the road as bidirectional.
I agree that the geometry might be better represented as a squared shape rather than a curve but I wasn’t confident about assigning the one-way tag on the given way. So If you know the area well, your recent edits of one-way will be more helpful & greatly appreciated. Apologies for any inconvenience caused, and thanks again for correcting the map.

Best Regards,
Ravinder
dknelson9876 (2026-06-21 19:17:30+00:00): Hi Murali3, please note that because of Utah's unusual street names, we have a wiki page dedicated to it: https://osm.wiki/Utah/Naming_Conventions. According to those guidelines, the correct way to tag this street is: name="2475 West" + name:prefix=North + name:full="North 2475 West" (when also following general OSM guidelines to avoid abbreviations).

Additionally, could you please more descriptive changeset descriptions? "Modified tags" doesn't really say much, compared to "Added new street" or "added missing street name" or "added address", which are much more useful to people trying to review changes.

Finally, what was your source for this change? I see that you put "survey" on multiple changes that span the continental US, which unless you've been keeping notes across a many month journey or invented teleportation, I find improbable.
save2desk (2026-03-09 05:24:21+00:00): Знаешь, что удаление highway=footway у лыжни на южном не позволит строить по ней маршруты летом?
ArchiCon988 (2026-03-09 06:17:39+00:00): Блин, не знал, тогда лыжня становится не лыжней же?
ArchiCon988 (2026-03-09 06:19:54+00:00): Увидел что исправил, спасибо. Только теперь непонятно что это лыжня.
save2desk (2026-03-09 06:55:10+00:00): Нужно разобраться, почему часть таких троп с лыжней и в Южном, и на Динамо обрабатываются тем же openskimap, а часть - нет.
Есть подозрение, что для них нужны highway=path, а не footway.
save2desk (2026-03-09 08:15:11+00:00): Второе подозрение:
piste:type=nordic + piste:grooming=classic;skating выводится, а piste:type=classic;skating и piste:type=skitour - нет.
tobych (2026-03-07 00:29:30+00:00): This building is called the Wallace Building, in fact.
Wildsharky (2026-03-10 05:19:42+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179471708
ajmat (2026-03-06 12:23:51+00:00): Reverted in changeset id: 179444335
Senihtu (2026-03-06 05:50:30+00:00): Hi!
Ich nehme an, daß Du Dich in dieser Gegend auskennst (ich nicht).
Laut OSM fährt die Buslinie 173 in beiden Richtungen durch den Kampweg.
Entweder das ist keine Einbahnstraße oder der Linienweg des Buslinie ist falsch eingetragen.
Wie kommt der Bus vom Schulzentrum zur Kita? 
Grüße
Senihtu
Stoose (2026-03-05 15:03:01+00:00): There is no proposed highway for this location
NeisBot (2026-03-05 05:54:40+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 51 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1485583177 v1 | 13 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1485583183 v1 | 12 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1485583181 v1 | 9 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179379385
NeisReview (2026-03-13 06:33:26+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/179403834
https://osm.org/changeset/179404798
https://osm.org/changeset/179405239
aharvey (2026-07-06 08:34:26+00:00): What is your source/basis for marking this disused? https://www.sydneybusmuseum.com/open-days still says the route runs.
donmac703 (2026-07-08 22:56:03+00:00): This route is no longer part of the Transport for NSW network (aka Transport Buses in OSM). See Transport for NSW website for non-existence. See OSM lifecycle links for marking it disused. 

If it is still in use as part of another network, attributes need to be changed to reflect that (and any additional attributes added as appropriate)
aharvey (2026-07-08 23:47:05+00:00): When I created this relation, I didn't include the network tags as I didn't see it as part of the Transport for NSW network, those tags were added by you in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169695906 with the justification "make networks match" which seems a bit suspisios to me, like you're just selecting all bus routes and without any review assuming they are TfNSW routes?

See the history https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/16164859

Based on this, unless you have more context behind the changes or more information, I'll revert this back to my original surveyed state.
NeisBot (2026-03-05 06:48:42+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/13619491626 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-13 17:33:04+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179821869
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
FUZZY_42 (2026-03-05 12:50:20+00:00): И тем не менее это не вандальные правки))
NeisBot (2026-03-05 07:03:41+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/13619551720 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-13 17:33:05+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179821870
(Delete spam tags. First version)
limes11 (2026-03-10 19:22:35+00:00): Sperrt dieses gate alle aus ? Sogar Fußgänger ? So ist es aktuell gemappt
osm-user12 (2026-03-11 06:50:28+00:00): Nein, zum Glück nicht. Diese Konsequenz war mir beim Ändern nicht bewusst. Da im wiki davon nichts stand, habe ich die Durchlässigkeit für Ffußgänger und Radfahrer einfach unterstellt, ohne es im Anschluss zu überprüfen. OSRM und Valhalla tolerieren es aber anscheinend. Nur Graphhopper reagiert strikt. Ich füge foot=yes und bicycle=yes noch hinzu. Das sollte die Situation präziser darstellen.
qstep (2026-03-05 09:34:13+00:00): Üdv az OpenStreetMap-en! Szerkesztéseiddel kapcsolatban:

- házszámba nem kell a pont
- hiányzik az addr:city, ezt is meg szoktuk adni a címben
- name:hu helyett name jó lesz
- name:en nem szükséges ha ugyanaz, mint a name
- website, phone, email helyett contact:website, contact:phone, contact:email-t szoktunk használni itthon
SzMarcsi (2026-03-05 10:31:07+00:00): Üdv, ezek sajnos mobilon nem voltak láthatók, de most elvileg mindent javítottam: Köszi az észrevételt!
NeisBot (2026-03-05 07:30:42+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/13619582009 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-13 17:33:07+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179821872
(Delete spam tags. First version)
mueschel (2026-03-12 12:22:34+00:00): Hallo,
sind diese Wege nun vorhanden, oder nur "proposed"?
comaik (2026-04-01 04:52:15+00:00): Hallo zusammen,
am 29.03.2026 bin ich vor Ort gewesen und wollte diesen Weg als Verbindung vom RS1 zur Erzbahntrasse nutzen. Leider war da nichts für mich zu nutzen. Dieser Weg parallel zur alten Bahntrasse existiert nicht. Deswegen bin ich ebenfalls der Meinung, das dieser Weg als "proposed" deklariert werden muss.
mueschel (2026-04-01 07:24:23+00:00): Danke! Dann muss das highway=cycleway weg, und das Leerzeichen bei proposed korrigiert werden.
gc27 (2026-03-08 22:19:30+00:00): 番地が full と block_number で相違しています。
block_number を正しい値にし、fullタグは削除していただきたいです
Anonymous897234 (2026-03-08 23:31:21+00:00): 修正しました
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-18 02:12:20+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam POI with advertising and malformed tags in changeset 184251130

https://osm.org/changeset/184251130
eggie (2026-03-05 08:33:57+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback.. Je info heb ik samengevoegd met de al bestaande adresnode.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
6FerretStack (2026-03-05 08:52:20+00:00): Hey Eggie, Thanks voor het welkomstbericht en je feedback!
Groetjes,
6Ferrets
kingkingHK (2026-03-05 10:18:55+00:00): 1. Feels like a descriptive name, are you sure?
2. Do you have an osm-compatible source for the geometry?
SpinOff (2026-03-14 18:55:03+00:00): Hej. Jakiś czas temu zostawiłem komentarz pod podobnym zestawem zmian: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168938593

Dublowanie tagów na liniach granic nie ma najmniejszego sensu i w dodatku konfunduje nowych użytkowników przez ścianę błędów w edytorze iD. Odezwij się tutaj, albo na Discordzie w sekcji "obiekty-religijne", bo prędzej czy później te zmiany będą wycofane. Strata czasu dla obu stron.
WieKo68 (2026-03-17 05:05:51+00:00): Hej, j też już kilka razy pisałem, że utawianie tych tagów jest czasowe i pomaga mi onaleźć właściwe linie. Potem są one usuwane i tylko w tagu "note" zostaje informacja o danej linii. Niestety, nie uchroniło to w dewastacji granic np. w diecezji toruńskiej
SpinOff (2026-03-19 23:52:02+00:00): Tylko ja myślałem że to będzie bardziej lokalnie robione, a nie że pół Polski ma te tagi, miejscami od dwóch lat. No ale ok, następnym razem syncnę się na discordzie, żeby się upewnić że dany rejon jest już zmapowany i tagi można usunąć.

Naprawiłem tutaj granice w diecezji toruńskiej:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180132493
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180133110

Paradoksalnie, to właśnie tagi boundary na liniach spowodowały powyższe błędy, bo zdezorientowani użytkownicy iD kliknęli proponowany fix "domknij granicę".
eggie (2026-03-05 08:35:17+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
yitimox (2026-03-06 11:28:30+00:00): sizin yolu yanlışlıkla sildim ama burası şu an aktif değil inşaatta bile değil sadece proje aşamasında. isterseniz eklediğim yol ismine nokta koyun ilk ekleyen kişi olarak sizin adınız geçsin mazide
MappingMore (2026-03-06 11:24:25+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:179440921
SomeoneElse (2026-04-09 18:36:17+00:00): Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here.  It has been suggested that these businesses may not actually exist as real offices on the ground.
If yo believe that they really do exist, please comment at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/allegedly-fake-locksmiths/142942 .
SomeoneElse (2026-04-09 18:36:35+00:00): Hola, soy Andy del Grupo de Trabajo de Datos de OSM. Se ha sugerido que estos negocios podrían no existir como oficinas físicas. Si crees que sí existen, por favor, deja un comentario en https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/allegedly-fake-locksmiths/142942.
pedidos business (2026-04-09 18:59:39+00:00): Si, deberías ir al lugar y comprobarlo
SomeoneElse (2026-04-09 19:18:00+00:00): (!)
Jordi MF (2026-04-09 21:04:52+00:00): Necesitaríamos una fotografía de la fachada de la tienda para comprobar cómo es el negocio desde la calle. Un saludo.
Hugoren Martinako (2026-04-09 21:51:49+00:00): Las imágenes que has subido a google maps de este negocio en concreto, son claramente generadas por IA.
pwbriggs (2026-03-05 23:44:00+00:00): Looks good to me, thanks for keeping this up-to-date!
TrickyFoxy (2026-03-05 12:19:30+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179394012
NeisAgent (2026-03-06 07:52:52+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.
AlexSpritze (2026-03-05 10:12:05+00:00): Hi Dev1nius, ich hoffe, dass du mit "StreetView" nicht Google StreetView meinst. Denn das ist wegen Copyright keine erlaubte Quelle für Änderungen in OSM.
dev1nius (2026-03-19 13:40:33+00:00): @AlexSpritze Das ist korrekt. Einer unserer Fahrer war vor Ort.
Ka44ar15 (2026-03-05 09:34:35+00:00): عشت
Siobkhan (2026-03-05 08:58:30+00:00): неправильно указала в комментарии - для служебных машин
eggie (2026-03-05 09:07:21+00:00): Dag Jancini,

Wanneer die toegangsweg achter een hek ligt kan deze wellicht beter ook als highway=service worden getagd ipv residential?
Probeer het gebied van je edits svp klein te houden. Schuiven met de kaart in editmodus levert vaak schade op.

MVG
eggie