piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 07:07:39+00:00): Fix the geometry and tag `tunnel=building_passage`, not delete it.
kingkingHK (2026-03-12 12:37:55+00:00): Reverted with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179755086 , manual review and repair will be done later if needed.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-11 08:27:32+00:00): Thanks for correcting
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178845714 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179219443
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-03-11 16:15:36+00:00): My pleasure!
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 07:12:23+00:00): This is obviously wrong. It's tower-on-podium, not podium-on-tower. Did you even look at aerial imagery?
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 06:55:14+00:00): Repaired with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179792749 ; no further action needed.
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 07:19:16+00:00): Are the buildings not touching?
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:02:15+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179754418
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 07:13:02+00:00): Fix the geometry or tag `tunnel=building_passage`, not adding fictitious tags.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 06:51:05+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179784172
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 07:14:09+00:00): It's on top of, not below the podium.
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 07:14:33+00:00): Please split the way and tag correctly.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 06:57:48+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179755692
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 07:20:41+00:00): Please split and tag.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:04:25+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179754163
ajmat (2026-03-11 10:27:16+00:00): Revert of 179645080
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 07:15:55+00:00): This is obviously wrong. Look at aerial imagery.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:00:56+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179792944 ; no further action needed
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 07:16:12+00:00): Please split the way.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:01:28+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179754805
felipeeugenio (2026-03-11 13:49:35+00:00): Hello. I doubt this a is a footwat. A path maybe?

regards
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179665704
felipeeugenio (2026-03-11 13:50:42+00:00): And it doesn´t have that shape at all according to strava traces.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179665704
Jamie Ba (2026-03-12 01:07:00+00:00): Great, thanks Felipe for getting that fixed up properly!
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 08:38:00+00:00): Please split the way.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:04:57+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179753565
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 08:38:47+00:00): Please fix the geometry only.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:07:02+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179752917
ajmat (2026-03-13 08:04:06+00:00): Reverted in changeset id: 179795528
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 08:39:16+00:00): Please fix the geometry. It is not `layer=-1` after it has left the tunnel.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:08:58+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179793296
FajrAl (2026-03-11 02:42:50+00:00): Partially reverted:
170290841, 170388828, 170519323, 170878422, 170934377, 171869591, 171869751, 171869808, 172328469, 173889108, 173889347, 173889664, 173889898, 174711480, 174711491, 174711530, 174711558, 174711567, 174711581, 175305362, 177597383, 177598090, 177598203, 177598306, 177598765, 177674776, 179153510, 179153886, 179660615, 179660675, 179661161, 179661304, 179661769
Bondi Maps (2026-03-11 14:09:31+00:00): Hasta Ramos funciona
NeisBot (2026-03-11 02:46:20+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/13636209202 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Farmers Market Stall"

#MapWithoutSpam
Glassman (2026-03-11 20:23:23+00:00): removed - node address does not match adjacent road.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179666610
nevw (2026-03-11 04:22:00+00:00): Hi, addr:state, suburb, postcode are not required in osm as these are mapped by their boundaries in Australia.
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 08:54:49+00:00): What building issue did you fix? Why did you move a building to the wrong place?
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:12:53+00:00): Reverted for now, manual review and repair will be done later if needed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179793484
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 08:56:24+00:00): What building issues did you fix? Did you look at the aerial imagery?
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:14:43+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179751124
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 08:57:31+00:00): What building issues did you fix? You moved a building to a random place.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:15:17+00:00): Reverted for now, manual review and repair will be done later if needed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179793587
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:17:04+00:00): Further reworked by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179793655
recoverpoint (2026-03-11 11:31:43+00:00): Why you make map mess again and again ?  You input a lot of incorrect information to map . I'd told you before about this but you did it again. 
You can't distinguish the object correctly only with satelite image. As a example, the object you input as path again is not path but the fence which is inner fence of the airforce base.
recoverpoint (2026-03-11 11:33:43+00:00): Stop making openstreet map useless with incorrect information, please.
KennyDap (2026-03-11 12:38:03+00:00): Just leave me alone. You whine too much and don't contribute much.
SomeoneElse (2026-03-27 13:13:22+00:00): Hello - @recoverpoint , could you please try and be a bit more specific?  http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=179667065 visualises the changes here - what is wrong and what should be changed?
@KennyDap , comments like yours above don't help, either.
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 08:57:53+00:00): Please fix the geometry only.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:18:54+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179793726
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 08:58:55+00:00): Are they not connected?
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:23:43+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179793920
NeisBot (2026-03-11 03:28:13+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/13636478097 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-19 05:33:31+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/179813230
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:06:35+00:00): It's the roads that should be `tunnel=building_passage`.
ajmat (2026-03-12 06:31:38+00:00): Revert of 179656703
Joseph R P (2026-03-14 21:10:55+00:00): Considering this is the 95 Business route, that would make US 95/Oran K. Gragson Fwy the official bypass. Rancho should remain primary since its role is only to be an urban arterial road and not a thruway for long distance traffic. I would also keep the collector/distributor lanes paralleling the freeways as motorway links, especially since part of these ramps are the direct link between 95 S and 15 S, and the rest link too many different roads to the freeway for its main purpose to be a link between two surface roads.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-03-15 02:46:28+00:00): Okay. The first part makes sense, but for the second, the wiki says, "roads that can be used by non-motorway drivers should not be tagged with highway=motorway_link." Technically, it is possible to go from Decatur to Valley View and from Rancho, MLK, or Pinto Ln to Charleston or Sahara, all without having to use I-11 or I-15. You did something similar at the Centennial Bowl, where slip roads caught up in the junction were tagged as either highway=primary_link (for Ann Road and Rancho Drive) or highway=secondary_link (for Oso Blanca Road and Sky Pointe Drive). What's the difference between the _link roads in the Centennial Bowl and Spaghetti Bowl junctions? Any info helps here.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-03-15 16:56:24+00:00): On a related note, why is SR 146 (St. Rose Parkway) tagged as highway=trunk? It doesn't link to any cities outside the Las Vegas metro area and isn't a bypass either (IIRC).
Joseph R P (2026-03-15 19:48:01+00:00): C/D lanes are still links in the scope of OSM but are significantly different from regular ramps/slip lanes. 

For example, the ramps between Sky Pointe and Oso Blanca serve more as surface streets/frontage roads as they pass through signalized intersections and aren't exclusively for entering the freeway. Same for the Ann/Rancho ramps. 

The C/D lanes are more complex and are considerably more a part of the freeway than the aforementioned ramps which divert and connect directly to surface streets via signalized intersections. They parallel the mainline carriageways and link them to multiple exits. Surface road traffic is expected to use them when travelling a short distance down to the next exit or so, essentially making them a component of the freeway rather than lengthy unnamed ramps between surface streets. This is especially apparent at the Spaghetti Bowl, where the C/D lanes are so long and convoluted they can't be just be chalked down to a slip way between MLK and Charleston when the ramp is mostly serving traffic making the 95 S/15 S movement.

As for St. Rose Pkwy, this road cuts a larger route than Rancho does (which only meets the same highway that it diverts off of). It also has a higher capacity, speed limit, and access control to compensate, and while these attributes in their own right don't dictate the classification of a road, they do amount to how traffic uses or could use the road, which is as a link between Henderson/I 215 and I 15.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-03-15 23:15:20+00:00): Oh, okay. I guess that makes sense. When I get the chance, I'll fix these road links (and fix the shoulders of the Beltway as well).
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:00:44+00:00): The road of of the building obviously doesn't even exist.
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:02:45+00:00): That's obviously not what the buildings look like.
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 08:53:18+00:00): This is obviously wrong.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:20:34+00:00): Reverted for now, manual review and repair will be done later if needed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179793807
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 08:51:09+00:00): What are you even trying to do? Moving buildings to a random place completely messing up their geometry?
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:20:10+00:00): Reverted for now, manual review and repair will be done later if needed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179793796
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 08:52:28+00:00): What are you even trying to do? Moving buildings to a random place, and adding `landuse=residential` when there is already `not:landuse=residential`.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:19:46+00:00): Reverted for now, manual review and repair will be done later if needed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179793779
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:04:00+00:00): Why did you drag a random node on the bridge?
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:27:31+00:00): Reverted for now, manual review and repair will be done later if needed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179794110
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:04:15+00:00): What are you even trying to do?
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:24:26+00:00): Reverted for now, manual review and repair will be done later if needed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179793965
b-jazz (2026-03-12 21:31:05+00:00): Thanks for helping map golf courses. There are some problems with your edits however and your mapping process needs to be fixed going forward so you don't continue to step on the efforts of others. For starters, you should read the following wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history on how important it is to *not* delete map elements when you should be modifying them instead. You break multipolygon relations when you delete something like a fairway that belongs to a relation only to redraw it and not properly add it back to the existing relation. You should also read the golf_course wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls) and the general wiki on how to properly work with multipolygons (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon#iD). Thanks.

Also, the fairway you added crosses over the green at one spot, where the previous one didn't. Please fix that as well. Thanks.
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 08:47:31+00:00): The problem is obviously that this isn't a `building=`.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:10:04+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179793339
rarad74 (2026-03-11 06:54:57+00:00): Hi. Please use Mapbox imagery in Bucharest region because is the newest.
Thanks.
rarad74 (2026-03-11 07:13:00+00:00): And this kind of streets wich are use for residential buildings acces must be classified as residential, or living streets. Not service roads. Service roads is most used for acces in business/comercial areas.
Gorger (2026-03-12 05:57:40+00:00): Hi rarad74,
Upon reviewing, I’d also agree that Mapbox seems to be more recent than ESRI imagery. I’ll keep that in mind in my future edits, thank you.
However, the road segment in question does not seem to be different in comparison between the two images, so I’m doubtful that the selection of imagery source would have any impact on assessing the classification.
Per OSM Wiki, a residential road is defined as the road “within” residential areas; and a living street would require an explicit street sign. So I’d have to disagree with your suggestions. But I realize I’m also wrong to tag it as a service road.
Upon further review in the Wiki, I think the most appropriate tag for that road would be “unclassified”, as it states “Use when the traffic is not just for residential access, even if residential properties may also be accessed by this road.”
If there is not an explicit documentation regarding the nuances in the national tagging practices within Romania, I’d like to propose using highway=unclassified for the section and would appreciate your thoughts and suggestions on this.
rarad74 (2026-03-12 08:10:54+00:00): Any acces street in a private residential area should be tagged as living street. There is no need to add any proof  for you or any aditional documentation. I don't have to explain myself to you . You can also add service with driveway type of service road and acces tag as private if there is a private area. B.t.w - you should attention your bosses about that CRAP of POI database added as a additional layer on TomTom android app, because over 50% of that database has expired or nonexistent POI's. Many users   of your android app wrongly consider that POI errors come from openstreetmap database. But openstreetmap database is way more accurate than yours.  I edit from 2009 on openstreetmap and in Romania i know very well traffic rules and how residential streets should be coded on the database. Wikipedia should not be trusted 100% because in many cases is not updated -to -day . Good day for you.
unenTT (2026-03-12 15:50:55+00:00): Hi rarad74, 

Please let me take over from Gorger, as I am the person responsible for suggesting the use of “unclassified” tag in this changeset discussion and suggesting the context of the previous message. 

As part of an international team performing edits on OSM in almost everywhere on the Earth, OSM Wiki is our main source of reference for OSM data standards and our go-to place for learning about local or regional nuances like you described. 

And many communities are documenting those local practices on the Wiki and there were numerous times where the community members brought country-specific documentation to our attention in order to better understand the context. 

We always do our best to understand the local context and adapt ourselves to avoid any conflict with community practices. So thank you very much for explaining them to us. 

We did not have any intention to offend you, and I’m sorry if it sounded like that. Hope you’d understand our point of view too on this matter. 

Regarding the POIs, that’s indeed an ongoing discussion internally and I will definitely bring your comments to the relevant people’s attention on this matter. 

You can always send me a DM, and I’ll be happy to discuss any mapping matter. Have a good day.
rarad74 (2026-03-12 20:10:27+00:00): Hi!. There is not a local context situation. This is very clear. If a road/street  is used for accesing a private area where ppl live ( like their houses) - the street should be tagged as a living street. It is ok as a service road too ( eventually with drivevay type of service road) , but is not the best classification for this situations. Anyway regarding some serious problem detected in Romania - there are missplaced localities which are wrong positioned from years on tomtom ( i think is from the begining of making Romania map on tomtom), and i reported the problem many times on different channels and no one resolved the problem. This error was imported into tomtom android app too, but on openstreetmap database everything is correct about these localities. I reported the problem on tomtom support ( osm tomtom email) and nothing happened until now. Maybe we can talk in private about this problem and other problems detected regarding tomtom android app based on openstreetmap data. Thanks.
Adrian Shobrooke (2026-05-28 12:59:37+00:00): Hi, is this a duplicate of the existing AED on the south corner wall of the Phoenix. If so, I'll recheck to see if an AED is again inside.
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:12:37+00:00): No, the geometry should be fixed.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 09:00:21+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179747542
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:08:04+00:00): Please split the way.
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:09:50+00:00): Please split and use `tunnel=building_passage`.
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:10:29+00:00): Are the buildings not rectangular?
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 09:21:21+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179798413
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:22:48+00:00): What building issue did you fix? Why did you move a building randomly?
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 08:44:06+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179742966
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:22:03+00:00): Please fix the geometry only.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 08:44:38+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179743429
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:21:49+00:00): It's the building geometry that is wrong. Did you even look at the aerial imagery?
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 08:45:17+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179744159
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:20:34+00:00): It's a tower on podium, not a podium on tower. It's not `layer=-1`.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 08:52:08+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179797205
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-07 23:00:34+00:00): Removed SEO spam and cleaned up other tags for POI in changeset 183802459

https://osm.org/changeset/183802459
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:20:12+00:00): The problem is obviously it being a `landuse=`, not `building=`. There is no reason to delete it, then tag a random road with `layer=-1`.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 08:58:46+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179797455
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:19:07+00:00): Please only fix the geometry. There's already `tunnel=` and `layer=`.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 08:54:04+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179797279
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:17:27+00:00): It's obviously the road geometry that is wrong, not the building.
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:16:54+00:00): Please split the way.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 07:28:24+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179745611
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:16:41+00:00): It's obviously a `tunnel=building_passage`.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 09:16:22+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179798143 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179746490
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:14:54+00:00): Please split and use `tunnel=building_passage`.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 09:25:54+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179798668
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:14:23+00:00): Please fix the geometry, or split and use `tunnel=building_passage`.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 08:59:24+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179746859
kingkingHK (2026-03-11 09:14:04+00:00): Please split and use `tunnel=building_passage`.
kingkingHK (2026-03-13 09:18:31+00:00): Repaired by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179747221
Glassman (2026-03-11 20:27:29+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.

One suggestion, square the building by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179672730
NeisBot (2026-03-11 05:25:21+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/way/1097134767 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-19 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/180089548
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-15 10:41:52+00:00): Cleaned up remaining SEO spam and other tagging for POI in changeset 184130707

https://osm.org/changeset/184130707
Baloo Uriza (2026-03-11 13:23:35+00:00): Please try to map new streets with the ways connected how one would reasonably predict names to be added.  This allows other tools like StreetComplete to be more readily used by people adding the street names in the field.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179673235
rsitoni_Lyft (2026-03-13 04:25:45+00:00): Hi Baloo Uriza,
I’m Ravinder from the OSM mapping team at Lyft. Thank you for bringing the correct method to my attention and for correcting the ways. I completely agree that the new ways should be split in accordance with how the streets are named. My sincere apologies for the oversight and for any inconvenience caused. I will ensure greater care in my future changesets.

Best Regards,
Ravinder
TheSwavu (2026-03-11 08:06:01+00:00): Hi,

Thank you for your edits. If you are adding a missing shop in this building, then please add a new node where it is. When you added the information to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/610966979 you were indicating that the entire building is occupied by the business.

Happy mapping.
rarad74 (2026-03-11 06:53:45+00:00): Hi. If you could , please add acces tag for service roads. That area is a private area.
Thanks.