piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2026-03-21 20:36:10+00:00): نرجوا منكم عدم إضافة أماكن عشوائية وغير صحيحة للخريطة
MappingMore (2026-03-13 09:27:56+00:00): Revert of 179726369
Zrop (2026-03-13 11:51:43+00:00): ?
MappingMore (2026-05-28 09:58:58+00:00): Hi Zrop,

Thank you for your feedback. I will make sure to add direct changeset URLs instead of just number in changeset description. Happy Mapping!
Andrea Del Sarto (2026-03-18 13:09:50+00:00): Buon pomeriggio Pitoti65,

il percorso escursionistico da te inserito (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20312284) ha ref 400, ma nel settore è già presente un percorso con tale ref.

le opzioni sono:
- unirlo con l'altra relazione già presente
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4469012
- assegnare un ref diverso

cordiali saluti
pwbriggs (2026-03-14 06:51:10+00:00): Thanks for the contribution. Does Centific occupy the entire building, or just a portion of the suites? I'm wondering because HCLTech is marked as occupying Suite 300—is that no longer the case?

Thanks again for your contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
eggie (2026-03-13 11:58:37+00:00): Dag molensteen. Lijkt me oke.  
Dat pad dat er doorheen loopt heb ik verwijderd. Dat zie ik niet meer. 
Stond nog m'n naam op.
MVG
eggie
molensteen (2026-03-13 15:58:10+00:00): 👍
NeisBot (2026-03-12 18:48:40+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 76 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/52755273 v16 | 11 crossings
https://osm.org/way/676885594 v5 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/226833481 v7 | 5 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/6135271659 v2
https://osm.org/node/6135271660 v2
https://osm.org/node/2374669914 v4

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179771821
HM2008 (2026-03-15 14:28:30+00:00): i will revisit it but the problem is i dont understand the problem with this...
NeisBot (2026-03-12 18:48:41+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 9 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/231306333 v14 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/905812930 v3 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/8411886045 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179771838
NeisRevert (2026-03-12 19:25:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/179773256
where the comment is: "Revert of unintended geometry change"
rempshaener (2026-03-12 19:33:16+00:00): Hallo,
bitte beschäftige dich mit dem korrekten Tagging von LZA, Fußgängerüberwegen etc.
Hier sind jetzt doppelte Überwege gemappt.
Viele Grüße
Michi_10 (2026-03-12 19:39:00+00:00): Hi,
vielen Dank für deine Rückmeldung. Ich habe die Eigenschaften der Ampeln und der Überwege korrigiert, jetzt sollten keine doppelt gemappten Überwege mehr da sein.
Viele Grüße und einen schönen Abend noch
Fraxi (2026-03-12 18:54:46+00:00): Ако не беше ти, щях аз :) Хубаво си направил.
NeisBot (2026-03-12 19:06:43+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/435519797 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
Udarian (2026-03-12 19:40:50+00:00): There are a few issues with this changeset outside of the SEO description, The first and largest is that this removed the building=* tag from an area that very clearly represents a building. While this does have landuse=* on the tag now I don't think that the landuse=*  tag is the correct to tag this type of feature. Also this building seems to be a townhouse, or something similar so there are likely to be multiple units per building, as such the business should probably not be tagged on the area its self but instead as a point. Lastly, the image=* tag should point to an image of the business its self (the building it is located in, the store front, the area its within) and not the logo of the business. 

Happy Mapping,
Udar
balint36 (2026-03-12 19:51:17+00:00): A https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/252083 kapcsolatra nem indokolt az end_date címke használata, mert a vasútvonal továbbra is létezik.
qstep (2026-03-12 19:53:33+00:00): Igen, véletlen ott maradt. Köszi a javítást!
pkoby (2026-03-13 13:30:51+00:00): This looks cool, but it's not accurate. It's not natural=sand. See the bottom of Mapping Caveats: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dsand#Mapping_caveats
I-76 (2026-03-13 15:29:20+00:00): According to https://www.mccrone.com/mm/a-closer-look-at-baseball-infield-sand/ :
"For a typical, or so-called low-maintenance, nonprofessional infield, the components consist of a mix of 70 percent sand, 15 percent clay, and 15 percent silt. For Major League Baseball, the infield mix is a bit different: 55 percent sand, 30 percent clay, and 15 percent silt."

I believe most baseball stadiums around the country do have natural=sand and surface=dirt as the the tags for the infield, is that the proper tagging to add?
pkoby (2026-03-13 18:59:46+00:00): natural=sand should really be used for natural sand, not artificial application of sand (think golf=bunker). It's not uncommon to be used incorrectly because people want to see it show up on Carto, but that's not the right way to do it.
I-76 (2026-03-13 20:42:49+00:00): Yet if it's common practice to tag that way, though it may be wrong, shouldn't it be done that way nonetheless?
salma_z (2026-03-15 08:36:41+00:00): Hello Aarav 588,
Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap in the United Arab Emirates. I noticed that you changed the **ref tags** for several streets, for example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/47855631
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184776531
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634981959
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/612748408
I checked the Mapillary tracks to look for any road signs that might support these edits, and I didn't find any sign containing your value-added, for example:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=667664262954231
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=685982751019796
Could you please let me know the official source you used for these ref changes?
Just a quick note: when editing ref tags, it’s necessary to have an official or reliable source for the change and to include that source in the changeset. It’s also recommended to keep changesets small and add a short description of the edits, according to OSM guidelines. For more information, please check this link:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset
Regards,
Salma_z
rempshaener (2026-03-12 19:35:22+00:00): Hallo,
üblicherweise werden Gehwege ohne bauliche Trennung nicht separat gemappt.
Wenn doch,
a) sollte man das mit den Mappern vor Ort besprechen, um ein einheitliches Vorgehen abzustimmen und
b) muss dann auch überall das Tagging am Haupt-way angepasst werden.
Viele Grüße
rempshaener (2026-03-12 19:42:44+00:00): Das Taggen von solchen https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1488345152 virtuellen  Verbindungsstücken ist nicht okay, zumal dann, wenn dort kein abgesenkter Bordstein ist.
Michi_10 (2026-03-12 20:50:22+00:00): Hi,
ich habe den Bürgersteig ergänzt, er ist baulich neben der Straße mit erhöhtem Bordstein gelegen, weshalb ich dadrin erstmal keine Problematik gesehen habe. Jetzt ist es spät, falls Korrekturen nötig sind, kümmere Ich mich morgen dadrum.
Viele Grüße
Michi_10 (2026-03-12 21:01:32+00:00): Notiz: Ich habe nun way/1488345152 entfernt, da vor Ort dort kein abgesenkter Bordstein vorhanden ist.
rempshaener (2026-03-12 21:28:02+00:00): Hallo,
danke schon mal.
Hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Gehsteig findest du einen ersten Überblick.
Mein Eindruck ist, dass das separate Mapping eher die Ausnahme ist, da es auch einen wahnsinnigen Aufwand darstellt. Das ist jedenfalls nichts, was man mal eben so beginnen sollte.
Viele Grüße
Michi_10 (2026-03-13 15:01:05+00:00): Hi,
Ich habe nun bei den Straßen, neben denen der neue Weg gemappt war, die Eigenschaften sidewalk:right=seperate bzw. sidewalk:left=seperate ergänzt. Falls weitere Korrekturen nötig sind, sag mir gerne Bescheid.
Viele Grüße
rempshaener (2026-03-13 22:03:47+00:00): Danke, passt!
Viele Grüße
eggie (2026-03-12 20:55:39+00:00): Hoi,
Zouden de rest en de aansluitingen ook G12a zijn? 
Groet,
eggie
eggie (2026-03-12 21:00:57+00:00): sidewalk weer aangepast naar left.
Elke weg heeft een tekenrichting. Die is van boven naar beneden en dan zit het voetpad links. 
De intekenrichting bepaalt dus wat links of rechts is.
MTijn (2026-03-13 07:52:54+00:00): Voor zover ik weet staat er geen bord, maar het is onlogisch als ze dat niet zijn natuurlijk, zal straks even kijken.
eggie (2026-03-12 20:53:08+00:00): Dag MTijn.
Lijkt me oke. gravel is vrij grof  Vaak zie wat fijnen materiaal. surface=fine_gravel.
Vooral bij fietspaden belangrijk, want fine_gravel routeert wel en gravel geeft meer problemen. 
Groet
eggie
iandees (2026-03-12 20:54:48+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.
Siobkhan (2026-05-14 03:09:54+00:00): The name change is incorrect. Searching for Pahlavi on Wikipedia returns Valiasr Street. It is necessary to return the correct name to the street section
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valiasr_Street
eggie (2026-03-12 20:48:30+00:00): Clubs toevoegen op de adresnode svp.
Zie als voorbeeld de handball
Natfoot (2026-03-13 23:19:05+00:00): "PNT" does not seam to be a real name. usually if a way has no name we just leave it blank. also the path intersects the water stream if it is a level crossing it can be tagged as a ford and listed as intermittent like the stream is.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179773753
jsthoreson (2026-03-13 23:41:10+00:00): Thanks, Natfoot. "PNT" is for Pacific Northwest Trail. There are segments of the PNT immediately to the east, but I'm fine leaving the name of the path blank. 

I recall the trail simply dropping out of the woods onto the road without crossing a stream or ditch so I was hesitant to add a ford. Other parts of the trail were flowing like a small creek, but there wasn't water at the road. I wonder if the stream is shown in the correct location. I should be able to revisit the area and take a closer look within the next few weeks.
Natfoot (2026-03-14 07:54:55+00:00): Agreed the stream may not be where it is supposed to be. you could use the USGS 3D layer to jog your memory if that is helpful.
jsthoreson (2026-03-31 21:03:46+00:00): Appreciate the suggestion, Natfoot. I walked the site last Sunday and just finished making the edits. The intermittent stream flows to a ditch on the east side of the road. This ditch flows to a stream to the south. I added a ford for the trail crossing and a culvert for the land-access road crossing.
eggie (2026-03-12 20:44:14+00:00): Dag MTIJN,

Svp op de adresnode bijtaggen.
 Niet op de gebouwomtrekken.
club=sport
sport=handball
en dan voeg ik meestal een clubhuistag toe.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-12 20:47:06+00:00): Info verplaatst naar adresnode
smaptious (2026-03-13 20:33:43+00:00): Correction: Source used was Esri World Imagery (1.62; -2.72); Strava
Norbert Dichter (2026-03-12 19:59:38+00:00): Hello, thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. Thank you for your contribution. The buildings you mapped are well done as to their location. But pay attention to the squareness of the corners. Always draw buildings as square and precise as you can. Then add the Building feature type. And last, right click it and click the square icon. Or just hit the Q-key.
Also please keep in mind: many buildings are very close but do not actually touch each other, try to map them close to each other without letting them connect or share nodes with each other, roads, or residential area outlines. In the iD web editor, holding down the "alt" key will keep nodes from "snapping" to each other and accidentally connecting.  Thanks so much for your contribution, Norbert 'Nodi' Dichter, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179774004
NeisBot (2026-03-12 20:09:43+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/1137759786 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
MappingMore (2026-03-13 12:26:59+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179808537
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-16 07:56:11+00:00): @MappingMore Thanks for fixing the mentioned issue and for commenting here.

Would it be possible to add a direct link to the changeset instead of only the raw changeset ID? Something like https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179808537 would be very helpful.

Thanks!
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-16 06:55:20+00:00): Yep, with the Better-OSM-org userscript (that OSM.org is almost useless without), "changeset 179808537" (but not the non-standard form @MappingMore used above) will auto-link to the changeset, although I also include a full URL to the changeset as well in case a reader isn't using it yet (or on mobile, etc). For example,

Removed blatant SEO spam and nonsensical tagging in changeset 179808537

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179808537
MappingMore (2026-06-18 05:04:27+00:00): Hi CAM-Gerlach,
Thank you for your feedback. This has been something we already discussed and adopted after these discussions.
Langlaeufer (2026-03-13 10:12:08+00:00): Ich hab noch ein wenig nachgebessert.
Die Radwege sind getrennt, sonst würde man sie ja hier auch gar nicht erkennen.https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=179797505
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179774784
NeisBot (2026-03-12 20:15:42+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/13527380091 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-21 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/180187195
(Restore previous tags. No changes)
NeisBot (2026-03-12 20:18:44+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/13643601750 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-21 05:33:12+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180187196
(Delete all added tags)
NeisRevert (2026-03-21 06:01:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/180188134
where the comment is: "Remove spam"
NeisBot (2026-03-12 20:21:42+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/13529818437 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-21 06:02:34+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180188169
(Restore previous tags. No changes)
Joseph R P (2026-03-17 18:24:44+00:00): The road alignments here prior to your changeset were up-to-date. The new alignments are more visible in the Esri imagery which is dated Feb 22, 2025.
iandees (2026-03-12 20:54:20+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.
Trailpapst (2026-03-23 13:59:14+00:00): A lot of this trails are wild and illegal trails. How about using the correct tagging for these?
hanskuster (2026-03-23 19:17:28+00:00): Why complaining, when You already made them "legal"?
Trailpapst (2026-03-23 22:07:37+00:00): I would be the first one to make em legal. But it's not and accelerating it by publishing illegal trails without appropriate tags is not helping anyone. Please use informal=yes; access=unknown (this works for automated routing algorhytm.) thank you and enjoy the trails
silversurfer83 (2026-03-13 20:01:04+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OSM :)

danke, dass du hilfst.

Bei Fragen immer raus damit.

Grüße aus Korbach

silversurfer83
rodolfovargas (2026-03-13 02:43:35+00:00): Muchas gracias por tu aporte.
NeisBot (2026-03-12 20:42:40+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 9 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1188591794 v2 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/13423215 v15 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/11036839754 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179775814
iandees (2026-03-12 20:54:07+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.
literan (2026-03-14 14:33:42+00:00): простите, вы читаете, что вам пишут в комментариях? этот тег - для площадных пространств, на которых нет ребер дорог. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway#Differentiation_area:highway_vs._area=yes_on_a_highway
FUZZY_42 (2026-03-14 19:29:45+00:00): Ну тогда в таком случае уместен тег area:highway=footway
literan (2026-03-14 20:11:10+00:00): нет, area:gighway=pedestrian, т.к. это пешеходная улица, а не пешеходная дорожка (т.е. area:highway проставляется соответственно тому тегу, который стоит на линии)
rskedgell (2026-03-13 12:15:46+00:00): Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

This section of road was already tagged with access=private which applies to all transport modes, so motor_vehicle=private is implicit.

Adding motor_vehicle=no means that all motor vehicles are legally prohibited here, which seems unlikely given that aerial imagery shows cars parked adjacent to the road. The access values "no" and "private" are not synonyms.
wombatmaper (2026-05-21 11:36:22+00:00): Ehh the parking lots at grönsakstorget are gone. I removed them in the past but you re-added them here
BrummsLee (2026-03-15 21:29:11+00:00): Hallo Oberlausitzer42!

Warum vergreifst du dich wiederholt an den Straßenklassifizierungen?
Du hast es leider immer noch nicht begriffen. Es sind zwar Straßen, welche durch den Ort verlaufen, aber es sind Staatstraßen und deswegen höher eingestuft als reine Wohnstraßen.
Erkennbar sind solche Straßen an der Referenznummer z.Bsp. S 127.
Das wird natürlich wieder revertiert. 
Kannst du bitte mit deine ganzen Bearbeitungen in OSM komplett einstellen... du ersparst uns damit viel zusätzliche Korrekturarbeiten. 
Hattest du den Kommentar von Nakaner in diesem Changeset nicht gelesen? 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178634676
SpinOff (2026-03-21 20:55:13+00:00): Hej. W JOSM oraz w innych edytorach, przed wyslaniem zestawu zmian pojawia Ci się okienko gdzie możesz podać opis swoich zmian. Obecne "update data", kßóire dodajesz do każdego zestawu zmian, nie daje żadnej informacji o tym co zmieniłeś. Więcej informacji jest tutaj: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
Udarian (2026-03-12 22:41:12+00:00): Please updated the position of the ALPR edited in this changeset as it is in the middle of the road area in such a way that it is highly unlikely that it is correct. This applies under multiple aerial imagery sources.

Happy mapping,
Udar
NeisBot (2026-03-12 21:42:42+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/13615642482 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Nearest Green Distillery"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-21 06:02:35+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180188170
(Restore previous tags. No changes)
NeisBot (2026-03-12 21:51:42+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/way/1058389018 v5

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisAgent (2026-03-13 06:33:32+00:00): 🕵 It looks like you reintroduced text that was previously flagged as promotional and removed after a review. Could you please explain why it was added again?
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-06 08:26:57+00:00): Cleaned up remaining SEO spam and other tags for POI in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185182540