piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frank Peng (2026-01-31 02:44:28+00:00): Please note that turn restriction relations need to have at least 3 members: a "from" way, a "via" node or one or more "via" ways, and a "to" way. Per the OSM Wiki article on turn restriction relations, it states:
"The most common form of a restriction relation is a triplet {from-way, via-node, to-way}, accompanied with a restriction=* tag specifying whether a turn from the from-way to the to-way is permitted at the via-node. There may be several turn restrictions at a junction, represented by separate relations."
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177871913
Frank Peng (2026-01-31 02:47:30+00:00): For the no U-turn restriction relation you created in this changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20151461), it only has two members, which are the entry and exit roads at the Park Road side of the roundabout. Both of those ways have the "via" role, which is not correct. Osmose will flag this issue (To see Osmose issues, check the checkbox to the left of "Osmose Issues" underneath "Data Layers" in the right-hand "Map Data" pane in the iD editor, and you will see issues flagged by Osmose). The "via" node or way(s) has to connect the beginning and end ways of the attempted turn.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177871913
Frank Peng (2026-01-31 02:48:23+00:00): So for this no U-turn restriction relation, the exit road from the roundabout to Park Road (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1166123018) should have the "from" role since it's the beginning way of the restriction, the node between Park Road and the entry and exit roads to/from the roundabout (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/221131526) should have the "via" role since it connects the beginning and end ways of the no U-turn restriction, and the entry road from Park Road to the roundabout (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/483134703) should have the "to" role since it's the end way of the no U-turn restriction. Please see the OSM Wiki article on turn restricton relations: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177871913
tux67 (2026-01-30 09:24:26+00:00): Mit ESRI World als einziger angegebener Quelle sehe ich hier nur Bäume und keine kreisförmige Fläche. Hast du andere - nicht angegebene Quellen - oder lokales Wissen? Nur weil es eine Maproulette Quest ist heisst das man von einer ungenauen Angabe zu einer anderen switchen sollte - und das ohne Hinweis aus eine Schätzung.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Mark_estimations_with_fixme
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177871990
Magick93 (2026-01-31 05:19:11+00:00): Hello sorry for the late reply.
If you zoom in a lot the Esri world imagery changes and can see the circular graveyard and the wayside_cross to the side of it.
Regards, Magick93.
Tjc_deflock (2026-01-30 06:02:08+00:00): Not 100% sure if LPR is Leonardo but it’s the closest model that resembles it
marc__marc (2026-02-10 12:44:42+00:00): Bonjour,
Palm n'est pas une espèce mais une famille de plante qui se renseigne dans taxon :
leaf_type=broadleaved
taxon=Arecaceae
taxon:wikidata=Q14080
taxon:en=Palm

inversément phoenix dactylifera est l'espèce

Cordialement,
Marc
marc__marc (2026-02-10 12:44:51+00:00): et bienvenue :)
Glassman (2026-01-30 22:33:34+00:00): This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.

I reverted you fake entry. Please don't vandalise OSM.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177872654
Glassman (2026-02-02 03:13:01+00:00): なぜ交差ノードを削除したのか気になります。node/760655295/history をご覧ください。説明していただけますか。

English:
I'm curious why you removed the crossing node. See node/10760655295/history Can you explain.
hayashi (2026-02-04 03:20:41+00:00): 「交差ノードを削除」したかのようなコメントがなされていますが、[このchangeset](https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177872932)を見れば明らかなようにNodeの削除などしておりません。したがって「削除していないノードの削除理由については説明できません」というのが回答になります。
また、"node/760655295/history" も参照いたしましたが、このノードについて私に説明を求める意図がわかりません。'user/aequator'さんに尋ねてみてはいかがでしょうか。
Glassman (2026-02-06 19:11:49+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10760655292 をご覧ください。これは制御されていない交差点ノード上に表示されるあなたのユーザー名を示しています。

in English:  
Take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10760655292 which shows your username on what was an uncontrolled crossing node.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177872932
hayashi (2026-02-15 00:35:56+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10760655292 を確認しました。しかし、前にも言いましたように、Nodeの削除などしていないのは明白です。

私はあなたの意図が理解できません。
「あれを見ろこれを見ろ」ではなく、あなたの質問の意図をちゃんと説明していただかないといつまでたっても有意義な会話は成立しませんよ。
NeisBot (2026-01-30 07:03:43+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 17 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/660466554 v2 | 15 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/12181057246 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177872964
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-27 12:09:48+00:00): Cleaned up SEO spam and other mistagging for Lucid Private Offices POI in changeset 184691672

https://osm.org/changeset/184691672
Frank Peng (2026-02-02 06:41:20+00:00): Hello sarya, please be careful. You removed the highway=trunk tag from the South Croatan Highway way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16497322), causing this section of the road to be invisible on the map. I have restored the highway=trunk tag on the road.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177992168
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177873967
sarya_Lyft (2026-02-04 01:07:31+00:00): Hi Frank Peng,
My name is Surender, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for correcting the mistake. You’re right—part of the way (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16497322#map=18/36.000085/-75.650799&layers=P) is visible on the map, and I removed the highway tag by mistake.I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience these edits may have caused. I’ll be more attentive in future changesets.
Thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Regards,
Surender
HurricaneGator (2026-02-05 20:48:41+00:00): Hello NunoCaldeira! I noticed that you added “destination=Chão da Ribeira” on (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204537049). Eastbound drivers on this way might be told they’re driving towards Chão da Ribeira, when they’re actually traveling away from it. I saw these relations (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12725243) and (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12733136) that are based on the direction of travel. What do you think about removing destination tagging on bidirectional ways, and adding them as relations going forward? Thank you and happy mapping!
NunoCapeloCaldeira (2026-02-05 20:52:01+00:00): hi. feel free to add it. both ways is the main way to reach Chão da Ribeira, the other way is a minor road than this regional road and is extremely steep to use than this one, which is the best option.

kind regards
HurricaneGator (2026-02-06 22:29:40+00:00): Hello NunoCaldeira! I apologize for any confusion. To clarify, the existing destination relations (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12725243) and (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12733136) are both for maneuvers traveling south towards Chão da Ribeira. I mention destination tagging on bidirectional (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204537049) since if you’re driving east on it, you would be notified that you’re traveling towards Chão da Ribeira when you’re actually driving away from it. What do you think about removing destination tagging on bidirectional ways, and adding them as relations going forward? Thank you and happy mapping!
NunoCapeloCaldeira (2026-02-06 22:33:25+00:00): hi, feel free to edit as you wish. kind regards.

Nuno Caldeira
Ewen Hill (2026-01-31 22:30:00+00:00): Hi, The track you added does not exist from aerial and photos. Can you please remove https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1472560547 or provide reason why it should stay?
PcMouse1 (2026-01-30 05:44:29+00:00): Wrong changeset comment. Added various service roads to the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station in Pickering, Ontario.
keithonearth (2026-02-01 05:44:20+00:00): I've fixed the 8th and Quebec re-routing that this edit broke. I think it would be helpful for foreign mappers to be more cautious about assuming that local mappers are wrong, based solely on imagery, especially imagery that is not publicly accessible.

Currently all traffic from Quebec is routed onto 8th, and vice versa. There are large concrete barriers separating the traffic, so mapping as separate ways is appropriate. 

This will be in place for at least 4 months, and it is getting plenty of attention from local mappers, so I do not expect there to be any problem with it being updated as the SkyTrain construction continues.
rsitoni_Lyft (2026-02-04 04:22:15+00:00): Hi keithonearth,
My name is Ravinder and I'm a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thanks for fixing the 8th and Quebec re-routing — much appreciated. Regarding my edits, they were made based on Lyft-owned aerial imagery and telemetry data but now I see that these sources are outdated for this location & Lyft-owned street level evidence is showing some kind of construction work. I agree that local knowledge is often more reliable in such cases. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused, and I’ll be more cautious going forward.
I’ll also make sure to share this with the rest of the team.

Thank you for your contribution to the OSM.

Regards,
Ravinder
yelisey90 (2026-01-30 08:23:52+00:00): partly reverted — not the whole area is a building
evgenykatyshev (2026-01-30 09:22:39+00:00): Hello. I noted you delete spaces in power-related objects. Can I ask what purpose do you do that for?
Mashin (2026-01-30 12:51:07+00:00): Hi,
Given the prior discussion (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158825125) and discussions on Wikipedia, please refrain from any further changes to Storrs and Mansfield names and addresses. 
Thanks.
whenpigsfly (2026-01-30 18:23:10+00:00): $Mashin - Edits conformed to OSM guidelines incl. [Key:name](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name), [Key:is\_in](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in), [Key:loc\_name](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Local_names_(loc_name)), and [Key:nickname](https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nickname). "If a city is locally known by a different name, it is better to put the local name in loc\_name=\* and put the standard name into name=\*, even if locals don't use the standard name as much." and "loc\_name=\* is for the name of a feature as it is known locally, but only where this is deemed to be too much of a slang name or otherwise unofficial-sounding...The tag nickname=\* is also in use for slang names or other obviously unofficial, but widely known names, especially when the slang name is known globally/nationally and not only locally." "Storrs-Mansfield" is the official name of this **unincorporated** community. "Storrs" is an unofficial nickname. Additionally, Wikipedia discussions have no bearing (or _should_ have no bearing) on edits made here - especially when in conflict with fact.
Mashin (2026-01-30 22:10:40+00:00): Name tag is for common local name. And Storrs is the most common name for this community/CDP in CT. 
If the Storrs-Mansfield is an actual official name (although it seems it only appears in USPS documents) then it can be used in official_name tag.
S-zation (2026-02-02 06:10:26+00:00): Mashin, I recommend that you send an email to the DWG if you have not already. This relation has been changed and reverted 4+ times in the past 3 days. https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/4829985

patrickbootscec,
Storrs is the on-the ground name, and is what should be in the name=* tag. Note - Storrs is not signposted anywhere on official Connecticut signage. If the state needs to sign for it on green directional signs, they call it UConn. Storrs is what UConn calls the area on their signage on US 44. The only agency calling it "Storrs-Mansfield" is the USPS.

In more recent changesets, you also have changed the boundary of relation/4829985  from boundary=census to boundary=place and changed the way to a new shape representing mailing addresses using "Storrs-Mansfield". (From what I can tell by cross referencing with Mansfield's AxisGIS map). This is incorrect and should be reverted. 

However, after reviewing the Key:addr:city wiki page, I believe that the addresses on the nodes/ways shouldn't be revered. The city should be "Storrs-Mansfield" since it is the name of the post office serving that address.
Mashin (2026-02-03 17:23:18+00:00): Checking the UPSP ZIP code lookup there is now recommended city name "STORRS MANSFIELD" though "STORRS" is still accepted. 

So this could be potential value to change. The question is if this name is actually used locally when sending mail. UConn website for example still suggests Storrs:
https://studentmail.uconn.edu/properly-addressing-packages/
whenpigsfly (2026-02-03 18:35:34+00:00): "Storrs" is merely a “barely acceptable” abbreviation to be used due to labeling constraints. (“Spell city names in their entirety” https://pe.usps.com/text/pub28/28c2_008.htm)

It has *never* mattered what UConn "wants" or chooses to falsely recommend.
rarad74 (2026-01-30 09:01:14+00:00): Salut. Nu mai sterge de pe harta. Imaginile noi pe Bucuresti sunt MApbox- de anul trecut. Nu te mai lua dupa ESRI ca sunt vechi si stergi obiecte care exista  pe harta. ESRI ai vreo 3-4 ani vechime.
rarad74 (2026-01-30 09:20:55+00:00): Plaja urbana Lagoon Park este finalizata si functionala de vreo 2 ani.
https://lagoonpark.ro/despre-noi/
NeisBot (2026-01-30 07:05:15+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/7224830357 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-08 09:28:01+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178257632
(Restore previous tags)
NeisBot (2026-01-30 07:05:16+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/413716305 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-08 09:28:01+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178257633
(Restore previous tags)
Ewen Hill (2026-01-31 22:42:25+00:00): Hi Nisha, please use Mapillary and Bing Street view. Where you have the intersection of the track and the road, it does not exist.
Nisha NHVR (2026-02-02 00:17:54+00:00): Hi Ewen,
I have cross checked in Mapillary and the track appears to be present. This is to allow DEECA/Emergency fire vehicles to access the track. I do see the surface cover is grass, which i will add in and thank you for reviewing.
Here is the link for the capture from 2019:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-37.140788790885&lng=148.87481415635&z=19.071798390311915&pKey=821859591756795&x=0.5417146134022044&y=0.5752775025037691&zoom=0&focus=photo
rempshaener (2026-02-01 11:25:37+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.
Eine Anmerkung zu dieser Änderung:
Das amenity=fire_station sollte im besten Fall am Gelände ergänzt werden.
D.h. das Gebäude bekommt nur ein building=fire_station, alle anderen Daten inklusive Name, Adresse usw. kommen dann an das Gelände.
Die Dublette https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13513921299 könntest du dann ebenfalls löschen.
Vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen.
Viele Grüße
gablerto (2026-02-01 17:03:41+00:00): Hallo. Ich habe das jetzt mal probiert zu ändern. Gruss Tobias
Ewen Hill (2026-01-31 22:38:13+00:00): This track clearly does not exist from aerial imagery. Please remove it or re-tag it.  Also use the tracktype=? key if adding tracks
Nisha NHVR (2026-02-02 00:22:53+00:00): Hi Ewen,
I have realigned those tracks and added track types. Thank you for reviewing.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-27 12:09:56+00:00): Cleaned up SEO spam and other mistagging for Lucid Private Offices POI in changeset 184691704

https://osm.org/changeset/184691704
nevw (2026-02-03 06:43:06+00:00): Hi, osmi detected some errors here
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=149.18074&lat=-21.08909&zoom=15
Multipolygon outers cannot share sides so easiest fix is to map simple polygons instead.
Frans S (2026-02-02 14:47:27+00:00): Check this footage of how to map highrise buildings

https://youtu.be/Tpi-BTMVo1M?si=LCu1gM_lmESjveU0

Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177875931
pwbriggs (2026-01-31 06:54:59+00:00): I think this is in fact 2-way, could you provide documentation that this is currently one-way? According to the WSDOT project page (https://wsdot.wa.gov/construction-planning/search-projects/i-5-mounts-rd-steilacoom-dupont-rd-corridor-improvements), the I-5 SB exit 119 is now open and traffic heading to Lewis McChord Base (via Clark Rd) travels west on this segment to get to clark. see exit 119 diagram at https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ehq-production-us-california/b022b1d2f16449c50f8423b25b491f4c1024bc71/original/1763405817/19cd4c9ec1fbfb2300780bb82d381f71_MountsRoad-map-Stage4SouthboundTraffic.jpg

I'm changing this back to two-way, and will look into changing the road classification. But please let me know if you have recent on-the-ground info or current data about this.
World_Winner (2026-01-31 08:50:49+00:00): Hi pwbriggs,
Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.
World_Winner (2026-02-03 15:51:17+00:00): Hi pwbriggs,
My earlier edit was based on the GPS traces available at that time, which made the road appear to be one-way. Later I realized the traces were not fully synchronized due to a technical issue, resulting in an incorrect interpretation on my side.
Thank you for making the corrections and also for reaching out to me sharing reliable sources for clarification. I very much appreciate the open and collaborative approach to maintain accurate and up-to-date map data for all.
pwbriggs (2026-02-04 00:47:06+00:00): No problem, thanks for your work.

Happy mapping!
World_Winner (2026-02-05 06:32:58+00:00): Hi pwbriggs,

Thank you for your understanding and for the clarification. I appreciate your support and local insights throughout this discussion.
Happy mapping!
TrickyFoxy (2026-03-04 09:46:51+00:00): 👋  Не рисуйте дороги поверх существующих. Разрезайте в нужных точках существующие
Taya_S (2026-02-01 18:51:36+00:00): Hello,

Please cease attempting to fix this import in Greenland. It was undiscussed and will be reverted.

Also, in the future, please make sure the import you are attempting to fix was actually discussed by the community. Your involvement has made reverting everything significantly more complex.

Best regards,
Taya Snijder,
On behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group
borovac (2026-02-02 06:28:11+00:00): Hello Taya,

reply is already on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177887381, so we can have one discussion on this issue.

All best Milan
NorthCrab_upload (2026-01-30 07:20:57+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.

"Żłobizna":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1472593195
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1472593198
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1472593200

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Frans S (2026-02-02 12:10:44+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Issues found on your mappings

A: Inaccurate mapping. 

B: Overlapping buildings.

C: Collected adjacent buildings and mapped it as 1 building.
D: Connecting nodes to other features.

High building(s) incorrectly mapped. 
Check this footage on how to map high buildings: https://youtu.be/dsfUcslLtVc?si=yH6eWDbsb_ILAVb9
 Or see par. 20, chapter About Buildings.


Explanation can be found in this document which  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
Norbert Dichter (2026-01-30 11:31:26+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/177877414
Taya_S (2026-02-01 18:51:20+00:00): Hello,

Please cease attempting to fix this import in Greenland. It was undiscussed and will be reverted.

Also, in the future, please make sure the import you are attempting to fix was actually discussed by the community. Your involvement has made reverting everything significantly more complex.

Best regards,
Taya Snijder,
On behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group
Fraxi (2026-01-30 13:41:59+00:00): Здравей! По-правилно е да е place=hamlet, защото в селото има 8 души население към края на 2024 г. Пише го в уикипедия. Това е различно от гара Орешец. А според wiki.osm.org Use place=hamlet for an isolated settlement, typically with less than 100-200 inhabitants, although this may vary by country.