piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Colbertson (2026-03-08 10:42:26+00:00): Reverted changesets:
https://www.osm.org/changeset/169058769
https://www.osm.org/changeset/169058779
https://www.osm.org/changeset/169058790
https://www.osm.org/changeset/169058801
https://www.osm.org/changeset/169058810
https://www.osm.org/changeset/169058828
https://www.osm.org/changeset/169058838
https://www.osm.org/changeset/169058856
https://www.osm.org/changeset/169058877
https://www.osm.org/changeset/169058868
CADdog63 (2026-03-09 07:19:44+00:00): warum gelöscht und neu eingetragen statt zu ändern?
Bernd_BDP (2026-03-09 07:50:47+00:00): Das Frauenzentrum war doppelt eingetragen. Ich habe das eine nur aktualisiert/ergänzt und das zweite gelöscht.
CADdog63 (2026-03-09 08:29:00+00:00): ok danke, hatte mich gewundert, weil ich es selber von der Adresse hierher verschoben und aktualisiert hatte, um die Historie zu erhalten. Da hat wohl zwischendurch ein neuer mapper das doppelt angelegt. Aber nun ist es ja ok
Carto_Graph (2026-03-11 12:34:07+00:00): Добрый день. А зачем вы highway убираете? Если дороги нет - нужно убрать линию? Если проезд закрыт - тогда access=private.
Wildsharky (2026-03-10 05:11:17+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179581090
ieguy3 (2026-03-08 11:15:39+00:00): i had to delete some of these gardens because it was hard to edit  the sidewalks and roads
ieguy3 (2026-03-08 11:15:40+00:00): i had to delete some of these gardens because it was hard to edit  the sidewalks and roads and they are not garden but grass
szydzio (2026-03-08 11:35:06+00:00): Zmapowane zgodnie z wizją lokalną i https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_ground oraz forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bledne-numery-drog-w-dolnoslaskim/91126/27, po wymianie oznakowania drogowego, przynajmniej jego znaczącej części, należy oznaczyć jako ref=5
NeisBot (2026-03-08 11:30:42+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/13626585574 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-16 17:33:02+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179963682
(Delete spam tags. First version)
czebureks (2026-06-07 20:55:51+00:00): Cześć! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13626603201 - jaka jest funkcja tego miejsca? Czy to pomieszczenie magazynowe którejś z aptek? Jeżeli tak, to której?
Linus W Frische (2026-03-08 17:50:12+00:00): Har rettet lidt til: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179544549

De enkelte ladestandere er man_made=charge_point og ikke amenity=charging_station. Så du kan tilføje begge dele eller bare en amenity=charging_station per ladestation (en ladestation kan have flere standere).
coatix (2026-03-09 15:57:28+00:00): maybe just "toys" would be better?

I have been using kids_area=limited if there is not really an area but there are some toys or games available.
scai (2026-03-09 17:25:17+00:00): Both tags are fine for me.

Personally I wouldn't use kids_area=limited if no designated kids area is available but only toys.
coatix (2026-03-09 18:12:45+00:00): Yes, kids_area=limited is suboptimal.

toys=* is pretty good imho, expect it normally implies toys are for sale. Also, does this include card/board games available for kids too?

My main issue with toys_available=* is that it is not KISS (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like#Style_Guide?)

I have no strong preferences, but wanted to comment on it, since you added it to the wiki and I have some thoughts about it :)

Always great to see people tagging kid friendliness! <3
scai (2026-03-10 08:55:37+00:00): I appreciate your input :)

I agree that toys=* is simpler than toys_available=* but it clashes with the already existing tag for specifying type of toys, as you already stated. Although this could also be exploited to tag the types of toys that are available at an amenity.

The tag toys_available=* has been proposed in the German Telegram group OSM D-A-CH several times but strangely has never been used by anyone except me.

I have no strong preference about one or the other but I also don't want to start a proposal about it :)
Kees 59 (2026-03-09 08:42:07+00:00): Ik weet niet wat hier misgegaan is maar er waren 2 nodes voor The Sur House (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179528747 en deze). Ik heb deze samengevoegd. En omdat het in Nederland gebruikelijk is om POIs als winkels en restaurants e.d. op de adres node te taggen heb ik ook deze samengevoegd (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179568398)
ErikLentz (2026-03-09 08:51:54+00:00): Dank je wel
literan (2026-03-09 10:29:08+00:00): вы поставили здание поверх забора. Исправьте, пожалуйста
Ozon OSM17 (2026-03-10 15:56:24+00:00): Пересохранила: 179646650
zorglubu (2026-03-09 12:13:34+00:00): Il faudrait plutôt mettre opening_hours=closed pour que ce soit compris par les outils de rendu.

Mais est-ce une fermeture saisonnière ?

Ou permanente ?
iandees (2026-03-08 12:34:09+00:00): Hi! It looks like node 13626614071 was accidentally moved in this changeset. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
literan (2026-03-09 10:34:38+00:00): Приветствую! а не подскажете точнее, что это за центр? он точно на английском называется? яндекс и гугл такого не знают... может у него есть какие-то контакты

пока из офиса частной компании переделал в community_center
dima monsky (2026-03-09 16:32:17+00:00): Hi literan, please, i am new in osm so can make mistakes. I've got info from Google, maybe correct maybe wrong. If You are local user so sure You can know better! 
Moscow Community of Buddhists
5.04 Google reviews
Place of worship in Moscow, Russia
Directions
Reviews
Save
Share

Address: Serebryanicheskiy Pereulok, 4/3, строение 3, Moscow, Russia, 109028
literan (2026-03-10 19:25:07+00:00): I don't see any info about this organisation in Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=Moscow+Community+of+Buddhists

Maybe you took it from Google Maps?
dima monsky (2026-03-10 21:15:33+00:00): Google (Maps) - yes, maybe bad idea?
literan (2026-03-11 06:50:13+00:00): Maybe. Did you use Google Maps for other editings in OSM?
literan (2026-03-11 06:54:05+00:00): It's strictly prohibited due license restrictions:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_don't_you_just_use_Google_Maps/whoever_for_your_data?
literan (2026-03-11 06:54:42+00:00): Also, in Russia Google Maps are not renewed after 2022 year
dima monsky (2026-03-11 18:31:01+00:00): A, thank You, really i used Google Search. I see place is like deleted, sure it is better if not proved info. Best Regards
literan (2026-03-11 20:14:15+00:00): I should inform you that all OSM edits of people who use G.maps or other unappropriate sources are usually reverted.
dima monsky (2026-03-12 06:29:24+00:00): Thank You) Yes, really Linux cannot be installed on Google Android smartphone, futile tried 4 days
MappingMore (2026-03-11 06:04:01+00:00): Revert of 179529493
osmviborg (2026-03-11 06:09:13+00:00): ??
MappingMore (2026-05-28 10:03:39+00:00): Hi osmviborg,
To provide better clarity and traceability, I include the changeset ID of the corrective edit, especially when something went wrong in the original changes. This helps reference both the issue and the fix.

Happy Mapping!
eggie (2026-03-08 12:52:32+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback Beter geen adres toevoegen aan een parkeerstrook.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-03-08 12:54:44+00:00): parking aangepast
ajmat (2026-03-10 06:01:42+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179617536
eggie (2026-03-08 13:06:07+00:00): Dag Wilco,
Lijkt me oke voor een olifantenpaadje. Ik heb het wel losgemaakt van de landuse.
MVG
eggie
wilco375 (2026-03-08 13:14:37+00:00): Bedankt!
NeisBot (2026-03-08 12:27:49+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/13626618456 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Oficina de asesoría"
---
Por ejemplo, una versión más neutral y objetiva de tu texto podría ser: "Oficina de asesoría"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-03-11 01:56:57+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam description and nonsense names to another building and footway area

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179665178
NeisBot (2026-03-08 12:30:49+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/13626669697 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Umzugsunternehmen"
---
Zum Beispiel könnte eine neutralere und faktischere Version deines Textes lauten: "Umzugsunternehmen"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-16 17:33:03+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/179533849
kingkingHK (2026-03-09 01:53:33+00:00): 1. Please remove `placement=left_of:1` when moving a way to its centreline https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1178516528
2. Usually, `area:highway=` is preferred over `area=yes` + `highway=` when the area is largely linear https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1486486342
vectorial8192 (2026-03-09 02:42:51+00:00): Upon review, we do also have extra (outdated) tags on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1178516528 that should be removed.

`area:highway=` implies "non-routable" but that's not the case here for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1486486342 . While most routers treat pedestrian areas as a circular road using their outer edges (e.g. GraphHopper), it's very coincidentally convenient that the outer edge of such area is exactly how people would navigate through this pedestrian area.
kingkingHK (2026-03-09 03:43:11+00:00): `area:highway=` are non-routable because they must contain a `highway=`. There is a very clear consensus on using `area:highway=` for this kind of paths: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/clarification-of-footway-area-mapping/130974/44
vectorial8192 (2026-03-09 13:16:49+00:00): I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think this is a case of "almost linear". We can't reduce the geometry here to a straight line because there would be a triangular path in the area, and then the mapping would be inconcise.

Consider peds that enter from Kam Chun Court. They either go straight for the bus stop (I think you mean this when say "linear"), or they rotate and approach the footbridge. This creates some sort of "desire path" that diverges from the linear structure.

There is also a potential problem/concern that a hypothetical centerline footpath + `area:highway=yes` would be too far away from the bus stop nodes and would make routers and GPS confused (would snap to vehicular lanes instead). The depth of the area is 14 meters, which is way higher than existing GPS resolution of 5 meters.
kingkingHK (2026-03-09 13:46:01+00:00): This situation is simply a wide sidewalk. There is nothing unique about this. One can also walk in a triangular way on any sidewalk, just less noticeable when the sidewalk is narrow. The usual way to map this is just to connect the footbridge to the centreline in the shortest way possible.

As with vehicles (roads not representing swept paths), footways represent the physical existence of a footway itself, abstracted through its centreline, not the path people walk on. Normal desire paths (e.g. walking diagonally through grass) are mapped because they are a stand-alone physical feature. This is not.

I fail to see what GPS snapping problem would be caused. And, again, as I and many others said previously, GPS is not the only use case for OSM. Don't tag for the router.
vectorial8192 (2026-03-10 14:27:21+00:00): I see we are only disagreeing on whether this counts as "mostly linear"; if this is indeed "mostly linear" then yes we should do `area:highway=*`. I will just make a new note to collect more opinion on this.
Kovoschiz (2026-03-11 17:30:11+00:00): "Linear" means linear routing, ie routing along lines. `highway=` + `area=yes` should only be used when omnidirectional area-cutting routing is needed. This doesn't seem to. 
What "triangular" is being discussed? You should not remove lines inside, as they are needed for routing in both cases.
vectorial8192 (2026-03-13 17:04:37+00:00): For inspiration, how about same district case https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/620136042 ? Most navigation would occur along the bridge axis; does that count as "omnidirectional"?
kingkingHK (2026-03-14 08:41:19+00:00): I don't see what inspiration the quoted way can possibly give. That's clear square; this here at Kam Chun Court is a rectangle. I hope the difference is clear enough that I don't need to rigorously define what is square and what is not.
vectorial8192 (2026-03-16 12:28:17+00:00): Socrates method. I point towards the extremes and then hopefully can deduce The Real Thing.

Re "remove inside lines", supposedly routers should treat pedestrian areas as routable even when there are no foot paths inside of them, but the exact implementations are specific to each router and very ambiguous (eg what if we already provided some paths?) so it's getting nowhere. But routers should know how to deal with this kind of shape. At minimum it just routes along the outer edge as if it's a circular road.

With both examples, I kinda see where you are coming from, and I can see the issue being the wording of "omnidirectional routing". The quoted pedestrian area in Ma On Shan is square shaped but realistically only has two exits that sits along its axis, so it doesn't seem omnidirectional. But this should be sent to the forums for further clarification.

I can just remake this as area:highway for now.
b-jazz (2026-03-09 18:41:37+00:00): You have made a common error when you saw a fairway that looked like it didn't have a proper "Feature Type" defined and decided to add the fairway tag. The hole was already properly tagged, but was part of a relation of multiple objects known as a multipolygon. Please read this short wiki page where I've tried to explain what you are looking at and avoid making the mistake in the future. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID_understanding_golf_course_relations Thanks.
Taya_S (2026-03-08 19:20:31+00:00): Reverted questionable edits by sockpuppet account

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179547869
rambuuze (2026-03-08 12:44:28+00:00): excuse this, i was testing my keyboard and i sent this edit in without checking. the name should be: "added local stores and made the area for the reformed church"
literan (2026-03-09 10:29:33+00:00): каким образом почтовый адрес может идти не по начеленному пункту / коттеджному поселку, а по некому ООО? Исправьте, пожалуйста
Ozon OSM15 (2026-03-09 22:38:39+00:00): Здравствуйте.
Исправила
literan (2026-03-10 19:21:31+00:00): хотелось бы, чтобы вы сразу правильно делали, а не исправляли после указания со стороны. пожалуйста, задумывайтесь, когда вносите адрес, а не вносите его механически
Ozon OSM15 (2026-03-11 09:40:06+00:00): Добрый день.
Спасибо.Поняла
eggie (2026-03-08 13:12:56+00:00): Hoi Harm,
Tip.. 
foot=yes is in Nederland default op fietspaden. Je hoeft dat niet toe te voegen.

MVG
eggie
mueschel (2026-03-15 10:08:59+00:00): Hi,
what's the difference between a "ground_control_point_test" and a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point ?
eggie (2026-03-08 13:14:38+00:00): Dag Harm,

Wanneer er een C14 (fietsverbod) bord staat dan gebruiken we bicycle=no  In andere gevallen bicycle=use_sidepath

Staat hier een dergelijk bord?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-08 13:15:20+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath
B252697 (2026-03-08 12:56:32+00:00): Official Source from Singapore National Parks Board (NParks) which indicates this area is Yio Chua Kang Gardens Playground:
https://www.nparks.gov.sg/visit/parks/park-detail/yio-chu-kang-gardens-playground
willkmis (2026-03-08 13:38:39+00:00): This coffee shop is permanently closed, which is why it was marked as disused:amenity=cafe.
felipeeugenio (2026-03-08 13:26:18+00:00): 
Note	Contributor	⏱️ Last updated	Action	Comment
5194486 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 6 minutes ago	closed	ok..
5194534 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 6 minutes ago	closed	ok..
5194487 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 6 minutes ago	closed	ok..
5194481 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 6 minutes ago	closed	ok..
5194488 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 6 minutes ago	closed	ok..
5194482 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 6 minutes ago	closed	ok..
5194489 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 6 minutes ago	closed	ok..
5194483 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 6 minutes ago	closed	ok..
5194490 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 6 minutes ago	closed	ok..
5194484 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 6 minutes ago	closed	ok..
5194485 (iD)	felipeeugenio	~ 6 minutes ago	closed	ok..
martinst (2026-03-08 14:40:02+00:00): Bei Way 1486498545, 1486498543, 1486502998 sollte wahrscheinlich noch bridge=yes ergänzt werden.
Mikroprofessor (2026-03-08 18:50:56+00:00): Hallo, Danke für die Info. Sehr vermutlich ist es (und nicht nur dort) keine Brücke, sondern ein Flussunterlauf mittels Rohr. Ich habe erstmal Strecke (Path, Tracks, usw.) gezeichnet und verfeinere einzelne Elemente nachträglich (wie z.B. Beschaffenheit, Untergrund) anhand der Aufzeichnungen und Notizen. Das wird in den nächsten Tagen passieren. Also noch etwas Geduld bitte.
martinst (2026-03-08 19:11:55+00:00): Wenn Du die Bearbeitungen später genauer fortsetzen möchtest, kannst Du zuerst die Wege und Bäche ruhig überschneiden lassen und später dann Brücken oder Rohre ergänzen. 
Das erspart das evtl. unnötige Zerstückeln von Wegen/Bächen und fügt keine nur mutmaßlich existierende Objekte in die Daten ein.
mcliquid (2026-03-15 09:15:42+00:00): Hi, wie hast du die Öffnungen ausgemessen?
Marc1152 (2026-03-15 19:29:58+00:00): Hallo, gut dass du fragst. 
Ich hatte immer die größte Öffnung bei geschlossener Barriere genommen. Jetzt sehe ich gerade, dass es als maxwidth:physical getagged wird, was laut Wiki größte Öffnung bei offener Barriere bedeutet, dh, wenn der Poller umgeklappt ist. In dem Fall sind meine Werte oft falsch. Ich lösch sie wieder.
bxl-forever (2026-03-08 14:17:03+00:00): Hello.

Here is a suggestion.  If you write in the changeset description that you are adding GTFS stop_id tags, please only do that in the changeset.

In particular, do not click on the suggestions from the name-suggestion-index when it comes to public transport.  Being an experienced user, you are probably aware that many of those "tag upgrade" suggestions are bogus.  If I remember correctly what was discussed on the Belgian forum, there is a pending pull request or issue to update the NSI and stop it from uselessly adding "network=NMBS/SNCB" to route relations.

Thanks.
Monchinho (2026-03-08 14:49:03+00:00): No sé qué niveles tienen los centros administrativos de las comarcas, pero en Galicia las comarcas sí son oficiales desde 1997, decreto 65/1997 de la Xunta. Por si influye aviso.
Hugoren Martinako (2026-03-08 17:23:39+00:00): Buenas, a pesar de ser correcto a nivel estatal que esas provincias no son oficiales (https://registroentidadeslocales.mpt.es/REL/frontend/inicio/comarcas), resulta que los gobiernos regionales tienen las comarcas perfectamente definidas, delimitadas y operativas.

Es más, en los visores cartográficos oficiales al menos de Galicia, Navarra y la Comunidad Valenciana, que yo conozca, pueden ser consultadas como datos geográficos perfectamente válidos.

Además este changeset comete un error, y es que la etiqueta capital=* está en concordancia con el admin_level=* más alto de la relación boundary=administrative a la que pertenezca con el rol de admin_centre. Aquí solo se modifican los nodos. Ya he visto que has hecho algo similar en https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179537117

Si consideras que es un tema importante que debe estar mejor tratado, te invito a que participes en el foro abriendo un entrada para discutirlo.

Revertiré ambos changesets mientras tanto.

Un saludo
ReyDerayos24 (2026-03-08 18:21:50+00:00): Perdón, lo de las relaciones se me ha ido. Como he ido manualmente y he hecho tantas he cambiado el admin_level de las relaciones de los municipios también. A ver, primero. Lo de las directrices dice que los nodos de los municipios que son sede judicial tienen son capital=7 , no capital=8, y en gran parte de España estaba ya eso puesto. Eso no es discutible que me lo hayas revertido. Ahora, en las comarcas, el problema que yo le veo es que en muchos casos la capital de la comarca es demasiado subjetiva. Por ejemplo en Toledo las "comarcas" aquí oficiales son una división únicamente turística, y en muy pocos casos la diputación le ha dado una capital, por lo que queda bastante a decisión del que la ponga. Desconozco el caso de otras provincias, pero no creo que se pueda tratar igual a una comarca definida oficialmente con capital a una turística, en el que la capital no tiene más que un papel de estatus y a veces hasta se inventa (E. En ningún lugar pone que la capital de Los Ibores sea Navalvillar de Ibor). En unas CCAA si lo tenían puesto y en otros no. En unas los nodos del partido judicial lo tenían puesto el capital=7 y en otros no. Yo lo que he hecho a sido intentar que aplicaran los mismos criterios. Creo que es mejor dejar lo de las comarcas como está, puesto que no hay directriz entonces que valga, porque intentar definir algo así inevitablemente nos encontraríamos con problemas que molestarían a más de uno. Que se deje como antes en Navarra, Galicia y Valencia por lo que me dices, pero en los otros casos debería de revisarse. Un saludo.
Hugoren Martinako (2026-03-08 19:10:20+00:00): Si te fijas en el wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Directrices_de_etiquetado_espa%C3%B1olas#N%C3%BAcleos_de_poblaci%C3%B3n), las cabezas de partido judicial son las únicas que explícitamente no indican poner el capital=7.

Esto es un poco enrevesado: la etiqueta capital=* solo se debería poner en el contexto de divisiones administrativas, las cabezas de partido judicial no lo son. El tema es que como en media españa las comarcas ni siquiera están definidas, dejaba a falta de un criterio fiable el cómo diferenciar aquellos pueblos que son más importantes que el resto, por lo que se incluyó esa condición de usar los partidos judiciales.

Respecto a la subjetividad, estoy de acuerdo contigo. Hace un tiempo yo quité el grado administrativo a comarcas de Extremadura, Madrid, y Castilla-la Mancha, dejándolas en boundary=local_authority, ya que no podían ser administrativas. Eso hace que para esas comunidades tampoco debería existir ningún capital=7. Posiblemente como dices, esto es revisable comunidad a comunidad, ya que con el tiempo pueden haberse modificado algunos elementos.

Saludos