piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
bxl-forever (2025-11-21 17:22:07+00:00): Hello,
There is a problem with this edit. Even if the tram tracks have just been removed, they are still on the GRB reference map of the Flemish Region and they are used by tram relations.
The good practice on OSM is to change the tags instead of destroying objects.
I wrote user multimob yesterday to ask to to have a look here and try to repair the map as soon as possible.
Have a nice day.
HellMap (2025-11-19 17:15:38+00:00): Hello,

Can you please clarify what you mean by "confusion in public and Riga city council". Like where has public expressed such confusing and who in the Council is having confusion about this? The name has been mentioned in many sources. The location has existed for a long time and there are no plans to remove it, as far as I know. The name also does not have to be official, it just has to be verifiable and used. Besides, it's managed by Rīgas Nami not Council, so the decision to "officially" name it is theirs and they have previously published materials with the name (and for other area around the Central Market), so for all intents, it is the official name.
rih890 (2025-11-21 11:33:34+00:00): Hey, thanks for the reply. Yes, i'm aware of the fact that Rīgas nami, which is a SIA under Riga city municipality, has named this place like this in their spatial developement conception last year and even found they organised one event in this space under this name ("Lietuviešu tirgus" in may 2025). Adjacent street name was also changed to Emīlijas Benjamiņas street last year. But that doesn't change the fact, that acording to rules by Cabinet of Ministers Nr. 455 "Adresācijas noteikumi" street and square names in cities are given by local municipality council. In Riga city there is a special commission of placenames "Rīgas vietvārdu un pilsētvides objektu nosaukumu komisija" which evaluates propositions of giving or changing street and square names and then drafts a resolution for city council to vote on, so the final decision is made by the council. It is unlikely that this commission or council would approve of naming this square like this when there is already a street named similarily adjacent to it and Emīlija Benjamiņa has no direct historical connection to this place, or market in general which makes it even more unlikely to become the official name for this possible square. I will give you one example how this named space already appears on maps circumventing the existing order of things is already misleading map users - in Riga city geoportal georiga.eu basemap layer in many apps is OSM and this square name appears on them where the label is formated in such a way that it seems to be of the same status and importance as any other square in Riga, which is misleading the user. E.g. the same as "Akadēmijas laukums", "Doma laukums" etc. In addition it is important to underline that Riga city historic center (RVC) is a place of special importance as a UNESCO heritage site and even seemingly trivial things like squares are strictly defined in spatial plan of RVC, for example adjacent "Nēģu laukums" appears on the spatial plan. Taking this all in consideration even if it seems trivial it is important that this square does not appear of OSM maps or at the minimum uses a different label formating than other official squares to not mislead the map user.
richlv (2025-12-14 12:23:52+00:00): One one hand, if a name is as widely used as this one, it becomes "name" for OSM purposes, and theoretically map users can process and visualise data as they please. Data purists could advocate leaving the "name" tag and using official_name tag instead to (somehow) denote name-less-ness.

On the other, it is important for base OSM visualisations to appeal to most of users, with mappers being the primary target.
For example, if somebody reads an article, goes on OSM and finds the name - that's a benefit. A drawback is the confusion you mentioned.
Perhaps in this case alt_name is a decent choice - added that tag.

Regarding Riga City Council, OSM community has looked for ways to cooperate for many years. If there's some renewed interest in that, happy to find out :)
HellMap (2025-12-14 14:59:34+00:00): Sorry for not replying earlier.

The issue is that you are conflating what OSM records and what is "official". OSM is a global geospatial database and while it generally records what is official locally, that doesn't imply that OSM won't map something if it's not official. OSM maps what is "on the ground".[1] So, as in this example, OSM records names if they are shown to exist even conceptually. It doesn't have to be part of VZD address data, nor any Council documents, nor official square designation, nor UNESCO plans, etc. - it just has to verifiably exist.[2] Similarly, a "square" in OSM is not defined based on local designations, but what is there on the ground - broadly, an urban paved area with various urban features around some buildings. You may be used to maps like LĢIA official data layers and Jāņa sēta renders and even Google/Apple maps that gather their data from primarily official sources. But OSM is not limited to that, which is the whole point of OSM - to be an open map that isn't restricted like that. OSM is often much more detailed and record many more features and data about them. For example, just the name tagging itself has dozens of variants.[3] In general, OSM maps what is correct rather than what may or may not appear when rendered on some map.[4]

Your reply is quite long and you touch upon a lot of different concepts, so I cannot really reply to every point. For example, features that are part of UNESCO would be recorded as heritage tagging scheme[5] as UNESCO sites, VKPAI sites, etc. You wouldn't judge what is or isn't a heritage site or location (or name) based on what some particular map renders, but whether it is tagged as heritage site and associated with a particular heritage-tracking body. The same argument applies to all the other points - having a name is not limited to any particular source or feature.

In any case, this name can be easily verified as used by sources. This isn't even the typical case where we can't find any mentions. This is more than enough to include the name.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ground_truth

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability

[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names

[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

[5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:heritage
rih890 (2025-12-30 08:28:04+00:00): Thanks for the detailed reply, but you completely ignored/missed my whole point. I just tried to clarify how a square is officially named in Riga city, because you wrote "so for all intents, it is the official name", when it's clearly not.  I understand how OSM can include whatever names users submit official or not. My point is that in this particular case this name is in conflict with Riga historic center spatial plan and the way it appears on this map it misleads users that it is infact official name/adress of this square. Solution could be finding a technical way to format the label differently from other squares as i said, but i'm not sure if that is possible in OSM. To keep it short just one more point, I'm not gona reply to all techical details, they are irrelevant to the discusion in my opinion - the name is not widely used, it's just a possible/proposed name mentioned in markets spatial developement conception with a single other mention found outside of that. I think you way overstate the importance of this name, while you probably think I'm overstating the issue here or missing it completely so I'm honestly not sure how to resolve this.
HellMap (2025-12-30 11:12:19+00:00): To return to the original query, to really simplify it:

Rīgas Nami calls it "Benjamiņas laukums". They manage the area, so they can call it and its features whatever they want. Per OSM Verifiability principle, it is shown that a feature's name comes from a reputable source. No other source gives it a different name. Tag `name` is used for such names. Therefore, `name=Benjamiņas laukums`.

I linked you several relevant pages. If you don't think the name should be here, you should demonstrate how it conflicts with OSM and not some other map or plan.

The one relevant thing to OSM you mentioned, which could be a concern, is that it "misleads users that it is infact official name/adress of this square". But OSM makes no such claim. This was the very first question I asked you that you never replied to. Who are these users? Who from Riga Council is confused?
rih890 (2025-12-31 11:14:58+00:00): The fact is it probably does not conflict with any OSM rules, but purpose of any map is to inform the users not mislead them. I gave you an example, which is the only reason I'm here and I can repeat it if you wish - this name appears on many maps that uses  OSM data, for example in Riga city geoportal georiga.eu basemap layer in many apps is OSM and this square name appears (currently it's updated to not include it) on them where the label is formated in such a way that it seems to be of the same status and importance as any other square in Riga, which is misleading the user. E.g. the same as "Akadēmijas laukums", "Doma laukums" etc (which are actual adresses, like Doma laukums 1).  To elaborate, multiple collegues at Riga City Developement department, especially those working with Historic Center of Riga and spatial planning have expressed concerns with this name, that's why I'm  here trying to resolve this somehow. Now looking at the map and not having technical knowledge of OSM I would say that all the square names proposed by Rīgas Nami could be formatted similarily to how pavilions are formatted, since they are part of the market and map users clearly differentiate that these are part of the market and not squares/adresses like other "laukumi" in Riga.
DriesO (2025-11-19 08:49:43+00:00): het systeem heeft bij deze bewerking een tramhalte (tram_stop) onverklaarbaar in een bushalte (bus_stop) veranderd...
Lumikeiju (2025-11-29 00:55:55+00:00): Hi! Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap.

A bit of feedback: There's no need to add "*=unknown" tags - the absence of the tag is considered equivalent to "*=unknown".

I've removed these in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175259523.

Happy Mapping!
NeisBot (2025-11-19 08:39:42+00:00): For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Dental clinic in Little Rock"
NeisBot (2025-11-19 08:39:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-11-23 14:20:11+00:00): ✅ Corrected by https://osm.org/changeset/174860180
NeisBot (2025-11-19 09:53:41+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.

In total, I detected 13 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
- https://osm.org/way/1133362170 | crossings=8
- https://osm.org/way/1133362169 | crossings=5

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=174848454
pitscheplatsch (2025-11-23 14:19:55+00:00): Has been corrected by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174896316
NeisBot (2025-11-19 09:53:42+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.

In total, I detected 16 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
- https://osm.org/way/670986508 | crossings=16

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=174848900
Cebderby (2025-11-20 00:20:13+00:00): Unintended dragged node repaired. This can happen when trying to move the map in iD while editting, if the cursor was on a map point. No harm done.
pitscheplatsch (2025-11-23 14:19:00+00:00): Has been corrected by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174885155

Thanks, Cebderby
Andrea Musuruane (2025-12-09 14:34:40+00:00): Concordo: https://it.wikiloc.com/percorsi-escursionismo/monte-barone-da-le-piane-di-coggiola-233717843/photo-139511893
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-24 12:53:27+00:00): Czemu zmienione jest to na primary_link ?
user_23310066 (2025-11-27 16:33:07+00:00): bo w jakim świecie na ausostradzie jest rondo xd, w polsce takie cos nigdy nie bylo motorway link
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-27 18:17:35+00:00): motorway_link to nie jest autostrada, to jest łącznik autostradowy
Kovoschiz (2025-11-19 10:31:47+00:00): 0. Please use accurate upload comment, not a signature with today's date
1. The `man_made=tower` is already enclosed by the `attraction=` https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/795214584
2. Why is a popcorn cart `=cafe` ? 
3. Are the deleted points torn down? At least some of the `=tree` doesn't seem to be. 
4. Please don't use descriptive labels in `name=` which is proper names only. `description=` is already used.
5. You can add `healthcare=yes` , but don't remove `emergency=healthcare`
Kovoschiz (2025-11-19 10:32:42+00:00): 6. Baby Care Center is not a `shop=baby_goods`
literan (2025-11-19 20:14:58+00:00): service=driveway это дорога самого низкого уровня, подъезд к домику/даче. Здесь неуместно, поправлю
literan (2025-11-19 20:17:04+00:00): также, я уже просил, не превращать улицы в служебные проезды
NeisBot (2025-11-19 09:33:39+00:00): Hello, thank you for your contribution.

Your changeset was commented because it appears to follow a pattern that could be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related.

Could you kindly confirm if your map edits were intentional?

#MapWithoutSpam #URLs
NeisRevert (2025-11-19 09:44:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/174850583
where the changeset comment is: 
Remove vandalism
Sammyhawkrad (2025-11-19 11:52:36+00:00): Hi Lygence, welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing to the map in Ghana. Note that in OSM we don't abbreviate names (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Abbreviations). So avoid editing existing names to abbreviations or adding new ones like so.
Caerandir (2025-11-23 22:09:03+00:00): Hi KöWiMM,
sind die beiden Bänke, die Du hier eingezeichnet hast, tatsächlich im Gelände? Und ist dieser Pfad irgendwie ausgeschildert? Ich erinnere mich an eine Diskussion zwischen VVS und Naturschutzbehörde - die Ostseite vom Bachtal ist aktuell nicht im Wegeplan freigegeben, aber der VVS meinte sowas wie: "Wenn Ihr das so macht, dann habt Ihr ganz Rommersdorf am Hals, die lassen sich diesen Weg nicht nehmen". Wie sieht es denn im Feld aus?
Viele Grüße
Hauke
KöWiMM (2025-11-23 23:04:04+00:00): Hallo Hauke,
die Bänke sind nicht neu, ich habe nur ihre Position korrigiert. Sie stehen auf einem Plateau oberhalb des Baches. Ich habe einen zusätzlichen Pfad über das Plateau an den Bänken vorbei gezeichnet. Ein paar Meter östlich dieses neu eingezeichneten Pfades verläuft parallel ein Pfad in einer Senke talwärts. Der ist momentan in einem schlechten Zustand. Deshalb werden Wanderer eher über das Plateau spazieren, wo man bei schönem Wetter sicher gern auf den Bänken rastet.
Es gibt noch mehr VVS-Bänke, die an nicht ausgewiesenen Wegen/Pfaden stehen. Ich werde das Thema mal beim VVS ansprechen.
Gruß zurück,
Martin
Rogoyski (2025-11-19 17:44:24+00:00): addr:housename powinno się używać tylko, jeśli nazwa budynku jest częścią adresu, a więc jeśli pisząc list umieścilibyśmy tę nazwę w napisanym na kopercie adresie. I to w Polsce (właściwie) nie występuje.
Sylabowy Kot (2025-11-21 09:41:29+00:00): Nie rozumiałem właśnie tej reguły. Czyli większość przypadków użycia tego tagu można w zasadzie ponaprawiać. 

Poprawiłem po sobie w ramach https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174940382
Rogoyski (2025-11-21 15:53:13+00:00): Dzięki. I tak, ja od dość dawna kasuję takie użycia, jak natrafię. Głównie autorstwa @syntex sprzed już kilku lat ;)
eggie (2025-11-19 09:59:15+00:00): Dag vanmelle. Ixs dit werkelijk een eenrichtingsverkeersweg en is er geen uitzondering van tweewielers?
Meestal is dat zo
oneway:bicycle=no en evt ook voor moped en mofa?
Doorsteek bij het Stokske.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-11-19 10:02:07+00:00): Ik denk dat de wegklasse highway=track 'moet 'zijn met tracktype=grade5
Is dit echt oneway=yes???
eggie (2025-11-19 10:05:41+00:00): Als bovenstaand voorlopig aangepast. Laat maar weten of dat klopt. 
oneway verwijderd
MVG
eggie
vanmelle (2025-11-19 10:22:56+00:00): Ja, je aanpassingen zijn volgens mij correct. 
Het is inderdaad geen eenrichtingsverkeer, maar ik dacht dat ik daar niks aan gewijzigd had.
eggie (2025-11-19 10:25:36+00:00): Nog een tip  Fietspad Lissabon heb je nu als unpaved getagd. Dat is vrij algemeen. Specifiek is beter. Vaak zijn die parallelstroken aangestampt klei/zand 
Dan compacted gebruiken.
Of soms ook fijn gruis..  Dan fine_gravel gebruiken. Dan zal het fietspad ook beter routeren.
eggie (2025-11-19 10:27:16+00:00): Yepp :)

Hier je wijzigingen https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174850484#map=16/51.57436/5.20389&layers=N

Klik op een gekleurde lijn dan zie je wat je hebt aangepast.
eggie (2025-11-19 10:28:48+00:00): aanvulling.. En als het los zand is dan natuurlijk surface=sand
eggie (2025-11-19 09:56:01+00:00): Dag vanmelle

Ik heb construction = house toegevoegd

MVG
eggie
mona_magdy (2025-11-20 09:19:24+00:00): Hello, mkarau;
Thank you for contributing to improving OSM maps in the UAE. We understand that you make adjustments based on local knowledge, and we do not change those adjustments, but we fix errors. For example, on this road (way 509050842), it is incorrect for the road to be unconnected to a road network, even if it is under construction. It should be connected to a road network, and you are making it unconnected with this adjustment you made. However, there are other solutions you can implement if this road is no longer operational. You can change its status to `highway=construction` as explained on the Wikipage for roads under construction (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=construction).
If there is a barrier in this part of the road (24.5293531, 54.4189452), you can place it according to its correct type (block, gate, etc.) as explained on the Wikipage for barriers (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier). However, the road must also be connected to a road network so that it is not floating. Since it is also incorrect to place a barrier sign at the beginning or end of a road without connecting it to a road network, as I have done here. (node ​​13114224746
node 13179773957). Another solution is that if the route is no longer in use, you can use the `disused highway` tag (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway). In all these cases, the route must be connected to a road network to avoid any issues on the OSM Map server.
Regards
mona_magdy
mkarau (2025-11-20 12:16:55+00:00): Someone reverted a change and placed a road that criss-crossed the newly opened roads. I'm tired of hearing this same conversation about "how to edit". Blindly reverting change sets without regard for the outcome is worse than leaving certain elements in a limbo state. Humans and companies use these maps for navigation, so edits that leave messy and incorrect road layouts is a cardinal sin of OSM.
mona_magdy (2025-11-23 12:35:30+00:00): Hello mkarau,
I understand your point of view, but I would like to clarify that anyone making modifications to the OSM maps, whether local or non-local, is expected to follow the OSM policy, as I explained in detail in my previous reply. We hope you understand this, and thanks again.
Regards,
mona_magdy
balint36 (2025-12-31 00:04:11+00:00): Inkább érdemes lenne megvárni, amíg alakot ült az új vágányképlet, mert ami most fel lett rajzolva, az torz, és semmi köze nincs a végső állapothoz.
Balázs Szulovszky (2026-01-03 22:44:25+00:00): Amit már most is lehet tudni, azaz hogy a jelenlegi vágányokhoz képest melyik oldalon helyezkednek majd el az új vágányok, azt vittem fel a térképre. Igen, ez képlékeny, főként mert a jelenlegi vágányok is fel lesznek szedve idővel, amint a 3. vágány elkészül. A Bartók Béla úti híd esetében nagyjából lehet tudni már most is, hogy hol fog elhelyezkedni, a híd fizikailag ott van, csak még nincs a helyére tolva. Abból már lehet következtetni a leendő vágányok helyeire is. Nádorkert esetében pedig még kérdéses, hogy a vágányok illetve a peron milyen végleges elhelyezkedést fog kapni, így ahhoz nem is nyúltam. Az épülő új vágány valószínűleg távolabb lesz a jelenlegi kettőtől, amit abból is sejteni lehet, hogy az új beton fal egészen közel van a közút korlátjához.
Sammyhawkrad (2025-11-19 12:01:48+00:00): Hi Lygence, you deleted 2 bus stops here. Please avoid deleting objects with which you may lack an understanding.
user_5359 (2025-11-22 08:41:40+00:00): Hello! What is the mean of the key wof:id = 1813706845?
arjunaraoc (2025-11-22 13:17:30+00:00): It refers to who's on first id. https://whosonfirst.org/ I experimented with it, as it is a stable and maintained ID, but stopped, as the district, Sub-district is not reflecting the current status.
user_5359 (2025-11-22 13:32:12+00:00): In that case, shouldn't it have been ref:wof? 
I also suspect that Wof's licence is not being complied with: https://whosonfirst.org/docs/licenses/ (directly in the first sentence). In this case, I would not recommend documenting the key in the wiki, but rather deleting it directly.
arjunaraoc (2025-11-22 15:26:30+00:00): I thought Wof follows CC-BY license as mentioned in the blog https://whosonfirst.org/blog/2023/06/19/introducting-karmashapes/ . Probably I got the tag suggestion from AI. I will clean up the tag in 3-4 days.
arjunaraoc (2025-11-26 05:59:32+00:00): I have cleaned up.
coatix (2025-12-28 11:50:26+00:00): Hi :) Bitte osm.wiki/Lifecycle_prefix verwenden statt die Node komplett zu löschen.
TrickyFoxy (2025-12-15 15:08:00+00:00): 👋 В правом меню редактора есть кнопка «Настройки фонового изображения». Выберите там спутниковые снимки ESRI — они свежее
rarad74 (2025-11-20 18:34:00+00:00): Salut. Ai sters o parte dintr-=un multipoligon si a disparut tot ce era randat ca poligon intre Bacau si Adjud de-a lungul DN2. Te rog sa corectezi deoarece este dificil de redesenat. Alfel va merge doar cu revert total la changeset-ul tau.
rarad74 (2025-11-20 19:16:10+00:00): Am rezolvat intre timp. Erau intersectate way-urile de la doi membri ale aceleiasi relatii.
AlexTopoRO (2025-11-21 08:24:43+00:00): Salut, imi cer scuze! voi avea mai multa grija!
AndyB_66 (2025-11-21 19:33:56+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
NeisBot (2025-11-19 11:39:11+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.

In total, I detected 7 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
- https://osm.org/way/475904914 | crossings=5

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=174852437
NeisRevert (2025-11-23 14:16:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/175028017
where the comment is: "Reverting unintended geometry change"
GrabSG_zack (2026-01-09 10:37:07+00:00): Hey Ken, like to consult with you regarding the Node ERP (239906598) changes. Are two ERP gates recommended to be placed on ways rather than at a junction?
kenken234 (2026-01-17 10:54:22+00:00): Hi, is there a specific node u are referring to? Just checked my email and noticed this comment so apologies for a delayed response.
Also took a look on OSMwiki and realised that the ERP has been mistagged as there is no physical barrier and traffic is free-flowing. Hence, "highway=toll_gantry" should've been used instead of "barrier=toll_booth"