piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
bxl-forever (2026-02-15 23:49:49+00:00): ## REVERTED CHANGESET

Hello, sigurpol.
I wish there was a nicer way of welcoming you to OSM.

Adding information is welcome but please do not add the same information *multiple times*.

You added a judo club in Brussels yesterday… and added a second identical copy this morning, which we had to delete.

Same for the Aquabikeenergy place: you added it earlier today, along with a note, which we answered.  The place was correctly added on the map.  There is no need to add it a second time, 2.5 meters south of the existing one.  I have just deleted this second copy.

I see you use the "Organic Maps" app.  You may want to know that Organic Maps does not read *live* data from OpenStreetMap but shows you a local copy, which you can update once in a while (I thinks it’s currently about once a month.)  If you do not immediately see your point on Organic Maps, this is normal.  But it was correctly added to the OSM database and is visible for everyone.  There is no need to add the same points 2, 3 or 4 times.

Thanks in advance.
sigurpol (2026-02-16 09:01:51+00:00): Hey, thanks for letting me know. I will pay more attention in the feature - I have only added both the info only once via Organic Maps indeed. I think the issue might have been that yesterday I switched to the beta version of Organic Maps on iOS (so from App store version to Test flight) - which also comes with an updated on OSM DB - and I suspect it might have automatically re-pushed my changes. 
That said, thanks for letting me know, I'll pay more attention in the future.
Thanks, have a good day
gscholz (2026-02-16 08:25:04+00:00): Hi Giopogib,
this changeset has has left behind a broken landuse relation:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=9.99280&lat=45.59498&zoom=15&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2541512/history#map=16/45.59053/9.98751

Can you please fix this?

I strongly recommend to use JOSM for editing relations. It has an internal validator to prevent uploading such errors:

osm.wiki/JOSM/Validator

Additionally you seem to misuse relations as collections. Please stop doing this, relations are not collections. 
 
Kind regards
Guido
NeisBot (2026-02-15 13:12:44+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/7797547106 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Cukráreň"
---
Napríklad, oveľa neutrálnejšia a faktickejšia verzia tvojho textu by mohla znieť: "Cukráreň"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
PeterMokos (2026-02-15 13:35:25+00:00): Už som to zmenil. Použil som slovo "Cukráreň". Ďakujem.
Bienson (2026-02-15 23:04:32+00:00): 0 von 2 Tags korrekt.
FriedhöfeDortmund_68654 (2026-02-16 06:11:22+00:00): Wegeart zurückgesetzt. Wo liegt das zweite Problem? VG
Bienson (2026-02-16 21:07:56+00:00): Ich wiederhole:

"Wahrscheinlich wird es gar keinen Namen geben.
Stattdessen wäre ref=LB-025 korrekt"

Und der natural="osm.wiki/DE:Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area" Tag ist ja wohl ein Witz.
FriedhöfeDortmund_68654 (2026-02-17 05:45:16+00:00): Was muss jetzt geändert werden? Ich kann deine sehr knappen Rückmeldungen teils schwer nachvollziehen.
VG
Bienson (2026-02-18 03:49:58+00:00): Also - du willst den Umfang des Baumes mit 3,4 Metern angeben, nutzt dafür "circumference=340 cm".
Daraufhin verlinke ich https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:circumference?uselang=de, wo erklärt wird, dass der Umfang für dieses Tag in Metern angegeben wird, ohne Einheit.
Klar verdeutlich durch das Beispiel in dem Artikel - "circumference=2.3 beschreibt Stamm mit einem Umfang von 2,3 Metern".
Anstatt dies zu korrigieren, änderst du es auf "circumference=230 cm"? Als ob das Beispiel aus dem Artikel auf einmal auf diesen Baum bezogen wurde und der Fehler läge an der Umfangslänge? Die falsche Einheit behältst du trotzdem bei.

Zu dem "Geschützten Landschaftsbestandteil" schreibe ich, dass es wohl keinen Namen gibt, die Referenzbezeichnung "LB-025" aber mit dem ref-Tag als "ref=LB-025" eingetragen werden könnte.
Daraufhin trägst du "name=LB-025" ein.
Ich weise darauf hin, dass leisure=nature_reserve dafür nicht korrekt ist, sondern boundary=protected_area. Anstatt es zu boundary=protected_area zu ändern, änderst du es zu "natural=osm.wiki/DE:Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area"???
Ich glaube, ich habe alles sehr klar dargestellt.
FriedhöfeDortmund_68654 (2026-02-18 07:45:18+00:00): Vielen Dank für deine Infos. Ich hoffe ich habe nun alles richtig korrigiert. Sorry! VG
Bienson (2026-02-15 23:01:23+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:circumference?uselang=de

Beispiel
circumference=2.3 beschreibt Stamm mit einem Umfang von 2,3 Metern
Langlaeufer (2026-02-16 08:23:29+00:00): Ach du hattest den Spierenweg zum Fußweg gemacht? Das ist doch eine richtige Straße - mit Bürgersteig, Verkehrsschildern, Name - allerdings nur mit Einfahrt über den Bordstein.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178581889
ChehrehBargi (2026-06-24 07:04:54+00:00): Hello, you have changed the city marker to another location. The previous location selection has a historical reason and since ancient times, the zero point of Ardabil was Tazeh Meydan. If you have made this change to display region 5, the city will be displayed in layer 4 and the regions in another layer and will not interfere with each other.
Dodko (2026-02-17 21:21:06+00:00): Adresa je už v budove nedáva sa duplicitne do POI.
Frans S (2026-02-21 16:52:35+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping
You mapped a few turning paths to dwellings as residential highway.

Residential is used within a village and more. Here, the tracks are not wide enough to be considered a road. A path is a better tag.
Best regards
literan (2026-02-16 19:09:02+00:00): название СНТ обычно заключается в кавычки
Ozon OSM15 (2026-02-17 06:22:25+00:00): Здравствуйте. Поняла. Исправила ошибку. Спасибо за замечание
Monchinho (2026-02-15 15:24:48+00:00): Ola. Estás facendo as fincas das casas como edificios. É mellor facer os edificios independentes. O terreo dos arredores non son casas, aínda que formen parte das fincas.

Saúdos.
ChehrehBargi (2026-02-16 08:19:21+00:00): Hi @masoudghorbany
You have made changes to the title tag in changesets 176470842, 178569111 and 178584414 that do not comply with OSM rules. Your changes have been corrected in changesets 178167729, 178576958 and 178616246, but you have broken it again. Please stop doing this and read the rules and register correctly.
eggie (2026-02-15 14:43:12+00:00): Dag Menoo,

Probeer op de adresnodes bij te taggen. 
Ik heb de info samengevoegd.

MVG
eggie
valaise (2026-06-29 23:25:36+00:00): Hi jtracey, do you have clear source information for bicycles not being allowed on the tunnel sections of East New York Avenue?

From a physical survey there are no signs prohibiting bicycles on those sections, while the overpass sections of Atlantic Avenue do have signs.
jtracey (2026-07-03 02:36:46+00:00): DOT biking handouts say "bicycles prohibited on center roadways" near "Broadway Junction" (but they really mean this intersection). That's not law though, if you think it's incorrect feel free to change it.
Pieter Vander Vennet (2026-05-08 13:24:57+00:00): Hey,

Zou https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/145245264/history#map=16/51.10052/4.03299 niet beter een footway zijn? Ziet er me op luchtfoto's niet echt een "land access road" uit
b-jazz (2026-02-18 23:43:34+00:00): Is there isn't a clear difference between fairway grass and "rough" grass, it's probably best to just not draw in a rough and let people and software assume anything outside of the fairway should be considered "rough". Drawing an arbitrary area just makes for unnecessary confusion and work. Thanks.
vng_me (2026-02-16 11:13:45+00:00): Coastlines are broken here.
swinetown (2026-02-18 14:12:03+00:00): Hey Ryan, 

Just as an FYI I have changed area:highway=pedestrian back to area=yes and highway=pedestrian as per the wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway?uselang=en-GB#Differentiation_area:highway_vs._area=yes_on_a_highway) this is the preferred method for tagging routable pedestrian areas. Cheers.
RyanBush (2026-02-18 19:59:27+00:00): Hey,

Thanks for doing this, I was meant to exclude it from my script but forgot. 

Ryan
ItaliA1delSole (2026-02-15 15:07:19+00:00): PS, la variante della SS87 (SS87var), sta nella provincia di Campobasso, non Benevento
Warin61 (2026-02-16 22:13:49+00:00): You are making problems! 

Relation: 3019792 Not closed.

Way 227239058 is empty. 

Please FIX your own errors?
ralley (2026-02-17 23:43:21+00:00): Additionally you are using the same changeset comment on every change, please use descriptive changeset comments: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
felipeeugenio (2026-02-15 15:31:10+00:00): Hola. Hay caminos que se ven muy bien en el satélite. A qué te refieres con que no existen?

Los otros, si bien no se ven bien, tienen trazas strava. Quizás hay que usar trail_visibility (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility).

Por favor aclarar

gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178586394
felipeeugenio (2026-02-15 15:32:00+00:00): Algunos de los senderos borrados los agregó usted mismo hace unos días.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178586394
curt1us (2026-02-15 15:42:26+00:00): I was in the area - trails in this area were fenced off even though they're indeed visible on satellite. E.g. from visitor center northwards, giving the impression that the park authorities want visitors to take official path/hard track instead of unmarked trails in this area (as is the official rule) I admit I made one mistake on a path southwards from main track, which after local inspection turns out to be inaccessible. I found the same to be true for the trail along Rio Paine, parallel to Circuito O: trail is visible on satellite and partly accessible, but then suddenly fenced off. It's very confusing -- someone should do an in depth survey (although it'll be difficult in this area). I think policies and maintained tracks must have changed so satellite imagery is confusing.
felipeeugenio (2026-02-15 15:53:27+00:00): Ok. Thanks for the response. 
But there is an issue: if the path exist on terrain, someone with eventually draw it. If they are fenced off, you should add a barrier and add an access tag on the barrier itself, along with the segment of road that is inaccessible. 
Or at least use the disused: tag.

Now that you are there please proceed like that, because donde will add them back, regardless of our conversation. 

If you don't have access to mapping please leave notes with the fences or the points where pedestrians are not allowed to cross for me or someone else to solve them.

Regards
jptolosa (2026-02-15 19:00:33+00:00): Hello curt1us, OSM does not intented to be an "official map". If the path exists or if people walk repeatedly in the same place, then the path should be mapped, perhaps together with tag informal=yes. To identify the official trail we use the route=hiking relations.
Regards.
curt1us (2026-02-15 19:12:17+00:00): I get it - I know the philosophy but it's obviously a grey area. Is a closed path an informal path or a path with no access, or simply no longer a trail? I made these changes with my best judgment. There were mistakes on the map + a couple of areas were (probably recently) fenced off. I don't know the extent of the fences as I didn't walk along the perimeter of the entire fence. So this is observation + best judgement of what is a tricky area. I think the map of this area has improved through my edits but feel free to improve according to your own insights.
jptolosa (2026-02-15 19:39:12+00:00): In the satellite imagery is clearly visible a path, then the path exists. Also the Strava traces show the path is used repeatedly. If does not exist a legal autorization to use the path you can add the respective tag or other tags depend of the condition, but you can not delete if the path physically exist.
Frans S (2026-02-21 16:59:18+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project.
Please do not tag waterway as a path.
the waterway here, a stream, can be identified by the fact that many stones are visible as a trace where a stream flows.
Best regards
MassCartog (2026-02-16 14:21:50+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM. Wanted to let you know on OSM it is not a valid reason to remove features just because they are private. Please use access tags instead. The only reason something should be removed is it no longer exists on the ground. Another user has reverted your changes. Feel free to add a gate, and tag as access=private if thats the case on the ground.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property
Norbert Dichter (2026-02-15 16:46:49+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/178587590
marcmarti (2026-02-16 10:50:36+00:00): Hole jejo mo,

Recorda que les relacions de rutes han d'anar ordenades (primer parades i després recorregut, t'has deixat algunes rutes amb la parada a baix de tot, lo que invalida la ruta. Consulta-ho aquí: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=2.16201&lat=41.40140&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik Standard&overlays=ptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes
tordans (2026-02-21 08:20:21+00:00): Hier haben ein paar Geometrien "orientation=l" als Tippfehler im Value. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1478848545/history

Du hast das bestimmt schneller gefixt als ich … :)
fmc_5 (2026-02-22 17:12:10+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Ich habe es gerade berichtigt.
puma515 (2026-02-16 20:03:03+00:00): „Hallo und willkommen bei OpenStreetMap!
Da du Überprüfung erwünscht angeklickt hast, habe ich mir die Änderung einmal genauer angesehen. Anhand der Informationen und der verlinkten Webseite handelt es sich hier nicht um einen Park, sondern eindeutig um eine öffentlich zugängliche Obstwiese. Daher habe ich das Objekt auf das passende landuse=orchard geändert und die Park‑Tags entfernt. Den zusätzlichen Node habe ich wieder gelöscht, da es hier ausreicht, wenn alle Informationen direkt an der Fläche erfasst werden und keine doppelte Erfassung nötig ist.

Schöne Grüße
puma515
Yunkers (2026-03-13 15:01:15+00:00): A teraz ci się "Dęby nad Skawinką" zduplikowały bardzo wiele razy. Coś jest nie tak z tymi zmianami drzew które przeprowadzasz.
Yog Sot (2026-03-16 16:33:43+00:00): Szkoda, ze na discorda nie pisałes, to czysty przypadek, że patrze tak daleko w historie xD

Coś jest nie tak, czyli błąd ręcznego mergowania danych. Jak to zawsze bywa, nie zawsze się udaje jak trzeba.
pilotbulut (2026-03-03 20:13:41+00:00): Hello, my friend, there was no need to delete the edits. If you had contacted me, I could have helped. I plan to add as many details as possible to this park before the trees grow. Currently, the bike paths, pedestrian paths, and tree areas have been removed. My idea is to carefully re-add all details here to make the map more accurate, since the previous details not visible from the satellite were processed incorrectly.
NeisBot (2026-02-15 16:21:39+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 10 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/902860027 v9 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/902860028 v1 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/8385674539 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178589259
NeisReview (2026-02-24 05:34:55+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178648740
mga_geo (2026-02-16 07:02:52+00:00): Bonjour,
PTNA signale des erreurs de continuités sur ces relations : https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/results/FR/BRE/FR-BRE-Star-Analysis.html
Marc
mga_geo (2026-02-20 20:28:23+00:00): Toujours pas corrigé ?
Lyon-St-Clair (2026-02-20 23:05:09+00:00): je ne comprends pas d'où ça vient, je suis pas un expert de cet outil.
Lyon-St-Clair (2026-02-20 23:05:44+00:00): déjà que je ne comprends pas pourquoi seul le trajet du soir/dimanche est carto ici
mga_geo (2026-02-23 13:39:23+00:00): Et le tracé dans Vern n'existe pas sur les tracés Rennes / Corps-Nuds
Lyon-St-Clair (2026-02-23 17:49:50+00:00): Le GTFS est pas à jour ! Ce tracé via l'arrêt Hauts de Gaudon est bien réel et en vigueur depuis janvier 2026 : https://data.explore.star.fr/explore/dataset/mkt-information-documents-td/files/6ff1f2e3b275f8a89be5fd8b628d665c/download/ et https://data.explore.star.fr/explore/dataset/mkt-information-documents-td/files/64199445fb485bbd731a68bf0f7eea7f/download/
Lyon-St-Clair (2026-02-23 17:51:23+00:00): et j'oubliais : https://data.explore.star.fr/explore/dataset/mkt-information-documents-td/files/f8ccef982ad2fb23885f8d9893decbde/download/
mga_geo (2026-02-23 18:56:03+00:00): Sur https://data.explore.star.fr/explore/dataset/mkt-information-documents-td/files/3fb72585a433b2494fc7feeba0bfdce9/download/ on a DEUX parcours possibles :
- un Nouvoitou<=>Rennes;
- un Corps-Nuds<=>Rennes.
C'est le second qui est cartographié.
Avec les modifications, on a l'impression qu'il possible d'aller de Vern/Hauts de Gaudon à Corps-Nuds/Gare ce qui est faux.
lamms (2026-02-26 11:25:17+00:00): re: Park Street Mini Park

I walk past this park quite often when going to the shops and the bulk of the park is between Bedford and Coghlan, not Bedford and Olive.

The website seems to reflect this: it indicates that a playground is at this park and features it in its image. The playground is only on the side between Coghlan and Bedford, not Olive. So at the very least that side is part of the park.

I'm not sure what the correct solution is here, maybe combining both sides in a multipolygon? Its possible that the wording on the website is erroneous, but the land on the side of Bedford/Olive is relatively "park like" enough (nice grass and a shaded bench) that its probably considered a part of Park Street Mini Park.
vectorial8192 (2026-02-15 16:32:48+00:00): Note:

I tried to update the bus relations where reasonable, but it turns out some bus relations are just plain broken and should probably be reviewed by some public transport mappers.
eggie (2026-02-15 19:29:29+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  .. Wanneer dit geen officiële namen zijn kun je beter loc_name gebruiken.

MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
NeisBot (2026-02-15 16:36:39+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 18 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1227298073 v4 | 10 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1244805289 v2 | 8 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178590011
NeisReview (2026-02-24 05:34:55+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178617435
limes11 (2026-02-15 22:46:50+00:00): Hallo computerfarmer, 

bitte nicht. Das sind die Bezeichnungen der Flure/Gewanne, diese sollten getrennt vom landuse-Objekt erfasst werden. Ihre exakte Lage unterscheidet sich.

Beste Grüße
limes11 (2026-02-21 12:57:14+00:00): Habe ich revertiert, da keine Antwort kam
grzegorz75jan (2026-04-17 17:23:27+00:00): To przy okazji trzeba zamykać rozwiązane uwagi na mapie.
gscholz (2026-02-16 08:21:40+00:00): Hi Lola Fox,
here comes an other broken landuse relation:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=12.05696&lat=44.44667&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20194832/history#map=13/44.46001/12.04196

I strongly recommend to use JOSM for editing relations. It has an internal validator to prevent uploading such errors:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Validator

Additionally you still seem to misuse relations as collections. Please stop doing this.
Kind regards
Guido
Lola Fox (2026-02-17 19:11:34+00:00): Does it seem to misuse relations as collections? What does it means? I didn't made any misuse. Please verify better before write. Broken landuse is corrected.
gscholz (2026-02-20 07:26:06+00:00): Hi Lola,
thanks for your feedback. the wiki shows how to implement this kind of multipolygons:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

What you are doing here and elsewhere it to assemble several relations in one single collection.  You can see this clearly from the outside here as there is a part top left outside of the "relation":

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20194832/history#map=13/44.46001/12.04196

Zoomed in it looks like this:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20194832/history#map=17/44.487153/12.030609

There are more assembled part more south but not so easy to see. An other indicator is the fact that there is one way twice in this collection:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1479642507/history#map=19/44.462764/12.047823

This way 1479642507 must be part of two separate relations. JOSM  can show a list of the relation items and the sequence of their connection. And this sequence has an error as well. I cannot show this here as there is no possibility to add a screenshot.

Your working style to assemble several relation together in one collection is also the reason why you stumble upon your own feet and tend to make broken relations. Please adjust your editing style, it prevents errors and eases maintainability.
Guido