piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
bxl-forever (2026-02-16 21:33:16+00:00): Hello,

The pond you added (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1479411181) is visible on UrbIS imagery, but this imagery was shot in September 2024.  On earlier versions of UrbIS, a small water body is visible here but looks more like a hole filled with water, connected to the construction site.

If I open Digitaal Vlaanderen preliminary aerial imagery, which was taken in the summer of 2025, the pond is not there anymore.

Did you survey this area recently?  Did they really make a new pond here?
NeisBot (2026-02-16 21:03:43+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13571009809 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 05:35:22+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179018852
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
Rainero (2026-03-15 11:08:02+00:00): Revert mit changeset/179892204
(unzulässige Quelle)
NeisBot (2026-02-16 21:06:43+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13520460035 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 05:35:22+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179018853
(No visible changes after review)
MarinoBM (2026-03-02 11:24:24+00:00): Hola Carlos Jaraute, gracias por tus contribuciones a OpenStreetMap.
Las relaciones multipolígono del centro de salud y del polideportivo ni son necesarias ni están correctamente realizadas. Así se mapean las relaciones multipolígono
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Relation:multipolygon
Para encontrar las incorrectas
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-1.51289&lat=41.82841&zoom=15&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=1.00&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
Trata de corregirlas y si tienes dudas puedes consultarlas en el grupo de Telegram de OSM España
https://t.me/OSMes

Saludos.
NeisBot (2026-02-16 21:15:43+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/1057608314 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Irish public house"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 05:35:23+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179018854
(No visible changes after review)
dev_wi (2026-02-16 21:20:20+00:00): 2026-02-16* (today)
lf22music (2026-03-31 16:32:17+00:00):  Użytkownik ciągle dodaje jakieś tory i starotorza, których nie ma na mapie. Pomimo tego, że je usuwam, nadal pojawiają się ponownie — często w miejscach, gdzie stoją już budynki, są wytyczone ulice i nie ma nawet śladu, że kiedykolwiek istniała tam linia kolejowa.
grzegorz75jan (2026-03-31 18:41:46+00:00): Pewnie jakiś zakochany na zabój w kolei. Miejsce na takie rzeczy to raczej na open historical map.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-05-31 21:53:17+00:00): > często w miejscach, gdzie stoją już budynki, są wytyczone ulice i nie ma nawet śladu, że kiedykolwiek istniała tam linia kolejowa.

są w tym momencie jakieś takie buble które nie są wycofane?
NeisBot (2026-02-16 21:30:42+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/13525094347 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 05:35:23+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179018855
(No visible changes after review)
NeisBot (2026-02-16 21:33:42+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/13520211443 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 05:35:24+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179018856
(No visible changes after review)
bxl-forever (2026-02-16 21:49:24+00:00): Hello,

Many of those trees are small sheds at the back of gardens.  As you can see, they are aligned with houses on Rue Franklin/Franklinstraat.

We have a full up-to-date inventory of buildings in the Brussels Region, therefore there is no need to cast doubt on their existence just because you cannot see them on imagery.  They are clearly visible on 2015 imagery (which was taken during the winter), we can also see most of them on 2021 and 2023 imagery too.
HillWithSmallFields (2026-02-17 10:47:43+00:00): Thanks --- I thought they might be something that had been demolished, and that the urbis data might indicate such a status.
❤️‍🔥 (2026-03-29 05:58:08+00:00): hi, if it's reopened, should we also remove the note=* tag that says 'Closed due to flood damage' ? it's a bit confusing at the moment
mueschel (2026-02-25 11:20:14+00:00): Hi,
what is a "toilets:sharp_disposal"? This tag isn't used in any place
RJ Lerng (2026-02-27 09:08:51+00:00): The National Public Toilet Map https://toiletmap.gov.au/ maintained by the Australian Government uses this  and some other information. It currently directs users through Google Map which is full of errors. Hopefully, it may consider using OSM one day when we have enough information for street search and to provide directions.
mueschel (2026-02-27 11:35:01+00:00): If it's not clear what the meaning of "sharp_disposal" is, then I say it shouldn't be imported into OSM at all.
RJ Lerng (2026-02-28 08:10:58+00:00): OK, I will delete the tag from the node. Thanks for your input! RJ
nevw (2026-02-16 23:13:31+00:00): I relocated this to the stated address from the roadway
Frans S (2026-02-23 11:34:18+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
when a  road you mapped crosses a waterway, you have to add a tag to describe the crossing. Here you can clearly see multiple bridges. So they have to be mapped/tagged as a bridge
AngelB (2026-02-23 20:42:59+00:00): Thanks
cartomatto (2026-02-18 10:55:11+00:00): Attento che ti perdi degli inner della relation.
Ho messo a posto io.
robertoq (2026-02-18 16:23:57+00:00): ok grazie, mi puoi spiegare meglio che cosa hai sistemato che dall'history hovisto che ha spostato il tag dall'outer alla relazione? le "nuove" indicazioni sui tag nei multipoligoni così come sono spiegate nel wiki non mi sembrano chiarissime e spesso il validator di josm sembra che vada in contraddizione con le direttive. grazie ciao
cartomatto (2026-02-20 10:30:41+00:00): a proposito degli inner della relation, ti eri perso due radure vicino al monte di maggio.

per i tag spostati, vedi https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178720359
NeisBot (2026-02-16 23:00:42+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/13520420583 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 05:35:24+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179018857
(No visible changes after review)
literan (2026-02-17 19:07:24+00:00): нуну... судя по сайту, обувь там не продают

под рендер мапить не стоит, надо менять рендер!
HaritaDuzenlemeHesabi (2026-02-17 00:10:10+00:00): Düzeltme: source= etiketine yanlışlıkla local knowledge ibaresini eklemişim. Düzenlemeyi yerel bilgiye göre değil hava fotoğraflarına göre yaptım.
dknelson9876 (2026-02-17 04:21:15+00:00): Hello mew1033,

Welcome to OSM, and mapping in Utah! We're happy to have you. Thanks for drawing in this new street. For future reference, if you're from around here you probably noticed how the names on all the streets around here don't look quite like what the signs say. The common way the OSM handles addresses and street names doesn't quite fit how they are in Utah, so we have a wiki page explaining how we as a local community have decided to handle this:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Utah/Naming_Conventions

The relevant part for this case is that instead of adding name="North 3670 West", you would add name="3670 West" + name:prefix="North" + name:full="North 3670 West". I realize that this doesn't match most of the streets in this neighborhood, Utah County just hasn't received as much effort to match these conventions yet. 

Feel free to ask any questions you have!
mew1033 (2026-02-17 04:36:23+00:00): Thank you! I'm excited to get started mapping, it seems like such a neat thing.
If you're up for answering questions, I have a few more!
1. Does information ever get automatically imported from places like ESRI? I was looking at the map here: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html and it shows all the streets, plus most of the houses. I'd hate to redo all that work if it's just going to get auto imported.
2. This area is still under construction and not all the houses are built yet. Is it worth mapping the area, or is it better to wait until the houses are all finished?
3. I have a drone that I enjoy flying, could I get some better aerial footage of the area to either submit to something or to help with mapping?

Thank you!
dknelson9876 (2026-02-17 05:01:20+00:00): 1. Automatic imports are far and few between these days. OSM prides itself on being human powered and reviewed, so automatic imports are allowed, but must meet several requirements, including community approval. For more info on this, check out https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import .

In Utah we have a license waiver to use data from the Utah Geospatial Resource Center, which provides us a lot of useful data. You just have to manually review each piece of data before adding it. For more on that check out https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Utah#Data_Sources

2. Totally up to you! If you're in a situation where you can survey it regularly, then adding buildings one at a time as they are finished is fine. Or giving it time to finish and then mapping it in one go is fine too. Most places don't get mapped until some mapper happens to scroll past and notices something has changed.

3. Yep, there's definitely opportunities for that (and it's something I'm interested in doing myself, though I'm being slow to get to it). To kick off learning more about that, check out https://www.opendronemap.org/ and https://openaerialmap.org/ and this video from State of the Map US (an OSM conference) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR-cpLep7D0

And finally, to connect with other local mappers, join the OSMUS Slack and look for the #local-utah channel https://slack.openstreetmap.us/
NeisBot (2026-02-17 02:18:39+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 23 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1479469050 v1 | 11 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1479469048 v1 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1479469047 v1 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/6938070161 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178655610
SafwatHalaby (2026-02-19 21:55:11+00:00): Hello, as I mentioned elsewhere, please try avoiding descriptive names. "Ancient jar" is not really the name of the object. You can write that in the description tag, or use appropriate tags if there are any.
Alliegaytor (2026-02-17 02:52:27+00:00): Hi Gpapaniko,
Thanks for contributing to OpenStreetMap.

You may want to check the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name wiki for guidance. The name key should not be used to describe things (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_use_name_tag_to_describe_things) and should be the actual name of a given feature.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building=house is an appropriate tag to use for a house.

Happy mapping!
Jean Mullin (2026-02-17 03:21:26+00:00): Source for Bighead River start: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4906947#P625
KennyDap (2026-02-17 07:24:03+00:00): There are specific rules for mapping. If everything is as you describe, then the best solution is to mark the location of the barbed wire. And also the location of the cliff. The purpose of cartography is to record the actual state of affairs, not to remove existing trails.

I and others would be grateful if you could mark on the map the location of the barbed wire fence and the cliff.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178663515
Udarian (2026-02-17 03:43:13+00:00): next time please leave a changeset comment describing what you did in the changeset, for more info see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments 

Happy mapping,
Udar
tobych (2026-02-17 05:50:32+00:00): Hi, I always do, but there's a bug in JOSM that occasionally prevents me from typing into any boxes. When that happens, I do the simple thing and just commit with an empty message.
NeisBot (2026-02-17 04:09:39+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 16 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1079737732 v3 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1079737743 v3 | 3 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1079737742 v5 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/6010966223 v7
https://osm.org/node/9897255741 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178657459
NeisReview (2026-02-25 05:35:31+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178676101
Norbert Dichter (2026-02-17 11:26:51+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/178657469
Frans S (2026-02-20 11:36:11+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
You overlooked quite many buildings.
Please don't call a task as complete mapped when there are still buildings to be mapped.
There is hardly a shadow that can help to identify if an object is a building. Dark brown or gray/white rectangular objects with a rusted corrugated metal roof, with a light stripe in the middle of the ridge.
Also rectangular white or blue objects showing a ridge can be mapped as well.
Best regards and keep mapping.

p.s. Sometimes it is usefull to toggle between Mapbox and back to Bing for mapping, to see what is what.
melody_Tej (2026-02-20 15:10:08+00:00): Hi Frans S, 

Thank you for your valuable feedback. I initially considered them as temporary features. I will carefully follow the instructions you have provided and revise the task accordingly. I’ll also make sure I follow your guideline on my upcoming edits in this project.
Mashin (2026-02-17 10:03:46+00:00): Hi,
here again does not seem to be any gate or no trespassing sign present.
cheers
NEIL2 (2026-02-18 03:23:46+00:00): Hi Mashin, 
Thanks for the note. I want to clarify one point: OSM does not require a gate or a “No Trespassing” sign for access=private. The wiki explicitly states that legal restriction alone is sufficient.

In Connecticut, condo/HOA roads posted as “Private Road” are private ways with no public right of access. Public use is not affirmatively allowed, so access=permissive would not be accurate here.

ownership=private records ownership, but does not describe access rights. In this case, access is restricted, which is what access=private is intended to capture.
Vas111 (2026-02-18 21:42:56+00:00): This is not needed. Why did you create separate relations simply for different platforms? The Milngavie-Edinburgh and Milngavie-Springburn services already exist, please don't duplicate it. Also, if you want to add more services, please add them to the already existing route master: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6399061
ClarSco (2026-02-19 00:51:12+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Service_routes: "The list of stops and platforms is followed by an ordered list of the ways which are used by the vehicle from the starting station to the terminal station. Each direction of the route must have its own relation; no forks are permitted. If there are multiple different routes from the starting station to the terminal station, each variant must have its own relation." Adding all platforms that a service could stop at would necesarilly require a fork to be created, which is disallowed under PTv2. Simply adding the plaform ways and/or stop_position nodes would similarly violate this constraint (as they would not be accessible from the route way).

Also, is "North Clyde Line" really an apporiate ref or top-level route_master relation for service routes? Would seem to me to be more applicable to the physical railway infrastructure. 

PTv2 would suggest that route_masters should be used to group routes that start and stop at the same terminus, or maybe routes that stop part-way towards one or other terminus.
Vas111 (2026-02-19 08:20:00+00:00): I can understand the route master argument. I used it because 1. it already existed, 2. these routes use the same trunk line through the city centre, so the North Clyde line or Argyle line. I can also understand adding different stopping patterns. But what I don't get is adding all different platform variations as separate routes; in this case you would have possibly more than 20 route relations for the London-Birmingham service as both stations have many platforms and the trains servicing the route can use most of them. So I don't think the wiki covers the case for multiple platform usage as it would very quickly bloat the OSM database with data that isn't useful, as train services usually only use the one or two platforms assigned to them, and passengers should rely on station screens, not on OSM
ClarSco (2026-02-19 18:12:31+00:00): "these routes use the same trunk line through the city centre, so the North Clyde line or Argyle line." 

That's two trunk lines. If we're grouping by trunk line  (which I don't agree with, but will adjust to if that's the concensus), the Argyle Line (services going via GLC Low Level) need to be under a separate ref/route_master.

However, such groupings are not really appropriate. OSM seeks to represent data as it appears on the ground. There are no references to the Argyle Line or North Clyde Line in any ScotRail's public documentation nor as signage at stations (only terminuses/terminii are publicly accessible). Argyle Line and North Electric Mainline are used by Network Rail - not ScotRail or National Rail.

Regarding routes for separate platfoms. The alternative (without creating broken relations) is that OSM wrongfully implies that a service always leaves from a particular platform. Or that the route ways within the relation need to cease at the last switch before the station in question (in the case of services departing/arriving the Western end of Edinburgh Wavery, this would the the Princes St Gardens junction. For Glasgow Central High Level, this point would be virtually impossible to determine.).
Vas111 (2026-02-19 19:08:18+00:00): Again, the last part is a limitation of OSM. You aren't meant to account for every single possible platform combination. Do as you wish
Frans S (2026-02-22 09:57:38+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Very detailed mapped. There is no need to map every small path leading to nowhere. Please focus on paths/roads connecting settlements and through going roads.
Best regards
Mashin (2026-02-17 09:58:21+00:00): Hi,
I am trying to reach out again. The road does not appear to have a gate or official 'no trespassing' sign. In this case access=permissive is appropriate.

cheers