piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
kkettinger (2026-03-08 22:18:35+00:00): Ich finde eine (halbwegs) detallierte Aufzählung schon sinnvoll, vorallem bei 24/7 Verkaufsautomaten. Benötige ich am Sonntag noch kurz Eier oder Samstag Nachmittags noch Grillwürste, kann ich speziell danach suchen. Oder z.b. frische Milch aus dem Milchautomat. Das sind ja auch Bauern und keine Einkaufsläden, die produzieren vermutlich schon seit Generationen Milch, Fleisch und Eier, das ändert sich nicht monatlich. Aber bei Dingen wie Saft oder Eis stimme ich dir zu, das würde ich dann auch eher weglassen.
george1201 (2026-03-08 22:38:48+00:00): Dann bleibt die Frage, bei welchem Schlüssel man diese Aufzählung einträgt. Im Moment stehen (unterschiedliche) Listen bei description und bei food.
DD1GJ (2026-03-07 09:56:16+00:00): Hallo iwan63,

willkommen bei OSM und danke für Deine Ortskenntnisse. Allerdings ist dieser Weg in OSM auch Bestandteil des Europäischen Fernwanderweges bzw. Ostseeküstenweges E9. Auf der Tourismusseite von MV verläuft die Rote ebenfalls über diesen problematischen Wegabschnitt.

Gibt es vor Ort eine Ausschilderung dieses Wanderwegs und wie verläuft diese?

Viele Grüße, Joachim
iwan63 (2026-03-07 10:30:14+00:00): Hallo Joachim.

es gibt einen "Weg" direkt am Strand. Der sollte wohl zum E9 gehören. Und es gibt einen schmalen Trampelpfad, der teils von stacheligen Sträuchern überwachsen ist, auf der Düne. Generell ist nach Küstenschutzgesetz das Laufen auf Dünen untersagt, eine anderweitige Beschilderung ist dort definitiv nicht. Kurz vor dem Wald Richtung Rosenort steht ein Schild bzgl. Naturschutzgebiet, was sich mMn aber auf das Moorgebiet jenseits der Düne bezieht. Ein Wanderwegschild in dem Abschnitt ist mir nicht in Erinnerung. Generell ist dieser Abschnitt eher wenig frequentiert.

Gruß
Iwan
mcliquid (2026-03-06 22:01:31+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5175313
Ltrlg (2026-03-13 19:59:31+00:00): Sur way/286823621, il manque une étiquette principale décrivant de quoi il s’agit ? De plus, en cherchant rapidement, je ne vois que des références à Beaufort pour « Festi’Bosse », êtes-vous sûr(e) de l’emplacement ?
jimlelion (2026-03-14 08:50:56+00:00): Bonjour, Oui, vous avez tout à fait raison, c'est une erreur ! Je ne sais pas comment j'ai fait ça, dsl... Je voulais taguer le terrain ou il y a les arbres pour signaler le festival de musique Festi'Bosse (j'ai mis une note sur l'endroit). Merci d'avance pour la correction. Bonne journée
Ltrlg (2026-03-14 10:06:53+00:00): J’ai essayé de faire quelque chose à partir de vos informations : way/882405730. Dites-moi si je peux encore améliorer ?
NeisBot (2026-03-06 22:06:42+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/6085440637 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-15 05:33:17+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179883786
(Restore previous tags. No changes)

If you believe this was incorrect or would like to clarify the intent of the original tags, please reply here.
CIMDigital (2026-03-16 16:53:39+00:00): this is incorrect. I can update the info if business comes back. I will change to Law office.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-17 06:32:52+00:00): Thank you for your reply here.

Your added description was not factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Feel free to add your business again.
Wilhem275 (2026-06-23 17:36:16+00:00): Ciao, come avevo specificato nel changeset precedente, le definizioni per la classificazione delle strade a scorrimento veloce sono cambiate. Il tag "primary" qui non è corretto.
Per favore riporta indietro la modifica.
Se ne discute in comunità in questo topic:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/utilizzo-del-tag-highway-trunk-in-italia/101471/154
DD1GJ (2026-03-07 08:31:58+00:00): Revert 179466141 179465969 17946083., Durch Anfänger verschobene Punkte, Konfliktauflösung
DD1GJ (2026-03-07 08:32:12+00:00): Revert 179466141 179465969 17946083., Durch Anfänger verschobene Punkte, Konfliktauflösung
eggie (2026-03-07 09:18:49+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
NeisBot (2026-03-06 22:30:43+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/13623193749 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-15 05:33:18+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/179466815
vbrabandt (2026-03-06 22:40:01+00:00): I need to actually walk there to confirm this

Last time I walked past they already removed the signs already
miluethi (2026-03-06 22:36:26+00:00): Sorry guys, I forgot to comment: Updating landuse=residental based on sat imagery. adding wikidata tag.
eggie (2026-03-07 08:16:43+00:00): Dag Umut,
Tip...  Niet name gebruiken in beschrijvingen.
Ik heb name=Watertappunt verwijderd.
We taggen bv ook niet name=bankje name=huis.

MVG
eggie
Umut-K (2026-03-07 12:09:58+00:00): Oh okay, thanks for letting me know 👍👍
NeisBot (2026-03-06 22:45:40+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 9 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1384008441 v2 | 4 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179466824
Frans S (2026-03-07 13:10:16+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped.  However. 
Often not squared.

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179467070
limes11 (2026-06-25 21:12:00+00:00): Schau mal, das gab es bereits:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1290893759/

Hattest du das übersehen, oder gab es einen Grund für die weitere Eintragung ?

Viele Grüße, Limes
surveyor54 (2026-06-25 21:28:28+00:00): Hatte ich irgendwie übersehen.
Danke für die Info.
NeisBot (2026-03-06 23:09:48+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/1095716295 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-15 05:33:21+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179883789
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
Sébastien Pi (2026-03-07 13:07:43+00:00): Oups, j’aurais dû pousser à part https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/776439603. Fausse manipulation.
Glassman (2026-03-07 20:13:27+00:00): I'm currious, where did you get all this information?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179467767
GriffinK3 (2026-03-08 01:40:45+00:00): Most of these in Olympia I have measured myself. I compiled all the publicly available info on largest Douglas Firs (monumentaltrees, UBC conifers/broadleaf database, Robert Van Pelt, champion tree registry).
Glassman (2026-03-09 00:06:18+00:00): Very impressive.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179467767
Taya_S (2026-03-07 16:25:46+00:00): Reverted fantasy edits

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179500088
Taya_S (2026-03-07 16:28:50+00:00): Reverted fantasy edits

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179500233
nevw (2026-03-07 00:41:40+00:00): Hi Tom, we draw the building shape when using the building tag. The land plot is not often outlined but the fence lines are normally mapped instead as it can be verified by imagery. I have done this and added your driveway. addr:state|postcode|suburb are optional and not needed as these are already mapped by their boundaries in Australia and I have removed those tags.
Glassman (2026-03-07 20:14:59+00:00): #TIP: when deleting a business, leave the address, it will likely be used when a new business takes over.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179468606
Taya_S (2026-03-07 16:29:38+00:00): Reverted fantasy edits

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179500274
Taya_S (2026-03-07 16:29:39+00:00): Reverted fantasy edits

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179500274
philipcullen (2026-03-07 21:45:07+00:00): Thanks - that is a very good spot!
philipcullen (2026-03-07 21:43:23+00:00): Hello,

I wonder if this might be part of the building carved out to be independent? A few sources online suggest that may be the case, but nothing usable for OSM. 

Anyway, I'll defer to your local knowledge, but just wanted to point this out.
gurglypipe (2026-03-07 22:12:16+00:00): There might well be a separate flat/dwelling of some sort in part of the farmhouse, but the farmhouse as a whole is still one building, built as one building.

If it were split (and to do so, you’d need to know the nature of any additional dwelling in it), the heritage tagging would have to be carefully handled so it still represented Heritage England listing.
philipcullen (2026-03-07 22:18:25+00:00): Maybe a building:part or distinct entrance node might be appropriate, but as you say, it needs more information or ideally a survey. I just wanted to let you know.
Hopla57 (2026-03-07 00:39:20+00:00): source=survey
NeisBot (2026-03-07 00:51:42+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/13546410172 v7

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Photo editing service"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-15 05:33:22+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179883790
(Restore previous tags. No changes)

If you believe this was incorrect or would like to clarify the intent of the original tags, please reply here.
gurglypipe (2026-03-07 19:52:49+00:00): I’ve reverted this as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179508006 because effectively all it did was add addresses to two bus shelters, which can’t receive post.
philipcullen (2026-03-07 20:15:01+00:00): Thanks, I think we were both changing it at the same time, which might be behind the confusion here.

I generally don't add addresses to this sort of thing, but I've come across quite a lot of areas that do. I do think the postcode should be in postal_code rather than addr:postcode (if at all), as wouldn't really have a postcode as such.
NeisBot (2026-03-07 01:33:49+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/way/72598783 v9

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Ecole de voile"
---
Par exemple, une version plus neutre et factuelle de ton texte pourrait être : "Ecole de voile"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-15 05:33:22+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/179508293
Oregonian3 (2026-04-14 01:38:18+00:00): Could you explain why you upgraded a route that only serves a tiny town of 500 people to primary? US 30 here is absolutely not a major cross-country highway; it's been fully supplanted by I-84 for cross country travel.

Once I work through to this area in the Oregon highway classification work I'm doing right now, I will be downgrading this to secondary again.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-04-14 06:32:57+00:00): U.S. 30 is a major cross-country highway. Although it has been bypassed in Huntington by I-84, US 30 is the only road going through the town that provides access to a high-speed connection to other destinations. In fact, if I-84 did not exist, I would've upgraded US 30 to trunk because US Highways that end in "1" or "0" are designated as cross-country highways.
Oregonian3 (2026-04-14 14:17:19+00:00): If I-84 did exist, I would agree that US 30 would be trunk. However, I-84 does exist, and fully bypasses it for any through traffic. And I agree that the road is the only one going through the town...of 500 people. A town of 500 people is not a destination that needs to be served by a primary road at all. There's not a precise cutoff, but generally I use around 1000-2000 people as the cutoff for whether a town should be served by a primary road.

Take the town of Sumpter, Oregon as an example. It's a town in the middle of nowhere with a population of 200 people. I don't think anyone would argue that the one highway serving it should be upgraded to primary. And this is a similar example.
Oregonian3 (2026-04-14 14:17:54+00:00): Whoops, meant to say didn't exist, not did exist in my first sentence
eggie (2026-03-07 08:20:16+00:00): Dag Kannamori,
Zou het adres ook niet meer bestaan?
Voorlopig het adres weer hersteld hier.
MVG
eggie
Kannamori (2026-03-07 12:03:38+00:00): Adres bestaat nog wel maar is op dit moment een leeg pand.
eggie (2026-03-07 12:08:40+00:00): Oke...thx
De truc is om de adres node alleen te ontdoen van de bedrijfsinfo.
Maar het adres is weer terug 😀
Kannamori (2026-03-07 12:13:11+00:00): Ik kon de optie niet vinden in iD en dacht dat het zo gedaan moest worden. Excuus daarvoor.
eggie (2026-03-07 12:18:00+00:00): Je kunt dacht ik na selectie kiezen voor 'alle' tags zichtbaar. Dan kun je regels aanvullen of verwijderen.
Ik gebruik josm. Dan zie altijd de regels.
kitto33 (2026-04-16 03:19:35+00:00): Hi, please add descriptive elements i.e. "coming February 2028" in description=* tags, do not include these in name=*. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only.

Also, you can represent this in a better, machine-readable way by adding start_date=2028-02
yzuio (2026-03-12 17:28:51+00:00): 👋我看到你对 G244，G318等国道 进行了分省拆分（变更集 #179470423 等）。请问拆分的主要考量是什么？目前该关系的成员数量是否已经达到了必须拆分的量级？
davidxuang (2026-03-13 03:32:28+00:00): 你好，对于浏览来说现在的元素数还没有瓶颈，拆分主要是出于：
1. 对于希望遵循 type=route 规范（包括正确填写 forward、backward、维护环岛）用 JOSM 维护顺序的路线而言现有的关系已经太长了，特别是由于大量断点存在，超长线路上即使有自动排序也很难用（自动排序似乎是完全基于抽象图的，没有考虑到开端点的物理距离）。所以，参考欧洲（按国家）和美国（按一级行政区）公路的标注现状做了拆分。其中 type=superroute 是否使用似乎尚无共识，但 JOSM 目前的数据检查器实现是采用。除了可能对导航器更友好外，维护路线顺序还能方便检查路线中的断点、避免。
2. 另一个考量是为了方便维护省内公路网。目前省道现状多为省道升格国道后即从省道除名，但实际省内普通国省道网是一体的，拆分后也能方便检查普通国省道网的覆盖和联通，若有新的省道通道升格还能直接复用旧关系作为成员并正确标注 old_ref。
当然由于精力有限、数个省份查不到新的标准地图补不上断点，大部分关系我只完成了拆分的部分（实际还有一两条多次进入同一省的没有全部拆分完毕），严格按规范的关系 QC 只在重庆市辖域内和部分周边地区、部分重要线路完成了。
我看到你资料里写你在维护国道，拆分后的国道没办法直接在 OSM 预览全程，如果想要查看连通性可以使用 facilmap 快速检查质量（当然这个也不能严格检查排列，似乎还是只能用 JOSM）。祝编安。
davidxuang (2026-03-13 03:37:27+00:00): 补充一下由于编辑器的 UI/UX 缺陷，拆分后也能有效在维护时隔离、防呆。即使是一省的关系也经常一点错刚编辑好的又炸了。
yzuio (2026-04-04 09:10:23+00:00): 👋我认为您应该最好先经过社群集中讨论，形成统一方案后再进行大规模更改。（你可以去Telegram或者QQ群进行讨论，具体我已经发了站内信给您了）
国道是全国性的路线，目前 OSM 上很多国道关系仍是跨省一体的。如果部分省份拆分、部分保持原样，会导致数据使用方式不统一，下游渲染、导航、分析工具可能难以适配。同时，如果各自按自己的标准拆分，后续若要再整合或调整格式，可能需要大量返工。
CobaltClover (2026-03-07 02:42:52+00:00): *sculpture
eggie (2026-03-07 08:21:24+00:00): Dag Kannamori,

Probeer als het kan op de bestaande adresnode bij te taggen.

MVG
eggie
b-jazz (2026-03-09 18:58:34+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.
maddog107 (2026-03-09 19:20:05+00:00): Which Fairway? At this course there was no fairways, greens, or anything before I started marking, it was just one big blob of rough and some landuse=grass tags. I must have acidentally changed something I marked then.
b-jazz (2026-03-09 20:18:15+00:00): One example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1483289987/history.

And my apologies for the form-letter text above. You didn't come across something that existed, but that is very common so it is how I wrote that notification text.

You create a fairway multipolygon and tagged the relation correctly, but then you also added the fairway tag to the outer way as well. This was true for several fairways and roughs as well. When part of a relation, the fairway/rough tags go on the relation and not on the outer way.

Does that help clear it up? Please let me know so I can refine what I'm saying. It isn't a simple concept, but it's important.
maddog107 (2026-03-09 21:51:51+00:00): Ok yep! I am pretty sure i understand.
maddog107 (2026-03-09 22:15:23+00:00): Also you already fixed it right?
maddog107 (2026-03-10 00:44:57+00:00): OK, I fixed everything that was wrong, could you please check? Thanks!
b-jazz (2026-03-10 17:15:28+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1487044185 still has a `golf=fairway` tag, which duplicated that tag on the https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20304786 relation.

Semi-related side note: as you appear to be doing a lot of mapping, you might want to consider learning JOSM to do editing. It is so much easier to understand relations, once you get the hang of using JOSM. It's worth the time invested.
maddog107 (2026-03-10 17:35:08+00:00): Ok I wiill fix way/1487044185 in a bit. 


Also I have used JOSM in the past, and I didnt really like it, but sure, i guess I will go back to JOSM and try learning it! Thanks!
HurricaneGator (2026-03-26 19:58:54+00:00): Hello Sam Jayah! I noticed that you’ve reclassified some ways around Bogambara such as (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1226673466) and (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1484710829).
     
The primary road from (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1226673466) to (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/680347317) was formerly service and seems to act more like a backroad than this definition of primary in the Sri Lanka Tagging Guidelines (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka_Tagging_Guidelines). “The next most important roads in a country's system. (Often link larger towns.)Intra-provincial arterial roads connecting major urban areas.” Since the road’s primary purpose seems to be a bypass or back access for the nearby buildings, what do you think about changing it back to service?

For the trunk from (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1484710829) to (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/680347316), it seems like it becomes a pedestrian area considering the widened roads with cars parked alongside them and nearby temple (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/191377765). Also, the barrier=gate tags (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7627975830) and (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13676033621) are on both ends of this trunk which seems unlikely for a regular trunk. What do you think about reclassifying the extent to unclassified to reflect the usage here? 

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you.
Frans S (2026-03-07 13:09:05+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. 
However, you tend to map oversized. The shadow is not a part of a building. Stay within the rooflines.

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179470888
残阳逐流 (2026-03-26 05:55:25+00:00): 何意味
全国那么多国道，没见过还要一个省一个省地拆分成多段的，少自作聪明
残阳逐流 (2026-03-26 06:03:14+00:00): 国道一段一段地全拆了之后，预览非常麻烦，为什么要这么干
残阳逐流 (2026-03-26 06:25:46+00:00): 请原谅我先前因为一时情绪冲动而导致的言语失当。但是还是想请问一下，将原本完整的国道关系如此大动干戈地拆分成分省的挨个段落，意义何在？
davidxuang (2026-03-26 09:25:37+00:00): 因为要做严格按规范做 type=route 是要带 rolw:forward 和排序的，但上千条成员的关系的滚动条鼠标也根本定不了位，且如果不隔离数据缺失的省的关系话 JOSM 的自动排序就是费的。见 type=superroute 及其提及的超大关系维护问题。
davidxuang (2026-03-26 09:35:10+00:00): 预览可以用 facilmap
scrambling_panda (2026-03-07 15:23:07+00:00): Hey, welcome to OpenStreetMap! Thanks for the changes! I just wanted to share that they inspired me to add more details to these nodes :) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179497201

Happy mapping!
NeisBot (2026-03-07 04:06:40+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 7 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1352853489 v3 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1486209262 v1 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/12517733176 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179471626
NeisReview (2026-03-15 05:33:24+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/179800093
MRPockets (2026-03-07 04:50:10+00:00): Source should have included survey. Forgot to add that.