piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2026-02-13 02:36:18+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your changesets and noticed that the cumulative count of your recent edits (2 changesets) shows that 481 of your last 520 changes were deletions. This is quite an unusual proportion, so I wanted to check with you.

Could you please confirm whether these deletions were intentional or if they may have occurred by mistake?

#DeletionsCheck #Cumulative
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious?uid=266207
Michael Collins (2026-02-13 03:43:57+00:00): Yes, the deletions were objects that someone had mistakenly identified as buildings. I confirmed the lack of buildings with an image on Google Earth from 2023, which is later than the Bing image used on hotosm.org.
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-13 06:46:37+00:00): Thanks for your reply.

In my opinion, we cannot use Google Earth to trace buildings.
Michael Collins (2026-02-13 07:01:36+00:00): I didn't trace buildings with Google Earth. I used it to eliminate erroneous buildings. Feel free to examine the deletions, and let me know if there were any that show true buildings.
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-13 07:06:41+00:00): Thanks for clarifying. Even if you didn't trace, using Google Earth to decide deletions isn't permitted for OSM mapping. Please see: 
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_in_Google_Earth
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ
Michael Collins (2026-02-13 07:20:39+00:00): Got it
NeisBot (2026-02-12 22:48:42+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/13537021738 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-21 05:34:09+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178844202
(No visible changes after review)
QuiLe (2026-02-15 21:34:01+00:00): Hello and thanks for your contiributions. I noticed you put the access tags as no, does this mean that the road has been closed or is no longer accessible? Additionally, you misspelled the access key on way/1477017917 with "ni" rather than "no".
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178478675
silversurfer83 (2026-02-13 16:23:24+00:00): Hi :)

wenn der Name schon in der Relation erfasst ist muss er ja nicht mehr an die einzelnen Abschnitte, oder hab ich da was falsch verstanden?

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178478800
felipeeugenio (2026-02-13 11:31:36+00:00): Hola. por favor no usar descripciones en el tag name=
Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178478825
woodpeck_repair (2026-02-12 23:21:42+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 177226353, 177227954, 177229035, 177229097, 177230799, 177721481, 177940126, 177940457, 177941241, 177953190, 177963820, 178005688, 178040630, 178061354, 178064623, 178081242, 178085499, 178085842, 178106707, 178107289, 178131203, 178131966, 178132758, 178176101, 178219081, 178263709, 178278572.
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-19 15:17:38+00:00): Partly reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182885634#
ivanbranco (2026-02-12 23:36:13+00:00): sorry for the last bbox, it was supposed to edit only the Melbourne values, which I added two years ago
Till_btn (2026-02-14 09:14:21+00:00): Footway statt pedestrian war wahrscheinlich ein Versehen?
gabro00 (2026-02-13 08:07:08+00:00): Hmm, lebontották ezt a házat?
Mbalazs81 (2026-02-13 08:14:52+00:00): Ja nem, csak törölni akartam a középső házszámot.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-03-14 00:06:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 179832897 where the changeset comment is: Reverting numerous undiscussed road category changes.  See https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=2261940 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19961
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-03-14 00:06:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 179832897 where the changeset comment is: Reverting numerous undiscussed road category changes.  See https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=2261940 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19961
HurricaneGator (2026-03-02 15:42:47+00:00): Hello MK 1! I noticed that you reclassified A1 from about (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/334747503) and (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1291052713) to (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/334764342) and (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1477325976) from motorway to trunk. This creates a gap where the trunks seem to appear abrupt between motorway classifications. In your changeset comment, you referenced limited speeds (50-70km/h), and the lack of 2+ lanes and 1 emergency lane as reasons for reclassification. Looking at 07/25/24 Mapillary (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=3902269899993845) just south of (node 3419149576), there’s road signage seemingly indicating this is a motorway. What do you think of reclassifying trunks to motorway for consistency? Thank you and happy mapping!
TriRIK (2026-03-08 18:17:38+00:00): While this segment might not be on motorway standards, especially the Katlanovo-Veles segment, it's still legally designated as such. And the other way Veles-Katlanovo is definitely a motorway.

This change should be reverted and the other appropriate tags should be used like number of lanes and speed.
eggie (2026-02-13 08:43:51+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
crushtheserpent (2026-02-13 01:18:32+00:00): I also removed the name and ref tag from a primary_link because it was erroneously tagged
Enock4seth (2026-02-13 13:13:01+00:00): Hi Godfred,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for mapping.
Here are some corrections:
- Use title case for names eg. Universal Church of Christ instead of ALL CAPS or abbreviations, do not use assumed names, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Proper_name_spelling
- Map one feature only once; either as a building (closed way) or a node with primary tags eg. amenity=place_of_worshop and name,  but not both, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element.
- addr:street is for the street name, not place or any random names. The other addr:* tags are also not to be completed where they do not exist, see - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:*
MassCartog (2026-02-13 15:52:53+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. The feature you removed in this changeset is valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
Sammyhawkrad (2026-02-13 13:21:21+00:00): A post office box address is not a postcode. I'll advise you stop adding "addr:postcode"="P.O.BOX 19" to all the objects you map.
Sammyhawkrad (2026-02-13 13:15:24+00:00): Hi Godfred_uew, you have added EMRYSTECH SOLUTION two times. Which is the correct location?

The names of places should not be ALL UPPER CASE; using Title Case is the acceptable practice in OSM.
NeisBot (2026-02-13 03:15:39+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 17 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/418329917 v4 | 9 crossings
https://osm.org/way/418330049 v4 | 8 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/13409621471 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178482580
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-02-13 03:24:43+00:00): The traffic signal signs sometimes display them (some as W, some as N), and sometimes not. Even when they don't for Grand Avenue, they will display them for the intersecting street(s). Furthermore, the signblades commonly associated with residential areas never display them for Grand Avenue, despite always showing them for intersecting street(s).
NeisBot (2026-02-13 03:33:22+00:00): Hi Michael Collins, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 82% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 61 building(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178482923
Michael Collins (2026-02-13 03:45:46+00:00): These were intentional. Someone had mistakenly placed many building objects in this area. I confirmed the deletion of the building using a Google Earth image from 2023, which is later than the Bing image used on hotosm.org.
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-13 06:45:38+00:00): Thanks for your reply.

In my opinion, we cannot use Google Earth to trace buildings.
Michael Collins (2026-02-13 07:04:22+00:00): I didn't trace buildings with Google Earth. I used it to eliminate erroneous building objects. Feel free to examine the deletions, and let me know if there were any that show true buildings. 

Whoever had placed the building symbols may not have been following the guidelines put forth for this task.
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-13 07:07:15+00:00): Thanks for clarifying. Even if you didn't trace, using Google Earth to decide deletions isn't permitted for OSM mapping. Please see: 
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_in_Google_Earth
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ
Michael Collins (2026-02-13 07:20:54+00:00): Got it
AngocA (2026-02-25 04:42:01+00:00): Hola Heiler
Veo que has mapeado ríos en Medellín, pero no se ven desde la imagen.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1476674376/history#
Además, tiene etiquetas como bridge y layer=1 que no aplican.
Revisa el wiki para mapear ríos.

Andrés G.
Heiler2026 (2026-02-27 00:40:51+00:00): Hola parte de nuestra quebrada la cantera se encuentra bajo las casas soló se alcanza a ver en algunos sectores en su trayecto.
Dodko (2026-02-19 14:40:48+00:00): What is the source of your edits?
PizzaTreeIsland (2026-04-05 15:04:42+00:00): Hello, 
I see that you also added an other siren in the river right next to his one. It was directly in the water so I removed it from the river, but is it actually there or is this a mistake? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13708368084
Thank you and happy mapping!
Udarian (2026-02-13 16:24:38+00:00): the comment on this changeset does not properly describe what was done in this changeset, looking at it in OSMCha this seems to more of a renaming of a business rather then a driveway fix. next time please try and leave a better changeset comment. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Happy mapping,
Udar.
NeisBot (2026-02-13 03:44:22+00:00): Hi Michael Collins, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 98% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 86 building(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178483096
Michael Collins (2026-02-13 03:47:59+00:00): This was intentional. There were many specious building symbols in this area. I confirmed the mistaken buildings using a Google Earth image from 2023.
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-13 06:45:55+00:00): Thanks for your reply.

In my opinion, we cannot use Google Earth to trace buildings.
Michael Collins (2026-02-13 07:02:21+00:00): I didn't trace buildings with Google Earth. I used it to eliminate erroneous building objects. Feel free to examine the deletions, and let me know if there were any that show true buildings.
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-13 07:07:01+00:00): Thanks for clarifying. Even if you didn't trace, using Google Earth to decide deletions isn't permitted for OSM mapping. Please see: 
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_in_Google_Earth
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ
Michael Collins (2026-02-13 07:21:14+00:00): Got it
Udarian (2026-02-13 16:27:03+00:00): this changeset added names to two separate roads that do not seem to be connected and yet they both have the same name, can you please check which one is the Northwest 21st and which isn't and fix the one that isn't. 

Happy Mapping,
Udar.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-02-13 16:01:48+00:00): Hi!

In Quebec, it is legal to cross the street at any intersection, on either side, except when there is a no-pedestrian sign at the intersection, which is rare and not present at this intersection. For this reason, please keep the unmarked crossings so routing can follow the law. The fact that it could be dangerous or difficult to cross at some periods of the day should be the responsibility of tools external to OSM. I have put back the crossing. Thanks and have a nice day!
maxwellward (2026-02-13 16:27:04+00:00): Hello, thanks for your comment.

I double checked the wiki and it’s pretty clear in two distinct places that a crossing like this should not be mapped. See these two quotes:

> “ There should be some form of physical infrastructure (such as a dropped kerb or an island) that makes it clear that pedestrians are meant to cross here.”

> “Even if this is a legal crossing under state law, there is no pedestrian infrastructure to suggest that it should be mapped as an unmarked crossing.

That being said, I am not local to Quebec and do not want to force my own mapping conventions on the province and I know the wiki is not the definitive final decider of tagging. Due to this I will not re-remove this crossing, and I will keep the local convention in mind when mapping here in the future :)
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-02-13 18:34:21+00:00): The main issue is that almost nobody will cross the street twice if they arrive on the opposite side, so we feel it better model the real paths of pedestrian. And a routing engine that will tell you to cross the street twice instead of once would feel weird too for the end-user. In places like Japan, this would be quite different (people will cross mostly at marked crosswalk and accept more detours).
maxwellward (2026-02-13 18:38:33+00:00): What do you think of crossing=informal for situations like this? It would retain routing ability, but be more clear for data consumers what the on-the-ground situation is.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-02-13 18:47:05+00:00): Yes, no problem, or add informal=yes
:-)
maxwellward (2026-02-13 18:49:14+00:00): Great! Thanks for your comments, always good to sort these things out :)
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2026-02-13 18:50:34+00:00): Added informal=yes :-)
kingkingHK (2026-02-13 05:16:00+00:00): Its seems like it has a no u-turn sign though. https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/xingewen?lat=22.408717158153&lng=113.98122454034&z=17&pKey=828985421364427&focus=photo
vectorial8192 (2026-02-13 07:03:46+00:00): Ah, good find. Usually turning right does imply "u-turn is allowed".

Will make a todo note for now. The plan is to somehow add e.g. source = mapillary to the turn restriction itself so in the future people will know something is up when they see a source tag.
kingkingHK (2026-02-13 07:18:41+00:00): While legally right turn being allowed does imply u-turn allowed, with the prevalence of no u-turn signs in HK, I would assume u-turns are not allowed unless I have reasons to believe otherwise.

> The plan is to somehow add e.g. source = mapillary to the turn restriction itself so in the future people will know something is up when they see a source tag.

Or maybe, don't remove stuff without doing some trivial research...
vectorial8192 (2026-02-13 07:54:44+00:00): Again, I always expect Mapillary to have no data at all, at least for Hong Kong.
kingkingHK (2026-02-13 05:16:53+00:00): I think the turning path should be straight? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172570161
vectorial8192 (2026-02-13 07:00:54+00:00): I have heard about something like this before, but to me it feels more like some sort of artistic discussion. This would be different from e.g. earlier discussed "dashed lines separation".
vectorial8192 (2026-02-13 07:11:10+00:00): To clarify, I know "straight" junctions should keep straight. What you may notice about "keep straight" may be because the slip path is short so that the "keep angle" rule forces the short path to be straight all the way (I personally find them ugly).

However what seems unspecified is this kind of "far side slip" junctions.
kingkingHK (2026-02-13 07:14:04+00:00): Imo the problem is that these lines are essentially "virtual", so the curves are not verifiable.
Kovoschiz (2026-02-13 08:10:52+00:00): My perspective: Only draw curves when there's a curved island in front, or dashed line markings across the intersection
Kovoschiz (2026-02-13 08:12:38+00:00): Furthermore swept path is often not close to a circular curve. When the turn is tight, there will be overshot, that you have to turn more outside, then turn back into the destined lane.
Kovoschiz (2026-02-13 08:12:54+00:00): (Especially long vehicles as buses)
Kovoschiz (2026-02-13 08:21:36+00:00): https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_5055/V9_11_2025.pdf#page=20
Can't find buses or rigid vehicle drive shaft, only articulated https://www.td.gov.hk/filemanager/en/content_5055/V2_11_2025.pdf#page=22
hlfan (2026-02-17 07:53:04+00:00): The tunnel doesn't have such a kink in the curve, right?
Also, how accurate are the GPS traces from inside the tunnel?
Tinetto (2026-02-19 04:38:24+00:00): Hi hlfan, 
Thank you for reaching out. I realize I did a partial download and did not align the entire tunnel. No, it doesn’t make a kink. I have now reviewed the full extent and aligned the entire highway accordingly.
Regarding your question on how good the GPS traces are inside the tunnel; the raw data is quite scattered but after normalization they give a pretty accurate idea.
hlfan (2026-02-19 16:36:53+00:00): Well, given that the data is "quite scattered" and the normalized path lies less than 10 meters away from the official tunnel shape as seen on basemap.at, I'd trust that more than the GPS traces.

This data would be of better use where the official shape doesn't match the traces. way/161553656 is an example for that.
Tinetto (2026-02-23 04:43:43+00:00): Thank you very much hlfan, for pointing toward the basemap. I truly appreciate it and will keep in mind to refer to it in similar situations. 
The normalized GPS traces are mostly in alignment with the basemap, except some minor deviation around the mid-sections. I have made the corrections and aligned the road with respect to the basemap now.
Vis_M (2026-02-14 19:59:23+00:00): Why did you unnecessarily split the road? Please stop the incompetent disruptive editing by you and the Ola team
TheSwavu (2026-02-13 06:01:41+00:00): Same thing here. You have two identical POIs stacked on each other.
TheSwavu (2026-02-13 06:00:37+00:00): Hi

Something has gone wrong. You have put two of these on top of each other.

Please remove one.

Thank you.
Jordi MF (2026-02-13 12:57:01+00:00): Hola Lo Blanch,
¿Durante cuanto tiempo estarán las obras de esta carretera? Solo si se prevé que estén más de 6 meses debe de etiquetarse como tal. Si es menos tiempo, es mejor no restringir el acceso. ¿Hay alguna noticia que os ayude a saberlo?
Gracias y un saludo!
Lo Blanch (2026-02-14 16:54:34+00:00): Hola. Sí, la respuesta es que sí van a cerrar la CV-611 por obras más de 6 meses. Cuento con información directa de la empresa pública responsable. He reportado la incidencia en Google Maps y OpenStreetMap, pero realmente lo que me interesa es  saber cuál es el método más eficaz para asegurar que los navegadores (especialmente Strava y Garmin) no incluyan este tramo en sus rutas. Agradecería información, formación u orientación de cuál es la forma más precisa de indicarlo. Me he informado desde Strava, y este es el método que me han sugerido. Mi objetivo es evitar situaciones de peligro o desvíos excesivos, ya que en ocasiones anteriores la falta de actualización de los mapas me ha obligado a tomar rutas alternativas de gran kilometraje o tramos de autovía no aptos para ciclistas.
Jordi MF (2026-02-15 22:50:54+00:00): Hola Lo Blanch,
Havies afegit l'etiqueta access=no. Era una possibilitat, però és millor canviar tota la carretera a highway=construction. Tindrà el mateix efecte: evitarà que les aplicacions calculen rutes per ací. Així que ja està bé.
Crec que Strava tarda una setmana en actualitzar la seua base de dades a partir de les d'OSM. Així que només te queda esperar. Sobre Garmin, no tinc ni idea de la freqüència en la que actualitza els seus mapes.
Seria un detall que, quan acaben les obres, tornes per ací per a tornar a deixar la carretera en el seu estat anterior.
Salutacions,
Jordi
Lo Blanch (2026-02-16 11:46:31+00:00): Hola Jordi,
Genial, entenc que ja ho has canviat al highway=construction, veritat? Sí, ho tindré en compte per a actualitzar tant prompte com hem diguen que és oberta. Gràcies de nou. Salutacions.
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-13 06:06:11+00:00): Hi 007Transformer, thanks for your revert.

But the added name still exists?

Best regards,
Pascal
007Transformer (2026-02-16 14:42:06+00:00): Hello pitscheplatsch,

Thank you for taking the time to review this edit and for sharing your knowledge. My intention was not to revert the full edit. There was a dash separator in the name tag before the place/village name, and as per OSM wiki naming guidelines, the name tag should only contain the official road name - the dash formatting was not in line with the guidelines.

Unfortunately, while removing the dash, I missed removing the place/village name as well.

I have made the corrections and will take extra care with similar edits in the future.
HAALAND_ (2026-02-13 11:20:20+00:00): 请看看您的私信!
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-18 01:06:50+00:00): DWG revert - poor quality mapping

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184250206
Vis_M (2026-02-15 01:08:36+00:00): Why are you making these splits. STOP these disruptive editing. Stop lying on the changeset comment too.
Vis_M (2026-02-19 16:21:06+00:00): No reply? Reply first before continuing further disruptions.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-16 23:58:02+00:00): DWG revert - doubtful names & poor quality mapping

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184203654