piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
EduLinux (2026-07-16 14:59:17+00:00): Thanks for the advice, I'll keep that in mind. Just out of curiosity, what's the rationale behind not including Google Maps citations? I thought more information is better to justify the change.
user_5359 (2026-07-16 18:07:06+00:00): Please have a look on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google. 

In addition, a personal statement: And really, it should be obvious: a link to a website that contains a map does not constitute advertising for the project. Furthermore, advertising and tracking on the site are not welcome.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-16 18:10:22+00:00): See https://osm.wiki/Google ; both Google and OSM's policies prohibit use of Google as a source for OSM (and vice versa), and at least in certain jurisdictions (like the UK where the OSMF is based) doing so may even be illegal due to the so-called sui generis "database rights". Also, the "Google Maps" is not a known tag key nor does it conform to the basic conventions of one.
EduLinux (2026-07-16 18:14:56+00:00): Ok Thanks for the information, I did not know it. Today I have made some updates without using any reference to this platform.
davisagli (2026-07-17 02:45:53+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
MapMagics (2026-07-15 22:21:19+00:00): Correction: Source used was Vantor satellite imagery via Vantor Hub 2026-07-08 .
VictorIE (2026-07-18 18:17:45+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14018725064/

Is this a fence blocking the way or is there a barrier=gate or barrier=entrance ?
finn-hound (2026-07-20 21:23:21+00:00): Hard to tell without a survey but I'm pretty sure the fence actually has severed the connection, probably should have added a fixme=*, my bad.
LordGarySugar (2026-07-17 02:53:50+00:00): This changeset was reverted for the same reasons as in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185865558, for example deleting and redrawing Whipsnade Crossroads roundabout without copying across the junction=roundabout and maxspeed tags
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-17 06:54:41+00:00): This changeset contains vandalism. It retags an existing building as aquaculture, adds fabricated and offensive names, and inserts an unrelated building into a turn-restriction relation using an invalid and offensive member role. Please make only factual, verifiable edits to OpenStreetMap.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-17 07:45:57+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185875935
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-15 22:40:09+00:00): Why does this changeset span the entire country?
pwbriggs (2026-07-16 19:25:01+00:00): Looks good to me, thanks!
aimbakouban (2026-07-16 10:13:14+00:00): قصر الشيخ مبارك عبيد باكوبن رباط باكوبن - اليمن
JeanSebastien (2026-07-15 23:02:05+00:00): Plus de détails : https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171735642#c1626648
alpacaMaps (2026-07-27 01:39:05+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — the nodes sit well away from any road, which usually means the cameras aren't physically present on the ground.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
sandy345 (2026-07-27 14:34:09+00:00): Great job spotting the unlikely hood of this location, catches like that keep the integrity strong. However, this camera is a Flock camera purchased by the city to "monitor cars dumping objects" in the city lagoon.
alpacaMaps (2026-07-27 19:53:57+00:00): Thanks for your reply and explanation! That's infrastructure I did not see coming, but one I understand! 

I'll work to restore the camera shortly or this evening. Appreciate you!
mapeadora (2026-07-21 02:18:11+00:00): Gracias por tu mapeo. Se ve que en esta zona, la imagen de fondo debía ser desplazada para corresponder con la autopista. Puedes hacer el desplazamiento y reubicar los edificios
TimK MSI (2026-07-15 23:18:14+00:00): I left a couple of warnings in place rather than add crossings for roads that don't appear to exist
catsparrow (2026-07-16 00:34:35+00:00): FIXED ACCORDINGLY.
catsparrow (2026-07-16 00:37:46+00:00): FIXED (drive_through) TO BE THE OPPOSITE.
catsparrow (2026-07-16 00:39:00+00:00): FIXED (drive_through) TO BE THE OPPOSITE.
catsparrow (2026-07-16 00:42:36+00:00): My (drive_through) tag was meant to be reversed. Fixed in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185817456
Negreheb (2026-07-19 20:48:29+00:00): Servus, ich hab da mal großzügig aufgeräumt: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1539560836 war z. B. mit dem haus direkt verklebt. Wenn man da mit einem Navi nachgehen würde, müsste man sich an der Wand entlang schieben :p 
Ich habs mal abgetrennt plus die ganzen Tags entfernt. Hier reicht an den zugangswegen, den Toren ein access=private meiner Meinung nacht. 

Der Weg durch das Gebäude, der muss auch mit dem Gebäude verbunden sein. Und, da es eine Einfahrt ist von der Straße, auch mit der Straße. Ich habs von footway zu highway=service mit service=driveway geändert, den Weg getrennt, an den trennpunkten mit dem Gebäude verbunden und dann den Weg noch mit der Straße verbunden, damit man auch reinkommt, wenns wär :)
catsparrow (2026-07-16 00:44:22+00:00): My (drive_through) tag was meant to be reversed. Fixed in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185817707
catsparrow (2026-07-16 00:45:03+00:00): My (drive_through) tag was meant to be reversed. Fixed in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185817719
Udarian (2026-07-16 00:16:00+00:00): looking at the latest aerial imagery in the area I do not see any evidence of a drive through.

Happy mapping,
Udar
catsparrow (2026-07-16 01:35:35+00:00): Hi Udarian!

While using Map Roulette, I made a critical error and have fixed the appropriate changesets.

This has been fixed in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185817745
MikeN (2026-07-16 02:11:19+00:00): Hi, you marked a boundary as tertiary highway.  I have corrected it.
CoryS89 (2026-07-21 15:33:15+00:00): User Robert Lazu has a long string of bad edits, I've reported this twice but nothing seems to have been fixed. I've been following his "work" for a while now and almost all of them are incorrect. He never responds to any discussion either. I'm fairly convinced this is a bot of some type.
adamos (2026-07-16 12:07:56+00:00): Díky za opravu, příště prosím pozor na sekvenci cest v relaci, cesty musí jít postupně za sebou. Obě linky jsem pro tentokrát opravil
fluffycupcakes (2026-07-22 18:33:46+00:00): What's the source of the name?
hadw (2026-07-30 01:13:39+00:00): Parts of Draycott  Avenue have duplicated sidewalks because required sidewalk:xxx=separate tags haven't been added.

Also the changeset comment fails to describe the changeset in anything like the detail needed for other mappers to understand the nature of the changes, and given a controversial change, like adding separate sidewalks, why it is necessary.

I think it likely that there is a mish mash of changes here, which should have had a separate changeset for each type of change.    For separate sidewalks, I'd suggest that changeset should also be limited to the roads involved to a very small number of roads in close proximity.

"Notes" is not a useful description of the source.  They could easily have been taken from an inadmissible source.  You need to say where the notes came from, not that you had some notes.
hadw (2026-07-30 01:22:02+00:00): The car park for the Radbourne Court retirement flats has been added, marked,  by default, as public, and with a public access road.  This will potentially encourage illegal parking, and trespassing on the site.
LordGarySugar (2026-07-30 02:45:19+00:00): Only a small part of Draycott Avenue has 'duplicate' sidewalk tags due to the fact that I only added sidewalks a short part of the way up the road. It's left like that so the next person can come along and continue the sidewalks more, and then update the whole road to sidewalk:both=separate. There's no point splitting the road and adding sidewalk:right/left tags for those tiny sections.

Not sure what isn't clear about what I'm doing, I'm adding in/updating little things here and there that were flagged as notes by other contributors. You can see in the details of ways and nodes changed what has been updated, I don't really need to write every little change I've made out.  Not sure either why you think separate sidewalks are controversial, they're quite common in London. It's also quite a limited changeset just updating some things around Kenton from a few notes by the same contributor. No need to make lots of little changesets for different things.

As for the car park at Radbourne Court, as I've added it from aerial imagery I do not know the access that should be tagged (be that customers or private). If you know that it is private, you are welcome to add that tag yourself. I can't add tags that I don't know what they should be.

I'm not sure what all this nitpicking achieves, as far as I'm concerned this is just a normal changeset resolving some notes and something I do very regularly. Unless there's anything I've actually done wrong, there's nothing for me to do here.
catgirlseraid (2026-07-30 06:18:18+00:00): Very disappointed in you LordGarySugar, my car got towed becuase of illegal parking and i couldn't find my way home on foot because the sidewalks weren't mapped properly. unacceptable
hadw (2026-07-30 11:20:39+00:00): If you meant map notes, you should have listed them, and I would have done one changeset for each note.  The comment should summarise what was actually done.

Also, changes should never be made just on the basis of map notes.  The map note is a hint to go there and actually see what the real situation is.

As to the sidewalk example, splitting the road is exactly what you should have done.  This is actually a particularly bad error, as it is not something that is visible in the tiled maps; you need to actually look at the data; as such, once done wrongly it is likely to take a long time to get fixed.  Also, mixing lots of different sorts of change and not giving detailed changeset comments makes it difficult for people to home in on the ones that need checking.

That separated sidewalks are controversial is hinted at in the wiki by stressing that they are an option to consider, not something that should always be used.  They are controversial because they clutter the map with detail, because they imply routing restrictions that don't apply, in the UK, as you have to join them to the road in places, to allow people to cross over, and because the transition between the use of separated and non-separated areas is messy.

If you look at professional maps, they will either  map the complete public highway as just one line, or they will show the features as areas, depending on map scale.
FajrAl (2026-07-16 07:32:08+00:00): jika memang tidak bisa dilalui kendaraan sepeda motor, gunakan tag akses motorcycle=no; bukan menghapus jalannya.
arcizy (2026-07-16 07:59:19+00:00): Oke saya akan membuat kembali jalannya, tapi tidak menyatu dengan perum BMI, ada portal permanen, itu bisa dilalui motor
jmarchon (2026-07-16 04:42:25+00:00): Hi,
It looks like you've added this gas station a few too many times. I've cleaned it up. Is there maybe a bug in Every Door?
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-16 04:43:32+00:00): Cleaned up SEO spam and other mistagging for POI in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185822928
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-16 04:44:58+00:00): Cleaned up SEO spam and other mistagging for POI in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185822963
Supaplex (2026-07-16 10:34:13+00:00): Please restrain your changeset boundary, it cross half of Earth
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185819414
user_5359 (2026-07-20 15:43:46+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1539625493. What is the mean of the tags
Area_ID = 7501
Area_Name = Reform CA
Brochure_L = https://mdc.mo.gov/media/area/brochure/7501
County = Callaway
Map_Link = https://mdc.mo.gov/media/area/map/7501
OBJECTID = 776
OFF_Name = Reform Conservation Area
Reg_Link = https://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/places/area-regs/7501
Shape__Are = 2.186626533203125E7
Shape__Len = 46308.80551108482
Sum_Link = https://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/places/reform-conservation-area
(no other OSM keys).
user_5359 (2026-07-20 15:44:48+00:00): This only one of three  objects with the same keys.
Jeff Ollie (2026-07-20 15:51:36+00:00): Whoops! Meant to remove those before I uploaded but forgot. I've removed them now.
pnorman (2026-07-16 04:22:09+00:00): Hello,

in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185756110 I asked about the organized edit page so I could see the consultation. If the edit is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Uber_Road_Geometry,_Turn_restrictions,_Directionality_%26_Lane_connectivity_Improvements the consultation hasn't yet happened there.

Please do not do any edits as part of that organized edit until consultation has been completed.
RajeshSundaram (2026-07-16 04:28:46+00:00): Hi Paul Norman,

Thanks for highlighting. The feedback has been noted. we have paused editing for now. 

We also received the communication from you that  how to get the community alignment . we will do accordingly before we start any activity . Thanks for your support
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-16 04:53:14+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Please see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Reverted adding SEO spam with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values, and fixed other tags in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185823219
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-16 04:54:01+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Please see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Reverted adding SEO spam with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185823241
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-16 04:51:32+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Please see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Reverted adding SEO spam with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185823127
pwbriggs (2026-07-16 19:23:54+00:00): Yeah, so unfortunately bus route relations are one of the most complex and annoying things to map. This is a great start though. I don't know what a "worker/driver" route is, but is it just like any other bus route? Do you have a link to the official agency page with the route map or description? That will help me flesh out the route relations to include the full route. Thanks.
pwbriggs (2026-07-16 19:31:53+00:00): maxspeed:forward=* and maxspeed:backward=*, apparently! I didn't know that either until now. Basically every line (more properly called a way in OSM-lingo) has a direction in OpenStreetMap because it's an ordered series of points (a.k.a. nodes). In the web editor, you can see the direction by looking at the little triangle handles between nodes; the triangle points in the forward direction like an arrow. Anyway, in this case it looks like the northeast  direction is forward, so I added maxspeed:forward="25 mph" and maxspeed:backward="20 mph" (without the quotes of course; I'm trying to make this message parse properly).

Let me know if you have any questions. Happy mapping!
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-22 17:45:21+00:00): Why did you remove tags on Charleston Boulevard?
Solaris07 (2026-07-16 04:13:18+00:00): Intended comment: "Nelson Bay Marina area, add buildings, breakwall and piers"
ajmat (2026-07-19 07:02:36+00:00): Partially Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185991664
nevw (2026-07-16 05:58:20+00:00): Hi, you are adding tags that are not required and others are not formatted correctly. See your first changeset to see how another mapper has corrected it and apply these changes to the others you have added.
GeeMaps! (2026-07-18 08:08:51+00:00): Hi. Another thing to mention. Rather than just adding everything as "Bronte coffee shop", please use their name e.g. "Added Bronte Belo". Thanks
nevw (2026-07-18 09:03:27+00:00): All fixed now.
Udarian (2026-07-16 11:05:24+00:00): looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Udarian (2026-07-16 11:06:21+00:00): looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Udarian (2026-07-16 11:02:39+00:00): looking at this ALPR on various aerial imagery in iD it seems to be within the road area, being positioned like this is highly unlikely so please double check the position of this ALPR and fix it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
mavl (2026-07-17 02:13:20+00:00): Здравствуйте. Подскажите, зачем вы меняете статусы улиц с highway=residential на highway=unclassified?
Marvk (2026-07-16 10:31:41+00:00): Hi Dirk,

da du ein Review angefragt hast: Sieht für mich in Ordnung aus :-)

Grüße
Marv
Marvk (2026-07-16 10:30:35+00:00): Hi d1db3k,

disused -> reasonable state of repair but currently unused

abandoned -> can only be returned to use with significant repair efforts

From the panoramax it looks like I would tag disused over abandoned, but it is a bit subjective. It looks quite old but still pretty functional.

Best Regards
Marv
d1db3k (2026-07-16 12:43:46+00:00): Thank you very much for having a look @marvk.

I adjusted the node accordingly.
Marvk (2026-07-16 10:24:10+00:00): Hi jfml,

I would delete https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1592525104 as that one used to be a hairdresser while https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1592525101 was always a restaurant.

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/1592525101

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/1592525104

Best Regards
Marv
rajdhani (2026-07-19 14:37:44+00:00):  Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186011050
pwbriggs (2026-07-16 19:16:03+00:00): Thanks!
eggie (2026-07-16 06:31:15+00:00): Hoi,

Wanneer iets is afsgesloten met een hek kun je zo'n hek intekenen met barrier=gate op een node verbonden met de weg. Nu heb je een stuk weg verwijderd dat er waarschijnlijk gewoon is?
Kijk je nog even?

MVG
eggie
arjunaraoc (2026-07-17 00:29:21+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  Andhra Pradesh page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh) and  join OSM Andhra Pradesh Telegram channel (https://t.me/osmandhra). Please provide a more appropriate comment in future. The original buildings do not seem to be intersecting.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185825431
eggie (2026-07-16 06:13:21+00:00): Hoi.. Staat er een C14 bord?
Waarom looot dat fietsverbod voorbij de zijweg? Die heeft geen fietsverbod. Is dat zuidelijke stukje ook C14?

Mvg,
eggie
Marcuos (2026-07-16 06:30:24+00:00): Dag Eggie,


Daar staat inderdaad een c14 bord. Komend vanaf snelfietspad aan zuid-oost kant kwam ik hem tegen. Ik weet dus niet tot waar het exact geld. Want ben er niet in gefietst. Maar heb dacht ik tot aan alle volgende kruisingen de weg geselecteerd.


Vanaf zuidkant komend onder de rondweg door is ook afgesloten voor fietsers met c14 bord. 


Zal vast zijn ivm zwaar verkeer richting vuilstort en het alternatief snelfietspad iets ten oosten.


Groeten,

Mark
eggie (2026-07-16 06:35:19+00:00): Hoi Mark,

Duidelijk. Tip.. Je zou nog aan het wegdeel traffic_sign=NL:C14 kunnen toevoegen. 
Bij de dwarsweg heb je een stuk weg verwijderd, maar wellicht is dat er wel. Je kunt ook gewoon het hek intekenen op een node met locked=yes en access=no
Dan routeert het ook niet meer. Nu gaat iemand het wellicht repareren, want zo'n open stukje geeft een foutmelding.
Als het een afrastering is dan laat ik wel een miniem stukje open en zet op de eindnodes noexit=yes  Dan zijn de foutmeldingen weg.
Mapse.
eggie
arjunaraoc (2026-07-17 00:49:04+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  Andhra Pradesh page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh) and  join OSM Andhra Pradesh Telegram channel (https://t.me/osmandhra).

I think you may not be targetting the correct features to fix as part of the project.  For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1065052125#map=19/16.998236/81.785399  is intersecting building outlines. You may have to fix that.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185825514
OSM_RogerWilco (2026-07-17 21:50:50+00:00): Hi World_Winner,
Warum hast Du die Verbindung zu https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/476081361 gelöscht?
World_Winner (2026-07-18 16:20:19+00:00): Hi OSM_RogerWilco,

Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.
World_Winner (2026-07-21 10:45:54+00:00): Hello OSM_RogerWilco. 
Based on my interpretation of the imagery, I thought the painted separation would not be traverseable, and I removed that section. 

Based on your message, I understand that the road is legally traverseable at the location. Changeset reverted according to your message.
AlaskaDave (2026-07-19 00:00:30+00:00): Greetings Julien,
Not a biggie. First, congrats on getting this ref changed to ตก.7054 so quickly. You beat me to it.

There are a couple of river bridges on this route that have names, for example, ตก.019.

Did you mean to use the name tag for them or would the tag bridge:name = ตก.019 be more appropriate?

Dave
julcnx (2026-07-19 17:08:22+00:00): Hi Dave, thanks for flagging this. Good catch, those name tags predate my edit, I only touched ref on this pass.

Looking at the OSM wiki (Key:bridge, "Bridge numbers"), the convention is bridge:name for an actual proper name and bridge:ref for a numbered/lettered reference plate. Since ตก.019/004/029 follow the same DRR numbering scheme as the road ref rather than being real names, I think bridge:ref is the better fit here. Feel free to make the switch if you get to it first, otherwise I'll follow up in a separate changeset. Thanks again for catching it.
AlaskaDave (2026-07-19 17:50:32+00:00): Haha - touche!
I have never used the bridge:ref tag but after you replied, I realized that several of the bridges I cross on my bicycle rides in Saraphi have these strange numerical refs that I believe I tagged with a simple ref tag.

I'll need ro check  my own bridge tagging as a result of our conversation LOL
Supaplex (2026-07-16 10:28:19+00:00): 能否在編輯摘要描述編輯了什麼，而非直接採用自動由程式產生的摘要？
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185826245
Edison Wen (2026-07-20 14:09:49+00:00): 抱歉，此次變更是針對這個加油站經現場勘察發現已經停業拆除中
Supaplex (2026-07-16 10:27:22+00:00): 請加上使用的資料來源，例如實地踏察或是站內的平面圖。如果往後的編輯未加上資料來源，將會請 Data Working Group 介入，若不回應，嚴重的話將被處置而帳號被禁止編輯
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185827006
Zollo757347 (2026-07-16 11:04:50+00:00): 謝謝提醒，資料來源都是北捷提供的平面圖，未來我會確實附上來源
eggie (2026-07-16 07:32:27+00:00): Oke...  pietluttigheidje.

De tagging hoort met hoofdletters
Dus NL:C14

Hier wat leesvoer.. 
Overzicht Nederlandse verkeersborden
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Overzicht_Nederlandse_Verkeersborden

Mapse
rochirochi (2026-07-26 19:12:59+00:00): https://emtsam.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Aviso-L23-13-07-26.jpg
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-17 07:52:44+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Are the added names real?
camp sit? (12059025730), v2
camp sit? (12059025781), v2