piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mueschel (2026-01-25 11:03:27+00:00): Hi,
hier gibt es einen Tippfehler bei "handrail":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111744001
NVBW_Seifert (2026-01-26 08:44:02+00:00): danke für den Hinweis, beseitigt
Marvk (2026-01-20 22:31:01+00:00): Kein Import :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177497212
Marvk (2026-01-20 22:37:52+00:00): Die beiden an die Boundaries geklebten Häuser habe ich bereits gefixt.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177497859
Hb- (2026-01-22 13:37:28+00:00): Für Steinhude sind die letzten beiden ways in der relation doppelt. Sie ist also nicht geschlossen. Hätte JOSM eigentlich als Warnung ausgeben müssen.
Hb- (2026-01-22 13:58:36+00:00): Fehlalarm, die Relation war in Ordnung.
Marvk (2026-01-22 14:05:37+00:00): Supi :-) Wollt schon sagen, habe eigentlich alle Relationen wo der Fehler aufgekommen ist gefixt, auch solche, die ich nicht verursacht hatte. Aber danke fürs prüfen!
Rainero (2026-03-01 10:46:29+00:00): Hallo Michael Spitzenberger,

ich stolpere gerade wieder über einen Änderungssatz von dir. Hier hast du einigen Straßen den Ortsnamen Sufferloh gegeben. Diese Straßen haben keinen Namen. In diesem Teil des Ortes werden die Häuser durchnummeriert, was in Openstreetmap mit addr:place und addr:housenumber abgebildet wird.

Was ist deine Quelle für diese und die anderen Änderungen in diesem großflächigen Änderungssatz?

Beachte bitte auch, dass https://qa.poole.ch sehr pauschal Straßen und Wege anzeigt, die kein Tag name=* haben. In den meisten Fällen haben diese Wege tatsächlich keinen Namen.

Viele Grüße,
Rainer
Rainero (2026-03-18 20:47:25+00:00): Revert mit changeset/180078642
(unzulässige Quelle)
NeisBot (2026-01-21 07:26:11+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/13472257814 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-28 07:32:57+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177792517
(Cleaned up leftovers from previous edits)
juni_vv (2026-01-20 23:42:49+00:00): Please don't make edits spanning multiple continents, try to keep them local instead! :)
silversurfer83 (2026-01-21 20:51:06+00:00): Hi there :)

as juni_vv said: there's no reason to work on Greenland and Germany in one changeset. Don't do that, please. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

- then there's the building in Germany you changed: Most buildings of this type have right angles. So please use the "Q" key on your keyboard to square your angles after you finished hand drawing the building.

- finally: please use English when writing changeset comments that concern areas outside of German speaking countries (or use the local language. but here you jumped countries, so English would be best).

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177498021
NeisBot (2026-01-21 07:26:12+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/13458586111 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Thai Filipino restaurant"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-28 07:32:58+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177792518
(No visible changes after review)
NeisBot (2026-01-21 07:26:13+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/13452706684 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-28 07:32:58+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177792519
(No visible changes after review)
gurglypipe (2026-01-21 09:29:58+00:00): Heya, thanks for the additions to Lancaster, although mixing up UPRN addition, geometry changes and changes of other tags into one changeset makes it quite hard for others to review.

There are a few things I have questions about, hopefully they’re straightforward oversights!

 1. Why remove addr:street from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/641817940?

 2. There are several UPRNs which have been changed from those done in a recent import by rskedgell, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/563111800. Was that intentional? I haven’t looked to see which is correct.

 3. As in your other changeset on Lancaster, you’ve added a UPRN to an area of the canal, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/845717554. Are you sure that’s right?

 4. What Cadastral Parcels offset from the aerial imagery did you use? I assume it will have varied significantly across the city.

Ta
philipcullen (2026-01-22 10:27:47+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for looking though those changes.

I have been trying to batch changes, but I'm happy to split them into smaller areas. I tend to adjust the geometry at the same time, so it would be hard to separate those out, but I can focus on smaller areas so they are easier to review.

1 - This looks to be an error, I'll reinstate it.

2 - That appear to be one where I've selected the wrong half of a semi-dethatched house when pasting in the UPRN, accidentally overwriting the other import. I'll fix that and double check any others edited.

3 - I think that was an error - I'll fix that.

4 - I tend to use the cadastral parcels as definitive, and align the aerial imagery to that, but I haven't recorded the offsets as it does vary significantly (though less than it did previously).
gurglypipe (2026-01-22 23:27:41+00:00): Another 10 minutes of checking and I’ve found some more problems (and fixed a couple of them):

1. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/665353951 had the wrong addr:street added, and a potentially incorrect postcode too. The postcode matches the street, and it matches the UPRN, but the chapel is definitely not on that street. I’ve fixed addr:street and removed addr:postcode for it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177586361

2. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1075996208 is a bus stop but you’ve added an address to it. Bus stops can’t receive post, so I don’t think this is correct. I believe the postal_code tag is for this instead? (e.g. as used here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/162989911)

3. Same here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1075996234

4. UPRN added to the school building rather than the surrounding area (which is where the main address tagging is) at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/368739303

5. Address added to a slurry tank at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/922614550 — this is probably a case for postal_code too?

6. Wrong addr:street added to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/583271805. This house doesn’t have an addr:street as far as I know.

7. Same for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/583014950

8. Address details added to a substation at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/558600627, but substations can’t receive post, so I think this is another job for postal_code.

9. I’m not sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/525923986 is actually on Towneley Close, but would need to survey it to be sure.

10. Address and UPRN details for Booths (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/430176527) probably belong on the surrounding shop area.

11. Why does https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/486427547 have two UPRNs? From Bing Streetside imagery it looks like there might be a cellar flat which hasn’t been mapped yet, but it would need a survey to confirm.
ohmanger (2026-02-24 17:19:15+00:00): hi there, thanks for trying to tidy up the paths around Machynlleth!

I've merged the way here as its duplicated with the track which has the relevant PRoW tags on it already. https://osm.org/way/1468995135

In general OSM tries to map what is on the ground so its preferable if a PRoW deviates a bit from the official designated line set by the council or maps. If it deviates a lot then this can be reflected in the tags.

Another thing to note is that just because something is designated as a public footpath it doesn't necessarily mean that cycling or equestrian is not allowed, its up to whoever owns the land. Natural Resources Wales often permit cycle tracks etc in their woods.

Cheers
randomhacks (2026-03-02 09:20:12+00:00): Great.  Thank you :)
eggie (2026-01-21 07:57:05+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback .. Dit ging niet helemaal goed geloof ik.
warnings:impossible_oneway:highway 	2
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Dezza (2026-01-21 09:03:06+00:00): Hello, thank you for adding UPRNs around Lancaster.
I've not had time to inspect every modification, but there's a few that have stood out as suspicious - are you sure they're correct?
Several patches of canal are tagged with a UPRN - should these maybe be the bridge or the road that's tagged? -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1083199517
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1054546554
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/642117631
On this one - maybe the tag would go better on the school site, rather than an individual building?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385398584
I welcome your thoughts on these
gurglypipe (2026-01-21 09:22:44+00:00): I came here to say the same thing! It seems odd to me that the canal would have a UPRN (and then several different ones in different places).
philipcullen (2026-01-22 10:23:07+00:00): I think you're right, and it's the road/bridge that those relate to. I'd missed those ones, but I'll fix them.

I've generally added UPRNs to school buildings (unless the a relation was already tagged). My thinking was that many schools have multiple UPRNs covering multiple buildings, and potentially one parent UPRN for the site, but it isn't always clear which one relates to the site. I don't have any strong opinion either way though.
gurglypipe (2026-01-22 22:30:46+00:00): Thank you for fixing the canal/bridge issues.

I think if it’s not clear which of several UPRNs relates to a site or individual buildings on the site, then we shouldn’t be adding those UPRNs to OSM without finding another source of information which can clarify what each UPRN relates to.

I’ve yet to find time to review the rest of the changes in this changeset, so might have further queries later.
gurglypipe (2026-01-27 17:38:11+00:00): I’ve now checked and fixed everything in Heysham and north up to The Battery in Morecambe.
mueschel (2026-01-25 10:41:00+00:00): Hi,
some of these trees got a "powierzchn" and "podtyp" tag - these are not used in any other place. Could you explain what they mean? Maybe there is already an established tag for this?
Yog Sot (2026-01-26 17:30:32+00:00): oh damn, i have forgotten to remove those again. thx for spotting it, will fix it.
nevw (2026-01-21 12:06:42+00:00): Hi, your changeset only contains deleted items. Are all these items no longer present? or is there a another reason for the deletions.
nevw (2026-01-21 22:35:01+00:00): I reverted this changeset as the deleted items are still evident on imagery. Let me know if situation is different on the ground.
NeisBot (2026-01-21 07:26:16+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/941884257 v6

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-28 07:32:59+00:00): ❌ Text fixed by https://osm.org/changeset/177508374
Xvtn (2026-02-01 01:15:10+00:00): Hi, thanks for your contributions here! In the future, would you consider transferring access=* tags from the old outer way to the new individual courts as well? I'll do that on these ones, so no need to do anything right now.
0x4273 (2026-02-01 01:17:06+00:00): Ah very good point yes I will update that tag going forward, thanks for the heads up!
AgusQui (2026-02-19 05:18:40+00:00): Están duplicadas las líneas en ambas paradas, podrás indicar en cual para cada una?
NeisBot (2026-01-21 07:26:19+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/130794032 v7

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "used car dealership"
---
Na przykład, bardziej neutralna i obiektywna wersja Twojego tekstu mogłaby brzmieć: "salon samochodów używanych"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-28 07:32:59+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177792521
(No visible changes after review)
Jordi MF (2026-01-21 01:17:20+00:00): Caldria comprovar si l'ús de "Ciudadela" és tan freqüent com Lérida o Gerona, comprensible tenint en compte que són capitals de província i aquest ús pot estar més estés entre la gent major.
mueschel (2026-01-25 14:48:46+00:00): Hi,
please check the tags you added here - almost all amenity tags are not correct.
Please use only tags that are described in the Wiki.

And: What is the meaning of "searchable=no"? nobody else uses these tags.
AJ Abraham (2026-01-25 19:43:50+00:00): Hello, our university research team is currently working on certain building maps in the area and using our own tagging format. Once we have completed the downloads, I will be removing these tags. Hope that is not an issue.
mueschel (2026-01-25 20:04:27+00:00): Please don't use the main, global database of OSM for you own tagging tests. Nobody else is able to use this data.

Your activity also seems to be what we call "organised editing" and needs to follow certain rules: https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
Bondi Maps (2026-01-21 02:42:39+00:00): Está chequeado que esa línea funcione? Nunca la vi en mi vida
Mirko Drensek (2026-01-21 04:47:10+00:00): Tiene baja frecuencia, pero sigue existiendo. Mientras la mapeaba había 4 bondis en funcionamiento.
Taya_S (2026-01-21 16:43:46+00:00): Reverted sockpuppet vandalism https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19627

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177531762
Taya_S (2026-01-21 17:08:06+00:00): Please understand that attempts to hide or remove information like this will invariably just be reverted and sometimes even ends up backfiring.
SimonPoole (2026-01-21 06:35:17+00:00): Ohne vorherige Diskussion so grossflächige Änderungen zu machen ist ein Unding. Genau so wie dein vorheriger Edit. 

Bei diesem ist besonders schlimm, dass man die einzelnen Änderungen auch nicht nachvollziehen kann und wieso du sie jeweils gemacht hast, da viel zu viel Gemeinden betroffen sind. 

Für den ursprünglichen Import wurden die Grenzverläufe vereinfacht deshalb sind so oder so Abweichungen von swisstopos Datensatz zu erwarten.
habi (2026-01-21 07:33:21+00:00): Eine Diskussion zu den Grenzen findet hier statt: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/update-des-13-jahrigen-imports-der-swissboundaries3d-grenzen/118604

"Resulatate", wie die Grenzen in OSM mit den swissBOUNDARIES3D übereinstimmen finden sich hier: https://github.com/habi/swissboundaries/blob/main/reports/detailed_results.csv
habi (2026-01-21 07:33:36+00:00): /s/Resulatate/Resultate/g
9_tab (2026-01-21 10:03:07+00:00): If the edit is a problem, can it be undone now? This to avoid we edit based on it.
9_tab (2026-01-21 10:21:46+00:00): Also, the contributor may not be aware of regular initiatives such as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/2026_Municipality_Mergers
welzheimerwald (2026-01-21 19:27:17+00:00): Salü zäme!
Bonsoir!

Ich bin ehrlich gesagt etwas überrascht, dass diese Bearbeitungen von mir solche Wellen schlagen, aber lasst uns das gemeinsam klären, denn die Aufregung ist nicht gerechtfertigt, wie ich finde.

In diesem Changeset wurden einige veraltete Gemeindegrenzen aktualisiert. Welche genau, kann man im Einzelnen der Versionsnummer der Objekte dieses Changesets entnehmen. Aber das brauche ich euch, glaube ich, nicht erklären. Dass nun der Beanstandungsgrund »zu grossflächig« und »nicht nachvollziehbar« lautet, kann ich deshalb… nicht nachvollziehen :-)

Die Änderungen bezogen sich nicht auf die simplifizierten Geometrien der swisstopo-Importe, sondern schlicht und einfach auf einige in den letzten 15 Jahren stattgefundene Flächenänderungen (Gemeindefusionen oder gar Kantonswechsel wie im Fall Moutier werden von der hiesigen Community zeitnah nachgeführt. Hier sind die Relationen konsistent. Lediglich im Bodensee hat ein grosses Loch geklafft. Während die Sankt Galler Seefläche seit gut 15 Jahren mit einer admin_level=8-Relation gemappt ist, war die Thurgauer hingegen leer. Diese Lücke habe ich in einem vorherigen Changeset geschlossen. Aber anderes Thema).

Ich habe den OSM-Datenbestand mit aktuellen swisstopo-Grenzen abgeglichen und dabei grössere Verwerfungen festgestellt. Einige Beispiele: z.B. gab es kürzlich im Wallis eine grössere Grenzänderung zwischen Leuk und Guttet-Feschel. Bei Bulle wurde die Gemeindegrenze mit einem landuse=industrial verklebt und verschoben, ähnliches ist mit einem Grenzpunkt https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1373190943/history/1 in Bardonnex GE passiert, unabsichtlich oder nicht… Kurzum: ich habe offensichtlich falsches, veraltetes oder fehlerhaftes OSM-Datenmaterial nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen bearbeitet.

Wie dem auch sei, ich halte meine Bearbeitungen für gerechtfertigt und finde es auch nicht fair, ohne klar benannte handwerkliche Mängel sofort nach einem Revert zu schreien.
9_tab (2026-01-21 19:43:41+00:00): I open forum discussion on the national border question: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/border-in-lake-constance-bodensee/140844
あじさか (2026-01-21 03:40:47+00:00): Please do not remove or redraw existing features without reviewing the intent
of previous edits.

This area was already mapped with position correction in accordance with the
HOTOSM Tasking Manager instructions:
https://tasks.hotosm.org/projects/27165/instructions

Bing imagery without offset adjustment may appear minor at first, but will
result in misalignment with surrounding municipalities.
rshiery (2026-01-21 05:02:28+00:00): My apologies, thank you for letting me know!
NorthCrab_upload (2026-01-23 01:31:37+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2602394198
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/362148618

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Taya_S (2026-01-21 16:43:47+00:00): Reverted sockpuppet vandalism https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19627

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177531762
MxxCon (2026-01-21 19:15:28+00:00): Hello.
This theater is already mapped. As such I'll remove duplicate addition.👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177501177
MxxCon (2026-01-21 19:08:25+00:00): Hello.
Does this name apply only between 23rd Ave and Astoria Blvd, or does it extend further in either direction?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177501410
eggie (2026-01-21 08:05:24+00:00): Dag Giverney

Er is hier al een theater gemapt met de naam Theater van C. met old_name Schouwburg De Meerse.
Dit lijkt me in ieder geval niet kloppen zo.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-01-21 08:07:58+00:00): Volgens de website heet het Cpunt.

https://www.cpunt.nl/theater?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21045645335&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_tehoZackgMV6Y6DBx0NcgHLEAAYASAAEgI4o_D_BwE

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-01-21 08:13:58+00:00): Please don't add info on the map that is already there, I will delete your contribution.
idkwhatname2use (2026-02-12 19:44:24+00:00): What was the point of this? The state still signs this as part of CA 91, not CA 91 Hist, and its still maintained either directly by the state or one of its subdivisions...
Yushclay (2026-02-12 20:31:53+00:00): The initial point of this was that CA 91 Hist was decommissioned by the state, but could not verify that it was still signed as CA 91.
But I recently realized I was wrong for doing that since cities do the work of maintaining CA 91. So I'll get back to reverting the road numbers.
ramthelinefeed (2026-01-21 09:35:28+00:00): thanks Mac!
crushtheserpent (2026-01-21 03:10:42+00:00): I also reclassified the eastbound segment of Olympic Boulevard, between 10th Street and 11 Street, to highway=primary match the tagging of the corresponding westbound segment of Olympic Boulevard
JesseFTW (2026-06-17 01:52:57+00:00): Where did you source this information? (thanks for adding it)
KevinMapsThings (2026-06-17 10:56:17+00:00): MA publishes a "Eligible Circuits by EDC" spreadsheet fairly regularly which contains the circuit numbers and their general area that they run. I then either hunt through the satellite imagery for the exact location or I look around for news articles about construction that may be happening at them.

Names can usually be confirmed by the signs posted outside of the substations, those usually require some boots on the ground unless there's acceptable imagery in the area. Same deal for addresses which are usually on the sign as well as the reference number which is usually there following the substation name.

Voltages are called out on the circuit list usually, but when they aren't you can look at the feeder IDs to get the voltages. National Grid generally follows a consistent "####A##" format where the first set of digits is the substation ID, the letter represents the voltage, and the second set of digits is the feeder number. Those can often be spotted on the electric poles outside substations or on equipment within the substation (harder to see usually).

Additionally, construction work at substations has to be filed with the state and those dockets sometimes contain information which is useful. That's mostly useful for figuring out what the specs are on the equipment within a substation.
JesseFTW (2026-06-17 11:42:58+00:00): Awesome! Could you copy this excellent description onto https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Massachusetts -- it would be useful to others adding similar information (like me :-) )
KevinMapsThings (2026-06-17 20:09:16+00:00): I threw a very rough first pass at some info on the page, let me know if anything else would be useful and as always feel free to make further edits :)