piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
5m4u9 (2026-01-16 02:34:20+00:00): Hola, gran trabajo en añadir los números de casas y nombres de vías... 👏

Solo hay un error, el área total (del terreno) no debería ser categorizado como edificio, porque solo unas partes de los terrenos son casas. En fin, ya los corregí. Lo idea, sería colocar la dirección en la puerta de cada casa, pero eso es demasiado trabajo por ahora. 

Con el arreglo y tu trabajo, esperamos unas semanas y los otros mapas (apple, facebook, amazon, etc) lo replicarán....
DiogoBaptista98 (2026-01-14 10:08:58+00:00): As estações já se encontravam correctamente mapeadas como áreas com railway=station e public_transport=station. A edição agora revertida adicionou nodes adicionais com os mesmos tags no interior dessas áreas, duplicando o mesmo objecto. De acordo com a wiki do OpenStreetMap, uma estação deve ser mapeada ou como node ou como area, mas não ambas as representações para a mesma estação. A documentação de railway=station refere explicitamente: “Map an unconnected node … or, as an alternative, an area … but do not do both”. A página de public_transport=station indica igualmente que a própria estação é normalmente mapeada como area quando o seu contorno é conhecido. Para manter a coerência do modelo de dados e evitar redundância, os nodes adicionados foram removidos.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dstation
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:public_transport%3Dstation
NeisBot (2026-01-17 16:22:15+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/13401631846 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Hague Quality Water of Kokomo water softening equipment supplier"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-25 07:50:34+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177671412
(No visible changes after review)
bartgron (2026-01-13 20:47:04+00:00): Proszę o natychmiastowe zaprzestanie wandalizowania naszych map
Poparzony (2026-01-13 20:50:03+00:00): Oczywiście
Poparzony (2026-01-13 20:55:07+00:00): Niewypał z mojej strony, zwykle moje edycje przynoszą dużo pożytku, jednak tutaj coś poszło nie tak
bartgron (2026-01-13 21:18:14+00:00): Oj to grubo nie tak
Poparzony (2026-01-13 21:19:29+00:00): Zdecydowanie niestety tak :(
NeisBot (2026-01-13 17:46:16+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 556 of your last 556 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=23705421
NVBW_Seifert (2026-01-22 09:23:32+00:00): Hallo,
was ist die Grundlage, das die Verbindung zum Bahnsteig von Dir entfernt wurde?
herbcowboy (2026-01-22 13:20:17+00:00): Sorry, das ist bei der Bearbeitung des Wanderwegs versehentlich passiert. Baust du es (wieder) ein oder soll ich das übernehmen?
mueschel (2026-01-17 16:28:30+00:00): Hier fehlt die Art der authentication:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222850704
disc?
theophrastos (2026-01-17 19:18:11+00:00): Danke, ist korrigiert.
fudoreaper (2026-01-15 16:58:09+00:00): Thanks for updating this. I just read in the WFP about the proposed new building and went to OSM to remove the old building--and found it already updated. Great work!
LudovicG (2026-02-10 18:11:22+00:00): attention au "not:" devant operator:wikidata.
Je me suis permis de corriger.
dknelson9876 (2026-01-15 03:06:20+00:00): Hi jdupuis, welcome to OSM and mapping in Utah! Just a couple notes for you: 1. when mapping the name of a residential development (like the townhomes you did here), the name goes on a residential area covering the whole thing instead of copied on every building. 2. In OSM, we don't use abbreviations in tags. Rather than addr:street="S 900 E", the correct form is addr:street="South 900 East". I've already corrected these issues for you. Feel free to ask any questions you have!
jdupuis111 (2026-01-15 04:03:01+00:00): Thank you so much!! I’m looking forward to learning more. If the county parcel map separates each unit individually, should I do the same?
flohoff (2026-01-14 08:44:47+00:00): Warum hast du hier das bicycle=yes entfernt? Da darf man auch mit dem Rad durch - nicht das das sinn macht aber du hast hier die semantik verändert und ich sehe nicht warum:

highway=footway ist eigentlich nur für dinge die Z239 tragen oder explizit nur für Fußgänger ist.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133741889
stirps (2026-01-14 09:52:34+00:00): Ich habe jetzt einen highway=footway mit bicycle=yes draus gemacht. Aufgrund der Treppen auf dem Weg,  dem zugewachsenen Weg am Bambi vorbei und weil am Bahndamm öfter Leute sprayen würde ich argumentieren, dass sich der Weg nur bedingt für Fahrräder eignet, man ihn aber befahren kann. Deshalb das highway=footway.
flohoff (2026-01-14 12:29:37+00:00): Wir bilden ja fakten ab - und defakto darfst du da mit dem Fahrrad fahren. Deshalb gibt es ja den highway=path der highway=footway und cycleway perspektivisch ersetzen soll.

Erst wenn es wirklich ein reiner Fußweg ist und Radfahren verboten sollte da ein highway=footway hin - highway=footway + bicycle=yes ist IMHO ein semantischer Fehler.
stirps (2026-01-14 13:35:18+00:00): Ist geändert
NeisBot (2026-01-17 16:22:18+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/140758940 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Centro Médico Dentário e Estético Integrado"
---
Por exemplo, uma versão mais neutra e factual do seu texto poderia ser: "Centro Médico Dentário e Estético Integrado"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-25 07:55:21+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177671503
(No visible changes after review)
RedGreenBlue09 (2026-01-15 18:22:33+00:00): That's way too rigid as a rule. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vietnam

These provincial roads connects important centers of the province (ports, city center, ferry), so making them primary does no harm and makes more sense.
ZioDragon (2026-01-15 18:37:30+00:00): It's true that it doesn't cause any harm, but it does affect secondary national highways. Looking at it, it's quite generic, making it difficult to distinguish between secondary national highways and provincial roads.
ZioDragon (2026-01-15 18:43:44+00:00): The issue of child abuse has received very strong feedback on OSM Vietnam's Facebook page. This was previously the case in the Bac Ninh area.
ZioDragon (2026-01-15 18:44:42+00:00): The issue of primary abuse has received strong feedback on OSM Vietnam's Facebook page. Previously, this situation also occurred in the Bac Ninh area.
RedGreenBlue09 (2026-01-15 18:45:33+00:00): I think that's not a big problem either as the ref is rendered correctly. We can see (QL and ĐT). In the city we even have local roads classed as trunk even though they're not national.
RedGreenBlue09 (2026-01-15 18:47:21+00:00): I don't abuse primary for everything though. Look at all the other provincial roads in Dong Nai. I only make the big ones primary. Classing roads is hard but we shouldn't avoid it by applying some rigid rule that make things worse.
RedGreenBlue09 (2026-01-15 18:57:35+00:00): Bad edits is always a problem on OSM. We should inform these mappers about the methods instead of making things simpler but worse. I try not to make strong opinions about 50/50 situations but these roads are quite clear to be primary.

Anyways thanks for engaging in the discussion.
kilroywashere81 (2026-01-13 18:14:14+00:00): I think the reason why the changeset area is so big is because I touched the power lines to the east of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1466806670

I only changed around that area lol
NeisBot (2026-01-13 18:20:22+00:00): Hi Nailoc, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 100% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 16 landuse(s)
- 2 military(s)
- 10 name(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=177191049
silversurfer83 (2026-01-16 21:51:25+00:00): (hopefully) reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177316990
mueschel (2026-01-17 10:08:42+00:00): Hi,
are the natural=water areas here really open water? In the images it looks rather like some wetlands. Could you check that?
rungdung (2026-01-18 03:57:47+00:00): Hey @mueshel

I've seen these water structures on the ground. These are centuries old bunds on the slope towards the coast. The last 5 decades they have been invaded by Prosopis Juliflora which makes them look vegetetated, but water surface is visible below the prosopis canopy.

The area may have to be revised in some markings
silversurfer83 (2026-01-13 18:27:47+00:00): HI there

what's the reason for deleting this object?

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177191156
silversurfer83 (2026-01-13 18:28:22+00:00): HI there

what's the reason for deleting this object?

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177191156
silversurfer83 (2026-01-16 21:40:48+00:00): reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177316714
NeisBot (2026-01-17 16:22:21+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/5934936893 v6

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Restaurant in McLean on Route 66"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-25 07:55:21+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177671504
(No visible changes after review)
rivermont (2026-01-26 18:20:12+00:00): Hello, if you are going to work on the TIGER cleanup project, please actually update the tagging, especially the `tiger:reviewed` tag. Otherwise they are all going to need checked again...

I have already reached out to you about this specific problem before.

Please also update classification tagging, like the challenge instructions specifically say. The target of this task is a driveway and was not updated.
UE_Su (2026-01-28 10:10:42+00:00): Hello rivermont,
I have sent an e-mail to Martijn van Exel who is the creator of this challenge to ask him, whether this is necessary. I am rather convinced that he takes the date of last updated as a criteria for the tasks. 
When I get an answer I will tell you. 
Best regards,
UE_Su
dmjab13 (2026-01-14 18:28:10+00:00): why does this changeset span multiple continents
Beakerboy (2026-01-14 18:43:52+00:00): I guess I had uncommitted changes locally before I hit “commit”.🤷‍♂️
pwbriggs (2026-01-13 23:31:38+00:00): Thank you for the contribution.

Please note that it is prohibited to use Google Maps or Google Streetview at all when contributing to OpenStreetMap: see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#Contributing

You indicated that you made this edit based on local knowledge, so I am assuming that you are only linking those streetview images for reference. That's fine but discouraged because essentially OpenStreetMap wants there to be no question about copyright infringement.

FYI, there is some Bing street level imagery licensed for use in OSM. It's not as good or new as Google's imagery, but it's what we've got. To access it, you can hit the "layers" button on the right sidebar in the editor and check the apropriate boxes (there are a few other street-level imagery providers you can also enable, but Bing usually has by far the best coverage and quality in urban areas).

Thank you for understanding: we want to ensure that it's completely obvious that OSM's data is 100% legal, which means we try to exercise lots of caution.

But thanks for the contribution, we really appreciate this. It's the community of local people carefully adding details like this about the places they know best that, in my opinion, makes OpenStreetMap such a great project. Thanks for being a part of this :)
pwbriggs (2026-01-14 00:09:15+00:00): Regarding your edit specifically, you mentioned that this is a staircase. I updated this area to change that into a staircase, could you check to see if it looks correct now? Thanks!
VA00 (2026-01-13 19:00:49+00:00): No ale to jest część Puszczy Dulowskiej. Czemu ma nie być w relacji https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7160131 ?
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-01-13 19:18:49+00:00): jeśli jest częścią relacji oznaczonej jako teren zadrzewiony to czemu narzekasz na forum że jest pokazane jako część terenu porośniętego drzewami?

(a na czym nazwa lasu ma wisieć to jest temat bez dobrego rozwiązania)

zresztą, outer też było błędne: różne outer nie mają się stykać
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-01-13 19:24:41+00:00): a, inne obszary wycięte z tej relacji były usuwane przez ciebie 

więc czemu akurat ten nie?
VA00 (2026-01-13 19:28:30+00:00): To byłaby dosyć dziwaczna procedura, w przypadku wycinek na brzegu lasu - najpierw je usuwamy z relacji, a jak odrośnie, dodajemy? Relacja powinna być stała - o ile przyjmujemy, że takie podejście jest preferowane.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-01-13 19:34:43+00:00): "w przypadku wycinek na brzegu lasu - najpierw je usuwamy z relacji, a jak odrośnie, dodajemy? "

to samo robi się dodając obszary inner, to też wycięcie z relacji

np. w https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/920072703/history VA00 to zrobił

problemem jest tu że takie dziury są częścią nazwanego obszaru a nie są częścią terenu zadrzewionego

można sobie z tym na kilka sposobów radzić, każdy jest zły

przy małych dziurach wycinanie ich z nazwanego obszaru jest moim zdaniem do przeżycia i lepsze od alternatyw
c_vllymapper (2026-01-15 01:30:31+00:00): rip dv bus stop 😔
bxl-forever (2026-01-13 20:48:06+00:00): Hello,

I see you wanted a review.

A good point for providing a clear description of what you edited, thanks for this.

Same comment as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177192782 : Your edit clearly does two completely different things, and on locations several hundreds kilometers apart.  Please never do this as a single upload.  There is no magic system that will split it in two parts; if you ask for one single upload, then you will have one single upload.  Which is now showing as a huge rectangle on the map.  This giant changeset is very annoying because it covers most of Belgium and even spans across neighbouring countries.

Also, you might want to know that buildings should never be traced from aerial imagery.  You damaged a few buildings in Terneuzen, despite those buildings were clearly labelled as having been imported from the BAG registry.

Buildings in the NL have tags like this.
ref:bag=0715100000033119
source=BAG
source:date=2014-03-24

Please never trace or redraw buildings on aerial imagery.  Those pictures are distorted and do not show you the real outline on the ground.  Map data may be outdated in some places, but only the vector geometries provided by governments are correct.

Happy mapping.
Taya_S (2026-01-14 10:47:44+00:00): Reverted questionable translations.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177214374
Halfix (2026-01-14 08:07:05+00:00): So richtig eindeutig ist das aber nicht. Sowohl der Bayernatlas (die amtliche Referenz) als auch die Eigentümer des Sägewerks in Neumühle https://saegewerk-baechmann.de/ - die sollten es ja nun wirklich wissen, nachdem die Familie dort nach eigener Angabe seit 100 Jahren ansässig ist - sind der Meinung, dass das der Neumühlbach ist.
hirni (2026-01-15 21:17:34+00:00): Wikipedia benennt den Bach auch Volletsbach auf mehreren Seiten (zB hier https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Volletsbach_Neumuehle.jpg ). 
Ich denke "Volletsbach" ist der einheimische Name zumindest im Dialekt, vielleicht ist aber trotzdem "Neumuehlbach" der offizielle Name.
 
Im Prinzip ist es mir egal, du kannst es auch gerne rueckgaengig machen.
Halfix (2026-01-15 22:18:32+00:00): Ich habe mal Gemini zu dem Konflikt befragt und das ist die Zusammenfassung der (längeren) Antwort: "Während Neumühlbach die aktuelle amtliche und betriebliche Bezeichnung ist, bleibt Volletsbach als historisch gewachsener und lokaler Name relevant. In der Praxis bezeichnen beide Namen denselben Zufluss zur Leinleiter im Bereich unterhalb von Schloss Greifenstein."
Ich persönlich war nicht da und es ist auch keine meiner Interessenzonen, deshalb werde ich dort nichts editieren. Ist mir nur am Rande aufgefallen, weil ich verschiedene andere Zonen in der Fränkischen beobachte (mein Kernthema sind Wanderwege).
bxl-forever (2026-01-13 20:33:01+00:00): Hello, and welcome to OSM.

Please do not bundle a barn in Terneuzen and a give-way sign in Wallonia within the same upload.  Your edit creates a large bounding box that covers most of Belgium, for no reason.

The correct way to edit OSM is to work on *one* area, then upload it.  And only then, move elsewhere on the map and start working on the second edit.

Also, the give-way sign should never be on the node where the two roads intersect (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/300962905).  Drivers on the main road will be presented with a give-way sign.  This is plainly incorrect.
woodpeck_repair (2026-07-03 14:55:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 185044755, 185044712, 185044792, 185043031, 185044858, 185044854, 185044726, 185044802, 185044684, 185044693, 185043064, 185044766, 185044834, 185044779, 185043050, 185044776, 185043074, 185043054, 185044732, 185043091, 185044704, 185044746, 185044715, 185043085, 185044894, 185044810, 185044795, 185044765, 185044862, 185043059, 185044750, 185044758, 185043076, 185044812, 185044785, 185043015, 185043039, 185044823, 185044748, 185044738, 185044744, 185044734, 185044845, 185044702, 185044835, 185044888, 185044873, 185044731, 185044879, 185044817, 185044827, 185044789, 185044865, 185044720, 185044843, 185043045, 185044839, 185044849, 185044771, 185044694, 185044768, 185044707, 185043066 where the changeset comment is: revert undiscussed and buggy imports in Ivory Coast
woodpeck_repair (2026-07-03 14:55:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 185044755, 185044712, 185044792, 185043031, 185044858, 185044854, 185044726, 185044802, 185044684, 185044693, 185043064, 185044766, 185044834, 185044779, 185043050, 185044776, 185043074, 185043054, 185044732, 185043091, 185044704, 185044746, 185044715, 185043085, 185044894, 185044810, 185044795, 185044765, 185044862, 185043059, 185044750, 185044758, 185043076, 185044812, 185044785, 185043015, 185043039, 185044823, 185044748, 185044738, 185044744, 185044734, 185044845, 185044702, 185044835, 185044888, 185044873, 185044731, 185044879, 185044817, 185044827, 185044789, 185044865, 185044720, 185044843, 185043045, 185044839, 185044849, 185044771, 185044694, 185044768, 185044707, 185043066 where the changeset comment is: revert undiscussed and buggy imports in Ivory Coast
VA00 (2026-01-13 19:35:18+00:00): Czyli błąd polegał na tym, że linia miała tag landuse=forest, a powinnna być bez tagów?
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-01-13 19:48:57+00:00): tak

bo z tym tagiem były dwa nakładające się obszaru lasu:

(1) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/920072695
(2) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2995056

i ten pierwszy bez dziur był
Taya_S (2026-01-14 10:47:45+00:00): Reverted questionable translations.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177214374
eggie (2026-01-13 20:50:44+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
Taya_S (2026-01-14 10:47:46+00:00): Reverted questionable translations.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177214374
flohoff (2026-01-14 12:33:25+00:00): Moin,
kann es sein das du dieses Stück vergessen hast?

Der Changeset kommentar sagt leider wenig drüber aus was du genau ändern wolltest.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/72061842
palimpadum (2026-01-16 15:14:45+00:00): Danke. Stimmt, ergänze ich noch.
Hinweis: Von Winterberg nach Niedersfeld rein muss noch erkundet werden.
A67-A67 (2026-01-13 20:47:44+00:00): In deze wijziging wordt de busbaan ook voor auto's opengezet. Daarnaast is de correcte highway-tag voor busbaan highway=busway. Ik zal het verbeterd.
juni_vv (2026-01-13 20:55:00+00:00): Hoi klopt auto was ik vergeten haha. alleen busway zorgt er voor dat het fietspad dat er ligt niet goed navigeert waardoor fiets omgeleid wordt.. hoe los ik dat op?
A67-A67 (2026-01-13 20:59:27+00:00): Een busway met bicycle=yes zou moeten routeren. Zo niet, dan ligt de fout bij de navigatie-app en zal er daar actie moeten worden ondernomen.
juni_vv (2026-01-13 21:03:13+00:00): goed om te weten dank
flex16 (2026-03-16 17:05:13+00:00): Den Radfahrer will ich sehen, der da durchfährt. Das ist doch viel zu schmal oder?
flex16 (2026-03-16 17:07:02+00:00): Ich wäre hier einfach bei footway und fertig.

Im Wiki steht ja bei footway: "The tag highway=footway is used for mapping minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians."

Das ist so ein minor pathway. Ich denke wir müssen bei unbeschilderten Wegen etwas differenzierter vorgehen
flex16 (2026-03-16 18:32:45+00:00): Ich hab den path jetzt mal zu footway umgetagged. Ortskundige können da gerne durchfahren wer mag, aber ich finde niemand sollte da durchgeroutet werden...
m_fuhrmann (2026-03-17 08:17:49+00:00): Den kann ich dir zeigen :joy: Aber ja, das könnte man wirklich anpassen.
Ich glaube, wir sollten bei solchen Stellen, vlt auch einen Kommentar mit einer Begründung adden. Nicht, dass jemand es dann wieder abändert (wie ich: "Oh! Kein Schild, also Pfad!").
Frans S (2026-01-19 14:30:51+00:00): Hello. thanks for mapping
Check this footage to see how a high building ought to be mapped.
https://youtu.be/Tpi-BTMVo1M?si=4NU6ZUMQ0k2Sk1h5
Best regards
jhingea (2026-01-21 17:20:55+00:00): Hello Frans S, thanks for your validations and for writing comments. I really appreciate it. I am aware of the principle of moving the outline of the roof area to the footprint of a tall building, as shown in the video. At least for nice, boxy buildings (although I can see from your corrections that I have overlooked some here). However, I am unsure how to handle some of the more complex buildings, where the lower parts may be hidden behind the higher parts of the building. Hence the addition of a Fixme tag. Any advice regarding the mapping principle in these cases would be very welcome.
By the way, referring to the changeset in your comment is very useful. If possible, including the task id would be a great help to get back to the imagery.
I’m not used to communicate in this way, but I hope that you will be made aware of my comment here