piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisRevert (2026-02-15 05:33:20+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178569215
(Cleaned up leftovers from previous edits)
Udarian (2026-02-05 22:40:49+00:00): the position on this ALPR seems incorrect as it is in the middle of a road (in a lane) on several aerial imagery, it is also some ways away from the nearest traffic light so I can't say with certainty that it is attached to that. Please double check the position of this ALPR.

Happy Mapping,
Udar.
dtstech (2026-02-05 22:53:16+00:00): Yes it indeed is right where I placed it they were recently installed and it's facing the traffic light right there.
Udarian (2026-02-05 23:29:22+00:00): The following screenshot is of iD using the latest imagery I know of in the area: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Udarthegreat/public-sources/refs/heads/main/other/Screenshot%202026-02-05%20182343.png
I do not see anything that this ALPR could attach to at the position it is at, it is literally in the middle of a lane. please check with imagery before adding something to make sure that you have correctly positioned it.

Happy Mapping,
Udar.
dtstech (2026-02-05 23:32:15+00:00): I see what you mean what I don't understand is the imagery and the regular map where I placed it don't match up why is that.
Udarian (2026-02-05 23:51:35+00:00): I was using custom imagery, but Bing aerial should be good enough in the area.
NeisBot (2026-02-06 06:00:05+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/13525094507 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-15 05:33:20+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178569216
(No visible changes after review)
InfosReseaux (2026-02-10 10:14:47+00:00): Good morning

I noticed your efforst to update power grid circuits and thank you for this attempt.
I think it could be even simpler. You can avoid creating nested line_section relation when the line is straight between two substations.

Did you see this example?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dcircuit#A_linear_circuit_with_two_ends

I available to help if needed. You can check 400 kV and 225 kV lines in France for reference.
dmfr (2026-02-10 10:28:34+00:00): Hello! Thank you for your suggestions.

I read the new power=circuit and power=line_section specs in great detail before upgrading the existing relations in Portugal, and arrived at the conclusion that the mapping I have done is correct, albeit excessive as the power=line_section page mentions, since a simple power line doesn't require a line_section relation.

This was intentional on my end, for the simple reason that infrastructure reports published by the network operators always mention line sections, not circuits, so it would be useful to have all line sections reported by operators mapped as line_sections instead of some being line_sections and others having their refs straight in the ways and having those ways as direct members of circuits.

All of this is to say: I am aware this mapping does not obey all the recommendations in the power=circuit page, but this mapping fully complies with the spec, and I don't intend to change it. And the reason is that it is more convenient for me to cross-check against power grid operators' reports.
InfosReseaux (2026-02-10 11:29:28+00:00): Hello

That's interesting. Do you know where I can find public documentation from operators reporting line sections please? That will be useful to document that.

By the way, the point of those nested relations wasn't to oppose circuits versus sections.
Those two concepts always exist, but sometimes they can be abstracted for sake of maintenance.
For instance having two relations here is not necessary:
Section: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16827098
Circuit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20179280

The circuits includes the section and link to substations as well. Nesting a line_section in it doesn't bring additional information.
But power=circuit is required as you need to know the substations.

This is equivalent: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10106801
But only needs one relation and the section does exist as well.

I hope I'm clear, it's not an attempt to differ from what local operator is mentioning in its reporting. You can still use sections through circuits relations without always create a line_section relation.
dmfr (2026-02-11 11:06:56+00:00): E-REDES, in pages 47-71 you'll find the list of all 60kV line sections, including branches: https://www.e-redes.pt/sites/eredes/files/2025-05/E-REDES_Artigo18_RARI2024_Caracterizacao_Redes_Distribuicao_MT_AT_a_31dez2024.pdf

REN, in pages 41-45 you'll find the list of all line sections between 150kV-400kV, including branches ("ramais"): https://mercado.ren.pt/PT/Electr/AcessoRedes/AcessoRNT/CaractRNT/BibRelAno/Caracteriza%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20da%20RNT%2031-12-2024.pdf

As I said previously, I understand the recommendation of not needing a line_section relation if the whole line section is a single way, in which case the way can be added to the circuit with role "section", and I don't need to create the line_section relation. I also understand that line_section relations were proposed as a convenience to make circuits simpler. However, I explicitly chose not to obey that recommendation (although I am following the proposed mapping by the letter), because network operators frequently mention line sections instead of circuits, so I decided that line_section could be not only a convenience to build circuits, but also a relevant type of object per se, because those are the terms in which network operators refer to their power lines.

Also, this does not inconvenience any renderers or data consumers, if those can handle line_sections with more than one way as members, they can also handle a single way as a member.
InfosReseaux (2026-02-11 11:27:27+00:00): Okay, that's fine for me if it's locally accepted.
That's very nice documentation for both operator you mentioned.

I recommend to describe this on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_networks/Portugal you already began to complete.

We will probably make further review in a couple of year to see how this tagging is practiced around the world
NeisBot (2026-02-06 06:00:06+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/13383714160 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-15 05:33:21+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178569217
(No visible changes after review)
NeisBot (2026-02-06 06:00:07+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/13372915864 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-15 05:33:21+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178569218
(No visible changes after review)
UKChris (2026-03-05 20:04:55+00:00): Just an FYI, the park an bus car park is now complete and operational John.

Some great work on mapping this new area, thank you :)
John Grubb (2026-03-05 20:58:15+00:00): Cheers, ears. I noticed it looking all pristine when I went for a nosy the other day. Still trying to finish updating that corner of this monstrosity! Might do an interim upload over the weekend.
ViriatoLusitano (2026-02-19 17:59:30+00:00): Algumas das linhas tem um ; a mais.
dmfr (2026-02-19 18:11:53+00:00): Era intencional, uma vez que esta linha tem dois circuitos, um deles operado a 130kV, e o outro não se encontra a ser operado. Daí voltage=130000; porque o 2.º circuito não tem voltagem. Mas se calhar seria mais adequado indicar voltage=130000;0, e frequency=50;0, que achas?
ViriatoLusitano (2026-02-19 18:44:35+00:00): Estou a ver, agradeço a clarificação. Sim como sugeres faz sentido.
dmfr (2026-02-19 23:19:01+00:00): Alterei nos casos que consegui detetar. Se encontrares mais algum caso desses, pedia o favor de aplicares esta alteração do frequency=50;0 e voltage=X;0. Talvez só acrescentaria disused=no;yes para ficar ainda mais claro, mas não vou agora alterar as linhas porque dá trabalho.

Um aparte: acho que o mais correto seria utilizar uma convenção semelhante a destination:lanes=* para voltage=* e disused=*, em que se utiliza o separador "|" em vez de ";" para separar os diferentes valores. Quando separados por "|", deduz-se que a ordem importa, e que os valores se referem às lanes/circuitos da esquerda para a direita, enquanto valores separados por ";" se consideram tipicamente como não-ordenados. Mas pronto, é só um aparte.
literan (2026-02-08 11:18:10+00:00): по вашей же фотке это окно на улицу. зачем вы превращаете это в кафе? откачу.
kxeess (2026-02-10 12:00:50+00:00): Помечаю согласно вики как пункт выдачи кофе как кофейня без посадочных мест -- следующими тегами

cuisine 	coffee_shop
indoor_seating 	no
outdoor_seating 	no

кафе это опять же из-за формата предлагаемого вики

> Generally cuisine=coffee_shop is used in combination with amenity=cafe. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cuisine%3Dcoffee_shop
kxeess (2026-02-10 12:16:06+00:00): Также к фаст фуду точка не относится так как не готовит полуфабрикаты на выдачу -- не хранит полуфабрикаты и не имеет кухни для их приготовления. Предлагает только авторские печеньки которые идут к подаваемому напитку.
literan (2026-02-11 06:35:57+00:00): ознакомьтесь, пожалуйста с вики
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:amenity%3Dcafe
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:amenity%3Dfast_food

место, специализирующееся на еде на вынос это фаст-фуд. Всю жизнь во всем мире окна с кофе мапятся как фастфуд. Я не буду тратить время на обсуждение очевидного, и убедительно прошу вас не писать против ветра.
jkoe (2026-02-05 22:35:01+00:00): it was an admin_level=10, but does not matter for the conclusion
NeisBot (2026-02-05 22:41:22+00:00): Hi ajd5125, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 94% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 5 landuse(s)
- 2 leisure(s)
- 1 name(s)
- 2 natural(s)
- 1 sport(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=178160250
woodpeck (2026-02-05 23:11:13+00:00): I have reverted this edit because it removed a detailed golf course outline and replaced it with a coarsely drawn polygon, all without giving an explanation. @ajd5125, in the future if you make edits like this, tell us your reasoning in the changeset comment rather than a meaningless "Plantation Lakes-TGC2019"...
NeisBot (2026-02-06 06:00:10+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/13526988309 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Concierge service"
---
Например, более нейтральная и фактическая версия вашего текста могла бы быть: "Сервис консьержа"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-02-15 05:33:22+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/178569214
GA_Kevin (2026-03-16 17:20:23+00:00): Hi There,

It seems the website tag here is malformed (should include the https portion). In addition, this moved the `alt_name` to `not:name` when it is in-use in reliable sources and verifiable on the ground. Please revert those changes. Thank you!
unknown246 (2026-03-16 17:45:34+00:00): Reverted.
santamariense (2026-02-19 15:32:20+00:00): Olá Rodrigo306,

Notei que você deletou a alça de acesso que tinha, conforme a imagem [1].

Ela de fato não existe mais?

[1] - https://imgur.com/a/FRGibQv

santamariense
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-06 07:21:30+00:00): Thanks for a fix! And for your mapping in general!
mavl (2026-02-06 15:06:15+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок удаляет точки на дорогах, в результате чего точность ухудшилась. Также были удалены дорожные знаки:    
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2671563619/history  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2393021378/history  
  
После этого пакета правок карта стала хуже.  Этот пакет правок отменён.
Lachgast (2026-02-06 00:06:31+00:00): Reverted changeset  171486466 by pcmill, the 'temporary bus stops' (used during football matches) were removed. They are still there and actively used. Having them on the map is particularly important as information on the ground that this is a replacement bus stop during matches is absent. 
'Tijdelijke bushalte' is what it says on the bus stop sign, though 'Evenementenhalte' should have been a much better choice.
NeisBot (2026-02-06 05:57:51+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 8 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/97641283 v9 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/973029225 v6
https://osm.org/node/30210396 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178161548
NeisBot (2026-02-05 23:57:21+00:00): Hi ajd5125, 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:
- 1 landuse(s)
- 1 leisure(s)
- 2 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=178161644
woodpeck_repair (2026-02-06 00:23:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 178162193 where the changeset comment is: revert un-explained deletions, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19750
kapazao (2026-02-06 11:56:51+00:00): Hola, esto es incorrecto y problemático, ya que elevas la categoría de un lugar al nivel de otros que nada tienen que ver.

Por favor antes de hacer cambios sin conocimiento revisa el etiquetado.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Directrices_de_etiquetado_espa%C3%B1olas#N%C3%BAcleos_de_poblaci%C3%B3n

Un saludo
trallalallalaa (2026-02-07 15:21:58+00:00): Por favor, explíqueme que he hecho de falso.

Según https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place=neighbourhood:

Don't use neighbourhood for places in the unbuilt environment or isolated settlements (depending on the size, see place=locality, place=isolated_dwelling or place=hamlet). 

Lo que exactamente yo he hecho: he cambiado "neighbourhood" a "hamlet" para un núcleo completamente aislado.
trallalallalaa (2026-02-07 15:30:49+00:00): (Continuación)

Según el enlace que has enviado, "suburb" y "neighbourhood"  "Tienen carácter urbano, por ejemplo, urbanizaciones, a diferencia de place=village o place=hamlet cuyo carácter es rural."

¡¡¡El Chorro muy definitivamente no tiene carácter urbano!!!! (¿Lo has visitado aguna vez?)
kingkingHK (2026-02-22 02:31:52+00:00): Jetbridges for gates 47-50 and 70 didn't get `access=`, is this simply an editing omission?
Kovoschiz (2026-02-22 16:20:14+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178905889
woodpeck_repair (2026-02-06 00:23:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 178162193 where the changeset comment is: revert un-explained deletions, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19750
eggie (2026-02-06 07:04:30+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
eggie (2026-02-06 07:13:15+00:00): info samengevoegd
eggie (2026-02-06 07:12:34+00:00): info samengevoegd. nr 5 is niet hier
MVG
eggie
woodpeck_repair (2026-02-06 00:23:53+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 178161644, 178161695, 178161729, 178161794, 178161827.
eggie (2026-02-06 07:11:07+00:00): info samengevoegd
felipeeugenio (2026-02-06 14:46:19+00:00): Hola Julian. Esta edición ya está un poco mejor, por favor mantener las ediciones sobre elementos puntuales. Sin embargo, es fácil ver que el bosque simplemente no tiene esa forma. por favor tomar contacto con la comunidad para recibir instrucción.

Gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178162424
kartler175 (2026-02-06 11:40:51+00:00): Please check and revisse your edits:
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=15.01951&lat=49.22972&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.95&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways
Dvorný (2026-02-06 12:24:41+00:00): I’m very sorry. These errors occurred due to problems uploading the changeset (I exceeded the edit limit). Could you please revert it for me? Thank you very much.
eggie (2026-02-06 07:10:14+00:00): info samengevoegd
eggie (2026-02-06 07:09:28+00:00): info samengevoegd
eggie (2026-02-06 05:51:50+00:00): Welkom bij OSM,

Probeer als het kan bij te taggen op de bestaande adresnode zodat het adres compleet is en er geen twee identieke adressen ontstaan.
Mvg
eggie
eggie (2026-02-06 07:06:20+00:00): Info samengevoegd met adresnode
RJ-Gouda (2026-02-06 09:07:20+00:00): Hi Eggie, ik zal daar in de toekomst op letten!
eggie (2026-02-06 09:08:38+00:00): 👍
NeisBot (2026-02-06 05:57:58+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 8 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/724117054 v1 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/724115924 v1 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/6791109074 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178163197
NeisReview (2026-02-15 05:33:32+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178300770
descubrebitcoin (2026-02-06 02:58:12+00:00): I see it differently. Description seems intended to explain *what* the item is, not *where* it is located. Note can be helpful to other mappers doing indoor mapping, for instance. If the POI is accurately mapped inside a shopping mall or building, writing where it is located would be redundant and the note would not be needed.

The wiki example (speed limit 30 km/h applies during school hours) does indeed provide information that would be relevant for the end-user. I think the wiki guidance is not very clear.
Comino (2026-02-06 20:10:30+00:00): Hi,

I sent you a DM with a response.

Edwin
kapazao (2026-02-18 18:32:26+00:00): Hola, por favor no añadas líneas eléctricas partidas y sin terminar si además no añades ningún etiquetado fixme o algo que indique que está por completar, ya que sino se nos lia un follón de elementos incompletos e incorrectos que no encontramos.

Revisa la wiki sobre el etiquetado de líneas eléctricas. Si unen subestaciones pequeñas o torres de transformación suelen ser líneas de media tensión, en caso de subestaciones grandes sí son ya de alta tensión.

Un saludo
nevw (2026-02-06 23:04:57+00:00): Hi, there a few errors to correct here
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=130.85654&lat=-12.44424&zoom=16
Perhaps splitting the wood and water area polygons, using multipolygons and sharing the ways may be better than the overlapping between these.
Dimacn (2026-02-06 04:22:59+00:00): Здравствуйте. К сожалению, внесённые вами изменения в данном пакете не соответствуют рекомендациям OSM. 1. Классификация дорог подробно описана здесь https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Highway_classification  2. Не надо разделять дороги на разные нитки (way, веи) если нет физических разграничений проезжей части. Мы не рисуем отдельные полосы. На этих перекрёстках всё было правильно - один вей к трассе. 3. пожалуйста пользуйтесь спутниковыми снимками Esri, они значительно новее и точнее чем Bing (которым пользовались вы).  Я отменю этот пакет правок.
Taksine (2026-02-08 02:37:20+00:00): 你好，如果你能收到这条消息，那么你可以对咖啡馆和cafe的意思进一步查询。

我没有查到蜜雪冰城有卖过任何瓶装饮料。
BPTT (2026-07-14 16:35:44+00:00): Hi there. It's not correct to have separated cycle paths for Beach Haven's bike lanes, because they are unprotected on the roadways themselves and not separated paths or protected cycle-tracks (protected bike lanes). I agree that it's helpful to map this way to show pedestrian crossings, but it breaks the standard precedent in use across the US. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway#When_not_to_use Could you please undo this?
hahae (2026-02-10 01:45:36+00:00): 您好 摘抄wiki内容：shop=billiards “Since this is a non-physical tag it should always be combined with some other (physical) tags”
这个标签是不能单独存在的
hahae (2026-02-10 01:46:22+00:00): 啊 打错了 详见 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport=billiards
HAALAND_ (2026-02-10 04:19:38+00:00): @hahae 我增加了“leisure=sport_central”标签
nevw (2026-02-06 22:51:49+00:00): Hi, I remapped this area using later Esri imagery showing new buildings which shortened service road. I notice in your comments you were using Esri but changeset tags indicate Bing.
B Sai Deepthi (2026-02-09 00:36:05+00:00): Apologies for the mistake I committed. Thank you for the valuable feedback. I look forward to your suggestion/feedback in the future as well. Thank you. 

Regards,  
B Sai Deepthi