piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
neuhausr (2026-02-23 17:12:30+00:00): Hi, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for contributing! I noticed you doing something that is not good practice: Please don't use the tags as the name, for example naming a grassland "grass". More info on the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_use_name_tag_to_describe_things  
It seems unlikely that the fields are numbered in the way you have named, but if they are it would be more appropriate to put the number in the "ref" key. Remember the map data is for everyone, not just for you!  :) Happy mapping!
haihaus (2026-02-11 22:05:11+00:00): See discussion at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177305392.
NeisBot (2026-02-11 22:56:26+00:00): 🌍 Welcome to OSM, rwa4132.
Thanks for contributing!

To make collaboration easier and help others understand your edits, it’s best to add a short description of the changes you made. Clear comments help the community follow your work and provide better feedback. You can find tips on writing good comments here[1].

✅ Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Added farmland, grassland areas, and named fields"
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment #Gibberish
b-jazz (2026-03-13 17:24:38+00:00): FYI, you don't need to put "area=yes" on a fairway.
Taya_S (2026-02-12 09:02:54+00:00): Reverted yet another changeset that dragged a node halfway across the globe

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178443236
Taya_S (2026-02-12 09:08:11+00:00): The usual culprit of these nodes getting dragged halfway across the planet is someone deciding to make their own editor and mixing up nodes and ways with the same ID, but that doesn't seem to be the case this time. Regardless, please figure out what went wrong and fix your editor.

If you need a place to test, use the dev server, not the live one. https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/

Best regards, 
Taya Snijder
Taya_S (2026-02-12 09:11:20+00:00): You mixed up a changeset ID with a node ID 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178428496
Leo Slager (2026-03-04 23:33:24+00:00): Rijksweg 24 is ten onrechte gewijzigd.
Nu is de fout door een andere mapper weer hersteld.
dmcg12 (2026-02-12 21:02:37+00:00): This looks like a really good batch of changes, but I do see one possible improvement you can make.

When adding sidewalks and crossings, the barrier=kerb nodes really should not be part of the footway=sidewalk way, but instead should be part of the footway=crossing way after it separates from the sidewalk. This is because you only have to cross the curb if you are entering the road, and not if you are staying on the sidewalk.

This is also noted on the wiki page for barrier=kerb, at the end of the "on a node" section. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dkerb#On_a_node

Thank you for your contribution, and happy mapping!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178429344
jacceber (2026-02-12 22:46:44+00:00): Thanks. I meant to go back and continue mapping the the crossing and onto the sidewalk across the street.
dmcg12 (2026-02-13 20:31:45+00:00): It's totally fine to come back later and add more details, such as continuing a sidewalk across a street, but that's not quite what I meant. I must not have explained as well as I thought I did, which is my bad.

I was trying to say that the footway=sidewalk should not have the curb node connected directly to it, and instead, should have a stub going to the curb, and the node at the end of that stub should be the node tagged with barrier=kerb.

Here's an example of how it should look so you can see what I'm trying to say (it's a link to the editor so you can see all of the details): https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=1275437772#map=22/40.6533206/-112.2955609

Hopefully I made more sense this time, and again, thank you for your contributions.
jacceber (2026-02-21 14:58:55+00:00): Got it, thanks for the feedback.
balint36 (2026-02-12 20:25:54+00:00): Miért szedtél ki csomó helyről címkéket? És miért illesztettél be más helyrekre nem megfelelő címkét?
balint36 (2026-02-12 20:29:32+00:00): Ferencváros számos nem átmenő fővágányáról eltüntetted a service=siding címkét, míg a 207-esnél felraktál egy indokolatlan service=siding címkét.
balint36 (2026-02-12 20:30:43+00:00): A Fradi rendező vágányokról is eltűntek címkék.
balint36 (2026-02-12 20:33:24+00:00): Sorút állomás a 150-es vonal átépítésével szintén átépült, az ahhoz -kapcsolódó 227-es címkéit is elrontottad - jó, az már 204-es, csal még nem írtam át.
balint36 (2026-02-12 20:34:30+00:00): Fradiban fel lett véve a 150-es vonal 0. szelvénye, így a vonal odáig tart, nem tovább, te elkezdted össze-vissza bekötni.
balint36 (2026-02-12 20:36:46+00:00): Fradiban a 205-ös vonal egyenes iránya is elveszett. Semmi szükség nincs arra, hogy kitérő irányokban össze legyen kötözve akármivel is, az csak vizuális megjelenítés, és OSM-ben nem a vizualitás miatt címkézünk - ezt a 12 ezres szerkesztésed után meg is érthetnéd.
balint36 (2026-02-12 20:41:19+00:00): Oh, sorry, you aren't Hungarian. You just happened to edit in the area of Hungary.
balint36 (2026-02-12 20:52:29+00:00): Then I'm sorry but I have to revert thiss changeset because it contains many incorrect details. This area was already mapped well according to the netwotrking statements, Kapella2 site, site plans ect. I really appreciate your work but unfortunately you don't have the knowledge about the Hungarian railway so this cahngeset can't remain. Beleive me, there are many Hungarian editors mapping the railway network so a person's edit, who doesn't have enough intel about the network here, could cause more harm than use.
Please be careful while editing the Hungarian railway network without source or intel next time. We really appreciate other's work, but please don't try to form the Hungarian railway mappin in your favour from abroad, from outside of Hungary. If you are not sure about the things here, just ask us. If you don't aggree with me, please provide me sources that proves you.
balint36 (2026-02-12 20:59:09+00:00): Or I'd like tu ask you to revert it. The osm-revert has some problems.
Anas masuris (2026-02-14 19:54:00+00:00): Similar things were happening in Poland, with the same user. You will have to revert it yourself if you hadn't done it yet
CAM-Gerlach (2026-03-13 07:47:07+00:00): > The osm-revert has some problems.

Just FYI, I've previously had it not work due to the overpass-api.de server that is unfortunately used by default most places being extremely overloaded and underresourced to the point of being almost unusuable; using another Overpass server e.g. https://maps.mail.ru/osm/tools/overpass/api/interpreter with more resources and much less load has worked like a charm for me.
flierfy (2026-03-15 17:38:01+00:00): I made these changes in order to bring the tagging of the tracks in question in line with the current tagging scheme. Tagging tracks which don't leave the station with usage=main/branch violates the tagging principles which has been agreed on.

Ezeket a változtatásokat azért végeztem, hogy a szóban forgó sávok címkézését összhangba hozzam a jelenlegi címkézési sémával. Az állomást nem elhagyó sávok usage=main/branch paraméterrel történő címkézése sérti az elfogadott címkézési elveket.

With best regards,
Stephan
balint36 (2026-03-15 17:40:54+00:00): Bro... All the lines that you ruined leave the station... And by the way, please cite this 'rule'.
There are more errors btw so I'm interested your excuses...
Anas masuris (2026-03-15 18:09:13+00:00): I'd like to know then, where those tagging principles are written as well, since it's the first time I'm hearing this
flierfy (2026-03-15 19:14:44+00:00): There is the tagging scheme, or at least the part which is relevant for this discussion: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:usage
Anas masuris (2026-03-15 19:25:41+00:00): That is not true. Nowhere on that page there is stated clearly that "Tagging tracks which don't leave the station with usage=main/branch violates the tagging principles which has been agreed on". Unless you want to show us exactly where is that line suggesting the above.

FYI a single comment in discussion page is not a proof since it's not documented and doesn't correspond with the up to date wiki page (being there's not a clear consensus in that matter).
flierfy (2026-03-15 19:37:37+00:00): The page contains this graphic: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Siding-tagging.svg
The entry signals are marked at least on one side. And the only tracks that go beyond these signals are to be tagged usage=main/branch.
balint36 (2026-03-15 19:53:58+00:00): Ha már úgyis nagy mellénnyel több mindent elrontottál a magyar vasúttal kapcsolatban, már nem törném magam angol válaszadással:
Nagyon jó és szép, amit leírtál, de te egyáltalán nem ezt tetted... Számos olyan vonalszakaszról vetted le az usage=main/branch címkét, ahol kint kellett volna lennie.
Továbbá nem értem, hogy ha a térképen meg van határozva, be van mérve egy vasútvonal 0. azaz nulladik (zero, null) szelvénye, akkor miért kell azt elvinni onnan?
Anas masuris (2026-03-15 19:55:10+00:00): So, there exists no rule, that says that "the track having entry signals must be tagged with usage=*" and yet you say that it is a must based on exemplary graphic... Mhm. Sorry, but this is not a rule which has been agreed on, but only your interpretation. The only things stated on this page are:

* The key usage=* is used to identify the primary usage of a railway track
* Inside a railway station area, use usage=main or usage=branch only for the main tracks (not for siding, yard tracks etc.)

It may be true for German railways (Still there are non-compliant examples in DE as well, but hush hush), but it doesn't imply automatically that in other countries it is 1:1, given how different regulations and classification is. So the only thing I have to say is to follow the other countries tagging schemes, not reflecting the German one
dknelson9876 (2026-02-13 18:40:47+00:00): Hi italics_glowworm,

Please note that according to Utah's local naming conventions (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Utah/Naming_Conventions), the directional between the house number and the street name belongs in addr:street=*, not addr:housenumber=* (despite how a local would phrase it when reading it out loud)
Jordi MF (2026-02-11 23:36:46+00:00): Me he equivocado con la descripción. He modificado el nombre de la localidad por el oficial con acento.
SomeoneElse (2026-02-12 00:49:34+00:00): Also includes 11 bus into town
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2026-02-14 22:55:02+00:00): Revert broke and left disconnected roads. Make sure to check when revert tool has errors
Joseph R P (2026-02-14 23:32:38+00:00): I think it would have been fairly quick for me to have fixed these issues manually since the only deleted ways would have been new ones created by splitting existing ways in the changeset that I reverted. Since these ways hold no history other than the first changeset and the reverts, I'm going to revert it again then fix them.
Joseph R P (2026-02-14 23:40:36+00:00): Reverted it again skipping reverting conflicted elements and it still created the gap (which I just now fixed), and neither this revert nor the last do I recall any errors being reported. Not sure why either options would have only deleted the new way without restoring the original way to its previous form.
Frans S (2026-02-12 10:26:41+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Accurate mapped.
Not the easiest task to map.
a few remarks.
When an object shows no shadows, don't map it.
(Round) objects showing walls both on the outside as well as on the inside are no buildings.
Best regards
Baloo Uriza (2026-02-12 15:35:40+00:00): Generally best if cadastre tags don't follow other landuses like roadways that aren't part of the landuse being mapped.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178430835
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2026-02-14 22:22:46+00:00): Why was the highway disconnected?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178430884
topolusitania (2026-02-14 23:41:49+00:00): Because colapsed and all traffic is closed for at least one month
See: https://www.jn.pt/pais/artigo/imagens-do-troco-da-a1-que-ruiu-em-coimbra/18051264
dmfr (2026-02-16 14:16:57+00:00): I do not agree with Spaghettti Monster's "fix" in changeset 178563424. Tho I don't like the original change by topolusitania of just disconnecting the bridge from the highway section over the embankment.

I'd recommend a better way to tag the situation on the ground, by marking the highway section between exits/nodes 12 and 13 with access=no in both motorway directions, and tagging the 10-meter section that was destroyed by the floods with destroyed:highway=motorway, or otherwise construction=highway + highway=motorway since the destroyed section is being subjected to construction works to stabilize the earthworks, and the highway will eventually be rebuilt as it was.
dmfr (2026-02-16 14:18:05+00:00): Let me know what you think.
topolusitania (2026-02-16 18:20:00+00:00): Feel free to change it. Your solution explain better what had happen, and now show what is realy happening "in situ" . My first edition had the porpuse to inform the A1 colapse asap
Regards and tks
TL
dmfr (2026-02-16 19:09:09+00:00): Thank you for your feedback. Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178644768
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-13 06:10:12+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.

May we know the source of your added names in your latest changests?

Thanks.

Best regards,
Pascal
Sammyhawkrad (2026-02-12 12:03:48+00:00): Hi MagnusQuaye, you don't have to save/upload after mapping a single building. It's much better to map several buildings and upload them in one changeset.
btwhite92 (2026-02-12 15:57:01+00:00): Hi there,
I've lived in this area for about half of my life. Chickadee/Eagle Canyon is not even remotely an arterial/secondary roadway. It is a minor unpaved road that is not used for any though traffic at all. I'm happy to discuss but I will be reverting this.
Bradley
Kees 59 (2026-06-21 09:45:19+00:00): Ref: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122397800
`material=0.3 m`, could it be that either `height` or `width` is intended here?

P.S. Metre is the default unit for both height and width so the m is redundant and should not be used.
Deanna Earley (2026-06-21 10:49:02+00:00): Yeah, was supposed to be height. I'll correct at some point
Frans S (2026-02-12 10:38:25+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Irregular-shaped objects, showing no shadow are mostly not buildings, but a yard (surrounded by a hedge)
Please don't map a complete plot as a building
Check this page
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1476699242/history#map=19/13.690664/21.557057
Best regards
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-21 14:45:23+00:00): A source of Google Maps?

And if its closed, shouldn't it have the appropriate lifecycle prefix (`disused:shop=variety_store`, etc)? Unless its going to re-open as the same thing?
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-21 16:49:51+00:00): The wiki claims that tags like name=* and addr:*=* can still be used, as they're useful for navigation.
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-21 18:34:45+00:00): Okay, so could you please link to where specifically the wiki says that? I.e. your source=* ;)
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-21 18:51:31+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-22 03:39:40+00:00): Oh, I thought you were answering the first question (about your use of the normally prohibited Google Maps as a source), since they were presumptive derived from that source and my second question didn't mention anything related to those tags, but rather why it was missing a lifecycle prefix (and implicitly, why it rather had the idiosyncratic and nearly unused opening_hours=24/7%20closed ).
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-25 19:17:16+00:00): Sorry, I forgot to reply to this.
I think I used Street View to determine that it was closed. As for the tag "opening_hours=24/7%20closed", that's a value that iD suggests in the "Opening Hours" dropdown menu. I think I'll fix this to remove proprietary data.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-25 19:20:27+00:00): I have removed the idiosyncratic tags in this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184603032
CAM-Gerlach (2026-06-26 04:50:13+00:00): Thanks.
NeisBot (2026-02-12 01:48:40+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 24 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/619151821 v5 | 9 crossings
https://osm.org/way/436610937 v7 | 7 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/11142156003 v2
https://osm.org/node/359102415 v7

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178432131
TheNumbersGame (2026-02-12 02:00:17+00:00): Hello! 

Sorry, I'm a new contributor. 

While editing the location of the new Flock camera on this corner (Node 13542079702), I inadvertently modified several of the other nodes around this intersection. 

I hadn't used this editor before, and the mobile version was so dense that I didn't catch the other edits. I'm too new to use osm-revert.

Could someone roll-back the majority of this change? Everything except the change to node 13542079702?

Thanks, again I'm sorry for the error.
citrula (2026-02-12 04:08:12+00:00): Hello, and welcome to OSM. I am reverting this edit because you dragged a lot of roads out of place - please be careful next time!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178434327
SD Mapman (2026-02-12 05:39:31+00:00): Hello! So we don't get into an edit war here, why did you upgrade several county roads to highway=secondary? We haven't been using HFCS or other government classification systems in SD (they tend to over-classify things and then the map looks silly, I tried it in Spearfish), and generally most county roads are highway=tertiary with some exceptions. Also, I set Medary between 14 and the bypass to highway=primary because it's the "main street" for SDSU running right by the Campanile. Please let me know your thoughts.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/South_Dakota/Highway_Classification
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#County_Highways
SD Mapman (2026-02-12 05:41:34+00:00): I changed West 8th South and West 20th South to highway=tertiary to get rid of secondary road spurs, those are generally to be avoided unless there's a good reason
OCD_Dakota_Mapper (2026-02-12 05:55:46+00:00): I changed to match the primary roads based on the city's map in the link I provided. The main purpose in wanting these correct is because I have been mapping out stop signs and it helps to have a "major" and a "minor" road. This makes a tremendous difference when using navigation throughout town.
As far as Medary between 6th and the bypass, that should not be considered a primary path when it has a pedestrian crossing every 100ft. When people use navigation, this sends them down Medary thinking it is a quick path, which it is not, especially during the school day.
SD Mapman (2026-02-12 17:54:01+00:00): That makes sense on Medary, I'm fine with that.
I guess from my perspective I'm looking at creating a cohesive classification network, and the secondary spurs don't really work for that, there doesn't seem to be anything at the end for them to go to and the roads beyond clearly aren't important. How is this for a proposal:

Upgrade W. 16th Ave. S. between W. 8th St. S. and W. 20th St. S. to highway=secondary to link those two spurs.

Change the CR 12 spur (and related county roads) out towards Sinai back to highway=tertiary to align with the rest of the state and their relative importance in the road network.
SD Mapman (2026-02-13 17:06:09+00:00): So I've posed this to a thread on the OSM US slack (slack.openstreetmap.us), but it looks like stop signs can be mapped without using major/minor roads by putting the highway=stop at the stop line instead of the intersection. Would you be amenable to shifting to that methodology and the re-adjusting the highway classification to the way it was before (roughly)?
OCD_Dakota_Mapper (2026-02-14 15:34:53+00:00): Go with what you want to do. I have been trying to fix things for navigational purposes as someone that drives several hundred miles a week. The tagging around here compared to the rest of the state/country is severely lacking structure which I was simply trying to correct.
SD Mapman (2026-02-17 14:44:16+00:00): I understand that, it's enough work just making sure the road names are correct around here. You've been doing good work overall, I never would have thought to update those developments to highway=living_street for example.
MassCartog (2026-02-12 13:47:02+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM. You have been using the Name tag incorrectly. The name tag is not for discriptions, you should not be naming things like Field 1,2,3/barn/grass. Please stop using the name tag in this way or you might be at risk of having all your work removed. Please go back through your 20 or so edits and remove the name tag. 

Please read this wiki page for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
MassCartog (2026-02-12 13:46:41+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM. You have been using the Name tag incorrectly. The name tag is not for discriptions, you should not be naming things like Field 1,2,3/barn/grass. Please stop using the name tag in this way or you might be at risk of having all your work removed. Please go back through your 20 or so edits and remove the name tag. 

Please read this wiki page for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
MassCartog (2026-02-12 13:46:32+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM. You have been using the Name tag incorrectly. The name tag is not for discriptions, you should not be naming things like Field 1,2,3/barn/grass. Please stop using the name tag in this way or you might be at risk of having all your work removed. Please go back through your 20 or so edits and remove the name tag. 

Please read this wiki page for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
Frans S (2026-02-12 09:58:23+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project
Your mappings are accurate.
Difficult to recognise the highways.
 Please follow the instructions :
Roads

 There is no need to map roads and paths leading only to fields or rivers. 

Roads ending somewhere in the mountains do not necessarily need to be mapped,

Keep an eye on the width of a road to decide how to tag them. Measure the width, please, where you have your doubts.
Best regards
KimChinhTri (2026-02-12 03:38:48+00:00): source: https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lai_Vung_(x%C3%A3)#/media/T%E1%BA%ADp_tin:X%C3%A3_Lai_Vung.jpg
fortera_au (2026-02-12 21:49:39+00:00): Hi, if the greens and other objects are inside the fairway, they should ideally be drawn as a multipolygon, otherwise you're actually drawing those areas as being both greens/bunkers and fairway at the same time.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178433769
HerryCFPL (2026-03-26 13:56:37+00:00): 1. 景区一般标保护区之类即可，标公园不常见。
2. 旧居故居之类标（个人）博物馆即可，纪念牌匾是什么鬼？
3. 望细读wiki，学习绘图规范和典范。
i2004 (2026-02-12 09:58:09+00:00): que actualizaste del el fleming y de el bajo maschwitz
SD Mapman (2026-02-12 05:19:19+00:00): Hello! "Future Road" is probably not the actual name of the proposed road here, I've removed the 'name' tag and changed this to highway=proposed
felipeeugenio (2026-02-12 11:53:59+00:00): Hola. Pero esto es la provincia de Iquique. no Iquique

Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178436388
GerdP (2026-02-12 05:49:04+00:00): Kommentar: Lageverbesserungen,Gebäudeumrisse (tbc)