piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-01 02:32:32+00:00): NB, seems the SEO account actually responded and fixed the most glaring issues with their two followup changesets, but due to a previous bug (which I previously ran into and was since fixed) it ended up reverting the fix. Fixed now.
pitscheplatsch (2026-06-01 05:40:52+00:00): Good point. 
Thanks @CAM-Gerlach_Revert
felipeeugenio (2026-04-03 14:20:16+00:00): Hola. Ese es el nombre del camino? o ahí vive esa familia?
 Está un poco rara la edición. Por favor ojo con la información privada.

saludos
Si tiene nombre oficial porqué es privado?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180791658
aparra09 (2026-04-03 14:57:39+00:00): Hola! buen día. Hace tiempo entre una reunión de la junta de vecinos, y entiendo que municipalidad y vialidad asignaron nombres a los caminos y callejones del sector que estaban sin nombre, y los que ya tenían de hace años los mantuvieron. Luego instalaron señaléticas (no se si se llaman así) con dichos nombres. Como las que hay en las esquinas en las ciudades. Son los nombres que he agregado en esta parte y zonas cercanas. Pero cometí un error, según entiendo ahora, es un "camino vecinal" y debo editarlo por highway=unclassified y access=yes. 

Gracias por la observación.

Saludos!
felipeeugenio (2026-04-03 15:11:37+00:00): Buena. Gracias. 
Access=yes no es necesario. Está implícito. 
Saludos
tyfi (2026-04-03 01:35:58+00:00): I added the name "State Highway DD" to reflect that locals refer to this road as though it were part of Route DD, however MoDOT makes it quite clear that they don't consider this part of the route.

It should not be added to the route relation for Missouri Route DD.
NeisBot (2026-04-03 01:48:39+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 13 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/697870164 v3 | 11 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=180791844
NeisReview (2026-04-11 04:33:09+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/180931831
felipeeugenio (2026-04-03 14:18:57+00:00): Hola. Las casas las puedes cuadrar con la letra Q.

Se  notan que están dibujadas a pulso estas. Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180791942
aparra09 (2026-04-03 14:58:33+00:00): Hola. Entiendo. No lo sabía. Muchas gracias.

Saludos!
StreetSurveyor (2026-04-04 00:54:14+00:00): Stop extending road names beyond where they terminate. These segments are connector links, not continuations of the named road. Please refer to the official city map, which clearly shows these only function as links between Blue Hill Ave and are not independently named. Use verified sources (signage or municipal GIS) before applying names.
cubbe8 (2026-04-04 01:02:14+00:00): What are you doing, do you realize that city maps have errors. These roads are not trunk roads, also if they are unamed they cause routing errors as it will just say “turn right”. Additionally this is not a standard practice. Many of your edits are incorrect
StreetSurveyor (2026-04-04 01:11:19+00:00): I understand your concerns, but the edits you’re making don’t align with OpenStreetMap Wiki guidance.

Road names in OSM must be verifiable. These segments are connector/link roads to Blue Hill Ave, and there is no evidence (signage, official records, or authoritative GIS) that they carry the same name as the main road. Extending a name beyond where it is actually applied is incorrect.

I have personally verified this on the ground—the street signage clearly indicates where the named road terminates, and these link segments fall beyond that point. They are not signed as part of the named roadway.

Municipal GIS and official city maps are valid and widely accepted sources in OSM, and in this case they align with field observation.

Routing is not a justification for adding unverified names. Generic instructions like “turn right” are expected when a way is unnamed. Adding names purely to influence routing guidance introduces bad data and is discouraged.

This is standard practice in OSM: do not extend names past their signed or officially recognized limits, and do not assign names to link roads without verification.

If you have a reliable source showing these segments are officially named, please share it. Otherwise, these names should be removed to maintain data accuracy.
StreetSurveyor (2026-04-04 01:18:35+00:00): Additionally, your recent edits and changeset comments are not constructive. Repeatedly reapplying disputed changes without providing verifiable sources, along with vague or insufficient changeset comments, makes it difficult for others to review and collaborate.

Per OpenStreetMap Wiki expectations, changeset comments should clearly explain the rationale for edits and reference sources when there is disagreement. Simply asserting changes without evidence is not sufficient.

Please focus on verifiable data, provide clear justification in your changeset comments, and avoid reintroducing contested edits without new supporting sources. This will help keep the map accurate and maintain a productive editing environment.
cubbe8 (2026-04-04 01:45:43+00:00): Okay so actually the boston city map has these links named. Some of the maps don’t zoom in enough to see all of them, but even then at certain zoom levels you can see they are clearly named.

https://app01.cityofboston.gov/parcelviewer/
cubbe8 (2026-04-04 01:47:24+00:00): Here as well

https://boston.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=fb9afcd2a1494aa284a2d775f0c946eb
cubbe8 (2026-04-04 01:48:48+00:00): From here 

https://boston.maps.arcgis.com/home/index.html
StreetSurveyor (2026-04-04 01:58:20+00:00): I checked the same Boston city map you’re referencing—when fully zoomed in on Clarkwood St, the link segments do not display a name. That indicates they are not consistently or authoritatively labeled as extensions of the street.

Additionally, my survey shows the street sign is not located on the opposite side of Blue Hill Ave. The sign placement clearly marks the termination of Clarkwood St and does not support the name carrying across onto those connector links.
cubbe8 (2026-04-04 02:01:10+00:00): Yes they do display a name, click on the second link I sent you.
cubbe8 (2026-04-04 02:04:56+00:00): https://imgur.com/a/kqjqp8M
StreetSurveyor (2026-04-04 02:12:00+00:00): Again, both my survey and street-level imagery clearly show the street sign placement. The sign is not located on the opposite side of Blue Hill Ave and marks the endpoint of Clarkwood St. There is no signage indicating the name continues onto those connector links, which supports that they are not part of the named roadway.
cubbe8 (2026-04-04 02:19:53+00:00): The sign present there is not sufficient evidence. Most street signs are only present on one side of the roadway. It is common practice to name a street if it is on a city map even if a sign is not present.
cubbe8 (2026-04-04 02:21:46+00:00): This practice is used on all trunk roads around the Boston area for very similar situations.
cubbe8 (2026-04-04 02:25:42+00:00): Also, who said a street sign marks the end of a street?
dzamper (2026-07-31 14:06:19+00:00): Czemu zmieniłeś https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/149860944 z landuse=allotments na leisure=garden ?
michxu (2026-07-31 14:13:26+00:00): czesc aby mapbox w ktorym potrzebowalem tej zmiany dodal zielony kolor do tego obszaru :)
LordGarySugar (2026-05-08 22:51:43+00:00): Thanks for filling in all these gaps! I think all London stations have a fair zone tagged now!
tyfi (2026-04-03 03:07:42+00:00): I picked an old source from dropdown box in JOSM. I did not, in fact, use "USGSHydroCached" national hydrography dataset
tyfi (2026-04-03 03:08:40+00:00): I did use Esri World Imagery, though. It's more up to date here than Bing, albeit a tad blurry
Supaplex (2026-04-03 05:03:43+00:00): 已經有了，重覆添加了
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5773643731
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180792717
LamLe (2026-04-04 16:10:56+00:00): Hi bạn. Đối với thẻ name, chúng ta nên dùng tên thông dụng/chính thức của tòa nhà, hoặc khu vực. Không biết bạn đang dùng tool hay là làm bằng cách nào, nhưng mình nghĩ bạn nên tham khảo lại. Đặt tên như kiểu hiện tại không đúng. Ngoài ra, cũng không có cần phải chèn 'stories N' vào trong thẻ name.
Joseph R P (2026-04-04 03:36:15+00:00): Please do not use future highway designations in the ref=* key, instead use future_ref=*, likewise it should not be applied to proposed segments of Interstates like I 11. There are some signs posted for 121 along the new Coalfields Expressway, but VDOT does have a track record for not getting signage right, and the current LRS Route Overlap does not recognize Route 121 as an official highway yet.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-04-05 02:23:30+00:00): Huh. Is that so? West Virginia already has its own SR 121 (which apparently will become US 121 once it's finished). And what's with the duplicate VA 121 relations here? (Doesn't one already exist somewhere else?) I'm pretty sure this is evidence of a new US 121 relation, but what do I do about this in the meantime?
Joseph R P (2026-04-05 14:43:46+00:00): West Virginia's State Route 121 only consists of the opened Coalfields Expressway segment so far. I would only add fut_ref=US 121 to any open segments of the Coalfields Expressway that are slated to be signed as U.S. Route 121, as well as any other proposed/under construction segments of the route.

As for the duplicate relations, that new State Route 121 relation might've been created erroneously on my part. The actual SR 121 is in Wythe County. The only official designation here is State Route 460.
NeisBot (2026-04-03 04:36:16+00:00): 🌍 Welcome to OSM, EinBick.
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 restaurant with Japanese, barbecue, fish, and regional cuisine"
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment
Supaplex (2026-04-03 05:05:47+00:00): 是否有完整的地址？
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180793290
Mimmy Lo (2026-04-05 07:11:37+00:00): 高雄市甲仙區文化南路29號1樓
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180793290
jMapsAu (2026-07-02 02:17:38+00:00): Hey there.
This proposed line doesn't have any set alignments yet and is still in the planning phase. Given this, these ways should be removed for now. Once the business case or environment study confirms an alignment, then the ways can be readded.
Ewen Hill (2026-07-05 23:07:42+00:00): There is a lot of water to go under the bridge so yes, as much as it is great to map, I would be deferring it until firmed up
Joseph R P (2026-04-04 03:43:56+00:00): I wouldn't add future highway designations to dirt roads/paths like these. This implies the exact roads here will be part of the route when in reality they're likely to be graded/blasted out of existence when Route 121 is built. Same for Route 16 through McDowell County since a new expressway is supposed to bypass the existing road.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-04-05 02:26:43+00:00): Well, nearby this specific bbox (and a few others I have found along the way) are some already-mapped under-construction trunk roads (and some proposed ones, too). I don't expect that a (potentially) new US Highway will just straight up use unimproved track roads/foot paths, so should I just draw a new way nearby these ones? (The Wikipedia KML file shows that it will pass by this area.)
Joseph R P (2026-04-05 14:47:38+00:00): If possible, if you would like a complete relation here, using proposed ways following the rough path of the future roadway would be more ideal. Though, keep in mind that mapping future features isn't always necessary as the data is rarely used and is subject to change.
5m4u9 (2026-04-04 03:03:56+00:00): Hola, qué bien que empieces a usar la etiqueta oneway:bus=no.

Vivo cerca del lugar, y es un gran problema esta ruta de la línea E, y más por la escuela. Cada vez hay accidentes porque los autos que viene del norte se sorprenden con el micro, todo mal :(.
jack walker2 (2026-04-17 06:16:44+00:00): 为村庄标注轮廓的时候应该是居民区而并非村庄
Tatfahren (2026-04-04 06:54:09+00:00): Das Parkhaus war schon eingetragen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1476941487

Und ist das wirklich der Name davon, oder ist es vielleicht eher der Ticketpreis oder das Baujahr?
Tatfahren (2026-05-13 09:08:32+00:00): ???
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-11 09:01:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 183960337, 183960380, 183960341, 183960408, 183960275, 183960389, 183960221, 183960319, 183960306, 183960280, 183960292, 183960414, 183960349, 183960228, 183960252, 183960358, 183960240, 183960299, 183960267, 183960399, 183960370, 183960328, 183960364 where the changeset comment is: revert low-quality AI building imports
NeisBot (2026-04-03 05:30:42+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/13694394879 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Wealth management office"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-04-11 10:33:04+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/181029035
NeisBot (2026-04-03 05:42:44+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/789028871 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-04-11 10:33:06+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/180813155
NeisBot (2026-04-03 05:42:47+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/13702946908 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-04-11 10:33:15+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/180795709
5m4u9 (2026-04-26 15:13:35+00:00): Hola, ayer pasé por este lugar y el 233 no hace la ruta 6 de agosto -> independencia por debajo del puente.... 

Iré a ver el martes exclusivamente esta ruta, pero creo que cambió a 6 de agosto -> martires de la democracia -> ferrufino -> independencia por el puente. les conviene por la martires por la escuela y el centro de salud.
Ismael David Angulo (2026-04-30 14:09:08+00:00): Muchas gracias Marco!, si justamente igual fuimos una vez y no vimos al trufi circular por esa calle
FajrAl (2026-04-03 05:57:17+00:00): Ini cara editnya kurang tepat, gak akan muncul di peta. Jadi sebenarnya JUT itu nama sebuah kantor atau bagaimana?
TrickyFoxy (2026-04-03 23:09:31+00:00): Надеюсь вы уже поняли, что удаление аккаунта не удаляет данные, которые вы внесли
Michal Bryxí (2026-05-08 13:17:50+00:00): This new gondola is not built and will not be present for next few years. Does it make sense to include it in OSM?
iandees (2026-04-03 15:04:22+00:00): Hello! I noticed that node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2530966968 was moved a long distance in this changeset. This is a common mistake that happens when you click on a point and drag to move the map. The point moves with your mouse instead of the map.

I moved things back to where they were before in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180816919, so no harm done!

To avoid this in the future:
- Try to click on an empty part of the map when you want to move around
- If you see a point move by mistake, press Ctrl+Z (or Cmd+Z on Mac) to undo it

Happy mapping!
AndersAndersson (2026-04-03 21:00:21+00:00): Hej!

Här gick nog något fel. Berget heter troligtvis inte Stompunkt.
Digitaleo (2026-04-07 15:48:52+00:00): Bonjour @Vinber-Pro, je ne comprends pas la raison de la suppression de l'adresse
Vinber-Pro (2026-04-09 17:42:49+00:00): Bonjour,

j'ai créé le point adresse à coté https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13703060011

si vous souhaitez mettre des informations d'adresses sur des points d'intérêts, préférez le contact:*=* amha !

bonne carto
ajmat (2026-04-03 08:25:47+00:00): Partially Revert of 180789614
Sébastien Pi (2026-06-02 21:11:34+00:00): Bonjour,

Il ne fallait pas passer la rue de la Bassée en construction. L’état désaffecté se fait avec les préfixes : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
Ici, disused: est plus adapté.
JakovRajić (2026-04-09 14:39:54+00:00): Split merged on Butts Street, Chin Street tagged in changeset/181101604
HueMan1 (2026-04-08 00:31:57+00:00): Good day. The poblacion area and most parts of Governor's Drive in Trece Martires now have designated speed limits (e.g., 35 kph in the Poblacion area and 60 kph on highways). Newly installed road signs have been placed to indicate these limits.
rhtb0 (2026-04-03 09:03:09+00:00): 정정
이름 수정
eggie (2026-04-03 09:15:59+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback.. Het is niet de bedoeling om bestaande paden van de kaart te halen.. ook niet als deze op privégebied liggen. Wel is het zaal dat de juiste accesstags worden toegevoegd.
Voor zover ik kan zien is dat het geval.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=180800941
Zie ook de policy van OSM:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-04-03 09:18:33+00:00): Reverted by changeset #180801361
Mocht u nog vragen hebben stel ze gerust.
Al deze paden routeerden al niet in OSM. Ze staan op access=private

MVG
eggie
Landgoed Boerenbos Tissingh (2026-04-03 10:04:29+00:00): Dank voor de toelichting. Ik begrijp dat paden niet alleen vanwege privétoegang van de kaart gehaald moeten worden en dat juiste access-tags belangrijk zijn.

Mijn punt was echter niet alleen de toegangssituatie. Een groot deel van deze "paden" is ter plaatse ook niet meer als duidelijk pad aanwezig. Ons maaibeheer op het landgoed wisselt per seizoen, waardoor er telkens langs andere routes gras wordt gemaaid. Daardoor komt de eerder ingetekende ligging op veel plaatsen niet meer overeen met een daadwerkelijk herkenbaar pad op de grond.

In dit gebied is luchtfotovergelijking daarom geen betrouwbare hoofdbron voor de exacte ligging van paden, omdat oudere of tijdelijke sporen zichtbaar kunnen zijn terwijl die in het veld niet meer als pad bestaan. Mijn bedoeling was dus niet om geldige privépaden enkel vanwege access te verwijderen, maar om objecten aan te passen die op veel plaatsen niet meer goed verifieerbaar zijn. 

Met vriendelijke groeten,  
Landgoed Boerenbos Tissingh, 
Ruinen
eggie (2026-04-03 10:11:49+00:00): Beste Landgoed,
Paden die niet meer herkenbaar zijn kun je het beste taggen met disused:highway=path  ipv highwa=path
De renderin valt dan weg.
Dat voorkomt opnieuw intekenen.
Paden die er nog zijn svp ongemoeid laten. 
Die staan op private
Mvg
eggie
Validator
Paden
Landgoed Boerenbos Tissingh (2026-04-03 11:08:53+00:00): Hallo Eggie,

bedankt voor je constructive input. Ik zal deze dagen zo uitvoeren. Alle paden die ik heb weggehaald zijn zijn van die variëren van seizoen tot seizoen. 
mvg
Landgoed Boerenbos Tissingh,
Ruinen
eggie (2026-04-03 11:10:18+00:00): 👍
GerdP (2026-04-05 16:08:06+00:00): Moin aus Wildeshausen!
Du hast bei dieser Änderung dieses Gebäude https://www.osm.org/way/707481816 ersatzlos gelöscht. War das Absicht? Falls es abgerissen wurde, dann sollte besser nur der Präfix demolished: von building gesetzt werden, sonst zeichnet der nächste das Ding gleich wieder ein. Bei diesem anderen gelöschten Gebäude https://www.osm.org/way/707479998 sehe ich zumindest auf manchen Luftbildern schon kein Gebäude mehr.
mikita_paloika (2026-04-06 13:36:36+00:00): Thank you for your contribution to OpenStreetMap.

We are reaching out to kindly request clarification and supporting sources for your recent edit. Specifically, the name used in this revision does not appear to align with conventional or verifiable naming standards for this feature.

Could you please provide the motivations behind this particular change and any reliable sources (such as official documents, recognized maps, or local knowledge documentation) that substantiate the proposed name?

Your cooperation in ensuring data quality and verifiability is greatly appreciated.

Best regards,
Mikita
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180801009
manjita pandey (2026-07-15 10:06:44+00:00): Hello Mitika, This feature is created as a part of test purpose data on tasking manager development instance by TM dev team to test certain feature, unaware of the fact that it will be populated on openstreetmap production. 
As you can see the host is other local or development instance. Please delete such features if seen. On coming days, we will make sure to add real data while testing purpose as well if the openstreetmap production server is involved. 
Thank you for understanding.
RaphaelPasloin (2026-04-03 09:36:00+00:00): Bonjour, 

Pourquoi avoir effacé  les chemins piétons dans le cimetière ? (certe avec un attribut access=private incorrect)  mais il n'y a aucune raison de faire ça . D'autant que votre commentaire de changement indique des parkings. A ce sujet les parking space était tout aussi correct , aucune raison de les enlever, amenity=parking et parking space peuvent tout à fait co-exister.

D'avance merci pour vos éclaircissements.
Raphael
Chegadeblouz (2026-04-03 09:22:30+00:00): Si jamais des utilisateurs veulent bien travailler avec moi sur ce projet, ce sera un plaisir d'en parler pour se coordonner. Contactez-moi.