piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2025-12-17 19:41:23+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 9 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
https://osm.org/way/79818345 v62 | 4 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176052268
NeisReview (2026-01-17 16:35:42+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/177139555
4004 (2025-12-21 21:03:49+00:00): здравствуйте, спасибо за правки. пожалуйста, не удаляйте правильно заданные адреса - адресация по умолчанию на бел мове, русское название улицы пишется в отдельный тег name:ru
SomeoneElse (2025-12-20 21:22:25+00:00): Hello,
Currently, the NCN1 here is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/254838#map=11/57.6573/-3.2677 , and the EV1 is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2763769#map=12/57.6646/-3.2667 .  Should more of the ways that are in NCN1 also be in EV1?  Currently many to the south aren't, and to the north places like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2763769#map=20/57.6635565/-3.2300663 perhaps should not be?
Best Regards,
Andy
Luzandro (2025-12-17 14:15:53+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5094793
BrackoNe (2025-12-18 14:54:16+00:00): Dear @CanterburyPlain,

I noticed that several junctions have been "corrected" by your team recently. Please stop applying these changes. All previous edits of this nature will be reverted.

Junction flares in the middle of a junction should not be mapped as traversable (these should not cross each other) unless there is a physical barrier. I am specifically referring to flares in the center. Please update your guidelines for Serbia and all other countries to ensure such junctions are mapped as 90 degree junctions as they were previously.

Crossing lines/roads is only allowed if there is a physical divider. In those cases, the mapping must reflect that specific physical reality.

I can spend extra time if you want to learn why this approach isn't best practice anywhere and what problems it could cause if you miss (and you are missing it) to add appropriate turn restrictions.

Please confirm that you have read this message and provide an update once your guidelines have been corrected.

Thanks,
Nemanja
CanterburyPlain (2025-12-22 19:20:13+00:00): Hi BrackoNe, In order to keep this discussion in one thread, the issues in this changeset have been addressed on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176062528. Thanks!
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-24 05:39:46+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19208
TinPetreković (2025-12-18 11:33:52+00:00): Nodes that were accidentally created have been removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176090595
bartgron (2025-12-18 21:58:59+00:00): Zestaw zmian wycofany:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176115046
Proszę o dodanie Salonu Masażu w osobnym punkcie w obrębie budynku, ponieważ salon masażu nie obejmuje CAŁEGO budynku, a jedynie lokal na najniższym piętrze.
Pozdrawiam
NeisBot (2025-12-17 19:37:40+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Personal training studio in Scottsdale AZ"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
streckenkundler (2026-01-07 22:05:18+00:00): Hei Jacky,

...lass die anderen reden... :) Ich bin heilfroh, daß du dich zum einen mit dem Netz jüngst intensiv beschäftigt hast, Ich dich als Ansprechpartnerin habe und du dich nicht ich Boxhorn jagen lässt! Herzliches Danke!

So... ich hangele mich weiter durch...

Ein klein wenig Erklärung... Wir beschäftigen uns ja mit Fahrradknotenpunktnetze. Bei solchen Routen-Relationen wie z.B. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19971051 gibt es einige Konventionen, die es zu beachten gilt...

nachfolgend an diesem Beispiel erklärt:

network:type=node_network  sagt aus: --> Das ist eine Route eines Knotenpunktnetzwerkes

network=rcn sagt aus: "regional cycle network" : die jeweiligen Anfangsbuchstaben bilden das network=rcn

Wenn das Objekt Teil eines Fahrradknotenpunktnetzes ist bitte nichts anderes verwenden!

noch dazu: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:network:type%3Dnode_network

Ich habe eben weiteres korrigiert... 

Noch dazu... Ich verweise gerne auf https://www.knooppuntnet.nl/en/analysis/network/7787125 

Dazu muß man wissen: Die Seite stammt aus unserem Nachbarland, den Niederlanden, da wo die Knotenpunktnetze herkommen...

Änderungen an Objekten der Knotenpunktnetze sind dann aber auch nach 5-10 Minuten sichtbar...

Du siehst, das Thema ist nicht einfach... 
...aber das packen wir schon...

Liebe Grüße,

Sven
JulesGabrielVerne (2025-12-24 14:38:36+00:00): Ale uparta jesteś. Cały czas mapujesz po granicach działek, zamiast po stanie rzeczywistym
Maksim Hradaboyeu (2026-01-26 08:17:57+00:00): #mapbox_missing_roads
marmara_editor (2025-12-17 19:58:09+00:00): Merhaba, acaba bu projenin dokümanları var mıdır? Metro İstanbul, İBB veya başka bir kaynakta böyle bir projeye rastlayamadım.
Maksim Hradaboyeu (2026-01-26 08:17:17+00:00): #mapbox_missing_roads
BrackoNe (2025-12-18 14:54:01+00:00): Dear @LakeNumto,

It is me again. I want to send you another message that I have noticed that several junctions have been "corrected" by your team recently. Please stop applying these changes. All previous edits of this nature will be reverted.

Junction flares in the middle of a junction should not be mapped as traversable (these should not cross each other) unless there is a physical barrier. I am specifically referring to flares in the center. Please update your guidelines for Serbia and all other countries to ensure such junctions are mapped as 90 degree junctions as they were previously.

Crossing lines/roads is only allowed if there is a physical divider. In those cases, the mapping must reflect that specific physical reality.

I can spend extra time if you want to learn why this approach isn't best practice anywhere and what problems it could cause if you miss (and you are missing it) to add appropriate turn restrictions.

Please confirm that you have read this message and provide an update once your guidelines have been corrected.

Thanks,
Nemanja
LakeNumto (2025-12-22 19:18:51+00:00): Hi BrackoNe, In order to keep this discussion in one thread, the issues in this changeset have been addressed on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176062528. Thanks!
eggie (2025-12-17 15:15:42+00:00): Dag Pr,

Je hebt nu van het fietspad een voetpad gemaakt, maar alle tags die bij een G13 fietspad horen laten staan. 
Dus verander traffic_sign -NL:G13 in NL:G7

en haal als die tweewieler 'toegangs' eraf.. Ook bicycle=no Dat hoort niet op een voetpad. 

Gr eggie
eggie (2025-12-17 15:16:22+00:00): Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=176055037

horse=no hoeft ook  niet op een wandelpad. Allemaal default.
Maksim Hradaboyeu (2026-01-26 08:16:58+00:00): #mapbox_missing_roads
AndersAndersson (2025-12-17 23:21:39+00:00): Tänkte du building=yes eller ska det kanske vara något mer specifikt? Vad jag vet har dom både utveckling och tillverkning.
Aerond (2025-12-18 04:51:54+00:00): Oj, måste blivit fel tag när den skapades. Fixat nu, tack för infon.
diamondarmorsteve (2026-03-31 18:45:49+00:00): City nodes should be placed in the cultural/economic "center" of the city, not the geographical center. For example, the label for Chicago, Illinois is not in the geographical center, but rather in its downtown area next to Lake Michigan.
eggie (2025-12-17 17:21:08+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
RoseArrow (2025-12-17 19:16:05+00:00): Correction: Source used was Mapbox Satellite.
Michael B Jones (2026-01-04 05:37:54+00:00): Why did you change the intersection of S 3rd St and Southern Parkway to be just a junction=yes? I had it correctly mapped as a traffic signal, and live within a block of this intersection.....
loworderlogic (2026-01-04 15:44:45+00:00): I marked the stop bar locations for each incoming way according to the "Tag all incoming ways" section of the highway=traffic_signals wiki article (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals). Just trying to clarify it a bit since it's a busy intersection with a wonky shape
Michael B Jones (2026-01-20 13:32:36+00:00): Thanks for your reply. Also apologies if my initial message wasn't the most polite written down, I sometimes just get aggravated by changes done that seem like going backwards or low quality (looking at you Amazon and Lyft editors)

In this case, I understand what your saying, but I think for this intersection the way I had it mapped before was the correct/efficient way because there is still only one intersection point where the roads come together.

The 'tag all incoming ways' section I agree with, but if you look at the examples they are for intersections where there is more than one intersection point (for example dual-carriageways or roads with a median or island in the middle). In those cases, having multiple intersection points might mess up routing decisions or software because it would add a penalty or time for each intersection. In this case, despite the weird shape of the intersection there is still only one 'intersection'.

For example, if you look up the street at 3rd and Central Avenue, tagging the incoming ways at the stop bars makes sense because there would be two different intersections if we marked it at the junction point(s).

Would you mind if I changed this intersection back to the way I had it?
loworderlogic (2026-01-21 15:11:43+00:00): I think I see where you're coming from with that reading of the wiki. 

Here's how I think about this: given infinite time and patience, I'd mark individual traffic signals at every single intersection aligned with the stop bars. But since I have finite time and patience, the single signal at the junction does the job in most cases. There is basically never a signal right in the center of the intersection in the real world, so it's more accurate to tag where each signal impacts each way, but placing one signal in the center is a sometimes-necessary compromise to save time.

I don't think there are any routing concerns in cases like this - all the signals only apply directionally, so a driver would only be affected by one signal no matter which direction they go. By tagging each way, you're just breaking up the single signal into four (or more, depending on the intersection) pieces, but the cumulative effect on routing (and the total number of icon "effect cones") remains the same.

Essentially, I think reverting the change would make the map less accurate, but I'm not going to get into an edit war over it.
VictorIE (2025-12-31 09:10:05+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10865596019/history

Westport Quay has not been an operating railway location for at least 48 years. Please do not mark it as a current train station.
VictorIE (2025-12-31 09:46:07+00:00): Hi again,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13383728342

Ballinrobe closed 65 years ago. Please do not mark it as a current train station.
VictorIE (2025-12-31 09:53:09+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13383728362/history

Again, Newport closed almost a century ago.
TinPetreković (2025-12-18 11:57:39+00:00): The node that was accidentally created has been removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176091594
eggie (2025-12-17 16:53:12+00:00): Hoi,

Het lijkt allemaal simpel, maar zoiets is best lastig.
Je had de node van het water en het bos over dat andere bos getrokken. Overlapping landuse.
Samenvoegen gaat niet, want de verschillende watervlakken hebben verschillende eigenschappen. 
Er ligt nu gewoon een apart stukje water tussen en de landuse overlap is weer weg. Ik heb het pad vrijgehouden van bos.
De brug mocht geen verbionding hebben met de landuse en het water.
Dat heb ik ook losgemaakt.
eggie
eggie (2025-12-17 16:58:00+00:00): Samenvoegen van water zou nu wel kunnen, want de eigenschappen zijn nu het zelfde.
Maar zo kan het ook.
Pr166 (2025-12-17 17:00:26+00:00): Dank, het is inderdaad lastig. Ik denk dat ik eerst maar eens wat ga lezen, want is mis duidelijk basisvaardigheden. Andere editor is mogelijk ook beter (want overlap is denk ik iets wat de editor kan melden)
eggie (2025-12-17 17:00:27+00:00): Veel van de voorgaande tagging is niet des OSM's. Die mapper is inmiddels geblokkeerd.
eggie (2025-12-17 17:04:54+00:00): Het water heb ik nu samengevoegd en iets meer uitgelijnd. Waar je ov erhang van bomen ziet ligt gewoon water. Ik gebruik een transparant van de BGT.
eggie (2025-12-17 17:10:08+00:00): Je zou kunnen overstappen naar de betere editor JOSM.. voordat je te veel went aan editor iD.

Die heeft een goede validator en waarschuwt al bij een verkeerde upload.

Hij lijkt heel ingewikkeld, maar dat valt op den duur wel mee.
Ik ben van voor de watersnood en kan er ook mee overweg. :)

editor josm stap voor stap
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/editor-josm-stap-voor-stap/75047

Gewoon voorzichtig beginnen met bv de PDOK actueel op de achtergrond. 

Alle ins en outs komen vanzelf.
NeisBot (2025-12-17 19:37:52+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Window cleaning service in Pompano Beach"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
eggie (2025-12-17 18:41:01+00:00): Feedback. Lijkt me prima zo.
Gr eggie
eggie (2025-12-17 17:24:52+00:00): Dag Hallie. 

Het gebied van je edits is veel te groot. Schuiven met de kaart geeft vaak schade.
Ook zijn je edits niet te controleren.
Ites is een voetpad als er een G7 bord staat.
Zoniet dan gebruiken we highway=path.

Beperk svp het gebied van je edits.

MVG
eggie
Hallie Masseba (2025-12-17 17:44:41+00:00): Dank voor de tips eggie. Ik zal het opnieuw beoordelen en het gebied beperken voor ik wijzigingen op ga slaan.
eggie (2025-12-17 18:03:46+00:00): Top!
En er is nog een onderscheid.
Path routeert ook voor fietsers en footway niet.
Veel doorsteken in wijken zijn vaak path.. want ook bedoeld voor fietsers.
Mapse
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-01 21:59:09+00:00): Hello!

You used
athletics=running;
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3950596/history

Have you maybe meant
athletics=running
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?

If it is a mistake - can you fix it?
nurdafur (2026-02-02 05:30:00+00:00): Solved
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-02 09:02:53+00:00): And thanks for fixes!
NeisBot (2025-12-18 07:18:54+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 9 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
https://osm.org/way/223881049 v7 | 4 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176059909
NeisReview (2026-01-07 17:34:03+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/176918628
BrackoNe (2025-12-18 14:53:28+00:00): Dear @VolgaRiver,

I noticed that several junctions have been "corrected" by your team recently. Please stop applying these changes. All previous edits of this nature will be reverted.

Junction flares in the middle of a junction should not be mapped as traversable (these should not cross each other) unless there is a physical barrier. I am specifically referring to flares in the center. Please update your guidelines for Serbia and all other countries to ensure such junctions are mapped as 90 degree junctions as they were previously.

Crossing lines/roads is only allowed if there is a physical divider. In those cases, the mapping must reflect that specific physical reality.

I can spend extra time if you want to learn why this approach isn't best practice anywhere and what problems it could cause if you miss (and you are missing it) to add appropriate turn restrictions.

Please confirm that you have read this message and provide an update once your guidelines have been corrected.

Thanks,
Nemanja
VolgaRiver (2025-12-22 19:21:32+00:00): Hi BrackoNe, In order to keep this discussion in one thread, the issues in this changeset have been addressed on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176062528. Thanks!
Roydon Olive (2025-12-18 01:52:20+00:00): Did you visit this park this year? I did and my memory is that the paths had changed quite recently and that what was on osm before this changeset was accurate and the aerial imagery was out of date.
fudoreaper (2025-12-18 15:39:54+00:00): Hi Roydon, thanks for your comment. No, I haven't visited this park recently. I checked all the aerial imagery I could, but the most recent dates are summer 2024 (Ex: Winnipeg property map). Usually this is good enough to update OSM. However, maybe i made a mistake here. Are you able to update OSM to correct my error? (i'm also not 100% sure how to revert my edit)
Roydon Olive (2025-12-18 15:56:26+00:00): Thanks for you reply. I think it can wait until one of us is able to visit the park in person to confirm.
Roydon Olive (2025-12-24 05:12:46+00:00): I visited the park but it's impossible to tell what the paths look like with the snow. But there definitely is a playground to the east of the pool. I did find the last change to this park before yours https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165045419 8 months ago and it used a gpx data file. I also found my strava activity from april and it agrees with that change from 8 months ago.
fudoreaper (2026-01-28 22:19:28+00:00): Thanks again Roydon. ESRI imagery zoomed out has the 2025 changes visible. I edited the map to show the new playground and paths as best i can see. I created a note to remind us (or other editors) to do more work when we have better imagery.  I think we are in a decent place for now, maybe in summer 2026 we can improve it even more. Thanks again for pointing out my poor edits.
Roydon Olive (2026-01-29 08:40:24+00:00): Thanks for following up!
Supaplex (2025-12-18 02:57:38+00:00): Why do you remove the drains from the map? You can check the Taiwan Government open data map NLSC Open Data Map for the drain system
BrackoNe (2025-12-18 14:53:10+00:00): Dear @LakeNumto,

I noticed that several junctions have been "corrected" by your team recently. Please stop applying these changes. All previous edits of this nature will be reverted.

Junction flares in the middle of a junction should not be mapped as traversable (these should not cross each other) unless there is a physical barrier. I am specifically referring to flares in the center. Please update your guidelines for Serbia and all other countries to ensure such junctions are mapped as 90 degree junctions as they were previously.

Crossing lines/roads is only allowed if there is a physical divider. In those cases, the mapping must reflect that specific physical reality.

I can spend extra time if you want to learn why this approach isn't best practice anywhere and what problems it could cause if you miss (and you are missing it) to add appropriate turn restrictions.

Please confirm that you have read this message and provide an update once your guidelines have been corrected.

Thanks,
Nemanja
LakeNumto (2025-12-22 19:23:16+00:00): Hi BrackoNe, In order to keep this discussion in one thread, the issues in this changeset have been addressed on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176062528. Thanks!
LordGarySugar (2026-01-25 05:43:57+00:00): I've changed access on all the LVCC roads to private, not customers - please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177668718. access=customers implies customers can drive their own cars down these roads, (like in a car park), this is obviously not correct & only authorised vehicles may enter.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-29 02:17:07+00:00): Well, you do have to pay to use this road system, right? IIRC, the only vehicles that can drive here are Teslas.
LordGarySugar (2026-06-29 21:50:51+00:00): That's not strictly true. The only vehicles that can use these roads are Teslas operated by the Boring Company. You cannot pay to drive on these roads. You can only pay to be a passenger in a vehicle. It is a form of highway=busway, these are not tagged access=customers.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-29 23:10:59+00:00): I see. I guess highway=busway does kinda make sense... but it's for buses, and Teslas are clearly not buses  ̶(̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶y̶e̶t̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶w̶a̶y̶.̶.̶.̶)̶.
joost schouppe (2026-01-05 12:35:58+00:00): Bedankt voor je verbetering!
Hoort dit gebouw bij het CC of niet? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97416081
Indien niet, dan mag de naam er af. Indien wel, dan moeten we een nieuwe polygoon tekenen rond de twee gebouwen die samen het CC vormen en alle relevante info van wat jij hebt toegevoegd naar die nieuwe polygoon overzetten.
JakovBušić (2025-12-18 19:33:40+00:00): Wrong hgv restriction that was accidentally made in this changeset was fixed in changeset 176110556.#OptimoRoute
BrackoNe (2025-12-18 14:50:32+00:00): Dear @MountAgou,

I noticed that several junctions have been "corrected" by your team recently. Please stop applying these changes. All previous edits of this nature will be reverted.

Junction flares in the middle of a junction should not be mapped as traversable (these should not cross each other) unless there is a physical barrier. I am specifically referring to flares in the center. Please update your guidelines for Serbia and all other countries to ensure such junctions are mapped as 90 degree junctions as they were previously.

Crossing lines/roads is only allowed if there is a physical divider. In those cases, the mapping must reflect that specific physical reality.

I can spend extra time if you want to learn why this approach isn't best practice anywhere and what problems it could cause if you miss (and you are missing it) to add appropriate turn restrictions.

Please confirm that you have read this message and provide an update once your guidelines have been corrected.

Thanks,
Nemanja