piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
BCNorwich (2026-07-15 06:15:04+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've removed the highway and highway description tags from the boundary outlines of the park and arboretum. The tags indicating highways caused problems with routing.

Regards Bernard.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-13 12:45:37+00:00): This edit replaces the established name “Spy” with an unrelated Russian sentence. It is not a valid geographic name and appears to be vandalism. 

Please stop making fictitious or joke edits to OSM and revert your changes.
rajdhani (2026-07-14 06:27:59+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185696623
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-13 12:46:56+00:00): This edit changes the name of administrative-boundary relation 1702371 from one incorrect joke name to another. The established name is “Spy”, as shown in version 19 and supported by the existing name:fr=Spy and name:wa=Spî tags.

Please do not add fictional, joke, or personal names to OSM. 

This changeset needs to be reverted.
trigpoint (2026-07-13 15:35:57+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/185661068
s777n (2026-07-13 13:28:08+00:00): Здравствуйте. А зачем residential внутри другого residential? Не очень логичное дублирование получается даже с дополнительными тегами.
acsd (2026-07-13 18:35:08+00:00): так было, лишь убрал стройку
fndoder (2026-07-14 14:34:19+00:00): Это я изначально выделил половину landuse=construction в landuse=residential, когда сдали первую половину ЖК (пропустив, что уже есть полигон вокруг).

Удалил внутренний landuse, дублирующий внешний.
trigpoint (2026-07-13 15:35:45+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/185661068
silversurfer83 (2026-07-13 19:32:58+00:00): Moin bossmapper :)

zwei Kleinigkeiten hätte ich mal anzumerken:

- Wenn du andere Editoren außer StreetComplete nutzt wäre es schön, wenn du einen besseren Kommentar als "updates" hinterlässt. Ist für alle hilfreicher. Danke

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments


- Paketshops aller Art sind in DE wirklich selten alleinstehend zu finden weshalb wir post_office=post_partner haben. Dein Hermes hier als Bsp. sollte den gleichen operator=* wie die Tanke haben in dem er gelegen ist. Und wenn auch die Öffnungszeiten ziemlich gleich sind bekommen diese Teile idR kein eigenen node sondern werden am Betreiberobjekt getaggt.

Bei Fragen immer raus damit und weiter viel Spaß an der Karte

silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185651042
derbossmapper (2026-07-25 21:00:42+00:00): Hi silversurfer, ich glaube meine Antwort ist zu lang für dieses Kommentarfeld, daher schreibe ich dir die Rückfrage dazu mal per privater Nachricht :D
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185651042
trigpoint (2026-07-13 15:35:33+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/185661068
trigpoint (2026-07-13 15:35:29+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/185661068
trigpoint (2026-07-13 15:35:22+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/185661068
trigpoint (2026-07-13 15:35:17+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/185661068
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-29 02:54:05+00:00): It is not really possible for a street to have 0 lanes (else it almost certainly isn't a street), and it appears the name is not the name of this actual object.

Fixed by @user5359 in changeset:

https://osm.org/way/1278738384
eginhard (2026-07-14 09:28:01+00:00): This is a house not a firepit, reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185705093
Marych_ (2026-07-14 10:05:03+00:00): Добрый день Асадбек,
тут вы почтвое отделение отметили, если данные есть населенный пункт без имени в этой области
можете тоже нанести?
Frans S (2026-07-14 10:19:46+00:00): Hello. You clusterd many buildings.
They need to be mapped as individual buildings.
I reduced most of them 
Best regards
JuanElDemografo (2026-07-13 13:33:30+00:00): Hi Troy, welcome to OSM.

You asked for review, so here are a few issues I noticed. First is that you applied the tag healthcare=birthing_centre to this shop. My first guess would've been shop=money_lender, but the website doesn't mention any payday-loan-type services so I don't think it matches. I've left it as simply shop=yes since I couldn't find any tags that felt right.

The next is that you didn't format the phone number correctly. We include the country code (+1 for US/Canada) in the phone number.

Lastly, you made a couple mistakes with the address. You included the housenumber in addr:street and you abbreviated Drive in the street name. We don't do abbreviations in OSM; it's easier to automatically shorten all these than to figure out what the full name is.

I went ahead and fixed these. Happy mapping!
Frank Peng (2026-07-13 21:50:11+00:00): Hey Aline, so just FYI, when mapping and editing roads in Georgia (which I can see from this changeset), it's usually better to avoid the highway=unclassified classification, as it's an artifact of how British roads are legally categorized. Many roads added to OSM during the TIGER import had the highway=unclassified classification (as they were classified as such when they were imported into OSM). Either promote the route to highway=tertiary if it's a through route, or demote it to highway=residential if it's a dead-end, "no outlet", or otherwise inappropriate for through traffic. Per the Georgia Highways classification draft article on OSM Wiki, it states:

> Avoid the highway=unclassified classification, which is an artifact of how British roads are legally categorized; many were created by the import of frontage roads from TIGER. Either promote the route to tertiary if it's a through route, or demote to residential if it's a dead-end, "no outlet," or otherwise inappropriate for through traffic.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Lordsutch/Draft:Georgia_Highways#Unclassified

For the road you edited in this changeset, this road would probably be better tagged as highway=service as it serves a school.
Wildsharky (2026-07-15 04:37:37+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185694800
rskedgell (2026-07-16 15:47:52+00:00): It looks like you've got the letters of the postcode area transposed here, with AD rather than DA.
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-16 16:05:30+00:00): Ah yes, thanks, fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185854305
Wildsharky (2026-07-16 05:16:46+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185768989
eggie (2026-07-13 14:37:31+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
_srelemorele (2026-07-13 14:25:10+00:00): There is no access to the property there, and also there is a road sign prohibiting cycling
Yog Sot (2026-07-13 22:34:03+00:00): your doubts have been answered on community forums
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-14 13:39:38+00:00): "as it can't be forbidden on public roads that lead to private property" this is irrelevant, AFAIK

yes, certain vehicle classes may be banned from reaching private properties
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-13 13:50:07+00:00): This edit contains promotional content and has also renamed an existing Wembley Commercial Centre node to your company’s address. 

Please do not use OSM names, descriptions, profiles, or diaries for advertising. The existing node should be restored, and the company POI should use only its ordinary business name and neutral, verifiable information.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-13 16:40:40+00:00): Seems they were blocked in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20946 but this wasn't actually reverted?

I thus reverted it in changeset 185665090

https://osm.org/changeset/185665090
rajdhani (2026-07-15 07:18:50+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185765635
NLBRT (2026-07-28 18:31:40+00:00): Hi Juboraj,

It appears that you've added your own home and your phone number, a personally-identifiable information. Please note that OpenStreetMap is a public geodatabase, not a personal bookmark, i.e, you should not add any information pertaining to an ordinary individual. Adding phone numbers to stores or offices as signposted publicly, however, is permissible. Also, the way you used the relations is not supposed to be used in that manner.

I'll go ahead and fix it by removing the erroneous data. In the mean time, please consider going through the OSM Wiki for getting an understanding on how to map certain features, as well as join the OSM West Bengal Community on Telegram or XMPP, where we'll be more than happy to help you out! :)

https://t.me/osmwb
https://xmpp.link/#osmbengal@conference.conversations.im%3Fjoin
Marvk (2026-07-13 22:33:53+00:00): Hallo Max und willkommen auf OSM!

an diesen Stellen war bereits maxspeed:backward=* und maxspeed:forward=* getaggt, zusätzlich maxspeed=* ergibt also wenig Sinn. Ist hier jeweils in beide Richtungen 100 km/h Limit oder war es ggf. schon vorher richtig getaggt?

Grüße
Marv
SuperMax9 (2026-07-14 13:38:34+00:00): Hallo Marv,
ja dann war es schon vorher richtig getagged, sry habe maxspeed:backward und forward total übersehen!
alpacaMaps (2026-07-19 03:20:28+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — the nodes sit well away from any road, which usually means the cameras aren't physically present on the ground while also being duplicated thrice over.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-14 02:27:16+00:00): Hi Akshay,

Thank you for updating this area with imagery newer than is available publicly to OSM mappers. However, it did introduce a couple issues:

- You replaced the existing ways with ones that lack the same descriptive tagging as the originals, including surface=* and, where applicable, service=*.
- Additionally you removed and did not replace the noexit=yes tags on the terminating nodes, so it is not entirely clear (especially lacking the imagery you used) if the unconnected service way ends actually terminate or continue/connect to pedestrian infrastructure.
- Node 13540242324 , the intersection between the service way and the sidewalk, was shifted 1 m to the WNW of where it appears the sidewalk should be at that location (based on imagery and GPS traces) without clear justification.
- Furthermore, node 8427127744 , the intersection between the two service ways and North Main St, was moved 4 m SSW to match the new position of the service way, dragging the other service way with it despite the fact that they no longer intersect that the same junction.

I fixed all these issues to the extent I am able to without the imagery in changeset 185689414, but I would appreciate your response on each of these areas and your feedback as to whether my changes are correct based on your imagery or further adjustment is needed. Thanks.

https://osm.org/changeset/185689414
akshay_Lyft (2026-07-15 07:44:49+00:00): Hi CAM-Gerlach,
My name is Akshay, and I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft.Thanks for taking the time to review the changes and for restoring the missing tags and geometry where appropriate.
Regarding the missing surface and noexit=yes tags: we usually don't add these tags during editing unless there's an exceptional case. For surface, we only add the tag when we can clearly identify that the road is unpaved or not asphalted. For no exit, we typically leave the way untagged. My primary focus in this edit was updating the geometry correctly.
For nodes 13540242324 and 8427127744, I adjusted the intersection based on the alignment visible in the newer imagery to improve its accuracy and better reflect the access geometry. However, I agree that the shift is subtle and may not have been significant enough. 
At this point, I don't see anything in your changes that obviously conflicts with what I observed and I'll also make sure to preserve the existing tagging and review the connected features more carefully.
Thanks again for the detailed review and constructive feedback—it was very helpful.

Best regards,
Akshay
CAM-Gerlach (2026-07-15 14:56:50+00:00): Hi Akshay,

Thanks for your prompt and comprehensive response, and reviewing my changeset.

I realized I actually forgot to mention the one other potential issue I noticed with this changeset, specifically that it removes the start_date=2025 tag from the the existing service way it modified without explanation, despite the fact that it appears based on the road's lack of existence in 2023, being under construction in 2024 and appearance on imagery after that date and before the present that it was presumably opened then. This is also a key signal to other mappers that the roadways are valid, despite not appearing on aerial or street-level imagery, and avoid them removing the roads you added. Do you have information to suggest that this tag was incorrect, or shall I add it back?

> Regarding the missing surface and noexit=yes tags: we usually don't add these tags during editing unless there's an exceptional case.

Yeah, that's in general perfectly fine as you are by no means required to add any specific tag (beyond at least a top-level tag); the reason I raised it here was because it as you mentioned updated existing geometry that at least in part replaced existing service ways rather than creating entirely new service ways where none existed before, thus leading to some loss of detail.

> For nodes 13540242324 and 8427127744, I adjusted the intersection based on the alignment visible in the newer imagery to improve its accuracy and better reflect the access geometry. However, I agree that the shift is subtle and may not have been significant enough. 

I want to clarify that I have no particular reason to believe the shift of these two nodes to the south southwest lengthwise along S Main St is not correct, and didn't mean to imply that, sorry. The potential issues here was:

* the ~1 m shift of the sidewalk to the west northwest inward toward South Main, which seems very unlikely and without clear motivation, and is rather most likely due to either imprecise positioning, an accidental drag or an offset issue with the imagery you are using as I've registered the Bing imagery to within ~25 cm or less of the actual position using a large number of GPS traces and observations around the immediate area; and

* The other service way being dragged south along with this one, as given the substantial offset traffic cannot legally cross directly to the other without first making a legal right turn on to South Main Street and then a left turn onto the street. (Arguably, they shouldn't have been connected in the first place, which may have been my mistake).

Thanks!
akshay_Lyft (2026-07-21 10:03:16+00:00): 
Thanks for the clarification and the detailed explanation. I understand your concerns now, especially regarding the start_date=2025 tag, preserving existing tags when modifying ways, and avoiding unintended geometry changes.
Regarding start_date, I usually don't add this tag while mapping unless there is reliable information to support it. In this case, we don't have that information. Thank you for going ahead and adding it back. 
Your comments are well taken, and I'll keep them in mind for my future edits. Thank you for taking the time to explain these points.


Best regards,
Akshay
rajdhani (2026-07-14 10:38:22+00:00): Partially Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185708495
Yog Sot (2026-07-13 23:36:43+00:00): you have given no sources yet again
 path is there & added driveways, bike is not sidewalk forbidden, because there are situations where it's cleraly allowed
woodpeck (2026-07-14 07:33:39+00:00): Please refrain from restoring USSR names to natural features in Kyrgyzstan.
AkylbekJaripov (2026-07-16 06:28:27+00:00): Almost all of these peaks and passes were first explored and named during the Soviet era, which was the golden age of alpinism in this region. Regardless of one's attitude toward the Soviet Union, these names have been used for decades. Most of them appear in official gazetteers, maps, and mountaineering literature, as well as in countless hiking and climbing reports. If these names are to be changed, such decisions should be made at the governmental level through the official geographical naming process, rather than by unilateral edits.
AkylbekJaripov (2026-07-16 06:33:23+00:00): To avoid turning this into a political discussion, Seems it is fine with leaving this peak unnamed here. Fortunately, the original historical name continues to be preserved in other maps, official mountaineering literature, and many other sources, where it cannot be changed through unilateral edits.
eggie (2026-07-13 14:55:36+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback Info samengevoegd met adresnode.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
4004 (2026-07-19 23:45:23+00:00): ее сделали пешеходной или как?
残阳逐流 (2026-07-14 07:14:47+00:00): 请勿向网络关系#10235190（中国国家公路网）中添加路径
残阳逐流 (2026-07-14 07:15:27+00:00): 网络关系#6731485（中国国家高速公路网）同理
eggie (2026-07-13 14:39:34+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
rajdhani (2026-07-14 11:39:58+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185711702
eggie (2026-07-13 14:44:03+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
Sébastien Pi (2026-07-25 16:07:13+00:00): Bonjour,

Ça me paraît léger de se baser sur une note SNT. Ce pont semble très structurant pour la zone. Et suite à votre modification il y a une voie morte (presque sans accès, on peut juste y aller en faisant demi-tour) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389170509
Yog Sot (2026-07-13 23:16:28+00:00): this is invalid and there's ongoing discussion on the matter that you have known about, yet you have ignored it and created account just to change it instead of listening to people who actually knows what `destination` is used for.
rajdhani (2026-07-14 11:24:46+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185710831
Wildsharky (2026-07-15 04:35:23+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185694426
Wildsharky (2026-07-15 04:43:06+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185708334
StC (2026-07-15 17:39:10+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a brisé la continuité d'au moins un itinéraire pédestre. Je vais réparer ceux que je vois passer, et pour lesquels j'ai assez d'information sur l'état avant la casse.
StC (2026-07-18 18:09:27+00:00): ... en fait je trouve littéralement des dizaines de trous, plus que je ne peux en corriger moi-même. Un peu d'aide serait apprécié, en utilisant hiking.waymarkedtrails.org comme outil de contrôle qualité et en analysant de proche en proche toute la zone cde la modification  (un carré entre Barelonnette et Manosque)
gscholz (2026-07-20 06:53:45+00:00): Hi Lisapple,
your recent changesets have created a lot of errors regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=6.14568&lat=44.25981&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

As you may know, this kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps.
Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
Lisapple (2026-07-22 16:16:49+00:00): Effectivement, je n'avais pas téléchargé toutes les relations des routes, ce qui explique les discontinuités. Je m'occupe d'en réparer un maximum.

Mais la tâche serait bien plus aisée (et les erreurs moins courantes) si chaque route était bien documentée, en incluant toujours un fichier de trace officiel (GPX par exemple, comme pour relation/6309537), ainsi qu'une page officielle (qui n'est pas hors-ligne). Seuls les parcours ayant ces informations devraient être à réparer.

Bien sûr, c'est un gros travail (les Alpes de Haute-Provence listent 507 parcours pédestres dans le département, j'ai mis à jour https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/France/Itin%C3%A9raires_p%C3%A9destres_des_PDIPR pour les détails), mais c'est le seul moyen de réparer les relations en temps réel, et les tenir à jour, sans compter les informations utiles (distance, ascent, descent, etc.) que l'on peut trouver sur le site officiel et intégrer dans OpenStreetMap.

Concernant les Alpes de Haute-Provence (où je n'habite pas mais peut m'y rendre occasionnellement par faire de la randonnée, simplement que c'est l'un des rares départements qui publie toutes ces données ouvertement), l'ensemble des parcours pédestres (PR, PDIPR et GR), équestres et cyclistes sont aussi publié en données brutes (sans la découpe par circuit), ce qui permet d'intégrer les routes pédestres pour corriger les relations (dans une certaine mesure).

Je vais ajouter/compléter/corriger les circuits dans le 04 au fur et à mesure, et je mettrai à jour relation/21130503 pour permettre de suivre la progression et vérifier chaque relation manuellement. Je suis aussi en train de corriger les chemins en double.

Cordialement.
pyrog (2026-07-23 06:42:56+00:00): Bonjour Lisapple

> Effectivement, je n'avais pas téléchargé toutes les relations des routes, ce qui explique les discontinuités. Je m'occupe d'en réparer un maximum.

ça exeplique peut-être aussi les ways en doublon signalées par guido et osmi ?

Exemple :
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=6.05711&lat=44.31181&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537245776
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1538415303 (apparement en doublon)

Avant de continuer les corrections, peut-être serait-il judicieux de comprendre comment s'est produit la casse et de voir la manière la plus efficace de la corriger ?

Ou du moins comment la prévenir collectivement ?
pyrog (2026-07-23 07:32:27+00:00): > Je vais ajouter/compléter/corriger les circuits dans le 04 au fur et à mesure, et je mettrai à jour relation/21130503 pour permettre de suivre la progression et vérifier chaque relation manuellement.

Ce type de relation n'est pas documenté et n'a probablement pas sa place dans OSM.
Le wiki, une carte uMap ou d'autres outils comme knooppuntnet permettraient de faire le suivi des itinéaires.

Je propose d'en discuter sur un autre canal à déterminer.
pyrog (2026-07-23 07:36:41+00:00): Concernant le premier itinéraire listé : 	Chemin des Côtes.

L'analyseur de de WMT montre que la relation n'est pas continue, qu'il y a un trou.
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=6309537&type=relation

En comparant avec l'itinéraire dans GeoTrek on voit que le sens n'est pas respecté et qu'il ne boucle pas.
(Geotrek est l'outil utilisé par le Parc naturel pour gérer ses randos)