piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
FFW_Karlshuld (2026-01-25 20:07:19+00:00): Servus,

vielen Dank für die Sorgfalt.
Wir (die Freiwillige Feuerwehr Karlshuld) haben einen digitalen Flurplan vom lokalen Wasserversorger (der Arnbach Gruppe) erhalten, aus dem wir die Hydrantenpositionen und Typen übertragen haben.

Der Flurplan war leider nur auf einige Meter genau, viele offensichtlichen Fehler haben wir korrigiert, aber offensichtlich nicht alle gefunden.

Trotz der Ungenauigkeit helfen uns die Einträge im Einsatzfall beim Auffinden der Hydranten, daher würden wir gern offensichtliche Fehler beheben.

Uns selbst als Kontakt haben wir gewählt, da wir die Daten eingetragen haben, und im Zweifelsfall primär an Hinweisen zum Hydrantennetz interessiert sind. Gibt es (z.b. in JOSM) eine einfache Möglichkeit offensichtliche Fehler wie Points of Interest innerhalb Gebäudegrenzen zu finden?

Sollten unsere Einträge dennoch gegen Qualitätsanforderungen der OSM verstoßen, machen wir die Änderung natürlich rückgängig.

Über Ihre Anleitung zum weiteren Vorgehen würden wir uns sehr freuen.

Allerbeste Grüße
rempshaener (2026-01-25 21:34:37+00:00): Hallo,

ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob das in JOSM ohne Weiteres geht, ich habe es jetzt mal in QGIS verschnitten.
Dann sind es folgende Objekte:

www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475066472
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071767
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071773
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071780
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071782
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071786
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071790
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071811
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071822
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071866
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071873
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071882
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071884
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071894
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071917
www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475071998

Ich empfehle dringend, alle Hydranten vor Ort zu prüfen.

Es fehlen ohnehin noch die weit verbreiteten Angaben zu Nennweite, Position und eventuell (vor Ort ausgewiesener) Hydrantennummer.

Viele Grüße
FFW_Karlshuld (2026-01-26 09:02:38+00:00): Vielen herzlichen Dank!

Habe die Positionen dieser Nodes korrigiert.

Wir werden im Laufe des Jahres beim Spülen der Hydranten weitere Fehler suchen und korrigieren, ad-hoc ist dies jedoch kaum machbar.
eggie (2026-01-22 09:50:44+00:00): Lijkt me oke zo. 
gr eggie
LordGarySugar (2026-03-17 18:04:36+00:00): Hi, I noticed you've been mapping a lot of landuse and wanted to query your classification of farmland here - the wiki states that landuse=meadow should be used for land where grass is grown for the purposes of making hay or for grazing animals. It's clear from aerial imagery that ways such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1469315411 are being used for grazing horses or other animals, not ploughed and used for growing crops. Currently the usage of landuse=farmland and landuse=meadow across the UK is very inconsistent, so I'm trying to ensure the tagging is more lined up with the wiki guidance. Thanks.
DanGregory (2026-03-17 21:00:34+00:00): Inconclusive, I gather, viz: "landuse=farmland - An area of farmland used for tillage (cropland). This tag is sometimes also used for pasture or meadow." I think farmland nicely covers everything. We also have the interesting question of land that is used in different seasons for for both arable and pasture. You are most welcome to retag if you can be sure the landuse is consistent over time.
NeisBot (2026-01-22 06:23:37+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/13475096610 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-29 15:16:00+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177853103
(Cleaned up leftovers from previous edits)
NeisBot (2026-01-22 06:23:38+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/13471514082 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-29 15:16:02+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177853108
(Cleaned up leftovers from previous edits)
gurglypipe (2026-01-24 12:54:28+00:00): From a couple of minutes of reviewing this (I am nowhere near finished, nor do I really want to waste any more of my time on this):

1. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1228810819 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1228810820 have a suspicious addr:street

2. Same for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1191358663 and various other buildings around there

3. UPRN for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171150926 should probably be on the surrounding site

4. 4 UPRNs for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/83934347 looks like it needs more investigation

5. Similarly for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158856135

6. Buildings like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1158031835 should be addr:city=Backbarrow not addr:city=Ulverston, to match the rest of the buildings in the village. (Or if you’re going to insist on using postal towns in addr:city, then addr:suburb needs to be set as well)
dmfr (2026-01-22 22:15:59+00:00): Olá! Eliminaste várias linhas elétricas. Gostaria de perceber porquê, caso contrário será necessário reverter a tua alteração.
dmfr (2026-01-26 15:49:50+00:00): Revertido.
S-zation (2026-01-22 00:00:53+00:00): No drive thru at this location according to imagery and the official website
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177544102
MxxCon (2026-01-29 01:17:01+00:00): Changeset reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177826832
yelisey90 (2026-01-22 07:46:03+00:00): Humph... So is Kaklebi regarded part of Bagebi or not?
Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1467893914 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177251744
yelisey90 (2026-01-22 08:14:02+00:00): (I can only note that administratively, Kaklebi was assigned to Tsqneti Ubani (II-8) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14900502 , while Bagebi was assigned to Vake Ubani (II-5) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14900501 ,
as outlined here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tbilisi_Ubnebi_2014.jpg
yelisey90 (2026-01-22 08:16:30+00:00): (Although that is not a strong argument, of course, as Saburtalo has even been divided between two raions...)
Jk488 (2026-01-22 12:32:22+00:00): Unfortunately I don't know any locals of Kaklebi, but according to my knowledge and the residents of the neighboring districts, it's usually regarded as part of Bagebi. It could be comparable to Vedzisi-Saburtalo relation, but I've always seen Kaklebi as part of Bagebi, and I'd say it's pretty similar to some parts of Bagebi with its private houses.
As a bonus, most real estate listings refer to this area as Bagebi.
Syl (2026-01-22 11:47:14+00:00): Hello, Bing is not the best imagery in France, we use BDOrtho IGN instead. Your changes were made using outdated images, can you fix them?
gsperb (2026-01-24 20:24:27+00:00): Ortho express IGN 2025 shows new buildings, but I didn't change anything about the old ones.
Syl (2026-01-25 10:32:06+00:00): Thanks for updating this area and the pitch you added in this changeset.
synthfi (2026-02-09 21:37:00+00:00): lol, just realized that you reverted all of my stuff with a changeset titled, "no", and then you brought it back with another called "fix"

for the construction road, do you know of any web links detailing what is actually being built? I couldn't identify it as a foot path when I went to take pictures
QuiLe (2026-01-23 01:25:28+00:00): Hi there! Thanks for your contributions to OSM. I am looking at this changeset and I am confused by it. Do you mean that the valet operator for this chain (The Captal Grille) takes Bitcoin? If so, this is not clear that the business is a parking or business.  If anything, the Valet should have a company name and it is not Valet.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177544648
Rockedf (2026-01-23 03:16:56+00:00): Hello. I replied to you in a private message.
EneaSuper (2026-01-25 15:08:39+00:00): Hi, I've carefully reviewed your changes to this changeset and noticed that you used the value "pipeline" instead of "pipeline," which I suspect is incorrect...
marc__marc (2026-01-26 22:15:58+00:00): ho my bad, thanks for the feedback, i should fix that
NeisBot (2026-01-22 06:21:31+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 10 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/146541514 v7 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/146539399 v11 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/9244656405 v4

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177545091
NeisReview (2026-01-29 07:09:47+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/177547059
welzheimerwald (2026-01-22 00:43:20+00:00): *parallele. Ich weiß.
NeisBot (2026-01-22 06:23:40+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/13475262005 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-29 15:16:02+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/177570645
Dimitar155 (2026-01-22 14:29:45+00:00): Здравейте и добре дошли в OSM!

Благодаря за редакциите. Може да видите по-подробна карта на етимологиите на улициге тук - https://mapcomplete.org/etymology.html?z=15.5&lat=42.704002333897165&lon=23.30485551314223

Поздрави,
Митко
NorthCrab_upload (2026-01-23 04:41:17+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Podana kombinacja addr:city + addr:place jest nieprawidłowa.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475270979
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13475270980

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
BrodyC (2026-02-03 05:05:19+00:00): Looks great
Fizzie-DWG (2026-01-22 07:06:24+00:00): DWG revert - sockpuppet vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177551419
i2004 (2026-01-23 13:21:32+00:00): https://www.lanacion.com.ar/sociedad/este-es-el-nuevo-colectivo-que-une-el-sur-de-la-ciudad-con-el-norte-como-es-el-recorrido-y-que-nid22012026/
rskedgell (2026-01-22 07:31:01+00:00): (Review requested)

Looks fine. Thanks for fixing all those mis-tagged addresses!
muralito (2026-01-22 12:33:16+00:00): Hi. On what  basis did you add access=permissive to a lot of gates in this and other changesets lately?
KawarthaLake (2026-01-23 01:34:36+00:00): Hello muralito,

The imagery I used showed the gate was open. Generally I add a permissive tag if a gate is visibly open on ground imagery or other resources, but with this gate it appeared open on Mapbox Satellite. If you know more about accessibility here I am happy to defer to your knowledge.
muralito (2026-01-23 12:26:00+00:00): OK. Here an open gate does not imply that. Almost all private plots should be tagged with access=private with a few exceptions where customers need to access the premises like some hotels or restaurants.
KawarthaLake (2026-01-27 02:15:20+00:00): Thank you for confirming, that makes sense to me. I am now noticing similar issues nearby and I will update this area with correct private access.
NeisBot (2026-01-22 06:21:42+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 35 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1096054411 v5 | 14 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1096054407 v4 | 13 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1102353688 v1 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/10037487595 v4
https://osm.org/node/10087087256 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177547891
NeisReview (2026-01-31 07:35:23+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/177887796
Broadway Magic Hour: Magic Show (2026-02-01 03:45:15+00:00): Thanks for noticing that! Apologies - I must have accidentally dragged those. Yes, I agree that those unintended crossings between roads / buildings should be fixed. I don't know how to fix it, so if you could complete the fix that would be appreciated. Thanks again!
ftrebien (2026-01-22 12:10:29+00:00): I have undone this edit as it does not follow Brazil's Highway Classification (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brazil/Highway_Classification_in_Brazil) rule 2.3.
NewryCanal (2026-01-22 20:10:15+00:00): Hello ftrebien,

Looking at the 2.3 section of the Brazil Highway Classification policy page - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brazil/Highway_Classification_in_Brazil#Ideal_route_between_two_cities - trunks connected to motorways at the terminus is not covered. Did you happen to mean the 2.2 Criteria section that details each road class?

In that section under trunk, the classification criteria dictates that for a dual carriage road to be classified as trunk it must be satisfy at least one of the four criteria. Based on the wording, it appears you are referencing the “urban way linking trunk or motorway highways” criterion [cc 4]. However, the associated footnote clarifies that "The rule "urban way linking highways" applies only when necessary to maintain classification continuity, not when those highways are already connected through another route.”. Given that clarification, I’m not sure this criterion implies that a road should transition to trunk prior to directly connecting to motorway_link roads or the motorways themselves.

This reclassified segment is a short transition, approximately 600 m, occurring at the end of the secondary frontage road. I’m not aware of examples in Brazil (or any other country) where viaduct sections of frontage roads are upgraded to trunk, particularly over such a short distance and without directly connecting to the broader trunk network.

Have you discussed this approach with anyone else in the community by chance? From my perspective, the outer frontage road passing beneath the viaduct aligned more logically with classification hierarchy and continuity principles, and with the criteria outlined in the Brazil highway classification wiki section, prior to the June 2025 version, when it was a unified primary class. as it fits the definition of a “paved urban way connecting primary highways to each other or to higher-class highways.”.

Happy to discuss further and will refrain from changing back until a consensus on these road features is decided.

Thank you,
NewryCanal
NewryCanal (2026-01-23 21:08:24+00:00): Thanks for the explanation. I do not fully understand the finer details here but I will try to leave your classifications on higher priority roads as you have left them.

Have a good day! - NewryCanal
GrabTH_Bulakorn (2026-01-22 04:15:58+00:00): Source: Aerial imagery
NeisBot (2026-01-22 06:23:43+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/13475400691 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-29 15:16:03+00:00): 🗑️ Element deleted by https://osm.org/changeset/177764433
NeisBot (2026-01-22 06:23:44+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/node/13475418556 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-29 15:16:03+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177853111
(No visible changes after review)
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-22 13:11:07+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam POI with advertising/malformed tags and source=* of Google Maps, which is not allowed by both OSM and Google policies (see https://osm.wiki/Google ), in changeset 184431568

https://osm.org/changeset/184431568
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-04-04 19:13:29+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1469116737/history has landcover = shrubbery that was added in this edit
would it be fine to replace it with only natural=shrubbery which seeems to have ended as accepted tag for that?
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dshrubbery
thobrist (2026-04-05 08:21:57+00:00): Servus Mateusz,

i have changed the landcover=shrubbery to natural=shrubbery and man_made=flowerbed from this changeset and on other ways with landcover=shrubbery with https://osm.org/changeset/180884356.
Thanks for the hint.

Servus
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-04-06 03:21:27+00:00): and thanks for your mapping, not only this fix!
LordGarySugar (2026-05-13 16:21:32+00:00): I have removed these trees, as they do not exist. Please do not add fictional things like this.
NeisBot (2026-01-23 06:54:39+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/13475524518 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-30 07:09:12+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/177757175
Ben_2 (2026-01-23 04:30:35+00:00): Actually this area is split into two, the larger part being Anyavee, but the hotel I removed does still exist. I'll add it back in the next few days.
Ben_2 (2026-01-24 07:41:18+00:00): Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177636297
MassCartog (2026-01-22 15:53:33+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM. Is there a reason you removed all these buildings?
diamondarmorsteve (2026-01-25 19:36:08+00:00): Hello, thank you for your edit! I have added the building and parking lot based on VBMP imagery, which is more up-to-date than Bing, which is selected by default.
NeisBot (2026-01-23 06:54:42+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/way/319776853 v7

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Empresa de tecnologia"
---
Por exemplo, uma versão mais neutra e factual do seu texto poderia ser: "Empresa de tecnologia"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-30 07:09:13+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/177704530
Luke_Vader (2026-01-22 10:06:49+00:00): Same comment as on changeset/177552825
also driveway geometry went through the building.
I noticed you are using Bing aerial for mapping, i suggest using the geoportail.lu images as they are much more up-to-date and higher resolution.
changed paths to driveway in changeset/177557156
Thank you for your contributions, and happy mapping!
Warin61 (2026-01-23 08:30:46+00:00): Hi
Added tag construction=line as per normal tagging for construction things. 
When construction is complete please delete the tag construction=line. 

Note 'Eastern Line' has suspicious tag combination of electrified=no with frequency ??? Which is it..
LachlanTansey2009 (2026-01-25 12:44:51+00:00): I am sorry I thought that frequency meant how frequent trains were over that section. I'll fix this issue.
Luke_Vader (2026-01-22 09:59:49+00:00): to me, this looks like a driveway.
changed to a driveway in changeset/177556986
Thank you for your contributions, and happy mapping!
Glassman (2026-01-23 01:32:24+00:00): It seems strange that there would be three devices that close together. Can you verify that they all exist. I usually look for the pole's shadow to find the pole's base.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177552956
fuckflocksafety (2026-01-23 19:40:55+00:00): There's two devices at this location pointed in two different directions. One facing north. The other is facing west.
fuckflocksafety (2026-01-23 19:41:28+00:00): And the there's another at the entrance to the parking lot facing west.
MiroJanosik (2026-03-15 16:22:00+00:00): Ahoj, myslim ze Regal v parku je uz aspon rok zavrety, davam ho na "was". Bol presunuty ku pumpe Slovnaft.
Taya_S (2026-01-22 08:51:34+00:00): Hello MartinBook, 

I have restored the objects you deleted. 
On OSM we map the world as it exists on the ground. This includes private paths. If people aren't allowed to use a path, we instead use a tag such as `acces=private` to indicate this.

Please see the following relevant wiki pages:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_private_information

Best regards,  
Taya Snijder,  
On behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177554686