piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Tomas Straupis (2026-07-03 05:18:38+00:00): Nereikia namų numerių Vilniuje keisti, mes juos sinchronizuojame su oficialiais duomenimis. Plius čia neteisinga informacija nurodyta.
BCNorwich (2026-07-03 05:12:01+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've restored several nodes to their former position; it seems you inadvertently dragged them off of the original alignment (a power line and a boundary line).

Question is Way: The Hawthorns (1534689282) really on that alignment? The Esri imagery shows some of the new housing. It looks like your highway line might not be correct.

In the iD editor the Esri imagery can be selected from the 'Backgrounds/Settings' menu on the right.

Regards Bernard.
DD1GJ (2026-07-02 21:09:10+00:00): Hallo BUFFAE, willkommen bei OSM. Beschreibende Namen wie "Feldwef" werden grundsätzlich nicht vergeben. Das ergibt sich automatisch aus highway=track

Weitere Informationen findest Du unter

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen#name_ist_nur_der_Name

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:How_to_map_a
eerib (2026-07-02 22:34:06+00:00): Reverted. Please refer to the discussion in:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184951233
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-04 03:07:53+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20905
Monchinho (2026-07-02 21:20:22+00:00): Ola! Vilarxubín convertéchelo nunha ambulancia en vez de aldea e ademais borraches información como a poboación. Por favor, vólveo ao estado anterior.
Jordi MF (2026-07-02 21:23:42+00:00): ¿Qué es lo correcto, Hospital de Bruma o "O Hospital de Bruma"?
Manolo da Televinte (2026-07-02 21:38:13+00:00): Estoy intentando hacer modificaciones que no aparecen en el documento de la RAG de los cambios (https://toponimia.xunta.gal/sites/default/files/2026-03/Nomenclator2026.pdf), pero sí aparecen si se consulta el Nomenclátor oficial (https://www.xunta.gal/dog/Publicados/2026/20260410/AnuncioG0766-080426-0003_es.html). Gracias a que me lo habéis notificado, que yo ni siquiera me había dado cuenta, porque el mapa es muy sensible y es muy difícil no tocar nada sin querer, he tomado la decisión de no seguir, porque no me está gustando nada editar aquí. Y no solo por esto, por más cosas, no me gusta nada editar este mapa. Si queréis os paso los cambios que no aparecen  en el Documento: Pallarés -> Pallares (Cee), Mato tras do Souto -> Mato Tras do Souto (Ponteceso), O Rizal -> Rizal (Alfoz do Castrodouro), Vilarxuvín -> Vilarxubín (A Pontenova), Hospital -> O Hospital (Bruma, Mesía), Pozancas -> As Pozacas (Agüeira, Becerreá), Castro Portela -> Castro de Portela (Folgoso do Courel), Viñal -> O Viñal (O Pao, Gomesende), Morreiras de Arriba -> Moreiras de Arriba (Ribas de Sil, este no está en el Decreto, pero sí en la corrección de errores), Coucieiro -> O Coucieiro (Corneda, O Irixo), Cova -> A Aldea Grande (Cova, A Pobra de Trives; en este último he visto que se ha creado erróneamente la localidad de A Aldea Grande, separada de la de Cova, debe revisarse), Ardexarxe->Ardexaxe (Fradelo, Viana do Bolo), Xuncal -> O Xuncal (Ardán, Marín), O Outeriño -> O Outeiriño (O Castro, Silleda), Fontela -> A Fontenla (Coruxo, Vigo). Esas son las que he encontrado. Seguramente haya más.
Monchinho (2026-07-02 22:05:15+00:00): Manolo, estás facendo un bo traballo e quero agradecercho. Iso o primeiro. Se non queres seguir é decisión persoal túa, eu anímote a continuares. De todos xeitos mañán mirarei todas estas referencias que nos traes. Non sei como as descubriches, debeuche dar ben de traballo dar con elas.
Jordi MF (2026-07-02 22:10:26+00:00): Ola Manolo,

En primeiro lugar, moitas grazas por mellorar os datos de OpenStreetMap, en concreto, a toponimia. Por favor, non te desanimes tan pronto. Os cambios que realices en OSM veranse reflectidos en multitude de aplicacións como Osmand, Organic Maps, Strava, etc.
A primeira vez que editamos, a todos pareceunos difícil.
Se tes dúbidas, podes pregunarlas por mensaxería privada ou través do grupo galego que temos en Telegram.
Anímote a seguir editando OSM, aos poucos e sen abafos. En OSM é moi importante o coñecemento local e seguro que podes achegar.
Monchinho (2026-07-02 22:10:49+00:00): Tamén flipo que non aparezan no documento dos cambios, paréceme surrealista. Faiche pensar se son erros ou non, pero en fin, está claro que no Nomenclátor están e iso pesa máis ca o documentos dos cambios.
Manolo da Televinte (2026-07-02 22:22:08+00:00): Vale, moitas grazas a todos. Se cadra realizo algún cambio máis, pero xa teño choio suficiente co da Galipedia. Xa verei. A causa de que haxa mudanzas que non aparezan reflectidas no documento dos cambios é que o PDF da RAG foi acabado o 20 de xuño de 2025 (https://publicacions.academia.gal/index.php/rag/catalog/book/461) e a RAG e a Xunta tiveron outra reunión en decembro antes da publicación definitiva no DOG en abril (o sorprendente é que a RAG non fixese público o documento dos cambios até marzo). Aproveito para comentar que o lugar da Pedreira (Traba, Laxe) non aparece no documento dos cambios, mais si no Decreto, así como as parroquias do Xobre ou O Maño e Santiago do Deán ou O Castelo (A Pobra do Caramiñal) e Bexán ou Rubiños (Cospeito), que antes eran simplemente O Xobre, Santiago do Deán e Bexán, respectivamente. Todos os cambios que atopei (pode haber erratas e poden faltar algúns) están en https://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproxecto_Nomencl%C3%A1tor_2026 . O meu truco foi baixarme este Excel (https://abertos.xunta.gal/catalogo/territorio-vivienda-transporte/-/dataset/0270/nomenclator-galicia) onde aparecen os lugares do Nomenclátor de 2003 e do 2026 e, a partir de fórmulas de Excel, ver que cambios houbo. Despois, fun concello por concello e comparando co que aparecía no Excel, e despois subino a Wikipedia.
Manolo da Televinte (2026-07-02 22:22:35+00:00): *comparando o documento da RAG co que aparecía no Excel
Monchinho (2026-07-03 09:12:40+00:00): Graciñas polas explicacións de como as atopaches, moi interesantes. Está claro que o Nomenclátor seguirá cambiando (eu mesmo informei dunha aldea de Brión á que lle falta o artigo e non está no decreto) e así o manifestaron eles mesmos. O que non era normal é que botasen 23 anos sen corrixir nin actualizar nada, era unha anomalía total. Saúde.
limes11 (2026-07-02 21:20:12+00:00): Wieso denn vehicle=no ? Damit sperrst du es. 

motor_vehicle=yes wäre hier korrekt
limes11 (2026-07-02 21:20:52+00:00): achso, nicht gesehen, du hast beides gesetzt. Okay, das ist natürlich richtig :)
FroschForscher (2026-07-03 15:21:44+00:00): Vor einem Jahr hing hier noch ein "Anlieger frei". Die Aufwertung von Kfz beschränkt auf Kfz frei ist wohl folge von https://www.swp.de/lokales/ulm/-78181505.html. Die Kfz/Anlieger frei Schilder hier haben eine andere Schrift als normale Zusatzzeichen, wurden offenbar schnell beschafft.
flohoff (2026-07-03 08:30:22+00:00): Hier müssen wir uns was besseres einfallen lassen.

Wenn du jetzt bei OSM nach LWL Klinik suchst findest du das 3 mal. 

Einmal dein neues, einmal die gesamtklinik und einmal den node auf dem Eingang.

Die Flächen sollte man vielleicht als relation zusammenfassen. 

Flächen POIs als solches sind immer scheisse weil das routing da kaputt geht, deshalb bin ich immer ein großer freund von POIs als node.

Flo
stirps (2026-07-03 11:45:35+00:00): Ich hatte da keine großen Präferenzen bzgl. Darstellung, wollte nur die landuses richtig haben.
Habe wie von dir vorgeschlagen ein multipolygon draus gemacht, siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185035526
VLD0251 (2026-07-05 16:40:06+00:00): Hello. Copying data from sources that are not compatible with the OpenStreetMap license is not permitted
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1534702013
user_15543111 (2026-07-07 01:52:06+00:00): Could you specify it more exactly? No  data incompatible to the OSM license was used.
VLD0251 (2026-07-07 20:59:37+00:00): https://maps.app.goo.gl/12vs2yD83XQyHANHA
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1534702013
user_15543111 (2026-07-07 23:04:09+00:00): Neither the name nor the coordinates match the source you mentioned.
silversurfer83 (2026-07-04 08:47:01+00:00): Moin,

neben dem fehlenden Änderungssatzkommentar und der quer über Deutschland verteilten Arbeit hätte ich noch Anmerkungen:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107892098
Da hast du dir viel Mühe gegeben aber den landuse=residential, der jetzt quer durch Gebäude verläuft müsste noch angepasst werden. Außerdem sollte die relative Lage des Gewässers zum Gebäude besser dargestellt werden (layer=*)

Grüße
silversurfer83
pwbriggs (2026-07-15 20:38:41+00:00): Is there a "No Trespassing sign" sign here? Otherwise access=no isn't correct.

Based on the anonymous (but presumably your) note at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5370496, is sounds like the footpath becomes disused at a certain point? In that case, we can split the trail at that point to accurately represent the unmaintained section.

You might find https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can't_I_delete_this_trail%3F helpful with more info as well

Thanks for the contributions and welcome to OpenStreetMap! I look forward to discussing this trail further.
arjunrawal4 (2026-07-15 23:44:41+00:00): Hi, this isn't my note but based on my recent visit, I agree with the assessment. Past a short ways in, the trail is fully unidentifiable and it's just dense brush. I can split the trail and mark the latter half as disused or abandoned (or just via trail_visibility). It seems there is some community disagreement about which is the best one to use. Do you have a suggestion?
pwbriggs (2026-07-16 05:04:56+00:00): It sounds like abandoned:highway=footway would be appropriate for the far unmaintained segment. Per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix, the distinction between disused:*=* and abandoned:*=* is primarily that the latter indicates that considerable effort would need to be put into the infrastructure to put it back into use.

Then for the other tags, access=no has a pretty strong meaning and I don't get the impression that it's the case here. (aside: something I see a lot is people marking "private road" streets at access=no when the sign usually really means ownership=private unless there's also a "No Trespassing". But I believe neither access=no nor ownership=private apply here).

I definitely wouldn't rely on trail_visibility=* alone to indicate this situation, but if you know the appropriate values for each segment, go for it.

informal=yes is good if the trail isn't officially maintained by or with the permission of whoever operates this space.

Regarding the actual syntax of the disused:*=* tag, you want to append the prefix, separated with a colon (:) to the tag key. So instead of abandoned="highway=path" with "abandoned" as the tag name, it should be abandoned:highway=path. It should replace the highway=* tag entirely, i.e. there should be no highway=path tag left after applying the lifecycle prefix.

I'm not familiar enough with the highway=path tag to speak as to whether highway=path or highway=footway works better; I was under the impression that a highway=path should usually be paired with a foot=designated tag or something like that to describe the type of path, but I could be wrong. I think either abandoned:highway=footway or abandoned:highway=path would work fine.

Yes, please go ahead and split the trail at approximately the point where it becomes overgrown. And then you can leave a short comment on the note and press "comment and resolve" to mark it as completed.

Thanks as always for contributing! I think some local mappers try to send a welcome message to all the new users in Washington, but if you haven't been invited yet I encourage you to consider joining OpenStreetMap US Slack at https://slack.openstreetmap.us/. It has lots of lively discussion about all sorts of OSM topics, from community events to discussions on how to map things.

Happy mapping!
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-04 12:17:50+00:00): Reverted series of changesets adding SEO POI and blatantly promotional description=* and other malformed tags to it

https://osm.org/changeset/
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-04 12:18:34+00:00): Oops, in changeset

https://osm.org/changeset/185088070
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-03 06:18:15+00:00): Hi, thanks for your contribution. I noticed that some name=* tags appear to describe the current status of the feature rather than its actual name. In OSM, name=* should normally contain the real-world name of the feature, as shown on-site or commonly used locally. For access restrictions or property information, please use appropriate non-name tags such as access=*, private=*, or description=* instead of putting that information in name=*. Could you please adjust or remove name=* ?
eerib (2026-07-05 08:05:13+00:00): This edit has been reverted by CS185127356.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185127356

Please do not mass delete features from OpenStreetmap. Also, do not add random features and use all caps "PRIVATE PROPERTY". Instead you can use legal access tags. If you need help then I recommend asking for help on the OpenStreetMap Community Forum.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/
José Miguel Picazo Núñez (2026-07-06 15:52:28+00:00): Hi! Regarding your recent edit to the feature "ME15" in Albacete, Spain: it is actually a group of recycling bins, as it was originally tagged, rather than a hotel or a postbox. Could you please check the available photos on Mapillary and revert it to the original data? Thank you very much!
rempshaener (2026-07-03 19:03:19+00:00): Hallo,
wieso hast du addr:country=DE gelöscht?
Viele Grüße
WerstensWichtelin78 (2026-07-03 19:58:44+00:00): Hi,

das habe ich wohl davon, iD auf dem Handy zu nutzen. Das hätte natürlich nicht weg gesollt. Füg das gerne wieder hinzu. Ansonsten mach ich das, wenn ich das nächste mal wieder am Rechner sitze.

Liebe Grüße aus Wersten :-)
rempshaener (2026-07-03 21:11:45+00:00): Hallo,

Problem verstanden. Ich hab es wieder hinzugefügt.

Viele Grüße
FroschForscher (2026-07-04 06:37:49+00:00): Können die Hinweise geschlossen werden?
InfosReseaux (2026-07-09 22:13:50+00:00): Bonjour,
Pourquoi avoir retiré construction:power=cable sur le tracé de la ligne souterraine ?
eerib (2026-07-02 22:42:24+00:00): Discussion in:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184951233
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-03 07:42:58+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values

https://osm.org/changeset/185024337
9_tab (2026-07-04 10:34:05+00:00): ça serait pratique préciser la région ou le pays concerné dans le résumé.
user_5359 (2026-07-03 15:57:17+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1318947517 (one of three ways). What is the mean of the tag yes=yes?
Milhouse (2026-07-03 17:00:00+00:00): It means "yes, yes, yes, I love this footway!"

Sorry, fixed. I think it was foot=yes which is redundant when applied to a footway, I meant to delete the tag and add bicycle=yes
eggie (2026-07-03 06:48:04+00:00): Dag The Indra,

Je edits..
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=185005890#19/51.89840/4.53807

Je hebt de man_made =bridge van vorm veranderd, maar deze klopt zo echt niet.
Ik pas het weer aan.

MVG
eggie
LordGarySugar (2026-07-14 17:13:13+00:00): Why have you deleted the existing buildings and then re-added new buildings? This is obviously not correct. I have removed name=Bulding as this is a descriptive name, and removed height=1 as it is very unlikely these buildings are 1 metre tall.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-03 07:37:27+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags, and a prohibited source of Google Maps

https://osm.org/changeset/185024066
eggie (2026-07-03 06:25:50+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
JJIglesias (2026-07-03 00:01:54+00:00): Saludos, en OSM las casas NO llevan el Nombre de las personas o familia que la habitan, por respeto a la privacidad de los habitantes. Si pueden llevar el nombre si es un edificio, tienda, negocio, etc. que tengan un nombre propio.

Por favor recordar Escuadrar las edificaciones apretando la letra Q o en el Mouse click derecho.

Las imágenes pueden distorsionar las edificaciones pero el 99% de ellas tienen ángulos a 90 grados y son simétricas y ortogonales. Las imágenes satélites son angulares NO verticales.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Gracias
danieldegroot2 (2026-07-05 11:00:19+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1534741009

would use the new aerial in combination with Esri at least around here; there is an extension missing on the right/east. also at the bottom it looks like one corner was not squared with "Q" or right click > Square. ;-)
Dr Arat (2026-07-03 00:38:12+00:00): it's a great inspiring hard work contribution of Engr. Rahul for benefit of locals smooth movement truly commendable.In his honor,Road has been named "Rahul Engineer Road রাহুল ইঞ্জিনিয়ার রোড" consent of the locals,which is unique recognition of his work
Jakesname (2026-07-03 01:28:19+00:00): I believe there may be some new parking in some of this space at some point, but considering the existing lot looked pretty gone and any new parking would need completely new geometry, I didn't think it was worth trying to preserve history for the new version.
SD Mapman (2026-07-08 01:49:46+00:00): Unrelated to the changeset, but is there a way we can get the English name of the Murray County high point changed to something less generic? Would "Buffalo Ridge" work for the English name or does that refer to the whole ridge?
Tuwewanzi (2026-07-09 17:55:32+00:00): Buffalo Ridge allegedly refers to the whole ridge, which spans multiple counties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Ridge

...but according to the county, it was named by Nicollet for a Dakota buffalo effigy that, judging by articles on the topic, must be in close proximity to this high point: https://www.murraycountymn.com/government/township_government/chanarambie.php

...and USGS data records this point as "Buffalo Ridge", probably due to the aforementioned association: https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/640621

I see a decent case for naming this point Buffalo Ridge, despite it being the name for the wider ridge as well. 

As an aside, the buffalo-effigy for which the ridge is named and the stone-man effigy from which the "Íƞyaƞ Wic̣aṡta Káġapi" name springs are frustratingly hard to locate; the buffalo-effigy is supposedly on this hill but sources disagree on the man-effigy, placing it either next to the buffalo or associating it with another badly damaged effigy documented in 1972 and located fifteen miles NNE. These Dakota artworks are too small to make out via satellite imagery, easily damaged and almost certainly on private property, and neither carry historical markers or searchable NRHP markings. I may have to settle for some vagueness in their locations.
felipeeugenio (2026-07-03 17:57:21+00:00): Hola. no se observa un edificio ahí. Es un lugar físico o son denominaciones de los servicios de logística?
En OSM mapeamos objetos verificables en terreno.
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185013640
sebaver01 (2026-07-06 00:52:26+00:00): es una oficina
Glassman (2026-07-03 23:02:46+00:00): #TIP: if the business is just one of many, add a node near it's entrance. Otherwise, it is okay to tag the whole bldg if they are the only one. Can you review this edit.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185014007
MassCartog (2026-07-06 19:57:20+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM, in this changeset you removed valid features for invalid reasons. This is incorrect, and they have been restored.  Private driveways are valid to be included in OSM, please do not removed them. Please use the access=private instead if that is applicable. Thanks

Please read for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
smichae (2026-07-03 03:42:16+00:00): Please consider editing the description to be less of an advertisement.  Per guidelines, the description should only include neutral and factual information about the object. It should not include subjective evaluations, e.g. "the best restaurant in town", etc.
MassCartog (2026-07-06 19:58:54+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM, in this changeset you removed valid features for invalid reasons. This is incorrect, and they have been restored. Private driveways are valid to be included in OSM, please do not removed them. Please use the access=private instead if that is applicable. Thanks

Please read for more info:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
MassCartog (2026-07-06 20:00:40+00:00): PS your other mapping work has been great! thanks! Happy mapping!
OnionLord (2026-07-11 18:41:31+00:00): Noted for the future! In my defense, there are driveways, then there is a little bit of concrete that's actually parking :)
Hayleox (2026-07-06 01:41:30+00:00): Hey there, welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits -- nice to see a new name working on southern Ohio forest cover! Just wanted to give you a heads up that I spotted two small issues with this changeset, which I fixed here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185169859

There was one bit of woods that had a corner where the line crossed over itself -- it was only by a tiny bit, but this caused it to completely disappear from the map on some renderers (including Carto, the renderer on openstreetmap.org). And the other issue was just two different overlapping polygons covering the same piece of woods.

Anyway, totally not a big deal -- just wanted to let you know so you can look out for it in the future! If you're interested, I'd welcome you to join us in the #local-ohio channel on the OpenStreetMap US Slack. Cheers!
prairiewolf006 (2026-07-06 01:58:34+00:00): thanks for the update!
I'm still trying to learn about osm and how to map things as i go, so the feedback is really appreciated!
please let me know if you have any more tips or anything for the future
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-21 04:32:19+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Please see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Cleaned up SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186094960
Glassman (2026-07-03 23:10:50+00:00): It looks like you acidentially dragged nodes on a stream. I've fixed them. Let me know if they were done on purpose.

Also, if a road is posted no trespassing then access=private is appropriate. If it is just a privately maintained road, then the correct tag is ownership=private.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185015081
irrelevantmapper7 (2026-07-03 03:46:40+00:00): forgot to add sources. i did a street survey of store fronts and used aerial photos. many stores are missing hours and addresses.
Rngrk (2026-07-03 08:14:58+00:00): 提供的image source不适用于此landuse, 未提供name来源
SekeRob (2026-07-11 14:32:40+00:00): Hi
QA flags this Chech republic phone number as suspecious, given the apartment is Italy. Suggest you add a note before people get into an expensive intl call
LordGarySugar (2026-07-03 13:40:30+00:00): Hi, you seem to be creating a lot of tourism=viewpoint nodes, the problem is they are being placed inside existing leisure=bird_hide buildings, which is the correct tag. If you want to add the correct names, it would be best to edit the existing bird hides rather than adding a duplicated node inside. If you need help with that let me know. It seems that organic maps does not show an icon for things tagged as leisure=bird_hide, so viewpoint was the closest thing you could select? I would also suggest that including (WWT London Wetland Centre) in the name is unnecessary, as this is implied by the surrounding nature reserve area. Thank you.