piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
TrickyFoxy (2026-02-26 19:55:27+00:00): Пожалуйста, не рисуйте фиктивные дороги. Добавляйте сами остановки или рисуйте полигоны дорог. Но не имитируйте дороги линиями

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway
NeisBot (2026-01-31 07:29:33+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):
https://osm.org/way/1342069887 v4 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/236307753 v6 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/2443481279 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177887203
NeisReview (2026-02-07 07:49:04+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/177952369
Norbert Dichter (2026-01-30 15:23:07+00:00): Hello, thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. Thank you for your contribution. The buildings you mapped are well done as to their location. But pay attention to the squareness of the corners. Always draw buildings as square and precise as you can. Then add the Building feature type. And last, right click it and click the square icon. Or just hit the Q-key.
Also please keep in mind: many buildings are very close but do not actually touch each other, try to map them close to each other without letting them connect or share nodes with each other, roads, or residential area outlines. In the iD web editor, holding down the "alt" key will keep nodes from "snapping" to each other and accidentally connecting.  Thanks so much for your contribution, Norbert 'Nodi' Dichter, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177887375
Taya_S (2026-02-01 18:51:02+00:00): Hello,

Please cease attempting to fix this import in Greenland. It was undiscussed and will be reverted.

Also, in the future, please make sure the import you are attempting to fix was actually discussed by the community. Your involvement has made reverting everything significantly more complex.

Best regards,
Taya Snijder,
On behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group
Aleksandar Matejevic (2026-02-02 05:33:13+00:00): Hi Taya, 
please reconsider your decision of reverting all these edits since our team have not done any of the imports and we were focused on fixing natural=coastline items in a way that we created or assigned names to an existing coastline or lakes using rendering on Greenland Topographic Map which is available source in JOSM. I do not see the need for reverting something that really exist on the ground. I do agree that using undiscussed source is a problem, but that is more on user andershl to be discussed with. We have seen discussion on his diary https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/andershl/diary/48132 where  woodpeck had remark: The data can be useful - put it in a shape file, and everyone can load it in their editor and copy names to osm FROM THE SHAPEFILE instead of from imported nodes.

This is why using data was never questioned.
Taya_S (2026-02-02 09:20:47+00:00): Hello Aleksandar (and the others on your team no doubt),
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly.

I'll address that last point first. Woodpeck states that it "can be useful", I find it hard to interpret that as him stating that this import can go ahead.
The diary post itself is from almost 7 years ago, it talks about 4500 datapoints and one from a different source. The post itself talks about written permission, but I was unable to find this written permission myself.

The data that has been imported over the last 4 months itself amounts to over 28k datapoints and was imported with the knowledge that there were many glaring issues going on that would need to be fixed *after* the fact. 

Most of these datapoints included incorrect tag usages and other data issues such as:
* mapping natural=coastline or natural=water as a point.   
* Included the undocumented source:type or misused the source:name tag.   
* The description and source:type tag seem to duplicate eachother a lot of the time, or simply state "Ø", which I interpret as empty or null.  
* fixme tags stating that the exact location still needs to be determined.  
* A lot of these objects were already on the map, leading to duplicate objects. 
* Another undiscussed import by them 4 years ago left behind a number of `OFFICIAl=*` tags which are still there to this day. Meaning there is no guarantee all this data will eventually end up getting fixed. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109415380
The import guidelines exist exactly to prevent thes sorts of things from happening. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines 

The issue with your team here is the copying of data from nodes to new or existing objects. You've essentially made it imposible to easily revert all this data due to the hundreds of changesets that moved the imported data onto existing or new objects. 

I was not made aware of the fact that these names could be plainly found in available/usable topographic maps of Greenland. If this holds true, then I think it might be ok to just remove the source:type and description tags you and your team have copied over, but I will first need to have a closer look later when I have time available.  I will get back to you with that.

In the meantime, please keep your efforts at fixing this import in Greenland paused.

See also my discussion with andershl here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176706570

Best regards,  
Taya Snijder,  
On behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group
Aleksandar Matejevic (2026-02-02 09:28:24+00:00): Thanks for response. We can remove source:type and description tags once you make a decision about the further actions, so you do not need to work on this
NeisBot (2026-01-31 07:29:35+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 48 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/243784094 v29 | 31 crossings
https://osm.org/way/192394375 v19 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/296776098 v6 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/2719730384 v6
https://osm.org/node/2624663193 v6
https://osm.org/node/2719730392 v6

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177887606
NeisReview (2026-02-07 07:49:04+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178038166
rempshaener (2026-01-31 00:17:32+00:00): Hallo,
du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Wenn der Weg tatsächlich vorhanden ist, wird er in OSM abgebildet.
Die Nutzbarkeit wird dann z. B. mit access=private eingeschränkt. So war der Weg auch erfasst.
Ich habe den Weg wiederhergestellt und in Teilen angepasst.
Viele Grüße
sd2810 (2026-01-31 10:44:41+00:00): Hallo!
Leider ist da mein Versuch, sauber zu arbeiten und nicht einfach was zu tun nach hinten los gegangen. Ich werde den "Weg" wieder löschen.
Begründung: 
1. Es ist Privatgelände, sehr häufg befahren von eher mächtigen landwirtschaftlichen Maschinen. 
2. Wie man mit einem kurzen Blick auf eine Satelittenkarte unschwer sieht, ist dort _kein_Weg erkennbar. Lediglich bis zu dem von mir eingezeichneten Tor kann man, von oben kommend, einen Weg sehen, der aber am Tor endet. 
3. Auf die Nutzbarkeit, die übrigens korrekt auf "private" steht, achtet niemand. Vor allem nicht die Fahrer von Amazon und auch anderen Lieferdiensten. Auch ganze Wandergruppen interessiert das absolut gar nicht.
Fazit: ich finde es prima, dass es OSM gibt. Ich nutze es selbst gerne. Allerdings tauchen Nebeneffekte auf, die nicht erwünscht sind. Wenn irgendein Wanderer, der sein GPS mitlaufen hat und diese Abkürzung nimmt und sie dann einfach in die Karte überträgt, macht er sich keinerlei Gedanken über Privatrecht und besonders nicht über versicherungsrechtliche Dinge. Es ist übrigens unvorstellbar mit welcher Selbstverständlichkeit und Frechheit hier Leute durchmarschieren, während die Familie draußen beim Mittagessen sitzt. Auf entsprechende Ansprache muss man mit allen Reaktionen rechnen.
Auch die Tatsache, dass Lieferdienste OSM-Daten in eigenen Navi-Anwendungen nutzen (so gesehen bei einem Amazonfahrer, der uns den "Weg" in seinem Navi gezeigt hat) sorgt für unerlaubte Durchfahrten. 
Um dies abzustellen, nehme ich den Weg wieder aus der Karte raus. Ich hoffe man kann das nachvollziehen. 
Ich entschuldige mich für diesen länglicen Beitrag, aber es geht leider nicht um Freizeit, sondern handfeste Sachverhalte, die auch wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen haben können. 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus Konken/Kusel
Stefan
rempshaener (2026-01-31 12:22:56+00:00): Hallo,
auf Luftbildern ist doch recht deutlich erkennbar, dass dort ein Weg verläuft.
Dort ist z. B.  auch ein geparkter Transporter erkennbar.
Mehr zu dem Thema kannst du z. B. hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property erfahren,  das passt auch recht gut zu deinem Fall.
Ich beabsichtige, deine erneute Löschung rückgängig zu machen.
Viele Grüße
rempshaener (2026-02-01 09:22:33+00:00): Hallo,
ich habe jetzt folgendes gemacht:
Die Verbindung zur Albesser Straße habe ich leicht umgestellt, da das nicht nur die Zufahrt zum Hof ist, sondern vor allem für die Albesser Straße 19a.
Das bisherige landuse=farmyard habe ich entfernt. Damit wäre der gesamte Hof gemeint, also inklusive der Gebäude. Insgesamt eine gute Idee; vielleicht sind die Hemmungen größer, wenn das Ganze als landwirtschaftliche Betriebsfläche erkennbar ist. Daher: gerne erfassen.
Den Weg habe ich aus den bereits genannten Gründen wiederhergestellt.
Viele Grüße
rarad74 (2026-01-30 12:40:40+00:00): Hi. In Bucharest please use the most recent images from Mapbox. Bing are the oldest.
Thanks.
NeisBot (2026-01-31 07:31:16+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/13512072836 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-02-08 09:28:08+00:00): ❌ Text fixed by https://osm.org/changeset/177936377
CRCulver (2026-02-16 00:18:51+00:00): You changed highway=trunk to highway=motorway around 24.16410, 47.31897 but this is incorrect; I know this because I surveyed this area personally. This is not a motorway-class road: it has traffic lights as it passed through the town, and it is indistinguishable from the highways that are normally tagged trunk in Saudi Arabia. Please revert this change in tagging.
CRCulver (2026-02-16 00:25:50+00:00): I went ahead and changed the tagging back to trunk in an area I was working on (tracing missing link roads), changeset 178604688. However, please review all your other changes to this road’s classification and revert where appropriate, as Highway 10 is not a motorway-class road for almost all of its length.
woy_cb (2026-02-16 08:57:12+00:00): Hi, ok, thanks for you feedback, I will stop this changes.
CRCulver (2026-02-16 10:29:25+00:00): Thanks, but stopping isn’t enough. Could you please revert all the changes? Highway classification is very serious, it affects thousands and thousands of users.
woy_cb (2026-02-16 11:47:21+00:00): Yes, I will revert it today or tomorrow.
maro21 (2026-01-31 16:25:35+00:00): Usunąłęś noname = yes i dodałeś nazwę drogi - skąd ta nazwa?
marco406 (2026-01-31 19:24:10+00:00): Zasugerowałem się opisem dojazdu do Lumina Park, że niby od ul. Tulipanowej. Ale faktycznie Tulipanowa ma być w innym miejscu. OK, usuwam nazwę
Taya_S (2026-01-30 15:23:10+00:00): Reverted vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177894940
baku_the_cat (2026-02-02 03:05:19+00:00): could not locate this flock. is this information correct?
baku_the_cat (2026-02-02 03:05:49+00:00): could not locate this flock. is this information correct?
9_tab (2026-01-31 07:52:11+00:00): L'installation n'existe plus
tpg_TFx (2026-02-02 07:23:10+00:00): Vous avez raison sur le fait que les équipements ne sont actuellement pas présents.
Il s'agit d'une installation éphémère redondante: les installations sont construites pour le début de la belle saison, et démonté à fin septembre, ceci d'année en année.
9_tab (2026-02-07 09:05:23+00:00): Dans OSM, on ne garde pas l'info sur des installations passées. Comme elle était effectivement redondante, l'intérêt du public était quasiment absent et le retour semble de moins en moins probable. Actuellement, ça s'appelle "Banquise" et le prix est de 10 fr. Peut-être "old_name" peut inclure l'ancien.
BholeKiBhasam (2026-01-30 13:14:58+00:00): There is no track route or motor route
VLD0251 (2026-02-03 18:24:09+00:00): Hi and thanks for your contributions! « مقهى » (cafe) is generic and should not be used in the name=* field. this tag is reserved for the official proper name only. if the establishment has no specific name, please leave the field empty. 
See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
Happy mapping!
czebureks (2026-01-31 23:09:54+00:00): Cześć! Czy ten chodnik rzeczywiście nie jest utwardzony? Na ortofotomapie wygląda na nawierzchnię z płytek chodnikowych lub inną utwardzoną.
jdarski (2026-02-01 09:27:11+00:00): Cześć,
Dzięki za zwrócenie uwagi. 
Ten odcinek jest rzeczywiście utwardzony kostką betonową. 
Już poprawiłem.
fabiojs (2026-01-31 14:47:47+00:00): Quando a tipologia do elemento é alterada para "Via exclusiva de ônibus", apesar de correta, no entanto, a mesma linha não irá aparecer no mapa do OpenStreetMap! Então, não adianta colocar a tipologia correta se não servirá de nada de nada! É melhor manter como "Via de serviço" do que ter uma informação mesmo que a mais adequada e não aparecer no mapa. Todas as conexões com a via aparecem desconectas.
Devemos atualizar o campo para "Via de serviço" para não perder informações tão úteis para todos os usuários do OpenStreetMap e não promover o apagamento de corredor e via tão importante do transporte coletivo em Juiz de Fora para a comunidade internacional.
silversurfer83 (2026-01-30 19:32:58+00:00): Hi Angus,

you asked for review. Here are my 2c:

- you edited a building somewhere in England while posting hotosm hastags. Please do not cross contients when editing. It's bad practice and will annoy fellow mappers.

- you dragged a bus station and glued it to a building. I fixed that for you.

- your buildings in Mozambique look like they are in the right place but they could do with some squaring. Simply hit "Q" when you assigned object types.

If you have any questions regarding anything OSM please reach out. People at c.osm.org are there 24/7

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177889591
Fraxi (2026-01-30 13:54:05+00:00): Hi!
Why did you change the rank of some roads in this changeset? I am not too aware of tagging roads, but see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bg:WikiProject_Bulgaria/%D0%9F%D1%8A%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B6%D0%B0
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177889903
Fraxi (2026-01-30 14:01:41+00:00): And see also for Bulgaria on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/International_highway_classification_equivalence#Countries_Comparison
Precise Cartography (2026-01-30 14:14:32+00:00): I changed the rank of some roads in the city but not outside of it. It cannot be third-class roads inside the city. This rank can be only between the cities/villages. Usually thesse roads are numbered but not named.
Fraxi (2026-01-30 14:32:15+00:00): For instance, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402816249/ was classified as a tertiary road until your changeset. It is part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1477723 (Третокласен път 7008-i.e. Tertiary road 7008). OK, it's better to wait for a second opinion.
Precise Cartography (2026-01-30 14:45:18+00:00): Ok, my fault. I changed this class road back.
Marek-M (2026-01-30 14:51:53+00:00): Czy możesz podać źródło tej nazwy? O co chodzi z ochroną zdrowia w komentarzu edycji?
deerbirdo (2026-02-03 08:09:51+00:00): Źródło nazwy ulicy (english) - Konstytucja. Źródło powszechnie obowiązującego prawa. Wspieranie obszaru działek w udziale międzynarodowym, ochronie zdrowia i środowiska.
Marek-M (2026-02-03 08:14:23+00:00): Dziękuję za próbę wyjaśnienia, które zupełnie nie wskazuje, że jest to poprawne źródło do użycia w OSM.

Nie widzę też w niej podstawy dodania nazwy 'Rome' do ulicy Podlaskiej.
deerbirdo (2026-02-04 11:43:44+00:00): Rome - nazwa ulicy z języka angielskiego w tłumaczeniu na język polski to Rzym. Język angielski dla powszechnie obowiązującego prawa ma pierwszeństwo przed językiem polskim dla praw autorskich stosowanych w usługach międzynarodowych www i usług lokalizacji użytkownika korzystającym z aplikacji mobilnych w związku z General Data Protection Rigths i synchronizacją map online (GESUT)
Marek-M (2026-02-04 14:00:54+00:00): Dobra, widzę, że masz niezłą jazdę. Twoje edycje są zwyczajnym wandalizmem do wycofania.
deerbirdo (2026-02-05 13:17:37+00:00): Rozumiem, że możemy zakończyć dyskusję porcją leków na nadciśnienie  z Województwa podlaskiego.
NeisBot (2026-01-31 07:31:19+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/13512119792 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Dermatologist office"
---
Наприклад, більш нейтральна і фактична версія вашого тексту могла б бути: "Кабінет дерматолога"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-08 09:28:08+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178257640
(No visible changes after review)
AndersAndersson (2026-01-30 23:14:45+00:00): Please don't change things you don't know anything about.
Here is a quote from one of the major electric companys in Sweden :
"Usually, lines at the current voltage level are called 130 kV lines. The line's operating voltage (nominal voltage) is actually slightly higher than this value, namely 138 kV. The line's design voltage, i.e. the highest voltage for which the plant is designed, is in this case 145 kV."

I have changed it back to 138 kV.
bobbyxng (2026-02-02 10:43:58+00:00): Appreciate your critical feedback, I am well aware of differences in operational voltage vs. nominal voltage. Now to my knowledge, transmission lines and substations are usually referred to by nominal voltage on maps. If you look at the entirety of the Swedish substations and lines, this particular entry is the only one labelled at 138 kV (as opposed to 130 kV). May I ask if you know whether this substation is different from all the other 130 kV substations?
bobbyxng (2026-02-02 10:45:24+00:00): Some examples in the electricity sector: https://openinframap.org/#13.46/59.58128/16.45153
AndersAndersson (2026-02-02 22:10:32+00:00): The difference between this substation and many other substation is that for this one it was known what the voltage level was.
What you do may look nicer on a map, but it is changing something right to something wrong and downgrading data. Change the map if you don't like the look, don't make the data false.
Where the voltage level is known, maybe by spending one hour to find out you shall not remove it just because all other are not known. The key is "voltage". You may add another key if you want, if you feel a need to state that the equipment it is around the 130 kV level/group or something like that.

I think you should revert all your edits where you have downgraded the data.
bobbyxng (2026-02-04 13:06:40+00:00): Thank you for your comments. I'd like to point out we're talking about the same physical system here - 130 kV and 138 kV refer to the same voltage class, just using different nomenclature. We are both right about the technical details; this is just a debate about which nomenclature to use in OSM. To clarify, I'm not downgrading any data, so please stay respectful before making such allegations.
According to Svenska Kraftnät's official documentation (https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/oversikt-av-kraftsystemet/sveriges-elnat/), Sweden's regional grid uses the 130 kV designation. Being an engineer myself, I am well aware that in operation, this could mean any voltage level close to this voltage class. Per OSM's voltage tagging guidelines (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:voltage#Nominal,_rated,_and_maximum_voltages), the system operator's designation should be used.
I would appreciate if you could share your source for the 138 kV specification so I can learn from you.
bobbyxng (2026-02-04 13:14:17+00:00): I believe you are referring to this source by Vattenfall, footnote, page 7:  https://www.vattenfalleldistribution.se/globalassets/4.-var-verksamhet/projekt/samrad/overby-kungsangen/koncessionsansokan-maj-2025/bilaga-2.-mkb-overby-kungsangen-huvuddokument.pdf

This document confirms exactly what we are discussing about, operating, nominal and highest voltage for which this line is technically designed may differ with 138 and 145 kV being mentioned, but the last sentence cleary states, these lines will be referred to as 130 kV. Again I am just emphasising, we are talking about the same thing. You are talking about "operating" voltage while I am talking about the asset's voltage class or nominal voltage. No one's wrong here.
AndersAndersson (2026-02-04 22:04:58+00:00): I'm sorry if I'm sounding a bit harsch, that's not my intention. I'm not able to find the source now. I did read a lot of information for upgrades of the power lines/stations but it was some years ago.

I see now that the OSM wiki states that "the system operator's designation should be used".
I don't like that. Thats not the meaning of nominal and in Sweden  the regional power network are are classed (or refered to) as 130 kV, or sometimes more specific, 132 kV (or 150 kV in some cases).
I give you a random link as an example: https://www.vattenfalleldistribution.se/var-verksamhet/projekt/samrad/ort/sala-heby/
In this case it was 138 kV since I added that.

To my knowledge nominal is not a class, it's what you "aim for", then you have deviances from the nominal voltage. I've never heard the word used a class before.

To use the class instead of the "aimed for" voltage is odd. There is a reason we add road width in actual meters, not a wrong value set by the class of the way. Can you think of any other values in OSM handeled in that way?
uprkos (2026-07-31 21:26:03+00:00): Co to jest?