piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SzymonH (2025-12-29 08:12:17+00:00): Co tu się wydarzyło z punktami zatrzymania?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8151088962
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10021351972
Yunkers (2026-01-10 12:47:58+00:00): Masz rację. Dodam je gdy tylko znajdę czas. Co może niestety trochę zająć.
user_5359 (2025-12-29 08:36:57+00:00): Welcome to OSM! For a better description (if you can't find any examples or ask anyone else), please visit our wiki at https://wiki.osm.org.

I remove your ALPR,  because the junction is very rarely installed in the middle of the intersection.
Tomas Straupis (2025-12-29 06:37:25+00:00): Šitas pastatas dalimis sužymėtas, kad 3D veiktų, nereikia gadinti jo building žymų.
Tomas Straupis (2025-12-29 06:38:41+00:00): Ir čia sugadintas pastato dalių žymėjimas. Reikėtų atsargiau.
AndyB_66 (2025-12-28 22:29:50+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
Gustav Maps (2025-12-28 22:53:08+00:00): Não gostei
Gustav Maps (2025-12-28 22:53:56+00:00): Faz favor fio
eggie (2025-12-29 07:59:35+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
NeisBot (2025-12-29 07:28:31+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 93 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/651613090 v10 | 19 crossings
https://osm.org/way/381426764 v24 | 7 crossings
https://osm.org/way/469436179 v10 | 6 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/254368803 v9
https://osm.org/node/11549035252 v2
https://osm.org/node/11548987640 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176551545
NeisReview (2026-01-07 17:38:41+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/176605196
felipeeugenio (2025-12-29 12:56:04+00:00): Hola Edgardo. Buenos dias. Por favor tratar de dibujar los edificios y estructuras tal como se ven en el satélite, con las formas de la base. Hay una casa que dibujaste como un cuadrado y que definitivamente tiene otra forma.

La otra casa también la dibujaste como un solo polígono siendo que es evidente que son dos estructuras separadas.

Gracias

Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176551583
ezekielf (2026-01-02 16:13:22+00:00): Hello Truck-thin, 
I have once again reverted the demolished railway sections that you added here.  As I said previously (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175782475), former rail beds can only be mapped in OSM where they are still visible features of the modern landscape. Where new construction or other landscape modification has happened this data is out of scope for OSM. See: osm.wiki/Demolished_railways

Revert changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176750113

I appreciate all the other work you have been doing to improve OSM in Vermont, but please do not continue re-adding historic railway sections that don't exist anymore.  If you want to map historic features, OpenHistoricalMap is the appropriate project for that.  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenHistoricalMap/FAQ
user_5359 (2025-12-29 08:25:49+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please notice the difference between a name and a description. 
If you need more information (and cannot find any examples or ask anyone else), please visit our wiki at https://wiki.osm.org.
I remove the three names.
JoeG (2025-12-30 23:31:13+00:00): Hi, I have a few concerns about this changeset. It looks like it removes a split road on Lemon Grove that is visible in the aerial imagery. It's also not clear to me why the name of the service road has has had "service road" removed. And at least one of the sidewalks seems like the footway=sidewalk shouldn't have been removed.
DeanBA (2025-12-31 12:42:10+00:00): The end of Lemon Grove is not a divided road. It has a traffic island which has been added. No sidewalks have been removed. Sidewalks have been renamed footpaths as per Australian standards not American standards.
DeanBA (2025-12-31 12:48:43+00:00): The roads are not named Mountain Highway Service Road, they are named Mountain Highway and are part of Mountain Highway. These parts are service roads and are labeled as such. No houses along this road have the address Mountain Highway Service Road
JoeG (2026-01-01 22:43:53+00:00): Thanks for the reply! It's very useful to hear your reasoning.

- On the road name change, that makes sense. It's useful to mention a source when saving the changes, which in this case might just be "local knowledge" - or "survey" if the signs were checked on the ground.

- The tag footway=sidewalk is used to indicate that the path has a relationship with the road, distinguishing it from other types of footway, which can be helpful to routing software.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk The term therefore doesn't relate to Australian vs American standards - though it sounds like the editing software could have made that clearer!

- I hadn't noticed the replacement with traffic_calming=island Thanks for pointing it out. In my view (and the view of the previous mapper) it is a divided road for that last section - the traffic island does not have the purpose of traffic calming: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Atraffic_calming%3Disland I agree this is debatable. My general approach with this kind of thing is 1) avoid removing spatial detail unless it improves clarity of the situation on the ground, 2) make the change as a standalone changeset so that it can easily be reverted if the local community can't agree on the right approach. I'm not actually sure what to do about this case, so unless other mappers have suggestions perhaps we leave it as is. Maybe someone will add the spatial detail back in in future.

Apologies for the comments on many changesets. I didn't catch the issues until many changesets were affected, and I didn't get a reply to my first message, so I assumed I was dealing with someone who didn't care about my questions and that I would have to resolve the changes by myself. Thanks again for taking the time to respond!

JoeG
fortera_au (2026-01-04 23:48:18+00:00): I agree with JoeG, just because the terminology is American, it doesn't make the tag invalid and is commonly used in Australia. Those footway=sidewalk tags should all be restored.

On the split road, that really comes down to local preference. For a small island like that I generally wouldn't bother, but it's something that might be worth a discussion in the forum to see if there's a preference one way or the other.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176551989
ezekielf (2026-01-02 16:13:51+00:00): Hello Truck-thin, 
I have once again reverted the demolished railway sections that you added here.  As I said previously (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175782475), former rail beds can only be mapped in OSM where they are still visible features of the modern landscape. Where new construction or other landscape modification has happened this data is out of scope for OSM. See: osm.wiki/Demolished_railways

Revert changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176750020

I appreciate all the other work you have been doing to improve OSM in Vermont, but please do not continue re-adding historic railway sections that don't exist anymore.  If you want to map historic features, OpenHistoricalMap is the appropriate project for that.  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenHistoricalMap/FAQ
VLD0251 (2025-12-30 10:21:14+00:00): Hi Gurusraouta;

Adding `name:ar` to transit stops does not reflect local usage. OSM is not a machine translation project; Arabic exonyms are reserved for important entities when they are actually used.

Please adhere to naming conventions
gscholz (2026-01-18 08:15:37+00:00): Hi zorothepirate,
your recent edits have left behind a lot of errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-8.40838&lat=41.54397&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

This kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps. Can you please fix this?

Kind regards
Guido
eggie (2025-12-29 08:02:22+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  Beter geen adressen toevoegen aan gebouwomtrekken.
Er zijn al adresnodes.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
dmfr (2026-03-14 13:04:24+00:00): Hello! Can you confirm these are actually power generators? From satellite imagery, these look like water tanks. If they are indeed generators, what kind of generators are they? Are they diesel-powered backup generators?
dmfr (2026-03-31 18:34:25+00:00): Since I did not get any answers, I have modified these objects to water tanks.
eggie (2025-12-29 08:13:14+00:00): Beste  Alle gebouwen zijn directe import vanuit het Kadaster en precies ingemeten. Waarom denk je dat dit een universiteit is? 
Je edit zullen worden teruggedraaid.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-12-29 08:25:07+00:00): Is een deel een appartementsgebouw?
Ik heb de BAGvorm teruggezet.
Een medemapper had al de basisschool toegevoegd. 
MVG
eggie
mueschel (2026-01-14 11:03:18+00:00): Hi,
you added several tags here that shouldn't be in OSM, e.g.
"source:maxspeed:named_numbered" or
"source:maxspeed:app"

Could you check and fix this?
Glassman (2025-12-30 00:54:39+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176553568
Eduardo17172 (2025-12-29 01:28:17+00:00): El sector El Temblador no cuenta con una comunidad clara establecida en el legal, ni tampoco se puede ver en mapas o registros como una caleta. En cambio si aparece como un balneario y zona de pesca utilizadas por otras caletas como chungungo y Totoralillo Norte. El lugar en donde se ubica la playa es supuestamente heredado y corresponde a una propiedad privada que cobra el ingreso a automóviles y permite acceso libre a peatones durante la temporada de verano Enero - Marzo. No es posible acceder durante el resto del año, solo a pie.
Palina Markina (2026-01-05 10:01:33+00:00): Hi, WCgp23114!
We noticed your recent edit where you deleted the 'highway=secondary' tag  (way/43757259). Based on Mapbox-owned licensed street-level imagery from 23 Dec 2025 the road still appears to be accessible to motor vehicles.
If there have been recent developments, it would be really helpful to include a note in the changeset comment for future reference.
Best regards, Palina Markina
arjunaraoc (2026-01-01 11:24:28+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  India page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India) and  join OSM India Telegram channel (https://t.me/OSMIndia).
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176554841
user_5359 (2025-12-29 07:58:20+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please describe the changes you have made, not what the project defines itself as.
TheSwavu (2025-12-29 22:07:38+00:00): Hi,

The addr:suburb are not correct. Suburb names should be written in title case. addr:state should be in upper case.
dieterdreist (2026-01-15 08:40:55+00:00): Ciao Fernando,
benvenuto in OSM, ho notato che stai facendo delle modifiche discutibili, giusto in caso non lo sai, tutte le modifiche che carichi sono istantemente attive per tutti gli utenti del mondo. Ti chiederei di utilizzare dei commenti più chiari per descrivere i tuoi "changeset". Trovi più informazioni, anche perché è importante, qui: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Good_changeset_comments
Ciao,
dieterdreist
Udarian (2025-12-30 02:47:14+00:00): what is "Darris hall", what type of amenity, shop etc is it?
Udarian (2025-12-30 02:56:01+00:00): this also seems to add a duplicate  address.
mueschel (2025-12-30 11:48:38+00:00): Hi,
I wonder what the reason is to use "is:boundary" instead of "boundary"?
kabelhaai (2025-12-30 12:21:14+00:00): Josm complains about multiple boundaries overlapping. The statistical could be deleted but I chose to keep it with that tagging.
mueschel (2025-12-31 09:24:41+00:00): I'd argue it is a boundary and should have regular boundary tags, no matter what a validator says.
kabelhaai (2025-12-31 09:28:29+00:00): No it's statistical. The old borders are in fact by statbel and not ngi (part) municipalities.
mueschel (2025-12-31 09:32:44+00:00): "boundary" doesn't necessarily mean "administrative boundary":

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary=statistical
kabelhaai (2025-12-31 09:42:21+00:00): They are statistical. If you want to change anything please do so. I imported the proper part municipal borders and left the old, repurposed to statistical as they are used for that purpose.
FajrAl (2025-12-29 04:00:42+00:00): Ada baiknya perubahannya dilakukan dalam satu kawasan kecil kemudian save.
tastrax (2025-12-31 02:47:11+00:00): Preferred format for state is uppercase and abbreviated - NSW. I have just updated all these. Cheers
SeaB33 (2025-12-31 05:22:35+00:00): thank you for letting me know :)
ieguy3 (2025-12-29 04:01:59+00:00): i don't have my mouse with me so i couldn't do perfect alignment for geometry.
Aya Samir (2025-12-30 12:51:31+00:00): Hello Suleiman,
Thank you for your contributions to the OpenStreetMap project, and apologies for reaching out again.
I noticed that you changed the classification of several streets to "motorway," for example: "way155613023, way421884395, and way570487458."
I believe it may be more appropriate to revert these roads to their previous classification, as the current classification may not fully reflect their actual function. According to the Morocco road tagging guidelines on the OSM Wiki, the road signs present on these roads indicate that they should be classified as "trunk" rather than motorway:
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Morocco#Road_tagging:~:text=Expressways%20%28Voies%20express%29)
Additionally, Mapillary imagery shows the same road sign on this road segment:
(https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=296600095385945)
If you have a different point of view, we would appreciate it if you could share it with us along with your sources. Otherwise, could you please review these changes and revert them accordingly?
Thank you again for your efforts and for helping to improve the map.
Best regards,
Aya
ilias_ (2025-12-30 13:39:39+00:00): Souleiman, these are not motorways...
LpAngelRob (2026-01-02 05:21:26+00:00): This needs to be reverted. See https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?url=https://gis.cookcountyil.gov/imagery/rest/services/CookOrtho2025/ImageServer&source=sd
chath_tsu (2025-12-29 08:38:13+00:00): Hi, thanks for correcting the directional prefixes! The changes to the bus routes are a byproduct of the edits and splits of the road elements. These are totally normal and automatically handled by the editor software, and you don't need to anything about that manually. Happy mapping!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176558504
chath_tsu (2025-12-29 08:32:03+00:00): Hi! Thanks for adding the entrance/edit details. I do want to let you know that, when it comes to numbering building levels, OSM follows the European convention - so the ground floor (first floor in American terms) is level 0, and the floor above that level 1, and so on. Happy mapping!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176558736
seascorpio82 (2025-12-29 11:36:22+00:00): Oh! Thank you for letting me know! Cheers!
nevw (2025-12-29 08:31:46+00:00): Hi, these are incorrect tags for a gate on land.
seamark:type=gate
waterway=lock_gate
Here is the wiki for the gate you want...
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=gate
TrickyFoxy (2026-01-01 20:46:16+00:00): Добавляйте префиксы was: и disused: для закрытых заведений. Иначе они продолжат отображаться на картах
TrickyFoxy (2026-01-01 20:48:18+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Префиксы_жизненного_цикла
Mr_DukeLeto (2026-01-03 11:27:53+00:00): TrickyFoxy, спасибо за комментарий. Это как раз то, что я искал, но с смог обнаружить. К сожалению, я заметил, что с нового года режим правки не отображается корректно ни на одном моем компьютере с любым доступным браузером. Поэтому для оперативности вынужден просить внести данную правку вместо меня. Заранее искренне благодарен.
TrickyFoxy (2026-01-03 11:31:23+00:00): можете попробовать небольшое расширение для редактирования тегов, чтобы не открывать полноценный редактор https://github.com/Zverik/osmtags-editor
Mr_DukeLeto (2026-01-03 19:30:59+00:00): Удалось отредактировать только через JOSM. Надеюсь, iD тоже вскоре заработает.
NeisBot (2025-12-29 07:48:38+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13415036253 v1

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Foundation repair and construction company in Los Angeles"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisReview (2026-01-03 08:08:28+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/176562756
Thanks @user_5359
NeisBot (2025-12-29 07:48:39+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13415036253 v2

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Foundation repair and construction company in Los Angeles"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisReview (2026-01-03 08:08:29+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/176562756
Thanks @user_5359
Sinakavousinia (2025-12-29 06:58:34+00:00): ما را به کسانی که به دنبال داروی خود می‌گردند معرفی کنید تا بتوانیم کمکی باشیم برای خدمت به مردم
NeisBot (2025-12-29 07:48:44+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13415036265 v1

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "داروخانه"
---
به عنوان مثال، یک نسخه خنثی‌تر و واقع‌بینانه‌تر از توصیف شما می‌تواند این باشد: "داروخانه" می‌تواند به عنوان نمونه‌ای برای توضیح یک داروخانه استفاده شود. در این حالت، ما سعی می‌کنیم تا یک توضیح خنثی و واقع‌بینانه ارائه دهیم که فقط اطلاعات ضروری را در بر دارد.
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
crushtheserpent (2026-01-15 05:10:01+00:00): Hi, this is regarding ways 405356768, 729774079, 970289554, 1122295250, 167078563, & 1002571690.

First, the highway=* tags for these ways should be reverted to highway=motorway. highway=motorway best reflects their role in the road network and design. Tagging these as highway=primary causes issues with routers. Also, the expressway=* tag should be removed, as that's implied by tagging as highway=motorway.

Second, what's your source for changing the name of these ways from "Long Beach Freeway" to "Long Beach Expressway"?
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-01-15 07:02:45+00:00): This portion of roadway between California Avenue and Colorado Boulevard has at-grade intersections with service roads and other amenities. This means that it is not a freeway, but rather, a limited-access highway (expressway).
crushtheserpent (2026-01-16 05:50:20+00:00): While true that those segments intersect with one service road, that service road begins and ends at the segments in question and is for accessing a small Caltrans yard in the motorway median; the other connections are with surface roads or motorway links. 

These segments are signed as freeways. The southbound segment has a sign reading "California - END FWY" at the Del Mar Boulevard bridge, indicating the southbound freeway ends at California Avenue. Its corresponding northbound segment branches northwest from from Pasadena Avenue and is signed as a freeway entrance. It's because of those signs on both carriageways that the previous tagging as highway=motorway is correct and should be returned to, along with the name "Long Beach Freeway", as that's how it is known in the region.

In my eyes, these segments meet the California highway classification guidelines (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/2022_Highway_Classification_Guidelines#Motorway) for tagging as a motorway, not an expressway.
tastrax (2025-12-30 06:09:31+00:00): Vince Lane - This is a public road to 4 properties - we also have access to LIST data in Tasmania for cross referencing. You can swap to that in the ID editor (and JOSM) or check at https://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map
kingkingHK (2026-04-07 12:39:34+00:00): Hi there,

I suppose the purpose of this changeset is to identify sections of roads which are part of the Strategic Routes. Then, could you please take a look at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2nvm and see if the existing `ref=` data are wrong, or if there was a mistake in this changeset?
Kovoschiz (2026-04-07 16:19:30+00:00): This was only to remove the `type=network` 
It doesn't change the `route=road`
Kovoschiz (2026-04-07 16:22:24+00:00): Ie any mistakes would be from the existing `route=road`
rempshaener (2025-12-29 13:07:50+00:00): Hello,
you are editing objects with the comment „tagfixing: area=yes is not needed on landuse/natural/landcover.“
You are right: this is unnecessary for the tags you mentioned. However, please note that other tags may also be attached to this objects, such as highway=pedestrian here.
Best regards
marczoutendijk (2025-12-29 15:12:08+00:00): You are right also, so I have restored it! 
However, it is also better to tag a pedestrian area as a separate entity and not combine it with other landuses.
rempshaener (2025-12-29 16:21:01+00:00): Thank you, you are absolutely right.
TheSwavu (2025-12-29 22:06:01+00:00): Hi,

You have put the wrong addr:suburb on these houses. They are actually in Clontarf. The addr:state is also not correct, it should be in upper case.

You can display the suburb boundaries by hitting B and adding the DCS Suburbs overlay.

You might also want to hit Q to square up your building outlines.
rempshaener (2025-12-29 13:31:05+00:00): Hallo,
du hast einige Male building=terraced gesetzt. Das gilt nur für eine Reihung mehrerer Häuser.
Einzelne Häuser sind
building=house
house=terraced
Ich möchte dich bitten, diese und die übrigen Fälle in Kleinenbroich (https://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%5Bout%3Ajson%5D%5Btimeout%3A25%5D%3B%0A%7B%7BgeocodeArea%3AKorschenbroich%7D%7D-%3E.searchArea%3B%0Anwr%5B%22building%22%3D%22terrace%22%5D%28area.searchArea%29%28user%3Alooniverse%29%3B%0Aout%20geom%3B&C=51.202004%3B6.558783%3B15&R=) entsprechend umzustellen.
Viele Grüße
looniverse (2025-12-30 22:53:19+00:00): Wurde korrigiert.
rempshaener (2025-12-31 18:45:21+00:00): Dankeschön