piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
hauke-stieler (2026-03-09 16:12:00+00:00): Moin,

natural=grassland bitte nicht verwenden, wenn es innerörtliche Grasflächen sind, der tag beschreibt eher steppenartige Flächen oder natürliche und ungenutzte Grasflächen irgendwo im Gebirge. Hier wäre landuse=grass richtig (wie allermeistens bei hiesigen Grasflächen, die kein Weideland sind).

Gibt es zudem einen Grund, warum du beim Penny Grasflächen entfernt hast? Gibt es die nicht mehr?

Grüße
Hauke
hauke-stieler (2026-03-09 16:16:33+00:00): Nachtrag:
Und eine Parkplatzzufahrt hast du auch ersatzlos entfernt. Wenn die aber noch vorhanden ist (sieht für mich nämlich so aus: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.4789120104&lng=10.6160602333&z=17&dateFrom=2022-01-01&pKey=2043664046171093&focus=photo), dann bitte wieder ergänzen.
hauke-stieler (2026-03-31 11:46:37+00:00): Moin, bitte einmal auf meine obigen Punkte antworten, danke.
Kovoschiz (2026-03-09 18:04:32+00:00): Please don't combine names in `name=` , which are for proper names only. Shared campuses should be `landuse=education` , and can have no `name=` fine. They should be 2 `=school` points inside.
NeisBot (2026-03-09 15:54:59+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/279227378 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Autoverhuur"
---
For eksempel kunne en mere neutral og faktuel udgave af din tekst være: "Biludlejning"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
eggie (2026-03-09 15:59:24+00:00): Hi  You removed the buildingtag?

Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2026-03-09 16:02:32+00:00): Gebouw hersteld. Gebruik svp de bestaande adresnode om op bij te taggen.
De description heb ik verwijderd. Zie bericht boven.
MVG
eggie
CAM-Gerlach (2026-03-09 18:02:15+00:00): Hi Jorisbo, thanks for the fix.

Especially as a very experienced mapper, could you please take a few seconds to leave a good changeset comment https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments ? Changed what sort of access, on what sort object, i.e. "Changed deprecated car=* access on charging station to motorcar=*" As is, reading the changeset comment I'd naturally assume it was modifying the `access` tag value on a road, gate, etc., and was very surprised once I dug in to see it was fixing a deprecated charging station tag.

Given you seem to be modifying this tag on charging stations on a large scale using this same changeset comment (hopefully you're gotten the required consensus for that :), it wouldn't really take any more effect to copy/paste or reuse this more specific one that still equally applies to all those changes, while being much more helpful to the many other mappers who'd be viewing them given their high quantity and large scope.

Thanks!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179592152
Jorisbo (2026-03-10 06:49:01+00:00): Hi Cam-Gerlach, thx for your reply. In this case the changeset name (changed access) is exactly what has been changed. Not more not less: The access has changed from car= to motorcar= because that's the common tagging scheme for usage (eg access). Don't know how to do better. Thanx for al your time and effort you put into osm as well. Regards Joris
CAM-Gerlach (2026-03-10 20:20:32+00:00): Hi Joris, thanks for your quick and courteous reply.

Happy to clarify how it could have been better--per the aforementioned OSM wiki page: "At the minimum, this includes a verb (how you changed things) and an object (what you changed), and can be further improved by listing the places edited and the sources used." In this case, as mentioned in my previous comment, you can describe how you "Changed what sort of access, on what sort of object", with the example I gave being "Changed deprecated car=* tag on charging station to motorcar=*".

This is way more helpful to other mappers in providing a useful yet still concise description of what you actually changed, how you changed it and why, whereas "changed access" could mean any number of different changes to different things for different reasons. The former communicates all the essential information in a few words with no extra effort (especially as you're making the same change many times), instead of requiring mappers to not only dig into the changeset details to see what actually changed and then look up both tags on the wiki to understand why the change was made.

As a helpful comparison, around this same time another mapper has been going around tagging posted private driveways as access=private, which would be equally described by "Changed access" but is a completely different sort of change, changing a different tag in a different way on a different sort of object for a totally different reason. While a brand new mapper and these have been their first edits that include a few unintentional mistakes, their great changeset comments (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179547377 ) have clearly communicated what they changed (Hoogendam road), how they changed it (private access) and why (it is posted as private), making it easy for me to understand their intended changes, verify they are correct and confirm what they didn't intend to change so I could point it out and fix it.

Happy to provide any further clarification, and happy mapping!

Cheers, CAM
eggie (2026-03-09 16:04:44+00:00): Dag Oscar  Alle info weer  verwijderd van het pand. Die hoort op de adresnode. Dat had ik hersteld in de voorgaande changeset.
MVG
eggie
osmmapper222 (2026-03-09 20:37:52+00:00): Guten Tag,

in OpenStreetMap werden Lokalitäten durch Tags (Schlüsselname=Wert) semantisch angereichert. 

Weitere Details zu der Allianz-Filiale habe ich dessen Webseite entnommen und ergänzt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8229069744/history/3
iandees (2026-03-09 16:11:32+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:16:17+00:00): Wieso gibt es hier 3, sich selber und das Gebäude überschneidende, "Straßenflächen" mit den identischen Tags? Und diese sind auch öffentlich zugänglich für Fußgänger?
FriedhöfeDortmund_68654 (2026-03-10 13:04:26+00:00): ist zusammengefügt und entzerrt.
VV|V| (2026-03-11 06:10:56+00:00): Prace budowlane są ukończone na krótszym odcinku.
matix849 (2026-03-11 20:34:57+00:00): Ok, masz rację. Zweryfikowałem na Copenicusie (link.dataspace.copernicus.eu/ytz1) i faktycznie remont był tylko do przecięcia z DW 345. Już poprawiam :)
matix849 (2026-03-11 20:37:02+00:00): A, dobra. Widzę, że już zmieniłeś.
Dzięki za zwrócenie uwagi!
eggie (2026-03-09 16:16:10+00:00): reverted by changeset Wijzigingenset #179593159

Please read your email

Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2026-03-09 16:23:45+00:00): Het gebouw is met de revert weer terug. Alle bedrijfsinfo staat op de adresnode..
MVG
eggie
Wildsharky (2026-03-11 12:22:34+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179630818
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:17:23+00:00): Öffentlich zugänglich für Fußgänger?
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:17:33+00:00): Öffentlich zugänglich für Fußgänger?
ToniE (2026-03-09 16:14:33+00:00): Servus,

ich würde das hier eher als historic=memorial sehen.

Gruß
Toni

Schön, dich hier mal wieder zu "sehen"!
landini (2026-03-09 17:37:23+00:00): Ich hab nur den bestehenden Eintrag um den Gedenktext ergänzt. Den Eintrag des vorherigen Bearbeiters habe ich bewusst so belassen.

Beste Grüße 
Richard
ToniE (2026-03-09 17:51:51+00:00): Gut, dann ändere ich das mal.
MassCartog (2026-03-09 18:43:48+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas or being "illegal" is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property
nhertzler (2026-03-10 15:26:58+00:00): I understand OSM's position as a repository for data, showing things that DO exist, and not necessarily being concerned with whether or not they SHOULD exist. The issue I do have though is that basically every mapping application in existence draws data from OSM, meaning that illegal trails end up being shown on mapping apps that implicitly suggest that they are there to be used. This trail specifically is baked into the basemap of the trailforks mountain biking app- meaning that it shows up, but is not 'clickable' per se like official trails are. This means that regardless of whether or not I change access information on OSM, no one will be able to see that the trail is actually illegal, closed, or otherwise. And sorry- mountain bikers are not whipping out OSM on their phones to check if a basemap trail on trailforks, gaia, strava etc. has official access. What's more is that this trail has a slight possibility of being legitimized in the future through the work of myself and the organization that I work for- efforts that are actively hampered by more people being shown this line on the map. Basically what I'm hearing from every mapping platform I've reached out to is, "take it up with OSM" and what I'm hearing from OSM is, "Not our problem, if people aren't supposed to be on it then it shouldn't have been there in the first place." All of the companies and organizations responsible for showing illegal trails to the public claim that it isn't their responsibility, which is incredibly frustrating as someone working with land managers to increase public access. This area recently became a public park, and has a master plan that includes many more trails to be built, however they are not promised. Increased illegal usage (implicitly encouraged by showing illegal trails on mapping apps) is a very convincing argument for land, managers to point to when deciding to stop allowing for trail development on their land. I know this is just one instance, but I would ask you to please allow for the deletion of this trail from the database until we are able to work to legitimize it.
MassCartog (2026-03-10 19:02:31+00:00): Hi, thanks for the replay. I'm glad to read you understand what OSM is for, a geospatial database for what really exist, not for what we want to exist. But I hope you can also understand that OSM data is not solely for hiking/biking apps. Its freely open to all, as such we do not remove real features for just one kind of data consumer, like trailforks. OSM data is useful to many others like SAR or researchers exactly because it has shows what really exist that might not be on the "official" maps. 

So when you say OSM is one of these "organizations responsible for showing illegal trails to the public" Yes! for some users/researchers/land managers/SAR? That's exactly what OSM is useful for, and why there is a tagging system rather than just removing anything that is not public/offical. 

The solution is teams that use OSM data for things like SAR can include all trails on their maps, and teams that create hiking apps/maps can specify trail access using the tags OSM provides. This is exactly how apps like AllTrails handle it.

https://support.alltrails.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058130612-What-if-a-trail-is-on-my-private-property

AllTrails official advice is set trails access tags, and "when making edits on OSM, please do not delete the trail segments". So they are in step with what the OSM community also tells mappers. I don't think anyone is dodging responsibility, they are stating exactly how OSM works.

So instead asking map platforms to remove individual trails, (which they are very unlikely to do, and OSM also will not do), ask them to use OSM tagging systems when creating their maps like AllTrails or Gaia already do.

PS it looks like another account already went ahead and tagged the trail correctly for you.
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:19:04+00:00): Öffentlich zugänglich für Fußgänger?
Dodko (2026-03-10 16:14:11+00:00): Neopravil si názvy ulíc v adresách
https://nominatim.org/qa/#map=16.57/48.30/17.52&layer=addr_street_wrong_name
anirud (2026-03-10 16:22:58+00:00): Ďakujem, opravím. Ale asi zajtra alebo pozajtra.
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:20:03+00:00): surface=metal und fehlendes Tor
FriedhöfeDortmund_68654 (2026-03-10 13:46:35+00:00): korrigiert.
NeisBot (2026-03-09 16:24:57+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/13386698522 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisAgent (2026-03-09 17:54:31+00:00): 🕵 It looks like you added the text again that was previously flagged as potentially promotional and removed after a previous review. Could you please explain why you reintroduced it?
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-21 03:54:29+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 adding SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186094042
BCNorwich (2026-03-10 06:19:01+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

There's more than 1 building level, but I don't know how many, level=1 is removed.
TrickyFoxy (2026-03-10 08:54:19+00:00): Что это https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13630257502 ?
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:21:40+00:00): Öffentlich zugänglich für Fußgänger?
FriedhöfeDortmund_68654 (2026-03-10 12:36:11+00:00): korrigiert auf access=private
Langlaeufer (2026-03-16 10:54:12+00:00): Hallo Mike,
auch hier Fußwege im Zoo einfach nur highway=footway und foot=customers (alle anderen access-Tags (bicycle, horse, motor_vehicle) können weg.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179594343
Mike Steglich (2026-03-16 13:52:22+00:00): Hallo Langläufer,

vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Es handelt sich tatsächlich um die ganz normalen Wege im Zoo. Ich werde die Wege - wie von Dir vorgeschlagen - in den nächsten Tagen ändern.
 
Beste Grüße
Mike
NeisBot (2026-03-09 16:52:21+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/13522978795 v5

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisAgent (2026-03-09 18:29:34+00:00): 🕵 It looks like you added the text again that was previously flagged as potentially promotional and removed after a previous review. Could you please explain why you reintroduced it?
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-21 04:01:09+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/186094225
TrickyFoxy (2026-03-10 08:57:16+00:00): 👋 В правом меню редактора есть кнопка «Настройки фонового изображения». Выберите там спутниковые снимки ESRI — они свежее
eggie (2026-03-09 19:45:53+00:00): Hoi,
Ipv bicycle=yes kun je dan ook bicycle=permissive taggen. (Te gast) 

MVG
eggie
PWeder (2026-03-10 07:25:24+00:00): Goed, zal ik doen
Groet Pauline
bxl-forever (2026-03-09 19:21:43+00:00): Next time, please do not destroy objects, retag them instead.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history

We restored the former node for DK to preserve its history and make it possible to reuse it once a new activity opens here.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6789715631/history

Thanks.
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:24:35+00:00): Öffentlich zugänglich für Fußgänger?
wolfgang8741 (2026-03-28 20:18:47+00:00): The name field is not there to name "private residence" that should be marked as a permission on the route to visit or for a specific named place.
NeisBot (2026-03-09 16:58:20+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/13527254365 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-17 17:33:12+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180020676
(Restore previous tags. No changes)

If you believe this was incorrect or would like to clarify the intent of the original tags, please reply here.
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:25:50+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:height?uselang=de
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:25:52+00:00): Öffentlich zugänglich für Fußgänger?
arichnad (2026-06-27 02:23:30+00:00): Hello RunTrails,

I noticed bicycle=designated and foot=designated were removed here.  I'm not sure I understand, thanks,

arichnad
Norbert Dichter (2026-03-09 17:30:27+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.
Buildings that are round (huts) should be drawn circular:
In iD: draw a triangular area over the building and use the tag Building, then correct to make the shape circular with the O-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/179595312
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:27:23+00:00): Öffentlich zugänglich für Fußgänger?
Norbert Dichter (2026-03-09 17:28:35+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/179595540
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:27:50+00:00): Öffentlich zugänglich für Fußgänger?
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:28:21+00:00): area:highway=yes ist kein Tag für "Lagerplätze".
FriedhöfeDortmund_68654 (2026-03-10 12:16:13+00:00): Nein, nicht öffentl. zugänglich. daher das Tor.
MappingMore (2026-03-12 08:57:56+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179743250
Bienson (2026-03-10 01:28:37+00:00): Öffentlich zugänglich für Fußgänger?
FriedhöfeDortmund_68654 (2026-03-10 12:01:38+00:00): nein, hinter dem Tor nicht öffentlich.
jayaddison (2026-03-10 22:48:25+00:00): Thank you! (re: figuring out whether Seeds for the Soul or Confelicity is the current business on the premises here).
DwarfNebula_ (2026-03-09 17:47:03+00:00): Ik twijfel ook weleens of Leidsche Rijn bij Utrecht hoort, maar Dalfsen is wel heel ver uit de richting ;p Thanks in ieder geval voor de import!
martianfreeloader (2026-07-30 09:13:23+00:00): Hi,
You've recently mapped this platform: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1486917641

Now, another user is reporting that it is already out of use after just a few months: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5420936

Can you help with that report?
rempshaener (2026-03-09 19:58:08+00:00): Hallo,
bei Einbahnstraßen wird keine Richtung gesetzt, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals
Viele Grüße
Michi_10 (2026-03-10 19:25:12+00:00): Hi,
danke für deine Rückmeldung. Ich habe die Ampel nun korrigiert.
Viele Grüße und einen schönen Abend noch
DaanLT (2026-03-10 05:19:24+00:00): Labas, gal jau užtenka pagaliau gadinti duomenis su tokiu žymėjimu, tiek laiko ir vis tas pats vyksta.
Wildsharky (2026-03-11 12:24:10+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179671582
gscholz (2026-03-10 06:16:27+00:00): Hi ChRogel,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines, so the affected wood area cannot be rendered properly:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-4.10839&lat=48.01192&zoom=16&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=179597145

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
DD1GJ (2026-03-09 20:26:29+00:00): revert 179597578, Restaurant wieder hergestellt, Bowling-Center war bereits am Gebäudeumring getaggt: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/327065498
Stephan Zinke (2026-03-30 12:26:08+00:00): Hi, 
warum wurde bei den Straßenbahnhaltestellen (Platform-Objekten) train=yes gesetzt? Es müsste doch lightrail=yes sein.
Betrifft: 1362667460 und 1362667462