piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NEIL2 (2026-02-18 03:24:11+00:00):  Hi Mashin, 
Thanks for the note. I want to clarify one point: OSM does not require a gate or a “No Trespassing” sign for access=private. The wiki explicitly states that legal restriction alone is sufficient.

In Connecticut, condo/HOA roads posted as “Private Road” are private ways with no public right of access. Public use is not affirmatively allowed, so access=permissive would not be accurate here.

ownership=private records ownership, but does not describe access rights. In this case, access is restricted, which is what access=private is intended to capture.
Mashin (2026-02-18 10:00:22+00:00): Hi,
I am personally not aware of CT law that prohibits public access to roads with sign "private road". Could you post a link to the legal text?

To my knowledge, "private road" is information about ownership and some of these roads are even serviced by public street cleaning. On other hand, trespassing law requires to give notice that entry isn't allowed by a 'no trespassing' sign which has legal effect.

There has been a prior discussion about this in the US OSM community and it seems the majority agrees that these roads should be tagged as access=permissive  +  ownership=private.
NEIL2 (2026-04-27 04:44:29+00:00): Hi Mashin,
The on-the-ground signage is an orange “Private Rd” sign mounted above the street name sign. This indicates the road is not open for general public use.

In OSM tagging, access=permissive implies the landowner has granted public access. There is no indication of any such permission here.

access=private is used where access is restricted to residents/authorized users and not intended for the general public. A physical barrier or separate “No Trespassing” sign is not required—posted “Private Rd” signage is sufficient to indicate restricted access.

ownership=private describes ownership only and does not convey access rights.

For context, this way was previously tagged access=private (Changeset #139225462), which aligns with the current on-the-ground signage.

Unless there is signage indicating public access is allowed, access=private remains the appropriate tag based on observed conditions.
Mashin (2026-04-27 08:12:39+00:00): Hi,
as I mentioned, there was a prior discussion about this and the community thinks that a label "private road" does not indicate access restriction.
Culturally, it could mean that some people would try to avoid accessing such property, but legally it is not prohibited to do so. A gate or a "no trespassing" sign is a clear indication that access is unwanted and is a basis for legal consequences.
NeisBot (2026-02-17 04:48:43+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

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

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13571705165 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 05:35:26+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179018858
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
NeisBot (2026-02-17 05:12:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

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

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13571759345 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 05:35:28+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179018859
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
NeisBot (2026-02-17 05:36:40+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 8 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1334478802 v1 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1213411466 v1 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/11242037645 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178659803
NeisReview (2026-02-25 07:34:43+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178752844
NeisBot (2026-02-17 05:39:39+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 8 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1213442944 v2 | 4 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178659882
NeisReview (2026-02-25 07:40:41+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178752844
bradrh (2026-06-08 17:17:27+00:00): Hi Russ, I noticed that you changed way=511869478 from residential to tourism=caravan_site.    This is a mobile home area,  not open to the traveling RV's, so I think residential is more appropriate.
russdeffner (2026-06-08 23:21:20+00:00): Thank you @bradrh I agree the landuse can be residential. Maybe most appropriate would be to add the amenity=trailer_park tag as well?
russdeffner (2026-06-08 23:26:16+00:00): Oops, looking at the wiki again it seems residential=trailer_park is the suggested tagging
bradrh (2026-06-09 00:18:43+00:00): Sounds good to me.
NeisBot (2026-02-17 05:54:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

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

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13571797519 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Physical Therapy Clinic"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 07:40:33+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179022643
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
RISE Physical Therapy (2026-02-25 08:19:26+00:00): Hi, thanks for the advice. Where do I go to make this change?
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-25 08:25:29+00:00): Hi, thanks for your reply. The mentioned description has already been updated or removed.
NeisBot (2026-02-17 06:15:40+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 25 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/209974451 v5 | 23 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/7734024664 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178661013
NeisReview (2026-02-25 07:40:41+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178708246
NeisBot (2026-02-17 06:33:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

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

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13571833032 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 07:40:35+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179022644
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
NeisBot (2026-02-17 06:36:44+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

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

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/3103206292 v5

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 07:40:36+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179022646
(Restore previous tags)
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-25 07:54:45+00:00): Spam
NeisBot (2026-02-17 06:39:44+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

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

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/5490121756 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 07:40:36+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179022647
(Restore previous tags)
pitscheplatsch (2026-02-25 07:54:51+00:00): Spam
NeisBot (2026-02-17 06:48:43+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

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

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/7595069451 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 07:40:37+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179022649
(No visible changes after review)
NeisBot (2026-02-17 07:03:47+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/13250263947 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Private pool villa"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-02-25 07:40:37+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/178662995
CAM-Gerlach (2026-05-01 02:39:35+00:00): Hi,

If you're going to add businesses to OSM for your clients, you have an obligation (to both your client and to us) to at least make every reasonable effort to use correct tags and values. A number of the tags added here are used incorrectly (addr:street=*, opening_hours=*), which both pollutes the map with junk data and means they will not be intelligible to data consumers reading the map, defeating the purpose of your efforts here.

It's really not _that_ hard to use iD's beginner-friendly presets to fill in this information correctly, or spend a few minutes reading the wiki on how to format your tags properly. After all, you are being _paid_ to do this properly for your client.

Furthermore, upon investigation checking the latest ESRI imagery from less than a year before this changeset, it appears there is nothing anywhere near this point that could plausibly match the POI; the only two bits of human geographic within 1000 ft (300 m) is a church and a cemetery, neither of which I would assume host an insurance business.

Therefore, given the lack of any evidence for this place existing on the ground anywhere near where it is mapped, as well as the bad tagging and SEO spam purpose of the changeset, I will have to go ahead and remove it.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-05-01 02:41:19+00:00): Revert SEO spam due to not corresponding to any evident physical feature

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182055927
fortera_au (2026-02-17 22:31:44+00:00): Hi, highway=path is more generic than highway=footway. If something is designed mostly for foot traffic but bicycles are still allowed, it should be kept as highway=footway and then bicycle=yes added to it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178662718
NeisBot (2026-02-17 07:09:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

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

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13571866170 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-17 07:51:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/178664580
where the comment is: "Revert vandalism"
Enock4seth (2026-02-17 11:37:15+00:00): Hi Hay4d, good to see you continue to add street names from Ga West, kindly use Esri World Imagery primary background, it is currently the most suited. Also check it against publicly available GPS traces. To collect GPS traces yourself, a recommended mobile application for Android is OSMTracker https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSMTracker_(Android)
NeisBot (2026-02-17 07:18:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

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

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13571897709 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 07:40:39+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179022651
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
AndyB_66 (2026-02-17 18:27:45+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
recoverpoint (2026-03-03 04:59:36+00:00): I saw you add three cliffs onto summit area of Yongmun-san. Did you had checked and written those really ? I couldn't see those cliffs at there although I have hiked Yongmun-san area more than 200 times. If you collect the data really, could you please share the gpx with me ?
KennyDap (2026-03-03 05:24:19+00:00): One user was following a trail that led him to a military facility and deleted it, arguing that a road to a military facility shouldn't be accessible.

I corrected this.

He deleted it again and told me in a private message that, in addition to the trail leading to a military facility, it also led to the edge of a cliff, where he almost fell.

So I restored the trail and added cliffs.

Then another user deleted the trail anyway, claiming it wasn't there at all.

From all of this, I conclude: the trail is 100% there. But the cliffs may not be there. I added them based on someone else's description, trying to find a compromise.
recoverpoint (2026-03-03 07:25:09+00:00): I hike the Yongmun-san area almost every weekend, collecting GPXs then update OpenStreetMap. The area you've updated and marked with cliffs has an old route, but it's not often visited by hikers, making it difficult for unfamiliar hikers to find. Furthermore, most of the routes you've updated in the Yongmun-san summit area are within military base and inaccessible to public. Prior to November of last year, the routes of Yongmun-san area on OpenStreetMap were the ones I personally verified.
KennyDap (2026-03-03 07:43:22+00:00): I understand and appreciate your work. Personally, I'm only interested in the trails near the military base. Even if a trail is rarely used and not intended for public access, that's no reason to remove it. I'd be grateful if you, as someone who regularly visits this area, could accurately determine where the publicly accessible area begins and ends. Because, I repeat, all these changes arose because someone followed one of the previously designated trails (not mine) and, according to them, ended up in military territory. Then they started deleting trails. And that's not right. You can't delete trails if they're actually there.

I've sincerely tried to use satellite imagery to make corrections so that it's clear the trail passes through a military zone. That's all.
recoverpoint (2026-03-03 09:44:58+00:00): Working only depends on satelite image is not a good idea.  As a example, the trails which you had input, 1479514507~1479514513 aren't trail indeed. They are vehicle road inside the airforce base and furthermore, some are wrongly routed and connected.
The airforce base are surrouneded with barbed wall and watched by sentles that it;s impossible for hiker to pass there.
There are no trail inside there because the airforce base was there from 1956 and not allowed to pass by public for a long time.
The incorrect information cause confusion to hikers that it muse be corrected.
KennyDap (2026-03-03 13:35:16+00:00): There's a big difference between highway=path and highway=footway. I specified the former, and it's not a mistake. But overall, I agree with you that it would be better if someone who can go there corrected the changes. For example, if you indicated barbed wire, map it. That would greatly help the situation.
recoverpoint (2026-03-03 21:56:43+00:00): The satelite image can't show everything. Respect the work of other men who is contributing by actually going around and checking and collecting data, please.
berndw (2026-02-17 07:42:48+00:00): Kommentar sollte lauten:
Hinweis https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5162614 bearbeitet
Taya_S (2026-02-19 09:46:21+00:00): Reverted test edits by user "surajTEST"

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178763098
eggie (2026-02-17 18:39:31+00:00): Dag Patric,
Het fietspad lag nu wat uit het lood. 
Normaal zetten wij geen fitespaden op access=no
Wanneer iets onder constructie is en het heel lang (Vele maanden)  dan doen we dat.
Het duurt tot 2028 .. Dan dus highway=construction met construction=cycleway

.. access=no valt niet op en wordt al snel vergeten, 

MVG
eggie
Patric van Egmond (2026-02-20 07:24:27+00:00): Beste Eggie,
Dank voor je feedback! Ja idd iets uit het lood wbt de luchtfoto maar situatie is daar helemaal op de schop gegaan, maar zo is het wel netter dank!
Zojuist het fietspad aangepast, inderdaad duidelijker zo.

Gr.
Patric
A67-A67 (2026-02-20 09:20:27+00:00): Als ik het ontwerp bekijk, zie ik dat het toekomstige fietspad aan de westzijde komt te liggen. https://www.zuid-holland.nl/onderwerpen/verkeer-vervoer/vaarwegen/vaarwegen/vaarwegen/vaarweg-alphen-aan-den-rijn-woerden/vervanging-steekterbrug/toekomstbeelden-steekterbrug/

In dat geval is het dus wel een afgesloten fietspad (met access=no) en geen fietspad in aanleg (highway=construction, construction=cycleway).
NeisBot (2026-02-17 08:21:43+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

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

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13571955486 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-25 17:33:04+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179048454
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
bxl-forever (2026-02-17 09:03:47+00:00): Hello,

It looks like there is a confusion about how some OSM tags work.

In this edit, you added the following tags:

turn:lanes:backward=1
turn:lanes:forward=1

This is not correct.

turn:lanes:* are meant to indicate whether the lanes are there to prepare a left or right turn.  If you want to indicate the lane *count* on this road, the relevant tag is "lanes=2", which is already set here.  (Being a two-way road, lanes=2 is automatically parsed as having one lane per direction.)

I suggest removing turn:lanes:backward and turn:lanes:forward here.
DodoGTA (2026-02-17 08:53:58+00:00): According to the Klaipėda city plan (and other related legal documents), it does still exist
CAM-Gerlach (2026-05-01 01:58:48+00:00): Hi,

If you're going to add businesses to OSM for your clients, you have an obligation (to both your client and to us) to at least make every reasonable effort to use correct tags and values. Most of the tags added here are used incorrectly and many are completely nonsensical (addr:street=*, completely missing addr:housenumber=* , healthcare:speciality=*, Hours=* [sic], Payment=* [sic], phone=*) , which both pollutes the map with junk data and means they will not be intelligible to data consumers reading the map, defeating the purpose of your efforts here.

It's really not _that_ hard to use iD's beginner-friendly presets to fill in this information correctly, or spend a few minutes reading the wiki on how to format your tags properly. After all, you are being _paid_ to do this properly for your client.

Fortunately for you, other mappers did your work for you for free, fixing most of the tags, and I've fixed the rest for you in changeset 182055354 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182055354

Thanks.
eggie (2026-02-17 11:54:45+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback Niet amenity=bench?
Heeft het bankje werkelijk een Engelse naam?
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
ChehrehBargi (2026-02-17 08:50:40+00:00): Well done
You found the right way. You can even contribute more by studying the rules more.
Good luck