piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
diamondarmorsteve (2026-05-28 22:19:50+00:00): Hi there! The element you have edited is not for the municipality of Hawley. That would be (https://www.osm.org/relation/1839615), and it is currently tagged with border_type=town to represent what kind of municipality it is.

The element you have edited represents the "populated place" of Hawley, where the value of the place tag represents how significant the place is. Since Hawley is very rural and sparsely populated, the appropriate tag for it is place=hamlet. Places with the place=town tag typically have a large business district, or are large suburbs of a nearby city.

I understand that this distinction might be confusing, so please let me know if there's anything I can clear up for you!
DCK55 (2026-03-09 02:26:07+00:00): This place is vacant, no longer an Ara
MappingMore (2026-03-12 09:33:21+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179745382
BubbaJuice (2026-03-09 02:35:50+00:00): https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-6-million-innovative-solar-panel
Wildsharky (2026-03-11 12:21:40+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179629386
MappingMore (2026-03-10 11:23:36+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179632471
tyfi (2026-03-09 03:17:54+00:00): I carried Rio Road south to Snipe Road.
tyfi (2026-03-09 03:25:28+00:00): Addresses note/4300747
007Transformer (2026-03-10 09:32:05+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 179627303
iandees (2026-03-09 03:59:02+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.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:24:54+00:00): Hi yani2900389,

may we know the reason behind changing the highway value here?

Thanks.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:24:47+00:00): Hi yani2900389,

may we know the reason behind changing the highway value here?

Thanks.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:24:42+00:00): Hi yani2900389,

may we know the reason behind changing the highway value here?

Thanks.
woodpeck (2026-03-09 09:51:57+00:00): Dear Linze G Roku, please observe the data import guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import if you are importing data from third parties. This means you have to discuss your import with the community before so that the suitability of the data license and your import process and be verified.
Linze G Roku (2026-03-09 14:31:38+00:00): Dear woodpeck, 
This is not an act of importing data from external sources into OpenStreetMap.This is solely an effort to supplement the missing administrative boundary relations for Gansu province. Based on our current pace, we expect this work to conclude within three months. 
We do not possess a dataset that can be directly imported into OpenStreetMap.
We obtain information from public government records, government publications, official government-drawn maps, and administrative documents at both the Gansu provincial and China national levels. According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, all of these sources are not subject to copyright.
These sources do not provide datasets. To extract information from the map tiles they provide, we need to manually configure the imagery layers and trace them by hand. To obtain information from government-drawn maps, we must use JOSM plugins to perform manual alignment before tracing. Sometimes these sources conflict with one another, and human mappers make the judgment on which to adopt and which to discard. The creation of all relations is also done by human mappers filling in various keys and values, without any automated processes.
Before uploading, we maintained long-term communication with the Chinese community through their designated channels, gaining their understanding and mapping advice. According to a survey conducted by the Chinese community in December 2025, 67.84% of the admin_level=8 administrative divisions in Gansu province, amounting to 920 areas, lacked any boundary data and relations. Every Chinese mapper who voiced at that time agreed on the necessity and urgency of adding this important and critically missing boundary data. This uploading activity also relies on the mapping and decision-making contributions of Chinese mappers.
Since this effort generates near 100 changesets, we had to register a new account to avoid flooding any individual member's personal account with a massive volume of edits outside their typical areas of interest.
You are welcome to inquire further if you have any other questions.
Please excuse any awkward phrasing or sentence structures in this comment.
ralley (2026-03-09 05:58:41+00:00): You have changed the name and website but left the email, phone and operator unchanged, are these still correct?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179558815
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:24:36+00:00): Hi yani2900389,

may we know the reason behind changing the highway value here?

Thanks.
eggie (2026-03-09 07:59:30+00:00): Hoi,

Info samengevoegd met bestaande adresnode.
Gr eggie
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:24:28+00:00): Hi yani2900389,

may we know the reason behind changing the highway value here?

Thanks.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 07:15:59+00:00): Hi ThabanaNtlenyana, welcome to OSM.

May we know the reason behind renaming the following https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23334310/history/22

Thanks.
ThabanaNtlenyana (2026-03-10 11:19:05+00:00): Hi pitscheplatsch,
Thank you for reaching out, I didn’t mean to change the name tag and will change this back.
iandees (2026-03-09 13:15:57+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.
NorthCrab_upload (2026-03-12 01:51:53+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Klucz addr:place oznacza brak nazwy ulicy. Kombinacja z addr:street (który definiuje nazwę ulicy) jest błędna.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/280906925

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
WieKo68 (2026-03-12 09:23:58+00:00): poprawiono
ralley (2026-03-09 06:01:23+00:00): You have connected the driveway to the footpath to the road which means it is unusable for vehicle routing
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179561665
ScrawnyMeowth1 (2026-03-13 21:15:07+00:00): Hi Natfoot,

Are you sure about this? On the newest Esri imagery it looks like this section of rail has been removed entirely and can be deleted from the map.
Natfoot (2026-03-18 15:08:01+00:00): deletion should not be the option here even if it was gone. Abandoned can be used even if there are signs track was there.  If you are only arm chair mapping via imagery. the key is that is on track MOW equipment on this spur and really should be tagged as disused. I also see rail now that you have me looking at it a second time further down that spur. 

even if rail is removed it can still be tagged as abandoned and should be. Even if you feel my take is in error railway=razed is appropriate as it lets other mappers know that the imagery they may find is not to be trusted. out right deletion is not helpful until all data sources agree that there is no rail or it is clear the right of way is obliterated by another project or building. 

That is likely a ballast regulator on the spur.
NeisBot (2026-03-09 06:04:30+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/13629197048 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Tourist information point"
---
Misalnya, versi teks yang lebih netral dan faktual bisa jadi: "Titik informasi wisata"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-17 17:33:03+00:00): 🗑️🤖 Element deleted by https://osm.org/changeset/180020642

 If you believe this deletion was incorrect or would like to clarify the intent of the original tags, please reply here.
ajmat (2026-03-09 10:25:26+00:00): Partially Revert of 179549217
confusedbuffalo (2026-03-09 10:53:31+00:00): I don't quite know what you mean there. 

This edit only changed the phone value of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3442248118 and did not change any other tags nor revert the phone tag to its previous value.

https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/3442248118
MappingMore (2026-03-11 09:19:51+00:00): Revert of 179562113
NeisBot (2026-03-09 06:04:35+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/689380348 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
eggie (2026-03-09 07:50:52+00:00): Welkom bij OSM,

Bedankt voor uw bijdrage. Alle info heb ik verplaatst naar de adresnode. De description ingekort.

MVG
eggie
nevw (2026-03-09 07:14:00+00:00): H, I updated your business listing in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179565448
mueschel (2026-06-21 17:39:54+00:00): Something went wrong here - you added a strange 'nearby_objects' to nodes all over the world. Could you check that?
watmildon (2026-06-22 00:34:04+00:00): oh my. Those are part of a bag of data that I used to build the MR challenge. 

I'll take a look. Thanks for letting me know!
NeisBot (2026-03-09 06:31:12+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 13 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/59140287 v15 | 8 crossings
https://osm.org/way/181353844 v7 | 5 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/1917795549 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179563782
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2026-03-09 15:53:09+00:00): 已经有其他编辑者在 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179577652 中进行修正

---

Other mapper had already fixed the mis-dragged node in 179577652
jm428 (2026-03-09 15:39:18+00:00): Hi, you added the same road three different times in these three changesets:
179564248
179564249
179564251
I have deleted two copies of the road so it is fixed now but please be careful.
Abaluni_Lyft (2026-03-11 09:50:53+00:00): Hi jm428,

My name is Ankit & I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for letting me know about the duplicate entries and for removing them. I was in the process of adding a way when a technical glitch on our side caused it to be captured three times in separate changesets. I sincerely apologize for the oversight and will be more careful with my future mapping changesets.

Regards,
Ankit
Wildsharky (2026-03-11 12:20:15+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179628083
iandees (2026-03-09 13:18:39+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.
asibwene (2026-03-15 05:57:10+00:00): already solved
eggie (2026-03-09 07:54:22+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  .. impassable betekent dat er geen doorkomen aan is. 
Over dit pad lopen drie officiële wandelroutes. Die zijn nu geblokkeerd.
Is dat de bedoeling. Is de situatie definitief?
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-03-09 07:57:39+00:00):  	Ways, often highway=path, that are not passable by any vehicles, not even mountain bikes or specialised off-road vehicles, but are recognisable in the landscape and may still be useful for hikers. Consider also lifecycle prefixes disused:*=* or abandoned:*=* if the way used to be a passable road but has deteriorated. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
Wanneer dit tijdelijk is dan beter openhouden.
eggie (2026-03-09 09:48:19+00:00): Reverted by changeset #179572227

Denk dat je upload niet gelukt is, want de server is overbezet.
Ik heb het weer teruggedraaid.

Wanneer iets verkeerd gaat in Google.. dan een berichtje naar Google.
Google is een ander platform dan OSM.
Het heeft niets met elkaar te maken. 

MVG
eggie
silversurfer83 (2026-03-09 20:14:07+00:00): Hi :)

service=drive-through is usually tagged to the drive through of places like fast food restaurants or maybe banks and such.

It looks unlikely in this place.

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179565851
Niederpruem (2026-03-09 22:45:02+00:00): I changed to an access road, as the road leads to a guardhouse.
silversurfer83 (2026-03-10 05:05:04+00:00): That's OK. But you also set it to service=drive_through which I believe isn't right
Niederpruem (2026-03-10 07:05:36+00:00): ?? I set it to "Zufahrtsweg" ?? 
of course, drive through is wrong. 
Please make you the change.
silversurfer83 (2026-03-10 21:08:38+00:00): You fixed it yourself :)

Thank you

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179607440
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179565851
SafwatHalaby (2026-03-26 06:59:02+00:00): Hello. Are you sure this change is correct?

Q4159530 appears to describe the mountain peak known as Rom Carmel

Q185318 appears to describe the whole Mount Carmel

You changed this node to Q185318 (Mount Carmel)

Admittedly, the other tags also seem to intermix both a bit.

It appears The object for the whole mountain is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/996205165

(There's also the question of whether natural=ridge is the proper tag for that)
kingkingHK (2026-03-09 08:27:44+00:00): Why is it discouraged? Discouraged by whom?
Kovoschiz (2026-03-09 17:20:32+00:00): It's the `sidewalk=no` , and needs to be distinguished from `foot=no` , but should add `foot:signed=none`
kingkingHK (2026-03-10 03:13:52+00:00): `foot=discouraged` + `foot:signed=none` + `foot:reason=crossing` is still more forgivable, as one is expected to use the crossings. This is just a road with no sidewalk though. Who discouraged against walking on a road with no sidewalk? How is this verifiable? Is `foot=discouraged` just a synonym of `sidewalk=no` then?
literan (2026-03-09 09:53:28+00:00): теги landuse= не могут ставиться на точку. Они - об использовании земли.
kate_rocketdata (2026-03-09 10:26:52+00:00): Добрый день! Исправили, спасибо, что подметили.
NeisRevert (2026-03-09 09:04:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/179569894
where the comment is: "Revert vandalism"
iandees (2026-03-09 13:19:46+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.
NeisRevert (2026-03-09 09:04:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/179569886
where the comment is: "Revert vandalism"
NeisRevert (2026-03-09 09:04:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/179569868
where the comment is: "Revert vandalism"
NeisBot (2026-03-09 08:03:53+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 12 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/26130341 v7 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1469111552 v1 | 5 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/13473313958 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179567280
NeisRevert (2026-03-09 09:03:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/179569850
where the comment is: "Revert vandalism"
flex16 (2026-03-09 10:18:27+00:00): Hi. Der neue Übergang war doch vorher an der richtigen Position. Dieses Bodenteil für Blinde ist doch nur für die Querung parallel zum Zieherser weg. Hier gibt es halt ansonsten keine baulichen Hinweise auf eine Querungsmöglichkeit, das ist dann eben so.
m_fuhrmann (2026-03-09 11:03:13+00:00): Ergibt Sinn. Ich fixe es.
m_fuhrmann (2026-03-09 11:07:12+00:00): Habe einen Revert angeworfen.
Irgendwie hatte mich der einfache Fußweg über die Straße getriggert. Keine Randsteine, keine Querung, kein Link. Dann dachte ich, dass man eigentlich auch von beiden Bodenteilen rüber gehen könnte. Klar, für einen blinden ist das sicher nicht die geilste Option. Aber die vorherige auch nicht schätze ich.
flex16 (2026-03-09 11:15:59+00:00): Die Randsteine und Querung kannst du ja natürlich mappen. Ging mir nur um die Positionierung der Querung.
m_fuhrmann (2026-03-09 17:41:33+00:00): Das hatte ich so verstanden :+1: Aber ein footway über die Straße ist dann echt ok? Mir hatte mal einer gesagt, dass das nicht optimal wäre. Sollte doch dann schon ein unmarked crossing sein, oder?
flex16 (2026-03-09 21:00:26+00:00): Ja, aber noch unoptimaler finde ich OSM mit highway crossings zuzukleistern, obwohl es gar keine baulichen Hinweise darauf gibt. Das ergibt sich auch aus dem Wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:crossing%3Dunmarked

"Der Überweg soll durch eine bauliche Maßnahme erkennbar sein."

Kannst mit gerne mal die Person nennen, die dir das gesagt hat.
flex16 (2026-03-09 21:07:12+00:00): Es ist bestimmt aber auch beides vertretbar. Jedenfalls sollte link genutzt werden, um eine Straße mit einem Gehweg zu verbinden.

VGL: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verkehrswende-Meetup/Gehwege

Unterpunkt "
T-Kreuzung mit nur teilweise separat gemappten Gehwegen"

Würde sagen das hier so ein Fall vorliegt bei pedestrian.
flex16 (2026-03-10 18:53:29+00:00): Eine weitere Möglichkeit wäre crossing=informal. Das nutzt man aber ohne highway=crossing. 

Wir sollten uns vielleicht mal einigen und in das Fulda Wiki schreiben.
flex16 (2026-03-10 19:24:45+00:00): crossing=informal wird tatsächlich auch in Berlin genutzt für kreuzende Pfade, hab ich gerade gesehen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6660710987

Wir hatten ja auch das Beispiel mit dem Pfaffenpfad. Da würde das zum Beispiel auch gut passen denke ich mit crossing=informal.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/50.557665/9.692366&layers=N

Von mir aus könnten wir das schonmal festhalten, dass wenn sich zwei Pfade an einer Kreuzung treffen, man crossing=informal nutzt.
flex16 (2026-03-10 19:31:14+00:00): Was ich auch sinnvoll fände, wäre folgende Differenzierung:
1. footway geht über die ganze Straße: -> footway=crossing
2. footway geht nur über die halbe Straße, um ihn mit einer anderen Straße zu verbinden: -> footway link
AwFi (2026-03-14 15:25:01+00:00): Ciao, ho visto che hai ripristinato alcuni operator e network ad *=RFI. Volevo solo informarti che è stata fatta una discussione sulla community ed è stato deciso di tenere il nome esteso per operator. Mentre network=RFI è improprio. Putroppo, nonostante le modifiche al NSI, iD deve ancora aggiornarsi al nuovo tagging e quindi continua a proporre soluzioni sbagliate, ti chiederei gentilmente di ignorarle, grazie.
NeisRevert (2026-03-09 09:03:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/179569838
where the comment is: "Revert vandalism"
DD1GJ (2026-03-09 09:29:50+00:00): Zurückgesetzt, da neuer Weg über bereits existierende Wege gelegt wurde. Mapper bereits direkt kontaktiert.
flex16 (2026-03-09 10:25:56+00:00): Hier muss die highway pedestrian mit der Straße verbunden werden. Diese sagt ja aus, dass hier auch KFZ grundsätzlich durchfahren könnten. Den anderen Fußweg habe ich mit einem Link verbunden. Hier gibt es ja anscheinend keine baulichen Hinweise auf eine Querungsmöglichkeit. Querungen ohne bauliche Hinweise würde ich nur bei Kreuzungen setzten, finde das sonst dogamtisch fragwürdig. In OSM And wird man zum Beispiel immer bei einem Fußüberweg gewarnt, und dann ist da gar keiner. Deshalb gehe ich auch mit nicht markierten Querungen sparsamer um.
ajmat (2026-03-09 10:16:23+00:00): Revert of 179555456
MappingMore (2026-03-10 00:41:49+00:00): Revert of 179555590
Langlaeufer (2026-03-09 12:56:22+00:00): Hallo, wieso hast du den die note gelöscht? Ist doch eher hilfreich, wenn access=no hier begründet wird.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179567930
Besucherlenkung_Nationalpark_Harz (2026-03-09 13:10:18+00:00): Der Zugang ist wieder erlaubt
Langlaeufer (2026-03-09 14:23:29+00:00): Ach so, na dann noch access=no weg. Radfahren ist da generell verboten?
❤️‍🔥 (2026-03-13 10:11:26+00:00): the bus stop at this location was already mapped, so I've deleted the one that you created
NeisBot (2026-03-09 08:36:57+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/13629382215 v1

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 17:02:38+00:00): 🕵 The changeset tags appear to reference Google Maps or another Google mapping service as a data source.

Please note that using Google Maps, Google Street View, or similar Google services as a mapping source is not allowed in OpenStreetMap due to license restrictions.

More information: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google

If the data in this changeset was derived from Google Maps or another incompatible source, the edits may need to be reverted.

If this is a misunderstanding and the data was collected from permitted sources (e.g. local survey, Bing imagery, local knowledge, etc.), please clarify in a reply.
iandees (2026-03-09 13:21:24+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.
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2026-03-09 15:47:53+00:00): 您好，OSM不是一个自由绘制的试验场，OSM中仅应该绘制地球上真实存在的内容。如果还是学生希望练习绘制可以与您贵地的本地社区取得联系，或者如果是有OSM使用的相关作业，也请抓紧问问老师怎样的行为是恰当或者不恰当的（但是这种问题其实带入公德心去想一想肯定是马上能明白的！OSM是全世界很多用户在使用的真实世界的数据，在上面开玩笑怎么想也不合适的啊！）

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179591742

我在这里把你的玩笑退回了，并且由衷的希望DWG给你一张警告牌，希望以后不要这样做。如果是正常的编辑，真的去改善了地图上缺少的或者不正确的东西，那肯定还是欢迎的。