piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisReview (2026-01-03 12:25:15+00:00): ✅ Should by fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/176146717
https://osm.org/changeset/176244256

Thanks @613 Electric Inc @Hanna Volkava
NeisReview (2026-01-03 12:27:43+00:00): ✅ Should by fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/176146717
https://osm.org/changeset/176244256

Thanks @613 Electric Inc @Hanna Volkava
Udarian (2025-12-19 18:25:04+00:00): why did you remove the way that used to represent the building, the building tag should have been added back instead of being removed.
NeisBot (2025-12-19 15:09:22+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/13388741489 v1

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Law office established 1970"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
Udarian (2025-12-19 17:40:05+00:00): also it the changeset comment on this change is not the best, "-" does not tell me anything about what you did in this changeset.
for more info see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
NeisBot (2025-12-30 06:23:18+00:00): ❌ Element has been removed by https://osm.org/changeset/176156868

Thanks @ Glassman
CAM-Gerlach (2025-12-20 06:40:28+00:00): Changesets left the building and with broken geometry (unclosed/invalid multipolygons, crossing ways, dupe nodes, unconnected footways/entrances, etc), conflicting tags, was missing the center of the building and didn't actually split the building.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176167535
CAM-Gerlach (2025-12-20 07:03:40+00:00): Hi Thomas,

It seems generally reasonable to split AJ into East and West AJ, since they have separate addresses, VT building refs and other properties, and (in my experience at VT) were often referred to separately.

However, unfortunately this changeset and those that followed left the building and its surroundings with a number of instances of broken geometry (unclosed multipolygons, crossing ways, invalid polygons, duplicated and stray nodes, unconnected footways and entrances, etc) as well as conflicting tags and left the central part of the building missing entirely. Furthermore, it does not actually accomplish the intended objective of splitting split the building--both parts are still part of the same building= multipolygon with the same name, now with two unnamed, nested "buildings" inside of it.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176142278
CAM-Gerlach (2025-12-20 07:05:04+00:00): Given the degree of the damage over multiple changesets, the only viable option here to repair it was a complete revert, which I've gone ahead and done. I've additionally gone ahead and performed the split properly in a followup changeset, #176167974  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176167974 , along with other additions and fixes to the building tagging.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176142278
CAM-Gerlach (2025-12-20 07:07:25+00:00): I can see from the changeset metadata that your editor, iD, detected and warned you about several of the most critical issues across multiple changesets, but these warnings were dismissed and the changeset uploaded anyway. While not every validator warning always needs to be fixed before submitting a changeset, especially as a new contributor using a beginner-focused editor it is important to pay careful attention to likely mistakes, and not dismiss a warning unless you fully understand it and are reasonably sure it is a false positive (and indeed, the particular issues it flagged are basically always errors that will break something), especially if it was introduced by your changeset.
CAM-Gerlach (2025-12-20 07:07:36+00:00): As others have previously reminded you a couple times now, OSM is a production database relied on in some form by perhaps billions of people across the world, so it is important to take at least basic care when making changes that could disrupt the map. Unfortunately, many if not most of your other changesets so far have consistently caused similar breakage and disruption that needed to be fixed or reverted by other mappers, several of which were previously pointed out to you. While mistakes happen, I would strongly encourage you to take advantage of the many knowledge resources available (the wiki, forum, Discord, Slack, other mappers like myself, etc.) and take care when mapping to make sure this pattern doesn't continue.

Thanks, and happy mapping.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-03 06:58:33+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9172147437/history has app_operated = yes that was added in this edit
What app_operated=yes means here? Have you wanted to mark that you can control it with app in some way but app may be necessary or not? For example shop where you can scan and pay with app, without going through a traditional line. Or is it for objects where you need an app to use them at all? Then maybe app_operated=only would be better?
tartiflex (2026-02-10 18:38:25+00:00): Hi,

Please excuse me for the delay, I missed your question. The cabinet has a touchscreen to open the lockers, but they can also be opened with an app.
Nakaner (2026-02-16 15:39:09+00:00): Hallo,

zwar sind deine Reverts der Änderungen von Oberlausitzer42 im Allgemeinen in Ordnung. Dennoch möchte ich dich darauf hinweisen, dass Streckennamen, die lediglich dem Muster „Stadt1–Stadt2“ (analog auch für Betriebsstellennamen) keine Namen im OSM-Sinne sind und deswegen nicht als name=* an Gleisen erfasst werden. Ich möchte dich daher darum bitten, künftig darauf zu verzichten.

Viele Grüße

Michael
CAM-Gerlach (2025-12-20 07:15:52+00:00): Just to clarify, the changset was reverted per the above; please see my comments on changeset #176142278 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176142278

Also, please be sure to take a second to provide a useful changeset summary per the OSM guidelines: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments , or at the very least a meaningful one, to allow other mappers like myself to easily understand what you've done and why. Your previous changeset was in fact fine example of a useful one, that helped me at least start to understand what you were trying to do there. Thanks.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176142639
StC (2025-12-19 14:30:28+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a brisé la continuité d'un itinéraire pédestre qui passe par là, en prolongeant un chemin au-delà de son raccordement au chemin suivant dans l'itinéraire. Je m'occupe de la réparation.
Michel SIS 04 (2025-12-19 14:51:10+00:00): Bonjour,

Désolé. Comment pourrais-je voir la modification exacte qui a causé le problème, afin de ne plus le reproduire ?
Merci pour la réparation et encore désolé pour le dérangement.
StC (2025-12-19 21:18:43+00:00): Pas de souci, c'est hélas usuel car les outils actuels (iD, JOSM et les autres) ne montrent pas les conséquences de ce qu'on fait.

Analyser l'historique n'est pas simple non plus. Le plus simple est probablement de trouver mon propre changeset (celui ci ? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176156596) et de regarder ce que j'ai changé (soit dans un outil de visualisation d'historique, soit avec l'extension BetterOsm activée dans Chrome)
Michel SIS 04 (2025-12-22 13:51:22+00:00): Très bien c'est noté.
Merci pour ces informations.
CAM-Gerlach (2025-12-20 07:16:21+00:00): Just to clarify, the changset was reverted per the above; please see my comments on changeset #176142278 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176142278
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176142769
stillhart (2026-01-01 19:04:49+00:00): thank you ✨
NikoJorj (2026-01-01 19:27:18+00:00): Welcome! There was a slight access problem at night for a few days (the night guards didn't get the memo that the SuC was open and that people could drive there to charge, apparently) but it seems resolved now.
stillhart (2026-01-02 11:27:57+00:00): Did you see any pictures which cover the whole supercharger? I assume the parking layout has changed.
NikoJorj (2026-01-02 12:29:04+00:00): You're right, it's perpendicular parking in the SuC and not oblique, I missed that.
NeisBot (2025-12-19 15:08:54+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 19 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/42123434 v20 | 19 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/938563131 v4
https://osm.org/node/523719902 v5

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176143223
pitscheplatsch (2025-12-19 15:23:06+00:00): In this case, it seems the reported issues are false positives. The geometries were not changed in a way that would introduce crossings, and the tagging adjustments did not create any new conflicts. I have checked the mentioned elements and can confirm that the current configuration is valid.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks again for your map edits.

Regards,
Pascal
solenoid jam (2026-01-07 17:30:46+00:00): Привет. Здесь добавлено много небольших акваферм. Думаю лучше всю территорию этой деревни сделать аквафермой, поскольку отдельные участки изменяют своё расположение со временем. 
Хах, вообще классно что такие редкие объекты отмечаешь
HaritaDuzenlemeHesabi (2025-12-20 19:54:42+00:00): Aynı yeri 4 kez eklemişsiniz. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13383626286

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13383634266

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13383660887

Lütfen sadece birini bırakıp diğerlerini siliniz.
Ceyhansen (2025-12-22 18:07:16+00:00): Merhabalar 

Mağazamızın 4 ayrı girişi mevcut olup (adresler farklı ) 4 marka da tarafınıza ait olup 4 marka bir birinden bağımsız satış kanallarına ve marka tescillerine sahip olup açılış rica eder desteğinizi bekliyoruz
HaritaDuzenlemeHesabi (2025-12-23 14:53:46+00:00): Merhaba @Ceyhansen ,
Hepsinin aynı işyeri olduğunu düşünmüştüm. Durum söylediğiniz gibi ise yapılması gereken başka bir işlem yok. Siz zaten eklemişsiniz.

Açılış derken, OpenStreetMap kullanan başka platformlarda(örn. Facebook, Instagram vd.) iş yerinizin görünmesini kastediyorsanız OpenStreetMap'in Instagram, Facebook gibi platformlarla bir bağı yok. OpenStreetMap bağımsız bir proje. Instagram, Facebook gibi yerlerde görünmesi için ne yapılması gerektiğini bilmiyorum. İş yerinizin ilgili platformlarda da görünmesi için oralarla iletişime geçmek gerekli.

İyi günler.
NeisBot (2025-12-19 15:08:56+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 23 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/287244690 v3 | 9 crossings
https://osm.org/way/287247522 v4 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/753811996 v6 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/2908779329 v2
https://osm.org/node/2908789933 v2
https://osm.org/node/2908762900 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176143762
NeisReview (2026-01-03 12:25:15+00:00): ✅ Should by fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/176244804
https://osm.org/changeset/176295295

Thanks @Hanna Volkava @sajjad_samaei
NeisReview (2026-01-03 12:27:43+00:00): ✅ Should by fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/176244804
https://osm.org/changeset/176295295

Thanks @Hanna Volkava @sajjad_samaei
T med ett g (2025-12-19 14:50:38+00:00): New to editing. Should the adress be added separately on Bergskroken 3?
Fizzie-DWG (2026-01-18 04:06:23+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised editing from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177359241
Jarek 🚲 (2025-12-19 16:17:31+00:00): Oops, sorry, I see now that "Sette Productions" came from a much older changeset.

However it remains the case that it was in the wrong place for its address (even numbers are north side of the street), and 148 Yorkville has actually been razed for redevelopment since https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4462028723/history/1 was added in 2016
itineris (2026-06-20 19:16:31+00:00): Kérlek, legközelebb nézd meg a history-t, hogy ne csináld vissza a módosításom (ami amúgy a Magyar Közút alapján történt)!

Ákos
qstep (2026-06-20 19:34:08+00:00): Rendben. Köszi a javítást!
Senihtu (2025-12-20 04:59:42+00:00): Guten Morgen!
Irgendetwas scheinst Du mit diesem Changeset an Relation 2775884 (
Bus 9: Elisabethkirche => Erlenring => Universitätsklinikum UKGM) verändert zu haben.
An der Haltestelle Elisabethkirche liegen Platform und stop_position doch recht weit auseinander.
Ich habe keine Ahnung, was da richtig sein könnte. Du?
akino_germany (2026-01-12 09:37:54+00:00): Hallo, ich habe die Platform verschoben da diese nach Sanierung verschoben wurde. Ich habe die stop_position vergessen. Sollte jetzt wieder passen.
Yunkers (2025-12-19 18:50:05+00:00): Oficjalnie to wciąż S1. Czy w terenie dali tabliczki z S52?
Dawid2849 (2025-12-19 17:56:04+00:00): Wiesz może czy w związku z tym zniknęło ograniczenie tonażowe na odcinku Brzeszcze - Oświęcim?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/810222912
Yunkers (2025-12-19 18:20:59+00:00): Ograniczenie tonażowe zostało w kierunku Oświęcimia. W drugą stronę już go nie ma.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-01-18 04:01:48+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised editing from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177359211
NeisBot (2025-12-19 19:58:53+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/13388833130 v2

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Flooring store in Santa Rosa Beach"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisReview (2025-12-30 07:42:26+00:00): Fixed by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176613654
HellMap (2025-12-19 18:50:10+00:00): As mentioned before, please don't set invalid access values in public cemeteries - there are not legal restrictions in Spriņģu kapi.
kohiwonomu (2025-12-19 16:35:41+00:00): I see you are a new mapper, welcome to OSM! Please familiarize yourself with OSM's guidelines, particularly: Do not use data from another mapping service. See this wiki page for details: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Don%27t_copy_from_other_maps
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176146705
Langlaeufer (2025-12-21 11:38:59+00:00): Hallo Arne, Was ist mit den Fußwegen? gibt es die nicht mehr?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176146770
Adam Haba (2025-12-19 16:02:44+00:00): Błąd opisu - powinno być "nawierzchnia"
streckenkundler (2025-12-19 17:12:23+00:00): Hei, 
...also irgendwas stimmt hier noch nicht: schaut mal: https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=16.0/53.1481/12.1874

Die Route 80-87 und 82-87 sind in Lage doppelt, es gibt Wegesgmente, die nicht dazu gehören...

Auf eurem Kartendienst geht es (noch) ohne Knotenpunkt 87 direkt 80<->82
Auch andere Routen in dem Bereich sehen komisch aus...
Sven
Landkreis Prignitz (2026-01-05 07:51:38+00:00): Hey Sven,
gesundes Neues!
Hier bin ich gerade dabei Strecken dazu zu nehmen und neu zu Beschildern. Wir verbinden den Bahnhof mit der Freyensteiner Chaussee dann über Beveringen nach Alt Krüssow. Danke für den Hinweis, ich leite es gleich an den Projektleiter weiter.
MxxCon (2025-12-22 05:19:42+00:00): Hello.
Why did you add disused:railway=station, but didn't remove railway=station? These 2 tags conflict with each other.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176147583
5m4u9 (2025-12-20 16:37:10+00:00): hola, bienvenid@ y gracias por mejorar el mapa en Bolivia!
rhhs (2025-12-19 20:44:26+00:00): Hi, thanks for your edits! But are you sure about this one? Texaid is a brand for textile recycling so I would be surprised if they suddenly start recycling green waste. It would be the first time such waste is recycled in Sofia
joost schouppe (2026-04-30 12:38:14+00:00): Je had hier de kerk als POI gewist, en het gebouw terug aangegeven als kergebouw, maar zonder place of worship. Was dat een ongelukje of is de kerk effectief ontwijd? In het laatste geval: iemand heeft ze ondertussen terug toegevoegd, dus dan is dat misschien fout
Eebie (2026-05-04 11:44:16+00:00): Zoals het er nu staat is het correct. Ik wiste een gecompliceerde relatie die de outline van de kerk als een weg bevatte en ik heb blijkbaar niet alle kenmerken teruggezet.
kingkingHK (2026-01-25 03:59:51+00:00): Sorry for the late comment. So is there really no way to walk between Ma Tau Wai Estate and The Zumurud? Government copyrighted maps say there is a slope maintenance path.
vectorial8192 (2026-01-25 07:12:38+00:00): It either doesn't exist, or it blended into the slope too nicely and I couldn't see it.

If it's a slope maintenance path, then functionally it doesn't matter too much if it's not in the map. Normally we can't use slope maintenance paths for passing through anyway.

Not saying "it doesn't matter" (OSM always seeks completeness), but it's an ultra-low priority issue, unless they are wrongly mapped as public paths, which would be a big issue (e.g. see Chung Shan Terrace).
kingkingHK (2026-01-25 14:06:53+00:00): After visiting the site myself, indeed no slope maintenance path. Perhaps I misunderstood the government map.

I retract my question.
Syl (2025-12-26 19:43:57+00:00): Bonjour, les mêmes numéros ont été ajoutés deux fois, ici et dans ce groupe de modifications : https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176149009
Je vous laisse voir pour corriger.
rm69 (2025-12-27 21:30:34+00:00): merci pour ce signalement. j'ai supprimé les doublons.
on n'est jamais assez vigilant !
HaritaDuzenlemeHesabi (2025-12-20 19:18:40+00:00): Merhaba. Yerleşim yerlerinin içindeki yollara highway=track etiketi koymanızın yanlış olduğunu düşünüyorum. Lütfen bkz: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=track#How_to_decide
M!dgard (2025-12-20 10:34:31+00:00): Hoi, voor bulk-edits zoals deze vragen we voorafgaand overleg, omdat het te makkelijk is er schade mee aan te richten. Deze zullen dus worden teruggedraaid.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits
apm-wa (2026-01-11 22:35:41+00:00): No Akdaş geňeşligi is attested in Balkan welaýat, nor is a village named Garaşsyzlyk. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Districts_in_Turkmenistan#Balkan_wela%C3%BDaty
Aleksandar Matejevic (2026-01-26 15:01:05+00:00): I see that you have added a lot of admin_level=6 relations, but these should be admin_level=8 or 9 per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative


Can you explain why using admin_level=6?
Saamat (2026-01-26 15:19:06+00:00): Hi, I took the liberty to try a new set of admin_level for TK in the Province of Balkan as it's the province which has the less settlements in it. My thought was the following: -province = 4 -district = 5 -cities with district-status (Türkmenbaşy, Balkanabat) = 5 -cities/towns = 6 -rural council (geňeşlik, as a relation and not a node) = 6 -villages, including the seats of rural councils = 8. I've been told to notify this to the community and change the boudary=adm page, but I'm not sure of how to proceed.
Aleksandar Matejevic (2026-01-26 15:37:47+00:00): I would suggest to you first to revert all the changes to original state. Then, discuss with Turkmenistan and OSM community about what you suggest has sense. If agreement is achieved, edit boundary=administrative wiki page with agreed admin_level descriptions. Then, move all existing relations to corresponding levels and then introduce new ones. Currently there is an overlap of administrative areas across the country, which is a bad thing. I would like to jump in and help you with edits on the map once agreement is made.
apm-wa (2026-01-26 22:13:16+00:00): Saamat, please start a conversation in the community forum about this. You already have my opinion as I expressed to you by OSM internal mail, https://www.openstreetmap.org/messages/1320527. Please go to community.openstreetmap.org and start a conversation thread to discuss this.
apm-wa (2026-01-26 22:14:31+00:00): Please also take Aleksandar's advice and revert your edits until the community has weighed in on this. I really think you are making things too complex and should try the schema I proposed.
apm-wa (2026-01-26 22:17:03+00:00): If the admin levels are to be revised wholesale, this is what I think the schema should look like:

place=province (there are 5 in Turkmenistan, though some folks INSIST on including Ashgabat because it has the legal privileges of a province), admin_level=4 

place=provincial district (has a governor), admin_level=5 

place=city, admin_level=6 

place=town, admin_level=7 

place=Rural Councils and Municipal Boroughs with mayors, Villages, admin_level=8 

place=Neighborhoods, Hamlets, Municipal Districts, admin_level=9 

place=Subdistricts (what in Russian are called микрорайон), admin_level=10
Saamat (2026-01-29 14:50:14+00:00): I started a topic on the forum right here if you guys are interested:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/admin-level-for-turkmenistan/141125
5m4u9 (2025-12-20 16:40:23+00:00): Hola, siempre que tengas el nombre del "barrio" puedes añadirlo, así ayuda mucho a los que quieren identificar un barrio en específico más allá de las calles. los barrios en el centro del mismo con un "punto/nodo".

Este mapa re replica en muchos sitios como facebook, apple, amazon, microsoft y otros distintos a google.
SafwatHalaby (2025-12-20 14:10:48+00:00): Hello! Thank you for the updates.

It seems that you accidentally disconnected way 548728490 when you removed the nonexisting bicycle track.

See here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/548728490

Or the bottom right corner here:

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=176150432
SafwatHalaby (2025-12-20 14:12:57+00:00): I've reconnected it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176182381
felipeeugenio (2025-12-20 11:49:28+00:00): deleted
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176150436
eggie (2025-12-19 18:58:52+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback..   Wat was je bedoeling? 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-19 19:21:24+00:00): a jakie są źródła tej edycji?
Dawid2849 (2025-12-20 10:26:47+00:00): Powinieneś się zapytać tego użytkownika skąd w ogóle wziął info o otwarciu: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176145737