OpenStreetMap (OSM) is a vital resource for investigative journalists doing geolocation verification. However, existing tools to query OSM data such as Overpass Turbo require familiarity with complex query languages, creating barriers for non-technical users. We present SPOT, an open source natural language interface that makes OSM’s rich, tag-based geographic data more accessible through intuitive scene descriptions. SPOT interprets user inputs as structured representations of geospatial object configurations using fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs), with results being displayed in an interactive map interface. While more general geospatial search tasks are conceivable, SPOT is specifically designed for use in investigative journalism, addressing real-world challenges such as hallucinations in model output, inconsistencies in OSM tagging, and the noisy nature of user input. It combines a novel synthetic data pipeline with a semantic bundling system to enable robust, accurate query generation. To our knowledge, SPOT is the first system to achieve reliable natural language access to OSM data at this level of accuracy. By lowering the technical barrier to geolocation verification, SPOT contributes a practical tool to the broader efforts to support fact-checking and combat disinformation.

This paper addresses debiasing in news editing and evaluates the effectiveness of conversational Large Language Models in this task. We designed an evaluation checklist tailored to news editors’ perspectives, obtained generated texts from three popular conversational models using a subset of a publicly available dataset in media bias, and evaluated the texts according to the designed checklist. Furthermore, we examined the models as evaluator for checking the quality of debiased model outputs. Our findings indicate that none of the LLMs are perfect in debiasing. Notably, some models, including ChatGPT, introduced unnecessary changes that may impact the author’s style and create misinformation. Lastly, we show that the models do not perform as proficiently as domain experts in evaluating the quality of debiased outputs.