piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mbethke (2021-01-19 06:54:29+00:00): Hi,

please have a look at the established landuse values at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse
landuse=Paddy doesn't work.

cheers,
Matthias
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:30:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:43:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
mapuit (2021-01-18 15:42:28+00:00): Hallo softcake,
du interessierst dich (deinen Änderungen nach) für Radverkehrsanlagen. Das freut mich, da gibt es ja bekanntermaßen noch viel zu tun. Ich sehe jedoch, du tagst im großen Stil Wege vom neueren highway=path auf das klassische highway=cycleway um. Nachdem beide Varianten grundsätzlich als korrekt bezeichnet werden (laut Wiki mit einer Tendenz zu "path": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren#Entscheidungshilfe_zwischen_footway.2C_cycleway_und_path), finde ich ein solches, radikales Umkartieren an den lokalen Mappern vorbei etwas dreist. Im Bereich Bayreuth kartieren die lokalen Mapper augenscheinlich seit mehreren Jahren bei kombinierten Fuß- und Radwegen mit dem highway=path Tag. Ich finde es schade, dass du deine und unsere Zeit in eine solche reine "Umtaggerei" steckst.
Darüber hinaus hast du in deiner großflächigen Kartieraktion auch Fußwege, die für Fahradfahrende freigegeben sind, in Fahrradwege umkartiert. Das ist so eine falsche Kartierung, die vor Ort durch Beschildung und bauliche Gestaltung klar erkennbar wird (besonders prominent finde ich da die Durchlässe an den Stadthallen-Turnhallen).
Vielleicht gibt es Gründe, die ich gerade nicht verstehe für deine Aktion. Deswegen bitte ich dich, der OSM-Community deine Beweggründe für diese Edits mitzuteilen.
Beste Grüße und Danke
mapvid
softcake (2021-01-18 18:16:10+00:00): Hallo mapvid,
vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Da bin ich wohl diesbezüglich etwas über's Ziel hinausgeschossen. Werde versuchen, die betroffenen Änderungen rückgängig zu machen.
Ist das ok?
Gruß, softcake
mapuit (2021-01-18 20:38:47+00:00): Hallo softcake,
vielen lieben Dank für den schnellen Revert. Ja, das ist super so. Ich habe noch die Geschichte an der Stadtbad-Turnhalle korrigiert und noch ein paar Radwege um Leineck/Friedrichsthal. Ansonsten vielen Dank fürs Arbeiten an Radwegen!
Beste Grüße
mapvid
zorglubu (2021-01-19 17:27:41+00:00): Bonjour,

Merci pour votre contribution.
Je vous invite à veiller à indiquer, chaque fois que le ruisseau traverse une route ou un chemin, s'il passe sous un pont ou s'il est enterré.
Voir par exemple https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:bridge (au moins bridge=yes + layer=1 sur le tronçon de route)
ou
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:tunnel%3Dculvert

On met aussi des majuscules sur OSM : "Le Guelbe".

Surtout, continuez à participer :-)
Bien cordialement.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:40:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
ScottWalkerAU (2021-01-17 09:03:15+00:00): Hi - you should either map the steps along the way, or tag it as wheelchair=no, else routers will try to use it for mobility impaired users.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97629249
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:30:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:33:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
PT-53 (2021-01-31 07:48:48+00:00): Hallo ***juggernaut***,
eigentlich ist doch nur die "Neckartalhochbrücke" eine Baustelle und der Rest der B 32 nur gesperrt.
Ich persönlich würde daher auch nur die "Neckartalhochbrücke" mit 
highway=construction + construction=*
markieren und den Rest mit
access=no
sperren.
Unabhängig davon müßten doch auch noch diese Straßenabschnitte
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/246901279/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/422322582/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/422322584/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/422322588/history
gesperrt werden ?
Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?
Grüße
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:30:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:35:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:41:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
user_5239402 (2021-01-17 10:42:20+00:00): 안녕하세요 
바뀜집합의 댓글을 구체적으로 작성하시기 바랍니다.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:37:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:34:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
VISHNU K C (2021-01-17 14:44:41+00:00): The residential road mapped by you crosses a building and is not connected to service road already mapped.
(Short key: Q) Please check it... Happy mapping... #Naksha2021 --- #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97630320
VISHNU K C (2021-01-17 14:47:21+00:00): Changes made...issue solved
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97630320
Shahir N C (2021-01-17 16:30:54+00:00): I feel like I did nothing wrong
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97630320
Friendly_Ghost (2021-01-19 01:17:00+00:00): Hallo. Uit nieuwsgierigheid: waar komen de gegevens van deze brandkranen vandaan? Ben je ze allemaal langsgegaan zoals je in je bronvermelding hebt genoemd, of zitten hier ook andere gegevens achter?
Aetiusjp (2021-01-19 13:33:06+00:00): hallo!  Al deze brandkranen werden door mijn eigen ogen gezien.  Ik woon in de buurt van het industriegebied en was aan het oefenen met het toevoegen van infrastructuur nodes.  Extra tags waren afkomstig van informatie op de aanduidingsbordje.
Friendly_Ghost (2021-01-19 18:06:02+00:00): Dat heb je dan netjes gedaan. Ga vooral zo door :)
eda_n (2021-01-30 14:21:52+00:00): Le kiné n'est pas tout le bâtiment. Je vais le passer en point sur le bâtiment. Merci.
zorglubu (2021-01-17 13:18:55+00:00): Bonjour,

Un chemin comme https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/896115357#map=19/48.80712/2.29462 , qui en croise d'autres, doit impérativement partager un nœud à l'intersection. Ou alors il s'agit d'un pont, tunnel, etc.
Bien cordialement.
aceman444 (2021-06-18 14:46:43+00:00): Zdravim, takze znacka obytnej zony z Kriznej na juh do toho dvora tam uz nie je? Na to by som sa pozrel. Ak nie, potom preco ste ponechali niektore useky, ako napr. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/515056083?
aceman444 (2021-07-03 22:19:20+00:00): Znacka obytnej zony tam je, takze neviem aky bol toto experiment, ale revertujem.
projecter63 (2021-02-05 18:04:06+00:00): Moin huebenbaecker,
zunächst einmal Danke, dass Du Dich am OSM-Projekt beteiligst und Daten hinzufügst bzw. überarbeitest.
Du hast allerdings mit diesem Änderungssatz auch einen Weg gelöscht (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/722729817), der
a) viel besser mit einem korrekten access-tag zu ergänzen gewesen wäre, da dieser Weg ja noch "da" ist und
b) hast zudem jetzt eine "Lücke" in der Relation "Wanderweg durch die Garrenseerinne zum Salemer Moor" - ID 5940886 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5940886) verursacht, die es zu reparieren gilt.
Folgender Vorschlag: Gern kannst Du die entsprechende Korrektur übernehmen. Ansonsten würde ich mich in der übernächsten Woche an den Revert des gelöschten Weges samt Ergänzung des access-tags sowie an die Reparatur der genannten Relation machen.
Grüße
projecter63
bxl-forever (2021-01-17 13:49:09+00:00): Hello,
I do not understand this change.
Why move it to layer=0 now?  This will cause validation errors with all the streets and buildings it crosses.
Was there an issue with the Humanitarian layer?
johantiden (2021-01-19 16:17:31+00:00): Hej!
Det verkar ha blivit knäppt igen här! 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5412913204/history
HansWesterback (2021-01-20 11:10:49+00:00): Hmm, fattar inte alls var den kom ifrån, två gångvägar från skolan till denna nod....? Provade att ta bort dom i Edit mode, men ser ut att ligga kvar på kartan? Kanske nån cachening?
johantiden (2021-01-20 14:14:24+00:00): Ja, de renderade bilderna är cache:ade ganska länge. Standard-lagret är snabbast på att uppdatera. Det viktiga är att det ser rätt ut i editorn.

Jag ser också fortfarande de gamla bilderna men datat ser bra ut i Vespucci.
johantiden (2021-01-20 14:14:36+00:00): Snyggt!
HansWesterback (2021-01-20 14:20:13+00:00): Bra! Men hur upptäcker du dessa missar, är det nån AI? :-)
johantiden (2021-01-20 14:29:53+00:00): Hårt jobb :)
Jag har det här filtret på Osmose, sen försöker jag att gå in där och fixa (eller trycka på ignorera) alla fel jag hittar. Ubland dyker det upp nya fel som när din ändring gjorde att ett gäng vägar korsade varandra utan att ha noder i korsen. 


http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=12&lat=59.3231&lon=18.0697&item=0000%2C0001%2C1010%2C1040%2C1050%2C1060%2C1070%2C1080%2C1090%2C1100%2C1110%2C1140%2C1150%2C1160%2C1170%2C1180%2C1190%2C1200%2C1210%2C1221%2C1230%2C1240%2C1250%2C1270%2C1280%2C1290%2C2010%2C2030%2C2040%2C2080%2C2100%2C2110%2C2120%2C2130%2C2150%2C2160%2C3010%2C3020%2C3030%2C3031%2C3032%2C3033%2C3040%2C3050%2C3060%2C3070%2C3080%2C3090%2C3091%2C3092%2C3093%2C3110%2C3120%2C3130%2C3150%2C3160%2C3170%2C3180%2C3190%2C3200%2C3210%2C3220%2C3230%2C3240%2C3250%2C3260%2C4010%2C4020%2C4040%2C4060%2C4070%2C4080%2C4090%2C4100%2C4110%2C5xxx%2C6xxx%2C7010%2C7012%2C7020%2C7050%2C7051%2C7060%2C7070%2C7080%2C7090%2C7100%2C7110%2C7120%2C7130%2C7150%2C7160%2C7170%2C7190%2C7220%2C7240%2C7250%2C8010%2C8011%2C8012%2C8020%2C8021%2C8022%2C8025%2C8026%2C8030%2C8031%2C8032%2C8040%2C8041%2C8042%2C8050%2C8051%2C8060%2C8070%2C8080%2C8090%2C8091%2C8101%2C8110%2C8120%2C8121%2C8122%2C8130%2C8131%2C8132%2C8140%2C8150%2C8160%2C8161%2C8162%2C8170%2C8180%2C8190%2C8191%2C8192%2C8200%2C8201%2C8202%2C8210%2C8211%2C8212%2C8221%2C8230%2C8240%2C8250%2C8260%2C8270%2C8280%2C8281%2C8282%2C8290%2C8310%2C8320%2C8330%2C8331%2C8340%2C8341%2C8350%2C8351%2C8370%2C8380%2C8381%2C8382%2C8390%2C8391%2C8392%2C8400%2C8401%2C8410%2C8411%2C8412%2C8420%2C8430%2C8431%2C8450%2C8460%2C9000%2C9003%2C9004%2C9005%2C9006%2C9007%2C9009%2C9010%2C9011%2C9014%2C9015%2C9016%2C9017%2C9018%2C9019%2C9100&level=1%2C2%2C3&tags=&fixable=
HansWesterback (2021-01-20 16:33:55+00:00): oj, det såg mastigt ut!
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-03-05 02:43:02+00:00): Thank you
hendrik-17 (2021-01-18 19:53:40+00:00): Moin tqbf,

da du bei diesem Änderungssatz angegeben hast, dass du deine Bearbeitungen überprüfen lassen möchtest, will ich gerne versuchen, dir hierzu eine Rückmeldung zu geben.

Ein kleiner Fehler war der Node #8329954724, welcher den Geh-/Radweg auf der Brücke mit der A7 verbindet und mit einem highway=crossing getaggt ist. Das würde bedeuten, dass man auf Weg dort die Autobahn kreuzt.

Im Übrigen gibt es in OSM ja unterschiedliche Ansichten zu dem separatem Mappen von straßenbegleitenden Geh- und Radwegen.
In diesem Fall ist an einigen Teilen vor Ort keine bauliche Trennung zwischen dem Gehweg und der Fahrbahn vorhanden.
Das Vorhandensein des straßenbegleitenden Weges war hier auch schon lange mit Tags an dem Way der Straße gekennzeichnet, teilweise sogar mit detaillierteren Informationen (z.B. way #458085792)
Ein separater Way führt in diesem Fall m. E. nicht unbedingt zu einem Mehrwert an Information. Dadurch, dass an dem Way der Straße noch die Tags vorhanden waren, sieht es für die Datenauswerter (und somit auf einigen Karten) jedenfalls so aus, als ob hier zwei Wege nebeneinander liegen würden.
Deshalb habe ich den separat gemappten Way hier erst mal wieder entfernt.

Ich hoffe, du bist damit einverstanden.

Beste Grüße
hendrik-17
ironspock (2021-01-19 20:17:14+00:00): Hallo rakulle,
ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob "Schuppen" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:building=shed) hier wirklich zutrifft.
Soweit ich mich erinnere, sind das ja "Kassenhäuschen". Vielleich passen "building=container" und eine entsprechende Beschreibung besser.
Gruss ironspock
rakulle (2021-01-20 08:47:32+00:00): Guten Morgen Ironspock, ja danke für den Hinweis. Es ist in der Tat kein Schuppen. Habe es eben wie angeregt geändert. Unpräzise Angaben passieren leicht beim Mappen mit StreetComplete - werde künftig die Kommentarfunktion dort bevorzugen. Habe dort auf Github auch gewisse Ergänzungen angeregt, um z.B. Feuerwachen als solche direkt taggen zu können.
Nakaner (2021-01-18 15:40:53+00:00): Hallo,

Poller-Nodes sollten mit dem Weg, den sie je nach Fahrzeugbreite versperren, verbunden sein. Dann können Routingdienste die Poller bei der Routenberechnung berücksichtigen und mehrspurigen Fahrzeugen einen andere Route ausgeben. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8330049815/history

Es ist unüblich bei einer Dreier-Reihe quer zu einem Weg jeden Poller einzeln zu mappen. Da wird i.d.R. nur ein Poller auf dem Weg gemappt. Eine Ausnahme sind nur Pollerreihen am Fahrbahnrand und auf Plätzen, die als Falschparkerschutz (z.B. PKW auf Gehwegen) oder der Terrorismusabwehr (Auto wird in Menschenmenge gesteuert) dienen. Beispiele für solche Pollerreihen findest du u.a. auf dem Bahnhofsvorplatz in Karlsruhe.

Viele Grüße

Michael
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/97633027
Scout Jens (2021-01-19 00:47:22+00:00): Dankeschön! Ich habe es gleich geändert.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:40:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-01-17 12:43:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 97636109 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mech edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4691 .  Revert is to status quo ante; of the ones I've checked ti-lo is right half the time and Adamant1 about half, but an undiscussed mech. edit is not the way to resolve.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-01-17 12:43:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 97636109 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mech edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4691 .  Revert is to status quo ante; of the ones I've checked ti-lo is right half the time and Adamant1 about half, but an undiscussed mech. edit is not the way to resolve.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:32:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:32:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-01-17 12:43:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 97636109 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mech edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4691 .  Revert is to status quo ante; of the ones I've checked ti-lo is right half the time and Adamant1 about half, but an undiscussed mech. edit is not the way to resolve.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:32:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-01-17 12:43:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 97636109 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mech edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4691 .  Revert is to status quo ante; of the ones I've checked ti-lo is right half the time and Adamant1 about half, but an undiscussed mech. edit is not the way to resolve.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:31:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:33:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:44:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:42:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-01-17 12:43:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 97636109 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mech edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4691 .  Revert is to status quo ante; of the ones I've checked ti-lo is right half the time and Adamant1 about half, but an undiscussed mech. edit is not the way to resolve.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:39:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-01-17 12:43:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 97636109 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mech edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4691 .  Revert is to status quo ante; of the ones I've checked ti-lo is right half the time and Adamant1 about half, but an undiscussed mech. edit is not the way to resolve.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:33:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:42:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:36:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:28:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-01-17 12:43:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 97636109 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mech edit.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4691 .  Revert is to status quo ante; of the ones I've checked ti-lo is right half the time and Adamant1 about half, but an undiscussed mech. edit is not the way to resolve.
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:29:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
SHARCRASH (2021-01-17 11:31:04+00:00): + merged equal elements
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:34:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.