piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mavl (2018-11-09 15:59:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 64327523 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: copyrighted source egrp365.ru].
mavl (2018-11-09 17:35:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 64332343 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: copyrighted source egrp365.ru].
mavl (2018-12-25 00:26:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
GerdP (2018-10-29 07:41:08+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM!
You created a lot of ways with the tag highway=crossing here. This tag should only be used on nodes, the ways are typically mapped with highway=footway + footway=crossing. See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing
Hope this helps?
mavl (2018-11-09 17:35:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 64332343 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: copyrighted source egrp365.ru].
mavl (2018-12-24 23:39:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-24 23:39:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-25 00:04:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-24 23:47:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-25 00:27:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
pangoSE (2018-10-28 17:08:01+00:00): Hej :)
Tänkte bara påminna dig om att spara historiken om det går.
Se https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history
Mvh
Egil
pangoSE (2018-10-28 17:08:15+00:00): Har du testat JOSM förresten?
gileri (2018-12-02 16:28:52+00:00): Modifications annulées : https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65099323
mavl (2018-12-25 00:14:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-25 00:03:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-25 00:32:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-11-08 03:15:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 64272210 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: copyrighted source egrp365.ru].
mavl (2018-11-08 17:02:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 64296808 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: copyrighted source egrp365.ru].
mavl (2018-11-09 17:35:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 64332343 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: copyrighted source egrp365.ru].
mavl (2018-12-24 23:43:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-12-24 23:48:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
Ohr (2018-12-09 09:01:12+00:00): Hallo,
erst gerade eben bin ich über einige Änderungen im Bereich "Kornfeld" gestolpert. Leider sind da aus meiner Sicht ein paar Sachen zumindest komisch, beispielsweise Pfade, die es so nicht gibt oder die einfach ein normaler Gehweg sind.
Bevor ich das jetzt korrigiere wollte ich aber mal nachfragen, ob es irgendeinen speziellen Grund dafür gibt.
PDVSeifert (2018-12-11 14:09:31+00:00): Hallo Ohr,
ich bin der OSM-Ansprechpartner des Verlags, für den User mai-gebietsbetreuung (und auch DWBWinkler) die OSM-Erfassungen durchführen.
Ich habe gestern nichts Auffälliges im Bereich Kornfeld gesehen, kannst Du ein paar Beispiele für falsche Erfassungen geben?
Zur Info: die Bearbeiter nutzen a) Luftbilder von Bing und LVA, und b) kommentierte Laufpläne von Zustellern, die dort Produkte verteilen und angeben, wenn sie Gebäude anders anlaufen, als das in den Plänen (also in OSM) angegeben ist. Daher sollten die Angaben eigentlich stimmen.
Grüße Dietmar Seifert, Presse-Druck-Verlag
Ohr (2018-12-14 12:10:15+00:00): Außerdem finde ich die Pfade zu den Häusern der Ludwig-Ganghofer-Straße insgesamt lustig: Es sind eher Garageneinfahrten und im Moment hat irgendwie nicht jedes Haus einen Zugang, andere dafür gleich zwei.
Ohr (2018-12-14 12:13:02+00:00): Oh, leider ist da jetzt etwas schief gelaufen und der Anfang der Nachricht fehlt oben. Hier der Teil:
Hallo,
vielen Dank für die Antwort und Entschuldigung, dass ich nicht früher zum Antworten gekommen bin. Konkret aufgefallen sind mir folgende Wege:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/638679783 (normaler Gehweg)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/638679799 und https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/493448729 (kein Pfad soweit ich weiß)
mavl (2018-12-25 00:24:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
josmougn (2019-08-19 10:08:23+00:00): bonjour, les numéros de maisons étaient déjà dans osm dans une relation rue associée. Est-ce que vous pourriez les enlever des bâtments pour éviter les doublons ? Merci.
fkv (2018-12-31 21:13:11+00:00): Haben diese road surfaces irgendwas mit der Realität zu tun, oder setzt du sie nach dem Zufallsprinzip? Z.B. Way 136735705 hat tracktype=grade2, aber du setzt surface=asphalt, das ist ein Widerspruch.
Stmichi68 (2019-01-02 09:59:49+00:00): Servus Friedrich,

Weg 136735705 wollte ich eigentlich nicht angeben, sondern die L102. Street Complete zeigt das auf dem Smartphone leider etwas ungenau an, war mein Fehler. Ich habe den Wert von surface gelöscht.  
Besagter Weg ist bis ca. zum Punkt 1500194551 asphaltiert, siehe Luftbild. 
Da ich die Strecke Pöttsching – Mannersdorf am Leithagebirge (mein Heimatort) sehr oft befahre, kenne ich die Straßen dort sehr gut.
Da wir alle nach bestem Wissen am gleichen Ziel arbeiten, hätte ich mich über eine etwas konstruktivere Kontaktaufnahme deinerseits gefreut.

LG
Michael
fkv (2019-01-02 10:48:25+00:00): Dann tut mir leid, dass ich dich so angegangen bin. Ich habe oft mit Leuten zu tun, die ohne Ortskenntnis alles umändern (und dann meist nicht mal auf meine Anfragen reagieren), und wusste nicht, dass du eine Ausnahme bist. Mannersdorf ist spannend, gestern hab ich dort eine neue, vom Baxa-Steinbruch angefahrene Höhle entdeckt.
Stmichi68 (2019-01-02 13:04:15+00:00): Passt, vergeben und vergessen. Den BAXA Kalkofen sehe ich von meinem Haus …
mueschel (2018-11-06 14:47:03+00:00): Hallo,
du benutzt hier Keys wie "direction_west_1" - üblich ist aber die Schreibweise mit Doppelpunkt: "direction_west:1" - ich habe gerade einige davon korrigiert.

Gruß, Jan
eggie (2018-10-28 11:39:15+00:00): Dag Dylan.. Probeer svp bij te taggen op de bestaande adresnode nr 42. Dus niet zelf nog een keer een adres aanmaken in OSM. Dan krijg je dubbelingen.
MVG,
Eggie

*(
MAPS.ME is helaas niet de optimale editor voor OpenStreetMap. Waardoor vervuiling kan ontstaan.
Het is eigenlijk noodzakelijk dat u de edit controleert middels JOSM, Potlatch of ID om evt. vervuiling tegen te gaan.
U bent namelijk middels uw toevoeging verantwoordelijk voor wat u in OSM brengt.
Wij danken u voor uw begrip en we hopen dat u goede aanvullingen verricht op OSM.

Kleine aanpassing verricht: 
► Uw node samengevoegd met bestaande adresnode
eggie (2018-10-28 11:42:18+00:00): web adres verbeterd
GerdP (2019-08-15 06:29:33+00:00): Hi!
You added surface=paving_stones and mtb:scale:uphill=4 to this path. Looks wrong to me, probably this way is not paved at all?
solitone (2019-08-15 06:36:16+00:00): It is an old military path, and it is definitely paved, with large flat stones. Sure, it is an old paving, similar to the kind of paving you find in old mule paths in the Alps.

As for mtb:scale:uphill=4, it means the path is so steep that you can't pedal your bike uphill, you have to push your bike up. Why do you feel it is wrong?
GerdP (2019-08-15 06:43:42+00:00): I wonder if I can travel this path with a trekking bike (downhill). 
I looked at the pictures for mtb:scale=2 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale#mtb:scale.3D0-6
and the wiki for surface=paving_stones says "A relatively smooth surface ..."
solitone (2019-08-15 06:59:25+00:00): Not with a tekking bike, but with a mountain bike you can ride it. I did it last autumn, and to me it is a S2 difficulty. S3 is much more difficult.

paving_stones is closer the value I found for that kind of surface. cobblestone could be also used, but usually with cobblestone we mean smaller stones. Please let me know what you think, and if you have an alternative, please tell me.
GerdP (2019-08-15 07:04:10+00:00): OK, thanks for the info. I agree that both the uphill part as well as the downhill part are too steep, wouldn't be much fun for me. Maybe you can add smoothness?
GerdP (2018-10-29 07:48:27+00:00): Hi! You added highway=crossing to a boundary here, I've reverted this:https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63968626
You probably wanted to add this to a node instead?
GerdP (2018-11-01 16:34:06+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM!
I've removed the natural=coastline way, please be very careful when using this tag. See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline
ivanbranco (2021-12-01 10:13:39+00:00): Hi maction,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/551165474/history

3 years passed, do you know if it's still at the "planned" stage? :)
maction (2021-12-02 21:14:35+00:00): Hi ivanbranco, 

Considering new Berlin airport (BER), 3 years is no significant time range. ;-)

Seriously, existing buildings had to be razed in a first step which took some time. But meanwhile construction works have started. However, some weeks ago they still had been busy with underground works. A long as there's nothing visible I would leave the roads, paths, buildings, etc. as planned for the time being. You may have noted a couple of updates in the area that have been applied meanwhile. Passing by every now and then, I will keep the area up-to-date.

Cheers,
Mac
will_p (2018-10-28 13:43:57+00:00): Hi,
Did you intend to add the house number to St Nicholas church? If so, what's the source? It's rare for old churches to have numbers. Also, in this case, there is a number 10 on the other side of the road.
Thanks,
Will
Dave Venables (2018-10-28 14:11:57+00:00): The number appears in search results for "St Nicholas Lockington" but does not show on the website or facebook page of the church. I have removed it and will take more care in the future.
will_p (2018-10-28 22:15:06+00:00): Thanks for correcting the address.

Could I point out though, addresses shown on Google search pages are definitely not a suitable source for OSM. The same applies to all other Google data (Google Maps, etc.). It is important to make sure the data sources you use are suitable for OSM. For addresses, websites belonging to individual businesses and organisations are generally OK, as are datasets released under the Open Government Licence (such as FHRS and Code-Point Open), but most other sources should be avoided.
aixbrick (2018-10-28 10:36:27+00:00): Hallo,
wie in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63934233 schon geschrieben: traffic_signals:direction ist bei Einbahnstraßen und traffic_signals = signal grundsätzlich unnötig. Bitte höre umgehend auf diese zu ergänzen!
Gruß
mueschel (2018-11-08 18:47:07+00:00): Hi,
could you check this node, it got a strange tag:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5985405442

Thanks, Jan
mavl (2018-11-08 17:02:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 64296808 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: copyrighted source egrp365.ru].
tux67 (2018-10-28 15:13:38+00:00): Hi,

bei Schulte und Sohn gilt wieder daß der Name alleine nicht reicht. Was machen die denn.. ??

Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/63946585
WolfGb (2018-10-29 09:09:41+00:00): Fleisch- und Wurstwaren.
Kein Metzgereiladen.
Welches Symbol ist das richtige?
tux67 (2018-10-29 09:12:56+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:industrial
industrial=slaughterhouse würde ich sagen ..
tux67 (2018-10-31 08:19:05+00:00): Hab' ich jetzt selber eingetragen ..
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/63946585
mavl (2018-12-24 23:48:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 65744804, 65751034, 65750264, 65748673 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, damage - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/2400].
mavl (2018-11-09 17:42:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 64333168 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: copyrighted source egrp365.ru].
tux67 (2018-10-28 15:42:15+00:00): Hi WolfGb,
etwas mehr Sorgfalt wäre wünschswert. Du hast hier den Cellino zum 2ten Mal angelegt, genauso wie den McDonalds (und den "Original" POI auf einen Node an 2 Gebäuden verklebt). Die Targobank einen Block weiterverschleppt - aber mit alter Adresse.
Die Fehler sind jetzt korregiert.
Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/63946742
mavl (2018-11-09 17:42:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 64333168 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: copyrighted source egrp365.ru].
JJIglesias (2018-10-30 06:33:36+00:00): El Campo Comments es para que expliques cual fue la naturaleza del cambio que hiciste y el Por que lo hiciste. No para que coloques tu nombre. Ya sabemos Quien hizo el cambio. Lo que queremos saber es el por que lo hiciste. 
Slds 
JJ
WolfGb (2018-10-29 09:07:25+00:00): Das sieht schon viel besser aus, wenn auch die Luftbilder nicht alles wiedergen.
Aber wenn keine Attachments übertragen werden, muß man damit leben.
tux67 (2018-10-29 09:17:34+00:00): Auch wenn das Bild da  wäre - aufgrund der unklaren Urheberrechts Lage wäre es nicht zu verwenden.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/63947432
Omnific (2018-10-28 15:39:28+00:00): Please explain what this is. Thanks.
eggie (2018-10-28 17:49:29+00:00): review.. Een adres hoort niet op een gebouw. Die gecombineerde nummers zijn al aanwezig als het goed is op de BAG adresnodes. Het adres kun je dus beter van het gebouw zelf afhalen.
Groet,
Eggie
eggie (2018-10-28 17:54:27+00:00): Hier zie je welke adres- nodes op het gebouw horen 
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=rijnstraat%2074,%20arn&resultOffset=0&detailsObjectId=0202010000372919
Supaplex (2019-02-06 17:08:50+00:00): 恭喜您完成第一次的地圖編輯！ 歡迎加入開放街圖，群眾共同參與，繪製生活週遭大家關心事物的共編地圖。以下是相關的參考資料，歡迎隨時指教與提問。

編輯須知
台灣的標示依循準則可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taiwan
常見的圖徵標示方式可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features
給Pokemon Go玩家的建議：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers

台灣社群網站
台灣 OpenStreetMap 網站 http://www.openstreetmap.tw
臉書粉絲頁OpenStreetMap台灣 https://www.facebook.com/opestreetmaptaiwan/
台灣社群Facebook社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Telegram OpenStreetMap Taiwan https://t.me/joinchat/Aqu2IgnTuIidMfREdNmomQ
Telegram OpenStreetMap Asia  https://t.me/OpenStreetMapAsia
Slack https://osm-tw.signup.team/

Happy Mapping!
ChehrehBargi (2025-02-17 16:07:34+00:00): Hi, you have used the tag place=neighbourhood for مجتمع مسکونی انارستان which is wrong for a residential complex. This tag is used for a neighborhood.
mavl (2018-11-09 17:42:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 64333168 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: copyrighted source egrp365.ru].
eggie (2018-10-28 17:45:30+00:00): Je vraagt om een review.. Lijkt me oke zo.
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2018-10-28 17:44:21+00:00): review: Ja een correcte naam is altijd beter .
YraFyra (2018-10-29 21:43:19+00:00): Hej,
Bra att du lägger in byggnader med info. Dock blir det många taggar med liknande eller duplicerad info: Byggnaden, adressnod, och en gammal nod med byggnad+adress.
All info skulle kunna läggas i byggnaden.
literan (2018-10-28 15:24:24+00:00): что-то здесь получилось две линии деревьев прямо на проезжей части Челобитьевского шоссе
literan (2018-10-28 15:25:05+00:00): одна его даже пересекает
Vladislav D (2018-10-29 05:16:28+00:00): Приветствую!
Эти линии деревьев очень вплотную к дороге расположены, соответственно и нарисованы рядом были. Сейчас, я немного отодвинул их от дороги, чтобы не некладывались на итоговом слое (в редакторе все было ок).
Посмотрю, как будет на общедоступном слое, и в случае чего подредактирую.
didier2020 (2018-11-02 21:40:46+00:00): Bonjour,
faire attention a l'envoie d'adresse en double
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/graph.png?source=2370&item=1230&class=3&start_date=2018-10
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/errors/graph.png?source=2374&item=1230&class=3&start_date=2018-10
flohoff (2018-10-31 10:30:58+00:00): Moin Peter,
ich denke du wolltest hier einen schuppen eintragen. Das ist nen bischen missglückt. Im moment ist er dreieckig nachdem ein andere user schon doppelte Nodes entfernt hat ;)

Ein Schuppen wäre in tags "building=shed" - Das ist jetzt ein leisure=track - Dazu hast du da ein amenity=bicycle_parking eingetragen. 

Ich vermute das ist ein privater Schuppen und kein öffentlicher Fahrradparkplatz oder?

Flo
viloan (2018-10-28 13:28:31+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
GerdP (2018-10-29 07:44:28+00:00): Moin! Ich habe hier ein highway=crossing an einem landuse=residential entfernt:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63968545
Anscheinend hast Du in Go Map! das falsche Object ausgewählt?
tordans (2018-11-02 21:19:28+00:00): Autsch. Danke @GerdP! Sieht mir nach einem unbeabsichtigten "paste"/einfügen von Daten aus der Zwischenablage aus.

https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/63950501/
GerdP (2018-10-29 08:38:03+00:00): Hi!
Please check typo highway=untrack
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593192830
I guess you wanted to change it from unclassified to track, but the northern end 
is still a bridge with highway=tertiary which is connected to a highway=unclassified.
Please note that highway=track implies that the road is "mostly agricultural use".
In case of way 593192830 I would opt for unclassified, as well as for the bridge.
GnasherNF (2018-10-30 00:00:25+00:00): Hi. Thanks for pointing out the typo. I will correct the spelling. Most of the these roads are unpaved with a prepared roadbed, but are in various states of disrepair. I had been tagging them as unclassified but came under some criticism by other mappers who believed they should all be tagged as track. The forum topic is still open and opinions are welcome.  https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=62581
GerdP (2018-10-30 07:22:49+00:00): I am not a local, so I won't contribute to the discussion. What I see now after your recent changes looks good to me.
AlaskaDave (2021-11-28 09:24:12+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for your work in Khao Yai NP a few years ago. I have some questions about it.

You "adjusted" a trail in this changeset, left a "fixme" on a nearby trail, "Trail no. 9"  saying that it was inaccurate and should be removed but you didn't remove it yourself. I am left to wonder if the new trail should replace the other inaccurate one, but you didn't add any name to the adjusted trail. 

Why did you do it that way? It leaves other mappers with several questions about how to proceed. Does your new "path" replace the old Trail No 9? 

I am not in the park now but I'm trying to check details before my trip there in December so I can't do a ground survey.  Can you recall your reasoning in this case?

Thanks,