piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Arlo James Barnes (2022-12-12 16:40:16+00:00): Probably because I forgot about alt_name and such at the time of last editing. Really the whole area needs a little rearchitecting to strictly separate the structure from its uses. Pflueger is the name of the family that constructed the building in the late 1800s, and as far as I know the only name for the structure (although parts have been added on and renovated since); Pink Garter, Legal Tender, and Lamy Railroad and History Museum are each names for different organisations that have owned or leased the building over the decades. Currently no business occurs there as of a month ago.
blackboxlogic (2021-11-24 18:29:10+00:00): Looks like you're on a swimming pool kick. Consider adding access=private when it's someone's backyard so it doesn't look like a community pool.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114007408
Mammi71 (2021-11-21 21:12:00+00:00): vergessen: source=GeoBasis-DE/LGB (2021)/ SDOP
Mammi71 (2021-11-21 21:11:50+00:00): vergessen: source=GeoBasis-DE/LGB (2021)/ SDOP
PT-53 (2021-12-30 08:02:11+00:00): Hallo  sulagaloh,
D hast diese Zufahrt (?)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1004525426/history
neu eingezeichnet, aber keine Merkmale dazu eingetragen.

Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?

Fragende Grüße und einen Guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr
PT-53 (2022-01-16 14:34:51+00:00): Merkmale ergänzt.
Danke
Frans S (2021-12-13 10:36:29+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:
E: Rectangular Buildings not squared. (93 out of 96)
Please don't map a yard as a building.


Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
More help information:
View this video's about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
More info can be found on https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114008317
eggie (2021-11-19 21:19:17+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback  .. Maak svp geen edits in een groter gebied dan een straat. Je 2de changeset gaat over de hele wereld.

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2021-11-19 21:21:44+00:00): Hier is iets fout gegaan..  Je hebt het potlood niet van het papier gehaald en bent heen en terug een lijn aan het trekken.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=114008334

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-11-19 21:34:35+00:00): Het dubbele pad heb ik verwijderd. 
Nu is het oke.
Gr eggie
Intrinsical (2021-11-22 00:03:09+00:00): The bounding box doesn't need to be so large.
InsertUser (2021-11-25 02:00:37+00:00): Is way 1004521433  really called  Housey?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114008469
rskedgell (2024-11-11 08:50:09+00:00): What is the point of these sidewalks, other than decorative mapping for the renderer?

Sidewalks which do not connect via crossings at junctions are at best useless for pedestrian navigation, but often create absurdly circuitous routes.
user_5359 (2021-11-20 15:55:01+00:00): Hallo! Bitte schau Dir http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9268220019 an: Was soll die Bedeutung des Tag "zeigt nach West und Süd"="50" sein?
Karthoo (2021-11-20 18:21:58+00:00): Hallo, das kommt dabei raus, wenn man in JOSM ins Key-Feld, statt ins Tag-Feld klickt und es nicht merkt. Danke für den Hinweis, habs korrigiert!
eggie (2021-11-19 21:23:47+00:00): Reverted by changeset #114008923

Please decrease your edit area.
I reverted your edits. If you have any questions about it please reply. 

Greetz,
eggie
EP_Repair (2021-12-16 07:40:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114990646 where the changeset comment is: revert damaging, unconventional, and fictious golf course edits as per Ticket#2021121310000109 at Baker Park
4004 (2021-11-21 23:48:18+00:00): ого, на бинге видно новые дома.
надеюсь, вы не использовали несовсместимые источники
SHARCRASH (2021-12-02 20:27:59+00:00): Bonjour! Après autant de contributions vous devriez passer sur l'editeur JOSM. Après l'avoir pris en main assez vite et avec quelques plugins indispensables, vous contribuerez beaucoup plus vite et facilement. Cela vous permettra soit de gagner du temps libre ou de contribuer encore plus. 
Les plugins que je vous conseille sont:
- alignways
- continuousdownload
- contourmerge
- utilsplugin2
- reltoolbox
Certains auront peut être un pack à pré-installer.
Exemple de mon changeset pour faire des corrections et contributions en 40 min: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114497050

Quelques observations:
- Vous avez mis une foret sur une foret, à éviter car des personnes qui calculeraient la superficie des forets dans une région ou plus en serait erronée s'ils ne prennent pas en compte les polygones superposés. Avec JOSM vous auriez pu vite découper la foret pour délimiter l'entité du Bois des Fontaines.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1005681525 je ne vois pas de pont sur les photos, mais un ford. Le pont est nouveau?
pbnoxious (2021-11-20 08:06:37+00:00): Not sure why this "fixes" any bus route, this just adds another stop position (that was already mapped a bit further north) at a wrong position, without actually changing the bus route.
Please check your edits, I will revert this one.
pbnoxious (2021-11-20 08:09:47+00:00): Oh, it actually added it to the routes, my mistake. Still the stop position was already existing at the correct spot.
Reverted this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114018474
itineris (2022-02-18 21:17:44+00:00): Szia!

A oneway=-1-et nem szeretjük. Az a jó, ha a vonal iránya egyezik az egyirányúsággal, és a rendes oneway=yes címke van rajta.

Köszönöm:
Ákos
nagy_balint (2022-02-19 08:49:00+00:00): Szia!

Most nem volt módom belépni JOSM-be és megfordítani, webes felületről pedig így gyorsan megvolt, nem felejtettem el.

Üdv:
nagy_balint
woodpeck_repair (2023-01-03 12:17:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 130822479, 130823603, 130822659, 130821821, 130822156, 130821684, 130823808, 130823423, 130823995, 130823041, 130821981, 130818753, 130822310, 130822822, 130823241 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by Designer1 because they often damaged existing non-golf infrastructure and individually reverting only the problematic edits would have been too much work
Pfälzer669 (2021-11-20 17:32:33+00:00): Hallo Interteutones,

Du hast mit diesem Changeset und zwei anderen von gestern Abend verschiedene Stücke des Verlaufs der ehem. Wasgenwaldbahn mit name-Tags versehen, nämlich "Wasgenwaldbahn", "Ehem. Wasgenwaldbahn" und "Trasse ehem. Wasgenwaldbahn". 

Ich hatte Dich bereits im Frühjahr auf die korrekte Verwendung des Name-Tag hingewiesen und um Beachtung gebeten. Im Wiki ist es hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Names#name_ist_nur_der_Name klar beschrieben, weshalb ich Dich bitten möchte, dies in Zukunft zu beachten. Der Name-Tag wird nur für Namen (z.B. Christus-Kirche, Albert-Müller-Platz, Metzgerei Meyer,...) verwendet. Es heißt nämlich kein Stück des Radweges "Wasgenwaldbahn" oder so ähnlich. 

Es macht viel Arbeit, solche Änderungen wieder zu korrigieren und die Daten an die Vorgaben aus dem Wiki anzupassen.  Für Hinweise auf historische Nutzung kannst Du z.B. den description-Tag benutzen, Du kannst auch die OpenHistoricalMap (https://openhistoricalmap.org) nutzen, wenn Du historische Dinge erfassen willst. 

Wir mappen bei OSM nicht für Renderer, d.h. Kartenersteller wie Mapnik/carto (also den Stil, den Du in openstreetmap.org siehst), sondern wir befüllen eine Datenbank. Mapnik/carto stellt nur ausgewählte Daten aus dieser Datenbank auf der auf openstreetmap.org ersichtlichen Karte dar.

Bitte beachte die Regeln, die uns allen ein Arbeiten mit OSM leichter machen. Denn es macht keinen Sinn, wenn jeder sich "seine Karte" bastelt. Dann kann man dieses tolle Projekt OSM schnell begraben. 

Vielen Dank!

Pfälzer669
Loneship (2021-11-21 10:41:15+00:00): Hallo Interteutones,

ich kann hier Pfälzer669 zu 100 % zustimmen, du verwendest an sehr vielen Objekten den name-Tag, obwohl in den meisten Fällen der description-Tag angebrachter wäre.

Bitte beachte zukünftig die Hinweise hier und auch aus anderen Changeset-Kommentaren weiterer User.

Danke!

Loneship
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-11-29 01:50:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114341892 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some fantasy mapping in Scotland and Brazil.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5480 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-11-29 01:50:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114341892 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some fantasy mapping in Scotland and Brazil.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5480 .
hauke-stieler (2021-11-19 22:25:45+00:00): Nachtrag Quelle: War vor Ort.
Filip009 (2021-11-20 07:20:42+00:00): Zdroj údajov by sa mal uvádzať presne, prosím do budúcnosti používajte "Ortofotomozaika SR" :)
Mirecnet (2021-11-23 19:35:05+00:00): No jo...to su strare veci. Vtedy este nebolo zjednotene, ako ortomapa bude oznacovat. Ak najdes chybu, kludne ju oprav. Dakujem.
Stalker61 (2021-11-20 04:33:50+00:00): 
Добрый день. Это название не есть имя собственное - Волга, Дон, Холмогоры, Вятка и т.д. А DWG в курсе вашей отсебятины. Требования пользовательских соглашений обязательны для всех участников OSM и вы не исключение.
Stalker61 (2021-11-20 04:46:54+00:00): Хоть с чем то ознакомьтесь более подробно, а потом доказывайте аргументированно. свою позицию.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:name
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Имя_собственное
Не надо так откровенно считать других дурнее себя.
Stalker61 (2021-11-20 05:04:19+00:00): Такой маленький ликбез - https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=782669#p782669
MxxCon (2021-11-20 16:45:29+00:00): Hello.
Could you please elaborate on this edit? Why is it fenced off?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114011952
rhf22 (2021-11-21 16:16:08+00:00): Park is completely overgrown and has fence with no entry signs on it. There is not active construction work to improve the park happening
MxxCon (2021-11-21 18:16:38+00:00): Then perhaps its worth drawing the fence where appropriate and mark the area/park as brownfield?
MxxCon (2021-11-21 18:18:48+00:00): Although, looking at the Bing satellite imagery, which was taken approximately a month or two ago, I can see cars parked inside and people playing on one of the fields. So it seems like it's active..?
Stalker61 (2021-11-20 09:32:00+00:00): official_name это всё на что вы можете рассчитывать. Не надо вносить данные под рендер и с позиции личных хотелок. Есть желание массового внести данные в тег name по автодорогам, то велкам на форум в соответствующую тему - https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64443&p=26
Кремлёвский штурман (2021-11-20 10:44:05+00:00): Любой пользователь OSM должен видеть официальное название дороги, если нет у неё собственного имени, например «Дон» или «Урал», или исторического названия, как например «Можайское шоссе» или «Военно-Грузинская дорога», просто открыв карту, не входя в теги и не гадая ребусы типа «Что же это за дорога Р-92?». Следуя Вашей логике, тогда не следует указывать номера дорога, т.к. номер дороги и её название не разрывны, в Вы это разрываете. Не вижу смысла обсуждать это на форуме т.к. на территории многих субъектов России указаны названия дорог, а не только их номера на протяжении многих лет. Это не личная хотелка, т.к. названия дорог нужны большинству пользователей hk причине указанной выше, а Вы только усложняете пользование картой. Тем более, что указание названий дорог не протворечит правилам OSM, а итоги обсуждения на форуме носят лишь рекомендательный характер. Прошу прекратить удаление названий дорог и восстановить удаленное.
Stalker61 (2021-11-20 16:43:10+00:00): Понятно. Значится по вашему все-равно не будет. Вы так ничего и не поняли. Есть установленный порядок и раз нет желания его признавать, то значит принудим. Нравится вам это или нет. Не вы первый.
желаю удачи на канадской границе. :)
Stalker61 (2021-11-20 16:44:17+00:00): Будет так, как установлено правилами.
Кремлёвский штурман (2021-11-21 16:13:09+00:00): В правилах ничего подобного нет, а то что решили на форуме носит рекомендательный характер. Будете принуждать — придется обратиться в Роскомнадзор.
user_5359 (2021-12-29 18:35:36+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1004595132 ? What is the meaning of the tag yes=yes?
❤️‍🔥 (2021-12-30 21:10:14+00:00): oops, not sure how that happened, thanks for noticing. must have been a copy-paste error. I'm pretty sure this is http://selwyn.school.nz/Web/3339 , will confirm and then fix the tags
woodpeck_repair (2023-01-03 12:16:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 130822479, 130823603, 130822659, 130821821, 130822156, 130821684, 130823808, 130823423, 130823995, 130823041, 130821981, 130818753, 130822310, 130822822, 130823241 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by Designer1 because they often damaged existing non-golf infrastructure and individually reverting only the problematic edits would have been too much work
harahu (2024-09-08 22:17:37+00:00): Hei,

Jeg ser at du i dette changesettet la til track_ref på sporene på Grefsen. To av sporene endte opp med ref 3. Jeg ville tenkt at det ene skulle hatt ref 4. Tar jeg feil her?
woodpeck_repair (2023-01-03 12:17:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 130822479, 130823603, 130822659, 130821821, 130822156, 130821684, 130823808, 130823423, 130823995, 130823041, 130821981, 130818753, 130822310, 130822822, 130823241 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by Designer1 because they often damaged existing non-golf infrastructure and individually reverting only the problematic edits would have been too much work
Soshal Distan Singh (2021-11-20 01:28:13+00:00): "Note that iD pushes adding this tags at any intersection of railway=tram and road centerline, despite that due to our mapping practices it often is not representing place of a tram crossing."

Сорян... Больше не буду вестись на эти предложения от iD.
tastrax (2021-12-06 07:47:14+00:00): Should these be vehicle tracks or walking tracks (I can see vehicle pads in some areas)? If they are accessible to the public then access=no needs to be removed.
AlbyDangles (2021-12-06 08:34:43+00:00): I was researching this area for an upcoming walk and traced these tracks from the aerial imagery as I'm not sure of the vehicular access I thought it would be better to ere on the side of caution and say no vehicle access.
tastrax (2021-12-06 08:51:03+00:00): In that case it should be motor_vehicle=no and still remove the access=no https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno
RSota (2021-11-30 10:02:41+00:00): Hi, just getting in touch as there's been some discussion regarding your changes of some footpaths to pedestrian streets on the OSM Talk-AU forum here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-November/015336.html. 
In summary, pedestrian streets should only be used when they appear as such on the ground. They shouldn't be used to imply pedestrian routes or hierarchies regardless of their appearance. E.g. sections of Rainforest Walk and Sports Walk are simple footpaths not wide enough to be considered a "street" or "road" for pedestrians. 
To denote a walking route, you could try tagging "route=foot" on the relevant ways rather than changing all the ways to pedestrian streets. More information on routes, pedestrian streets and footpaths can be found on the OSM Wiki: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway
Cheers.
marczoutendijk (2022-11-08 09:59:46+00:00): Hi,
The correct way to tag a building is with building=yes.
Don't use name=* to describe what something is:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1004613190
I fixed the building, but don't know what you mean with "type=comman"
RussNelson (2022-10-06 01:16:30+00:00): Hi, Greg. What gave you the idea that the Dunderberg Spiral Railway was to have been narrow gauge? Joseph Brennan says that it was to have been standard gauge. https://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/dunderberg/history.html
Greg_Rose (2022-10-06 02:30:43+00:00): TBH, I did about 5 mins of research (including looking at your photos) and I remember now is that the Mauch Chunk narrow gauge was the inspiration. That and looking at the grading of some of the curves had me thinking it wasn't standard gauge. Thanks for the heads-up!
RSota (2021-11-30 10:05:39+00:00): Hi, similar comments to those I added in your other changeset 114013893. Regarding your changes to some footpaths into pedestrian streets, there's been a bit of discussion on the OSM Talk-AU forum here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-November/015336.html. 
In summary, pedestrian streets should only be used when they appear as such on the ground. They shouldn't be used to imply pedestrian routes or hierarchies regardless of their appearance. E.g. sections of Rainforest Walk and Chancellors Walk are simple footpaths not wide enough to be considered a "street" or "road" for pedestrians. 
To denote a walking route, you could try tagging "route=foot" on the relevant ways rather than changing all the ways to pedestrian streets. More information on routes, pedestrian streets and footpaths can be found on the OSM Wiki: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dfoot
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway
Cheers.
Bob42nd (2021-12-01 04:27:57+00:00): G'day, I've done a partial revert of the insufficiently wide footways here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114426190

I do see the asphalt area of college walk/exhibition street as sufficiently pedestrian, but I do agree with your assessment of rainforest walk/chancellor's walk as being too narrow.
Friendly_Ghost (2022-05-17 12:48:43+00:00): Hi,

Some ways were imported with a type=multipolygon tag. Could this be cleaned up?

Kind regards,

Casper
❤️‍🔥_import (2022-05-18 22:51:10+00:00): thanks for noticing this, I've fixed the 6 ways in https://osm.org/changeset/121167308
Friendly_Ghost (2022-05-19 20:07:10+00:00): Thank you for fixing it. Have a good day :)
ftcat (2021-11-23 14:33:39+00:00): Unless you know for sure do not change the tagging of trunk roads in Zambia it is beyond the scope of HOT projects.
Sandal man (2021-11-20 20:12:40+00:00): Hola, has oblidat les etiquetes aquí.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1004627944
Saludos Jan
idrissi (2021-11-21 03:56:33+00:00): Gràcies.
Corregit
Percherie (2023-06-06 07:33:46+00:00): Bonjour Pyrog,


Je viens de voir poper une erreur sur JOSM et c'est probablement un faux positif.
Je ne connaît pas cette façon de taguer le noeud https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1910495291
Est-ce que lwn_name ne pourrait pas être porté par un noeud séparé sur chemin ? Sous un autre tag ?
Est-ce que network:type ne devrait pas être plutôt porté par la relation ?

C'était en passant. En attendant je ne touche pas.
marczoutendijk (2021-11-22 11:01:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114093015 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of streetname vandalism
Erick tamba (2021-11-20 07:39:42+00:00): Added buildings using bing imagery
Erick tamba (2021-11-20 07:39:32+00:00): Added buildings using bing imagery
Erick tamba (2021-11-20 07:39:01+00:00): Added buildings
marczoutendijk (2021-11-22 11:01:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114093015 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of streetname vandalism
Erick tamba (2021-11-20 07:38:50+00:00): Added buildings
Erick tamba (2021-11-20 07:38:35+00:00): Added buildings
Supaplex (2021-11-21 04:28:05+00:00): It seems Dongtian is still under control by Taiwan troops and never heard any news that China army took this island anf change the ownership. Soo the Dongtian restricted area announced by Taiwan government is still effect. None evidence based edit will be removed according to the de facto status of this area.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114016684
Supaplex (2021-11-21 04:33:22+00:00): 東碇島仍然是台灣控制島嶼，目前沒有任何消息指出所有權有移，台灣政府頒布的東碇島限制水源範圍仍有先效。因此任何非基是於事實的編輯將被會退，恢復為 de facto 狀態。
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114016684
Supaplex (2021-11-21 04:40:29+00:00): 東碇島猶原是台灣控制的福建沿海島嶼，目前是無聽人講控制權有轉移的狀況，所以台灣政府頒佈的東tian島控制水域猶是有效的。任何違背事實的編輯會予人回退，愛特別注意
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114016684
marczoutendijk (2021-11-22 11:01:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114093015 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of streetname vandalism
rthik007 (2021-11-22 11:16:42+00:00): "Hi,
I have Removed duplicate highway
Kindly check with
1004634425.
Thank you."
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114017030
rthik007 (2021-11-22 12:53:00+00:00): "Hi jkstoff,
I have removed the duplicate ways and made alignment changes as per ground truth.
way 1004634914
Kindly check with,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114093600.
Kindly check the following changesets which are same as above.
Changeset : 1004633333
changeset : 1004633097
Changeset : 1004631716
Changeset : 1004630185
Changeset : 1004629592
Changeset :  249222155
I have the done the edits accordingly
Thank you."
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114017076
marczoutendijk (2021-11-22 11:01:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114093015 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of streetname vandalism
marczoutendijk (2021-11-22 11:01:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114093015 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of streetname vandalism
rthik007 (2021-11-22 10:41:19+00:00): "Hi jkstoff,
I have removed duplicate ways which are created.
1004636246
1004635979
Kindly check with,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114091867.
also check the below changeset
1004636246
Thank you."
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114017248
iriman (2021-11-20 18:24:56+00:00): سلام اینجا یکطرفه نیست.
marczoutendijk (2021-11-22 11:01:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114093015 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of streetname vandalism
user_14250389 (2021-11-20 07:26:54+00:00): 中南大學的學生圖客你們好，我已fo貴地社群OSMChina不少成員的賬戶，由他們的修正變更集，瞭解到似乎你們在作出一些善意的數據破壞行為。

百合姐姐於這裡示範一個正確的編輯，可以按照這個學校作為編輯之範本。比如道路名稱應當按照你們中國的命名規則，在name寫簡體字；給建築物標註building=*的標籤等。

在編輯保存之後，編輯器會給出你所在國的社群聯繫方式。如在中國便是「開放街圖中國 的 Telegram」。百合姐姐代本地圖客歡迎你們加入開放街圖社群，期望能更好的建設完善各地數據！
marczoutendijk (2021-11-22 11:01:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114093015 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of streetname vandalism
marczoutendijk (2021-11-22 11:01:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114093015 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of streetname vandalism
marczoutendijk (2021-11-22 11:01:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114093015 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of streetname vandalism