piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse (2021-07-03 12:30:34+00:00): Thanks for fixing.  I've commented at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106801956 .
SomeoneElse (2021-07-03 12:34:04+00:00): For info, http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/194P is a search for all objects in this area with a name last edited by Botogav .  There don't seem to be an "suspicious former presidents" in there, but it might be worth having a look at the names in there - the easiest way is probably to click the data button, sort the JSON in a text editor and look at the "name" tags that way.
user_5359 (2021-07-05 16:59:27+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Don't overwriting extsing business definition! Your new node is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8895523412
osm-user12 (2021-07-03 05:55:35+00:00): Ah, ok. Wenn man die Straße nicht "anfassen" muss und Nutzungsalgorithmen damit zurecht kommen, ist das natürlich die beste Lösung.
Leo Slager (2021-07-02 19:56:17+00:00): reverted due to vandalisme
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:42:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
Kcelos (2021-07-02 18:45:15+00:00): Foram adicionados:
Posto de Saúde Lajedo
Escola Municipal Sergio Miranda
EMEI Lajedo (Escola Municipal de Ensino Infantil)
Campo de Futebol
Parquinho
Área de Exercícios
Rua de terra
Escada
Área verde 
Corregos
Alguns detalhes como, numero de Telefone, CEP, Email
Glassman (2021-07-02 22:17:09+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107324439
village (2021-07-06 21:59:57+00:00): genau die gleichen Fragen wie in https://osm.org/changeset/107324759  habe ich auch hier: wann warst du hier? ist das Gras hier inzwischen entfernt worden? oder warum sonst sollte es "unnötig" sein?
village (2021-07-20 22:47:37+00:00): reverted
Leo Slager (2021-07-02 19:56:00+00:00): reverted due to vandalisme
village (2021-07-06 21:56:07+00:00): Hallo Xxlfussel, zwei kurze Fragen zu deiner Änderung: 
- warst du vor Ort?
- warum sollte dieses Gras "unnötig" sein?
village (2021-07-20 22:47:52+00:00): reverted
Leo Slager (2021-07-02 19:55:43+00:00): reverted due to vandalisme
Glassman (2021-07-02 22:17:37+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107324980
Famlam (2021-09-06 15:57:19+00:00): Dag CartoKees,

Betreffende weg 6882626:
in deze changeset heb je `lanes` aangepast van 4 naar 3. Op luchtfoto's zie ik er 4 (1 busbaan, 2x ongemarkeerd, 1 ritsstrook).

Dus ofwel er zijn recent wegwerkzaamheden geweest waarbij er één verwijderd is (in dat geval graag ook access:lanes, bus:lanes en turn:lanes aanpassen), ofwel dit was een foutje?
CartoKees (2021-09-06 16:34:49+00:00): Hallo Famlam,
Was een foutje. Scherp gezien. Focus lag op aantal lanes en zowel in luchtfoto als in gegevens de busbaan over het hoofd gezien.
highflyer74 (2021-07-07 06:45:23+00:00): Hallo Xxlfussel!

Warum löscht Du nach wie vor Dinge, die zum einen nicht falsch sind und zum anderen von Mappern in viel Kleinarbeit erfasst wurden?

Dein Editierverhalten hat sich nicht geändert und nach wie vor reagierst Du nicht auf die Kommentare anderer Mapper. Letzteres ist in einem Gemeinschaftsprojekt wie OSM unabdingbar.
BCNorwich (2021-07-03 07:38:32+00:00): Hi, I've removed unnecessary/incorrect name and description tags.

Regards Bernard.
Glassman (2021-07-02 22:19:46+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.

I'm not sure about how it was originally tagged as a track since motor vehicles are prohibited. I might have changed it to highway=path. But not seeing it in person, I'll leave that to you to decide.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107325435
BCNorwich (2021-07-03 07:34:49+00:00): Hi, 

I'm sure the term village is a description of the area, not a formal name. I've changed the tag name=village to description=village. If you know the correct formal name please tag it.

You have tagged the tracks as highway=track therefore there is no need to add description=Highway=track Si I've removed those tags.
nitram1234 (2021-07-06 08:30:06+00:00): Hi! Great job with the editing. In the future, could you be careful to not include two distant edits in the same changeset? That would greatly help on the history panel to see where the latest changes have been made. 

Thanks for your help, cheers!
Glassman (2021-07-02 22:20:39+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107326282
user_5359 (2022-04-16 06:59:29+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/960825551. What is the meaning of the tag religion = Section_328?
elsy1 (2022-04-16 15:04:23+00:00): Hello, thank you reporting this, I Fixed
BCNorwich (2021-07-03 06:31:59+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You inadvertently drew the house outline around the garden. I've amended the line to show the two semis keeping your tags, (just capitalised Harrow).

Regards Bernard.
Sanniu (2021-10-07 06:17:13+00:00): Hi

https://www.openstreetmap.org
/way/800942643 - you missed to add the street name here, can you?
Leo Slager (2021-07-02 19:55:26+00:00): reverted due to vandalisme
Glassman (2021-07-02 22:22:13+00:00): If it's only downhill, I'd recommend adding oneway=yes and making sure the way is pointing downhil. Let me know if you need help.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107326953
Glassman (2021-07-02 22:34:17+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107326953
DUGA (2021-07-04 15:04:59+00:00): Do not use abbreviation in the address.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/960830118#map=18/40.81023/-75.74558
Strubbl (2021-07-06 07:37:42+00:00): Hi FvGordon, dieser Changeset korrigiert den Weg nicht nur, er verschlechtert ihn. Warum hast du die Schlaufe am Ende des Weges entfernt? Mit welchem Tool prüfst du auf selbst überschneidende Wege?

Welche Änderung hast du am Weg: Friedrich-Loennies-Weg (28920711) gemacht? War der auch selbst überschneidend?
PT-53 (2021-07-06 11:14:57+00:00): Hallo Strubbl,
da war doch gar keine "Schleife", sondern der Weg ging ein Stück weit hin und zurück auf der gleichen Strecke.  Dies war ein klarer "Fehler" und wird im OSM-Inspecktor, View Geometry  (bis zur Bereinigung)  als "Self-intersecting ways" angezeigt :
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=13.06894&lat=54.34003&zoom=16&opacity=0.82

Was in diesem Änderungssatz alles gemacht wurde kannst Du mit Achavi anschauen:
http://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=107327263
Diese Zufahrt
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/959886342
war nicht korrekt mit der Straße verbunden.

Dieser Änderungssatz enthält definitiv keine Verschlechterung sonder korrigiert nur Fehler.

Grüße
Strubbl (2021-07-06 12:24:05+00:00): Hallo PT-53, danke für die Erklärungen. Na ja, dass der Weg der begradigt wurde, obwohl es da einen Weg um den Baum gibt, schätze ich als Verschlechterung ein, weil dieser Wegteil ja nun fehlt, vorher aber vorhanden war. Hätten denn nicht nur die doppelten Punkte von dem Weg zurück entfernt werden können? 

Die nicht verbundene Zufahrt ist super, dass das gefixt ist. 

ich habe noch einmal versucht den Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59298442 genauer einzuzeichnen. Es wäre super, wenn jemand von euch da einen Blick drauf werfen könnte, ob das nun geklappt und das kein Fehler hat.
PT-53 (2021-07-06 13:57:58+00:00): Technisch müßte es korrekt sein. Das kannst Du ja morgen / übermorgen in OSM-Inspector selbst überprüfen.
Strubbl (2021-07-06 17:40:10+00:00): Danke für die Rückmeldung. Ich lasse den Tab mit OSMI offen und schaue mir das in 2 Tagen nochmal an.
skyper (2021-09-27 21:27:26+00:00): Hallo maximinimus
Hat die Halle wirklich diesen Namen?
Sieht eher wie eine Beschreibung aus (`description=*`).
Fragende Grüße,
skyper
maximinimus (2021-09-30 13:40:01+00:00): Hi skyper,

danke der Nachfrage. Ich denke, die Halle hat keinen eigentlichen Namen, jedenfalls steht keiner drauf. Ich bin neu bei OSM und habe den Eintrag mit der StreetComplete App gemacht. Wenn ich mich recht erinnere, stand da explizit, dass man eine Beschreibung eintragen soll, falls es keinen Namen gibt.

Viele Grüße
maximinimus
skyper (2021-10-01 16:33:30+00:00): Hi maximinimus
Nachträglich herzlich willkommen bei OSM.
Ich weiß nicht was StreetComplete da macht, aber für Beschreibungen gibt es `description` und für die Aussage, dass kein Name vorhanden ist gibt es `noname=yes`. Habe es entsprechend geändert, wobei die Information das dies eine Turnhalle ist, geht ja aus den Merkmalen hervor und das Gebäude ist auf dem Schulareal.

Viel Spaß beim Mappen,
Grüße skyper
nu9 (2021-07-02 19:58:36+00:00): * mostly overlapping buildings
erickdeoliveiraleal (2021-07-02 23:40:30+00:00): felipe, voce esta deletando varias coisas do mapa, incorretamente como isso, por favor, volte esses objetos ou seremos obrigados a reverter todas suas mudanças. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/881712728/history
https://osmcha.org/changesets/107283032
https://osmcha.org/changesets/107274092
https://osmcha.org/changesets/107272797
BrunoSLowen (2021-07-06 11:23:46+00:00): Tudo certo Felipe? Consegue explicar melhor essas alterações? Temos um canal no Telegram com alguns mapeadores que atuam no PR ( https://t.me/osmpr )
Gostariamos muito de entender a natureza das suas alterações, em especial as que você remove algo.
eggie (2021-08-24 13:33:16+00:00): Beste Piet Puk.. 
Je verwijderde  data van de kaart.. Met welk doel?

Wat is hier dan onjuiste informatie?

Wanneer je bestaande objecten verwijdert is de kans groot dat een medemapper deze weer toevoegt, maar dan zonder de juiste access=private, no en customers tags.


MVG
eggie
MatthieuMartin (2022-10-01 19:17:38+00:00): Bonjour,

Pourquoi marquer les passages piétons en crossing=uncontrolled alors qu'il y a bien des feux piétons à ces intersections?
MatthieuMartin (2022-10-01 19:21:26+00:00): Ok d'ac j'ai compris, c'est une correction de tag 
Bonne carto !
Glassman (2021-07-02 22:30:48+00:00): It looks like you inadvertently connected the track to an existing powerline. The editor likes to snap to nearby features. Since powerlines and roads need to separated, I went ahead and removed the connections.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107329807
4004 (2021-07-04 23:23:46+00:00): здравствуйте, спасибо за правку.
Вовик уже поправил, но на будущее - где основное слово в названии по сути описательное, то оно идет перед статусной частью, и наоборот если например имя в названии.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Be:Belarus:%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%96%D0%BB%D1%8B_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%96%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%9E
aweech (2021-07-03 23:21:38+00:00): Hi,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I see that in this edit you deleted a bunch of driveways. Driveways are commonly mapped features in OpenStreetMap, and it looks like the ones that you deleted were valid. Is there a particular reason that you deleted them, or was it a mistake?
skrewlooze (2021-07-04 04:43:57+00:00): I live in the area, and this is a newer road. The driveways that were marked are not accurate to reality now that the neighborhood is almost completed. Since there isn't an up-to-date satellite image to go by, I removed the inaccurate driveways until such time as accurate ones can be added.
aweech (2021-07-07 16:07:20+00:00): Hi,
I'm guessing that you aren't aware that we have access to more up-to-date imagery already that shows the driveways that you deleted. In the editor's sidebar on the right, you click the Background Settings button (the one that looks like 3 sheets of paper) to reveal the options. I'm going to go ahead and restore the ones that you deleted and add the rest of the driveways in the neighborhood to match the ones nearby. 
Happy mapping!
aTarom (2022-08-11 17:11:04+00:00): Hola, hace un año del cambio, pero voy a probar, sabes si se trata de un error de copy/paste en este nodo, etiquetas wikidata y wikipedia, dirigen a un grupo musical
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3719236736/history
Saludos
SomeoneElse (2021-07-03 12:23:31+00:00): Thanks for fixing.  I've commented at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106863408 .
SomeoneElse (2021-07-03 12:35:12+00:00): For info, http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/194Q is a search for all objects in this area with a name last edited by Botogav .  There don't seem to be an "suspicious former presidents" in there, but it might be worth having a look at the names in there - the easiest way is probably to click the data button, sort the JSON in a text editor and look at the "name" tags that way.
Greg_Rose (2021-07-05 08:51:24+00:00): Thx Andy - Sorry for the delay in responding. I was trying to answer back via OSMCha and it wasn't cooperating. 
I was actually searching for changes from both Bogotov and Yocomik in OSMCha and found some other junk. Fixed some of it. 
Cape Canaveral->Cape Kennedy was fun. *grimace*
I haven't used Overpass in a while - I'll have to dig back into it again to see if there's anything else that needs fixing.
bxl-forever (2021-07-03 08:42:58+00:00): Hello,
Does this square *REALLY* have a name?
Or did you assume this is how it should be named, perhaps because a few locals call it that way?
I cannot find any reliable source of information with such a name.
Any thoughts?
JhowieNitnek (2021-07-03 09:08:50+00:00): I saw that in a official booklet of the commune of Anderlecht called it that way I added it to the sources (in the section about benches)
user_5359 (2021-07-05 16:49:56+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please don't mark the building as area=yes. Please use building=yes. I have modified your entry.

Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpharmacy for a better description of your object.
ChillyDL (2021-07-03 19:18:08+00:00): Hallo nochwirrererbuchstabensalat, danke für den Eintrag der interessanten Galeriegräber von Schmerlecke! Wie hast du die denn lokalisiert? Auf NRW Orthophoto/Bing/Esri ist dort komplett gar nichts zu sehen, nur blankes, undbestelltes Feld. Ist der Ort richtig?
nochwirrererbuchstabensalat (2021-07-03 21:59:59+00:00): Moin ChillyDLesby, ja der Ort ist richtig. Es handelt sich hierbei jedoch lediglich um eine ungenaue Angabe. Deswegen sind auch nicht alle drei Gräber separat und exakt an ihrem Ort als Fläche eingetragen, wie ich das bei anderen Gräbern gemacht habe. Das hätte ich vielleicht dazu schreiben sollen. (Werde ich noch korrigieren.)

Ich weiß zwar anhand der Literatur bezüglich der Galeriegräber von Schmerlecke, wo genau die drei Gräber sich befinden, hab allerdings aus urheberrechtlichen Gründen darauf verzichtet, diese separat und exakt an ihrer genauen Lokalität einzutragen. Leider findet man zu Schmerlecke nur Literatur aus den letzten Jahren, die alle noch nicht gemeinfrei sind. 

Auf einem alten Luftbild (2011) sieht man die Ausgrabungsarbeiten am westlichen der drei Gräber. Daran orientiert sich auch meine Eintragung.
rising-mistake (2021-07-03 11:11:49+00:00): Hi there, and welcome to OSM! I think you accidentally connected some barriers, roads, and footpaths across Oxford in your edit. I have fixed them. Please make sure to look at any warnings your editor throws up and ensure your edits do not create phantom paths etc. Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
Please see these images for the errors brought in, if you are interested:
https://i.imgur.com/o1BHwcb.png
https://i.imgur.com/cEaUEB5.png
https://imgur.com/CR4oH5q.png
jcarlson (2021-07-10 23:29:30+00:00): Hey there! I was browsing around the state, cleaning up some admin boundaries, and these caught my eye. I'm not a local, but is Frat Park really a place? And if it is, it it really an *administrative* unit? Or just a neighborhood?
ZeLonewolf (2021-07-10 23:37:29+00:00): This does not appear to be an administrative boundary.
nitram1234 (2021-07-06 08:29:48+00:00): Hi! Great job with the editing. In the future, could you be careful to not include two distant edits in the same changeset? That would greatly help on the history panel to see where the latest changes have been made. 

Thanks for your help, cheers!
nitram1234 (2021-07-06 08:29:39+00:00): Hi! Great job with the editing. In the future, could you be careful to not include two distant edits in the same changeset? That would greatly help on the history panel to see where the latest changes have been made. 

Thanks for your help, cheers!
santamariense (2021-07-12 17:15:31+00:00): Olá,
Notei que você elevou a ERS-165 de volta para primary. O grupo OSM RS no Telegram (https://t.me/osmrs) discutiu a malha viária e foi decidido [1] que esta rodovia não se encaixa no conceito de primária pois não está completamente pavimentada.
No momento que estiver toda pavimentada, ela pode ser primária por ligar cidades com mais de 20 mil habitantes, São Luiz Gonzaga a Cerro Largo, desde que, claro, esta passe a ser a principal rotas entre as cidades citadas.
No momento ela se caracteriza como secondary.
[1] - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78226256
Max-Kritic (2021-07-21 11:18:21+00:00): Lanes:forward est inutile et une erreur dans les voies à sens unique. Peux-tu supprimer ? Merci

Voir http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/#zoom=17&lat=50.698455&lon=1.613225&item=xxxx&level=1%2C2%2C3&fixable=
user_5589 (2021-07-21 18:34:26+00:00): It's perhaps correct to say that it's not necessary to add that tag to one -ay roads. However there is no harm which comes of adding the tag. It doesn't make the tagging ambiguous. It doesn't make the tagging contradictory.

It's declared an error by wiki article writers. I see no reason to remove the tagging as it does no harm at all.
ivanbranco (2022-06-10 16:16:09+00:00): Hi Ercan 55,

I guess the denomination is wrong here?
Rizky IRM-ED (2023-01-09 03:54:45+00:00): Hi Johannes M, lot of mapping done, great work! Nowdays I do Line Crossing WaterBody Check with Maproullete in Nepal. I just want to clarify the waterbody you mapped some are crossing the highway (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/960904241) with NO ford/bridge/tunnel. (detail coordinate 26.4603779, 87.9108596). Natural water used for river body, if you meant it is area near waterbody maybe it's suitable tagged as flood_prone, due to the area you mentioned as flooding zone. If you have any feedback and suggestions, please let me know. Or could you please help us to fix it?
Cheers!!
jogemu (2023-01-09 13:56:53+00:00): I didn't mean to map the flood prone area. Instead I mapped the area that is (still) predominantly shaped by the river. The last flood might be years ago but the area still lacks larger rooted plants which makes it difficult to traverse (drive through). Because this is an area without permanent flow intermittent=yes could be used. The most accurate way would include natural=shingle and natural=wetland areas. The way it is mapped varies across the world. Therefore, I mapped water=river consistent with the surrounding area.

I don’t think it is wrong to map those roads with flood_prone. However, it is not particularly useful either. This is because the flood zone is constantly changing with the meandering of the river. The highways that enter this area without a ford are tagged as highway=track. (The tag does not describe the condition, but the usage of the road.) These roads only connect to the destination and in a flood the destination is either flooded or a new road around the flooded area replaces it. They are probably not permanent and everybody that uses them is aware of floods.

Further south you can see residential roads that cross the river. Would you map those as flood prone or fords? When they are flooded they stop existing and alternative roads are created. I would focus on errors within the general-purpose road network.
Elisabeth IRM-RV (2023-01-10 02:32:24+00:00): Hi Johannes M, Thank you for providing this information.
I agree that we can include intermittent=yes because this is an area without permanent flow, but I'm not sure if we should include natural=shingle and natural wetland areas because, as you mentioned, the surrounding area still uses water=river.

What do you think about combining intermittent=yes with water=river and adding ford to all highways that cross this river? Because I noticed in taginfo (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/ford#combinations) that the combination ford and intermittent is common to us.

Do you have any recommendations?
jogemu (2023-01-18 12:11:59+00:00): Hi Elisabeth, I took some time to update the highways in the area. Adding ford=yes would not have resolved errors like connections to administrative borders. Fixing Validation errors should come after resolving obvious issues. Because we agreed regarding intermittent, I have updated the water areas along the Tangting and Biring.

The OSM Wiki for the key ford does mention intermittent. I do not see any problem with adding intermittent to a ford segment of a highway but the wiki does not explicitly say to do that.
Elisabeth IRM-RV (2023-01-19 01:36:24+00:00): ok, thank you Johannes M
habi (2021-07-05 09:35:32+00:00): Ciao Bert
In this changeset you introduced the tag `OSM=no` on some buildings: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/197M
What does this tag mean, since these *are* in OSM? :)
Greetings,
habi

PS: I came here from https://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htm
Bert Araali (2021-07-05 13:35:50+00:00): Hi Habi,
I am running some test where I use JOSM as an editor with a seperate layer containing data that shouldn't be uploaded to OSM. The tag OSM=no landed by mistake from this layer on some OSM items. So I deleted it from these items. Sorry for the confusion.
habi (2021-07-05 20:10:54+00:00): No worries, I just wanted to know the reason :)
mrpulley (2025-08-13 11:31:06+00:00): Deleted at changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170383543
mariotomo (2021-07-03 22:40:18+00:00): hi, it's sort of puzzling, you visited the area "field papers" and you removed the service_times from a church, instead of correcting it. isn't the church holding services any more?
btw: if it's fields papers, care to share the url?
habi (2022-05-17 15:16:15+00:00): Ciao Saidx
Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/960931211/ really a swimming pool?
It doesn't look like it from the aerial imagery...

Greetings from Switzerland,
habi

PS: I'm here because of https://maproulette.org/challenge/26820
Fadlilaa IRM-RV (2022-04-14 04:16:15+00:00): delete some data because the shape of the building is not symmetrical
redd (2022-06-12 13:51:47+00:00): Hi WhiteIndigo,
did you add the key "website_1" on purpose?
آبین (2021-07-03 04:59:22+00:00): مشاوره رایگان، تخصص کامل در دستگاههای تصفیه آب صنعتی، نیمه صنعتی،خانگی و تجهیزات وابسته
Enock4seth (2021-07-03 10:42:56+00:00): Please don't just remove / change "place=village" to "landuse=residential". Kindly keep it or reuse the "name=*" and "place=*" on a node say https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2850316027#map=18/5.70523/-1.60535
wonderb0lt (2021-07-26 19:05:20+00:00): Hello,

can you expain where you get this land use from? Satellite imagery seems to not indicate the pattern that you've put - and it looks like writing to me (Farsi script)?

Can you explain your motivation adding this and nearby features?
Bienson (2021-07-23 20:25:51+00:00): Hi,
In StreetComplete korrespondiert "Parkbuchten" mit parking=street_side, also Parkbuchten am Straßenrand. Hier ist "ebenerdig", also parking=surface korrekt