piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
GerdP (2022-12-04 12:47:41+00:00): Ich denke nicht, dass dieses Gebäude noch existiert:  https://www.osm.org/way/1119252153
Vermutlich ist die Fläche mit dem Feuerwehrgelände aus https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3369496 gemeint.
jmsbert (2022-12-06 23:03:34+00:00): Hallo Gerd,
vielen Dank, dass Du noch einmal Deine Fotos gesichtet hast. Ich selbst mache meist nur Audio Notizen und übertrage diese dann in OSM. In diesem Fall leider keine Audio Notiz zum Gelände nördlich des Feuerwehrhauses.
Die von Dir als abgerissen markierten Gebäuden dürften tatsächlich nicht mehr existieren. Beim Eintragen in OSM hatte ich mich hier auf das Luftbild von Mapbox verlassen, ohne zu prüfen, ob es eventuell aktuellere Luftbilder gibt. In diesem Fall ist das schlechter aufgelöste Luftbild von Maxar das aktuellere. Demnach existieren die Gebäude nicht mehr. Auch das Reservoir (Güllebehälter) [1] scheint es demnach nicht mehr zu geben. Gerne auch mit razed versehen, wenn Du das auch so siehst.
Aufgrund der Baustellenschilder auf Deinen Fotos, sollte man vielleicht in einigen Monaten noch einmal vorbeischauen, wenn die Bauaktivitäten abgeschlossen sind und klar ist, was hier noch entsteht.
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256538076
GerdP (2022-12-07 07:31:13+00:00): Ich war tatsächlich am 5.12. noch mal da und habe jemandem von der Feuerwehr angesprochen. Das Gelände sollte ursprünglich von der Feuerwehr genutzt werden, aber die Pläne liegen wohl auf Eis. Zur Zeit liegt es brach.
starsep (2022-12-11 09:35:51+00:00): Dzięki za dodanie!
W relacjach autobusowych ważna jest kolejność: najpierw przystanki, a potem drogi w kolejności podróży.
Poprawiłem, ciężko się to w iD edytuje.
W3NET0wns (2022-12-17 22:30:24+00:00): A to sorki :D
user_5359 (2022-12-04 13:45:18+00:00): Hallo! Schau Dir bitte nochmal das Gebäude http://www.osm.org/way/512221583 an. Da scheint Dir ein copy&paste Fehler unterlaufen zu sein.
silversurfer83 (2022-12-04 14:46:40+00:00): Ah. Danke 🙃
Werde ich richten
Gut, wenn jemand aufpasst 👍🏻
silversurfer83 (2022-12-05 13:38:24+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129713783
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129690017
SekeRob (2023-11-11 09:10:10+00:00): Ciao Stefano

Guardando i tag delle 2 torri che hai mappato qualche mese fa, puoi confermare che la costruzione 'tiranti' è quella indicata in questo wiki per tower:construction=guyed_lattice ?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:construction=guyed%20lattice?uselang=en

Sei sicuro che ci sia un misuratore di velocità del vento (anemometro) in cima a queste torri alte 40 metri o è o anche per la ricezione / trasmissione radio o cellulare?

Grazie
Rob
Stefano Alleva (2023-11-11 11:59:45+00:00): Ciao Roberto,
Si, sono due torri anemometriche tirantate come quella nel link (meno tiranti però).
Non sono assolutamente telefoniche.

C è anche una terza nei dintorni, ma non la ho ancora vista.
SekeRob (2023-11-11 12:11:52+00:00): OK, grazie, sto mappando la copertura del suolo da 2 mesi intorno al Parco Nazz. del Gran Sasso e mi sono imbattuto in queste immagini solo perché creano un'ombra molto lunga nelle immagini satellitari. Ora so cosa potrebbe essere aggiungendo altro paesaggio.

ciao
Joseph R P (2022-12-21 01:51:23+00:00): Why exactly were these seemingly random sections of motorway downgraded to trunk? Streetview shows that the state-recognized freeway portions end by the first at-grade intersections with the freeway terminus signs.
stevea (2022-12-21 01:57:09+00:00): It's not random at all.  It is a deliberate building of specific tagging because bicycles are allowed through here explicitly.

What you say about what "Streetview shows" is unclear:  WHICH state-recognized freeway portions, WHICH "first at-grade intersections with the freeway terminus signs."  You leave out a lot here.

Some may consider this is "a lot of road" (all at once).  It is part of a deliberate route (a USBR) for bicycles that Caltrans is developing.

The tagging is deliberate, stable and accurate exactly as it is.  Well, at least until you are more specific about "what Streetview shows."  I'm happy to listen about that, but your edges are unclear.
stevea (2022-12-21 01:59:37+00:00): To be clear, bicycles are allowed on SR 58 west of CR 66 (West Main Street Lenwood) all the way west on SR 58 to (and beyond) US 395.  How far west?  To the Kern-San Bernardino County Line.  Caltrans says so.
stevea (2022-12-21 02:18:03+00:00): While this might "appear to be" what OSM calls motorway (freeway in "what the locals might call it") it is technically an expressway that allows bicycles, and so cannot legally be a "freeway" as California defines one.  This means "really must not be tagged motorway" (even if some think that's what it feels like).

I know, it cracks a lot of people's heads open, too, not just yours and mine.  But in a technical sense, that's all true.  So OSM tags as it does.  And renderers and routers and fact-checkers all work and nod our heads together.  It all wraps up like this, but it can be a head-scratcher to get there.  But lots of nodding right now the way it is.
Joseph R P (2022-12-22 00:12:11+00:00): The sections of motorway that were downgraded to trunk in the changesets you made are designated as freeways by the state. There are signs that say "Begin/End freeway" depending on the direct you are heading, at, for instance, Wagner Road (however the definition of a freeway in the real world and motorway on OSM overlap but don't usually mean the same things, so it's no big deal really).

Many states allow cycling on Interstate highways, U.S. routes with freeway segments, and other various freeways. States like Wyoming, South Dakota, and Idaho fully allow it, Missouri and DC discourage it but it's not prohibited, and states like California allow it if there is not a more-suitable alternative available, such as lower speed roads or bike trails (in this case, bikes are allowed on the freeway because it lacks a better alternative such as a frontage road until the highway passes through Boron or Barstow). Something like designated cycle lanes, sidewalks, or roadside parking spaces, would be enough to determine whether a road is a freeway or not, but a law that isn't physically apparent shouldn't.
stevea (2022-12-22 00:16:57+00:00): I think we are agreeing to agree.  It does remain "somewhat unclear" — better stated is likely "inconsistently applied in OSM in California" where these "bicycles on freeways" are allowed.  For example, even further west (on 58) towards Bakersfield, there are "patchy" instances of what is meant by our tagging w.r.t. whether bicycles are allowed.

I think that what's happening right now (especially with the "trunk / expressway" changes that have been ongoing in the USA since 2020 or so) is these edges are getting more clearly identified.  "And fixed" is somewhere between "chalk line" and "wet watercolor" right about now.

We're figuring this out, it's a bit of "wet paint."  I think we're making progress, both in the map, and talking about it, like here.  Thanks for good, open dialog.
stevea (2022-12-22 00:48:48+00:00): I'm all ears about things like Begin Freeway and/or End Freeway signs (you say at Wagner road but not which direction is what).  I mean, if you were clear about exactly where Caltrans has placed signs about "Limited access freeway" and/or Begin/End Freeway on 58 from the traffic_signals at W Main (Lenwood) to the Kern-SB line, hey, that's awesome data for OSM to absorb.
Joseph R P (2022-12-22 00:49:03+00:00): On another related note, it appears some freeway ramps were changed from motorway links to trunk links despite connecting to motorways:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49010840

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1086982355

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158976805

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/125436452

I'm assuming these were just some errors that had to do with retagging relations and not intentional, right? Ramps that connect to freeways whether they lead to or from them should always be tagged as motorway links, Might want to have a look at that.
Joseph R P (2022-12-22 00:50:58+00:00): (Sorry for the out-of-place response, we wrote ours at the same time)
stevea (2022-12-22 00:52:56+00:00): No apologies necessary, we're both clearly in good-faith comm together here.

Yes, those trunk_links do appear "just plain wrong."  Please allow me a few minutes to fix those; thanks for the heads-up and identifying those for me; so kind of you.

Yup, we're skipping over each other.
stevea (2022-12-22 01:06:21+00:00): OK, those four (and their environs) now have what-I-believe-is-correct motorway_link tagging, not trunk_link tagging.  Again, thank you.

Let's pause for a moment re "bicycle tagging on freeways."  That's a larger topic and I neither want to get "lost in the weeds" (of this specific changeset) nor lose the "big picture" focus (for entire states like Idaho and Wyoming.
MKnight (2022-12-24 15:28:59+00:00): Moin,
achte bei der Vergabe von Geschwindigkeiten bitte auf die korrekten und realen Gegebenheiten.
mueschel (2022-12-24 12:31:37+00:00): Hi,
please check this road, it got two strange tags:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/31237118

crossroad =	aisle
osm = tag
aceman444 (2025-03-16 16:16:12+00:00): Thanks, that looks like an error and is already gone.
philippec (2023-04-01 18:48:59+00:00): Geel Delhaize
De GRB lijkt hier niet te kloppen.
Is dat de juiste foto ?  De AED zou 3.5 meter van de buitenkant van de muur staan.
dentonny (2023-04-01 22:34:36+00:00): Op dit ogenblik is het gebouw ingetekend op basis van een 'schets' op geopunt.be . Als de GRB laag een update krijgt, pas ik deze aan.
De foto heb ik persoonlijk genomen deze middag, dus die klopt :)
pitscheplatsch (2022-12-04 09:46:24+00:00): Hi,
this changeset should be reviewed by the local community. Thanks.

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
Rico557 (2022-12-05 13:26:18+00:00): Странно почему такой специализации до сих пор нет в Вики?
4004 (2022-12-05 13:45:33+00:00): Наверное, потому что это все же обычно часть более широкой специализации, вроде гинекология/пренатальная
LockOnGuy (2022-12-20 19:36:40+00:00): Hi ڕاستی, why did you delete 'addr:place:ar' from NODE 3536477105 ?
acubens71 (2022-12-03 23:29:26+00:00): source = BANO pas BDTopo, oups
Beton Krai (2022-12-04 13:39:47+00:00): Hello!

This and many other of your recent changesets deleted address nodes and data from buildings. The addresses are imported and upkept by latvia-bot with VZD data, so they are always correct and deleting them is useless since the bot will just re-add them later, e.g. as was already done with https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9840991965/history and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10064602161

Thanks
traveleditor (2022-12-04 19:54:13+00:00): Hey, if you are going to edit in 2 different places (usually far away from each other), please upload your changes before editing another place. This makes it easier for us mappers to check others' edits.
Sandal man (2022-12-08 11:25:52+00:00): Hi you forgot to tag a couple of ways you added.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1119267217
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1119267212#map=13/39.3551/-0.4173
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1119267216
Sandal man (2022-12-31 16:25:22+00:00): Removed while no reaction.
puchaczowsky (2022-12-04 12:41:04+00:00): czemu przeniosłeś tagi mcdonalda z budynku na wejście? moja wersja była jak najbardziej poprawna
taxi301 (2022-12-05 10:50:47+00:00): moja też jest poprawna , może być do budynku , wejścia lub do obszaru . A dlatego do wejścia a nie do budynku żeby był widoczny numer a to jest potrzebne i bardziej widoczne dla służb , straży , pogotowia , policji , poczty ,dostawców , taksówek , nie musisz klikać w ikonę żeby sprawdzić numer , widać na mapie przy przesuwaniu a tag mcdonalda jest tak samo widoczny
taxi301 (2022-12-05 11:25:38+00:00): w tym przypadku chyba najlepiej było by przenieść jednak na obszar
puchaczowsky (2022-12-05 11:59:39+00:00): wszelkie służby i tak pewnie używają specjalnych aplikacji do tego, więc to jak wygląda to na głównej osm nie za bardzo ma znaczenie
taxi301 (2022-12-05 21:16:38+00:00): mają swoje aplikacje ,
Ma znaczenie i to bardzo duże .
Do ich aplikacji jest używana mapa OSM jako podkład i korzystają z jej danych . programy i aplikacje dla straży robi Abakus

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:OpenFireMap
https://www.osmhydrant.org/pl/#
https://mapa.abakus.net.pl/blog/
https://mapa.abakus.net.pl/blog/?p=631
user_5359 (2023-07-17 06:22:00+00:00): Hello! Please take a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1119269745. What is the mean of unknown tags 
_ADMIN_ORG__ = 020605
_BMP__ = 0.0000
_CONGRESSIO_ = 1ST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF WY
_COUNTY__ = WY - ALBANY COUNTY
_EMP__ = 1.2000
_FUNCTIONAL_ = L - LOCAL
_JURISDICTI_ = FS - FOREST SERVICE
_MANAGING_O_ = 020605
_OBJECTIVE__ = 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES
_OPER_MAINT_ = 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES
_PRIMARY_MA_ = FS - FOREST SERVICE
_ROUTE_STAT_ = EX - EXISTING
_RTE_CN__ = 2339010454
_SEG_LENGTH_ = 1.2000
_SURFACE_TY_ = NAT - NATIVE MATERIAL
_SYSTEM__ = NFSR - NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM ROAD
?
Are they needed in OSM?
kechan (2023-07-17 14:55:50+00:00): I didn't add them. It says version one due to my method of aligning roads where I would delete the road except for two nodes and redraw it. I think they came from a user named "RGoldfinger."

As for if they are needed or not, I think some of them are necessary with correct tagging (e.g. no capitals and underscores). However, I have no idea what some of these are trying to say such as "_EMP__=1.2000" and I feel that they could be removed
literan (2022-12-04 13:02:18+00:00): я все равно уберу name=Городская усадьба Кнопа
в тот тег куда надо, не надо упорствовать.
Федонатор (2022-12-04 13:14:56+00:00): Я чем это название не нравится?
literan (2022-12-04 13:28:32+00:00): тем, что тег name - для общеупотребительных названий, тех, которые широко применяются сейчас.

а все эти "Доходный дом унтер-офицерши Голенищевой", что вы вносите, это не common name. Это в лучшем случае названия объектов реестра культурного наследия из базы Минкульта, а в худшем - вообще названия прошлого века (которые OSM не хранит).

названия объектов культурного наследия вносятся в тег heritage:name - я за вами исправляю, а вы все равно упорно ставите это в name
Gonéo (2024-09-07 08:02:04+00:00): Bonjour, je vois que tu as tagué les liaisons cyclables avec `on_street`. Est-ce qu'il ne vaudrait pas mieux utiliser `link` qui a le même sens et qui est documenté dans le wiki pour ne pas multiplier les tags ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:cycleway
xrt (2024-10-08 08:40:50+00:00): Bonjour Gonéo
En effet link  est bien mieux. Merci pour cette info. J'ai corrigé la piste cyclable entre les ponts Bonaparte et KitchenerMarchand. J'en ai mis aussi ailleurs... N'hésite pas me corriger
mcliquid (2022-12-04 07:14:51+00:00): Hello Mulucaver, and welcome to OpenStreetMap!
It does make sense to split changesets into more geographically local areas. A large changeset like this appears in the history list of everyone on 6 continents. If you'd split it it would appear in the history list of only those mappers local to each change.

Thanks!
ZioDragon (2022-12-05 02:51:19+00:00): Chào bạn, cảm ơn bạn vì đã sửa đổi trên OSM Vietnam. Hiện nay Quốc lộ 63 đã là quốc lộ chính yếu ở phía Nam, nên là thay vì dùng đường chính thì bạn nên dùng đường xa lộ ạ. Cảm ơn bạn
SIDOL JK (2022-12-05 07:42:42+00:00): Dear bạn,
Theo Quy hoạch GTVT đến năm 2030 tầm nhìn đến 2050 của Bộ GTVT ban hành năm 2022 thì QL. 63 không phải là quốc lộ chính yếu như QL.80, QL. 91, QL. 30,... nên không thể tag thẻ xa lộ được bạn nhé.
Trân trọng
jimkats (2022-12-18 16:40:58+00:00): Αναίρεσα τις αλλαγές που έκανες σε δρόμο της Τρίπολης, γιατί αναίρεσες τις αλλαγές που είχα κάνει όσον αφορά την κατάσταση που ισχύει εδώ και μερικούς μήνες εκεί. Ωραίο "fine tuning"...
JayCBR (2022-12-20 19:51:16+00:00): δεν εχω καταλαβει τι ακριβως χαλασα
JayCBR (2022-12-20 20:09:21+00:00): δλδ προσθέτουμε πόσα φανάρια που έλειπαν, προτεραιότητες που ήταν αχταρμάς και σε λίγο θα με αναφέρεις και για βανδαλισμό
jimkats (2023-01-08 12:00:28+00:00): Δηλαδή δεν σκέφτηκες να κοιτάξεις εάν το όνομα που πρόσθεσα υφίσταται ή όχι. Συν ότι δεν στέκει να ονομάζεται συνδετήρια οδός όταν πρακτικά το όριο του έργου της νέας εθνικής οδού είναι μέχρι την μέσα διασταύρωση της Στέρνας (υπάρχει ταμπέλα ορίου έργου)
jimkats (2023-01-08 12:02:27+00:00): Επίσης, για την Τρίπολη χάλασες ότι πρακτικά επανέφερες τον δρόμο της πλατείας που πηγαίνει γύρω γύρω αριστερόστροφα, ενώ πια είναι δεξιόστροφα και με κλειστά δύο τμήματα της.
jimkats (2023-01-08 12:05:12+00:00): Αυτό που λέω είναι έλεγξε την εγκυρότητα των οποίων αλλαγών έγιναν στους δρόμους που πριν χρόνια είχες κάνει πρώτη φορά tuning πριν τα ξανακάνεις tune. Και οι ονομασίες θα είχαν μια καλή μια ομοιομορφία εάν είναι κάτι που στην πραγματικότητα υφίσταται. Το συνδετήρια οδός δεν το βρει πουθενά αλλού ο άλλος, παρά μόνο εδώ.
JayCBR (2023-01-08 15:52:03+00:00): στην πλατεία εκεί έκανα λάθος, δεν είχα βρει το βίντεο από drone που κυκλοφόρησε (μόνο το δεξί τμήμα της Τσομαδούλου έχει κλείσει, μπορείς να πας από Γεωργίου Α μέχρι Κύπρου, αυτό που δεν φαίνεται είναι αν η Γεωργίου είναι μονός ή διπλός μέχρι την Ερμού). name=Συνδετήρια οδός υπάρχει σε αμέτρητα μέρη, κυρίως σε κόμβους , για Παράκαμψη και Διακλάδωση τάδε τα έχουμε πει
JayNunez (2022-12-04 01:46:36+00:00): Sorry, I meant to say it is 'now' a Citizens Bank.
Glassman (2022-12-04 19:42:57+00:00): This path exists and is widely used see the Strava heatmap imagery. https://www.strava.com/heatmap#17.44/-122.68812/45.86083/hot/all. if the owner has posted no trespassing signs or added a fence then it would be appropriate to tag the section of the path as access=private. But since it exists it should be in OSM just tagged appropriately. If you have any questions on how to property tag it just ask. I'm happy to help.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129692971
coopercovelo (2022-12-05 01:41:18+00:00): It has several private property sections. I will flag the sections that are private. Also, this is in the area of the la center bottoms restoration and is to be restored to a natural area.
kurisubrooks (2022-12-06 04:22:00+00:00): Hi Warin,

I'm not really sure if this change was necessary since railway=abandoned implies razed status. I've surveyed this area and there's still some wooden sleepers, the concrete platforms still exist and the cutting is plain as day to see, so I think railway=abandoned still fits this area perfectly.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks,
Chris.
Jack465 (2022-12-06 04:53:19+00:00): I agree with Chris on this. I'd also like to point out some other things I've noticed in these changes.

a) on way/413071351 you have an illegal tag "raized" instead of correct "razed"

b) node/4144033632 isn't razed. The rail is still in the ground, and very visible.

c) I wouldn't call way/413071355 razed either. Whilst a lot of it has deteriorated, there are still some features that exist.

Thanks, 
Jack
Warin61 (2022-12-06 08:27:52+00:00): Form the OSM wiki 
abandoned:*=*     Still visible but fallen into serious disrepair and which could only be put back into operation with considerable effort.

razed:*=*
    Not existing any more because of active removal, for fully dismantled tracks and trackbed (overbuilt state)

----------------
Present sate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mbt-S-fzTQ
8.25 - Christie street over built of railway. = razed.

8.57 Dundel Station - no sign of tracks. Platform could be mapped .. as ruins:railway=platform .. go ahead. 
9.30? Embankment .. no longer used for transport so  man_made=embankment.?
9.45 no sign of railway line near Forester Rd.

10.02 Links Rd crossing - overbuilt -= razed.  I cannot see any sign of rail tracks there.

On wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ropes_Creek_railway_line#Today
"all track and overhead wiring beyond Christie St. has been removed. "
Jack465 (2022-12-06 09:03:46+00:00): We can't use that video as a source without asking for permission... anyways, I'll address my statements that you've responded to

Correct, Christie Street cuts the rail, happy for razed here.

**Dunheved** station, tracks have been removed yes. platform still exists. I spoke to Chris privately, and he says that "to where the cutting that continues up to and through dunheved station i'd prefer if it was kept as railway=abandoned. ", which I'm guessing he is referring to way/413101240. Chris can tag in here with further clarifications

I didn't contest any changes you made to Forester Road rail (if there was any, I didn't notice anything, but you mentioned), but yes it doesn't exist anymore, happy for razed here.

Links Road rail section still exists, I drive over this very often (latest being 1700 hours today), and have also uploaded mapillary imagery a few months ago of this section still existing
Warin61 (2022-12-06 22:04:24+00:00): railway=abandoned means the rail line is still there, it does not mean razed, nor does it say anything about a platform. I do wish that railway=disused/abandoned were changed to disused:railway=rail or abandoned:railway=rail so it easier to understand what it meant. 

Looking at the DCS imagery for Links Rd there is a track of the railway line crossing .. but either side of the road .. gone. Looking at the other OSM available imagery also does not show any remains.
emersonveenstra (2022-12-04 19:58:22+00:00): Are you sure that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1119278930 is a water hazard? There's no water in any of the aerial imagery
George McMann (2022-12-06 18:46:13+00:00): Having played the course a number of times, I know that you can’t find your ball much less play from this area. I called the course and they said that in years past they have marked this area as a penalty area. It is currently not marked as a penalty area due to staffing shortages, so I think marking it as water hazard is appropriate.

George
emersonveenstra (2022-12-06 19:21:06+00:00): Right, but does it actually contain water? If it doesn't contain water, then it's not a water hazard, by definition
George McMann (2022-12-06 19:48:15+00:00): It is a marshy muddy bog area containing bushes and cat tails. Under the USGA rules of golf this is designated by the club as a "penalty area". I don't think openstreetmap.org has a "Golf Penalty Area" defintion.
George McMann (2022-12-06 19:49:49+00:00): Under the current rules of golf there is no longer a definition for "water hazard". All of these are now called "Penalty Areas".
emersonveenstra (2022-12-06 20:20:33+00:00): Okay, thanks for the clarification
George McMann (2022-12-06 20:23:55+00:00): 👍
Warin61 (2022-12-05 00:16:21+00:00): Before this changeset JOSM validator reports a "Warning; way  unclosed". Now JOSM validator says "Error: way contains segment twice, Warning: self intersecting way". OSMinspector says there is a duplicate segment in the way. See 

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=151.08789&lat=-32.75460&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways
mdejean (2022-12-06 14:56:13+00:00): Since this hasty revert in one case you showed that you did not understand the restrictions in place and in the other two you have not responded to my explanation of the changes, so I'm going ahead and reverting this changeset.
MxxCon (2022-12-06 15:00:14+00:00): Since this is a volunteer project and everybody contribute in their own free time, has it occurred to you that perhaps people sometimes don't have that free time respond in the time period that you want?!
Let's not turn this into edit wars and keep in mind that map vandalism will be referred to DWG.