piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mavl (2019-05-09 10:45:25+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
Hjart (2016-08-14 18:49:39+00:00): Ahem... Dette her var ikke heldigt..
Hjart (2016-08-14 18:53:45+00:00): Jeg har reverteret denne.
Hjart (2016-08-14 19:23:29+00:00): Dette er ikke heldigt
Hjart (2016-08-14 19:26:47+00:00): Reverted
Hjart (2016-08-14 18:56:07+00:00): Dette er heller ikke heldigt.
schleuss (2016-08-14 19:03:39+00:00): whoo!
anderfo (2016-08-18 12:49:37+00:00): Supert at noen endelig har begynt å tegne inn stier med mtb:scale oppe i nord!

Tre tips:
1) Det er veldig lurt å få koblet stien til andre veger (slik som f.eks. sørenden av Himmelstien, den slutter nå rett ved en traktorvei). Da vil navigasjon bli enklere...særlig automatisk ruting.
2) Legg gjerne inn class:bicycle:mtb (verdier fra -3 til 3) for å si noe om hvor fin/egnet stien er for stisykling.
3) Bruk alltid GPS-spor (egne spor, Strava heatmap o.l.) for å korrigere offset på Bing. Jeg synes egentlig det er best å droppe Bing helt, for alt man tegner blir skeivt og rart...

Sjekk https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Mountain_biking#Redigering_i_JOSM.2C_mini-guide hvis du lurer på hvordan du får lagt inn Statkart og Strava heatmap som bakgrunn i editoren. JOSM er anbefalt...
På samme wiki-side står det også flere tips om tagging av sykkelstier.

Anders
SomeoneElse_Revert (2016-08-26 16:19:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 41718334 where the changeset comment is: revert Google Earth sourced data in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41449985
mueschel (2016-08-16 11:02:53+00:00): Hi Ahmed,
these nodes look strange. Could you explain what they are supposed to represent?
Jan
tyr_asd (2016-08-16 16:13:48+00:00): Hi!
I think this changeset accidentally broke the outline of Italy ("Penisola italiana")! There are a couple of pieces missing between Fano and Pesaro, see https://imgur.com/a/CuM4e

PS: What editor did you use to make these edits? There is no indication in the changeset metadata (which is usually set by all other major editors such as JOSM, iD, etc.). Furthermore, it looks like as if this changeset introduced multiple new versions of the relation which is quite odd and looks almost like a bug in the software you're using.
niubii (2016-08-17 18:26:07+00:00): Hi,
First of all, thank you for your comment.

My only edit to coastline was about this node:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4350136390/history

that's very far away from Fano-Pesaro coastline.
Maybe those problems was present before my edit, and now (since I edited node above) it seems that my edit broke coastline. (?)

However, it's a very simple edit and if this could be useful, I could revert it ASAP.

I made edit with Vespucci for Android, is the last version available in Play Store.

However, thank you again.
tyr_asd (2016-08-17 18:37:47+00:00): Hi,

I'm quite sure that the outline broke in exactly this changeset. But there's no need for a revert, as I've already fixed the data yesterday.

It's possible that something went wrong while uploading the changeset data, maybe.
sorcrosc (2016-08-17 19:19:57+00:00): Sorry, I think I am the one who caused the problem.
I removed duplicated relations created by other user and maybe I moved the new peaces of coastline to the wrong one.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41434079
Thank you for solving this
patzi (2016-08-15 09:56:03+00:00): Moin, ja das war ich mit dem Löschen, sorry. Ich hatte sie entfernt, weil ich verwirrt war, dass hier auf ein mal die straßenbegleitenden Wege wieder separat gemappt wurden, das war hier schon mal wurde dann von irgendwem gelöscht, da es genrell ja auch Konsens ist solche Wege nicht separat zu mappen.
Ich hatte dann die Tags auf der Straße noch angepasst damit deutlich wird, dass auf den Wegen auch Räder fahren dürfen. Siehe z.B. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28778551 sidewalk:both:bicycle=yes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk?uselang=de-DE

Weil die Wege dann wieder keine weitere Informationen hatten, hatte ich sie auch wieder entfernt.

Naja jetzt ist die Info halt an zwei Positionen, schadet ja auch nicht ;)
jengelh (2016-08-15 10:23:21+00:00): Hochbordradwege (pflichtig oder nicht) wurden schon immer getrennt gemappt, meistens weil eine Bordsteinkante da ist, also ein natürliches Hindernis, das man eigentlich auch mappen könnte (barrier=kerb; aber OSM ist noch nicht soo weit dass sich die Mapper an solche Mikrodetails rantrauen).
sidewalk finde ich nett, aber wirklich sinnvoll nur für Fußgänger. Sobald der Sidewalk sogar ein Stück von der Straße abgesetzt ist und/oder durch einen Flecken Grün oder ein Parksegment getrennt ist (bspw. Leineberg/Weserstraße), muss man eh auf einen separaten highway= wechseln :-/
martinum4 (2016-08-18 19:33:35+00:00): Wenn wir schon beim Thema sind: Falls Bürgersteige als separate Ways erfasst werden oder man an bestehenden die Attribute ändert die Werte (cycleway; sidewalk) an den eigentlichen Straßen löschen, ich hab beim Auestadion da mal ordentlich aufgeräumt, Doppeltagging macht alles komplizierter und umständlicher zu pflegen... Am Edersee sind die Bordsteine übrigens teilweise sogar mit Höhe gemappt...
jengelh (2016-08-18 21:21:19+00:00): Wenn sie separat sind, ist auch sidewalk=separate gesetzt (bzw. sidewalk=both wurde zu sidewalk=left wenn nur rechts separat gemappt). Fehler vorbehaltend setze ich das auch meist so um… an Detail mangelt es dieser Stadt sicher nicht ;)
Hjart (2016-08-14 20:09:02+00:00): Hvorfor omklassificerer du de her cykelstier?
Henry Jensen (2016-08-14 22:09:20+00:00): Fordi det ikke kun er cykelstier, det er til  både cykel og fodgænger
Hjart (2016-08-15 05:41:16+00:00): Jeg vil mene at formuleringen i iD er lidt problematisk. 
Bemærk at stien (se https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42346916) var tagget med foot=yes (der angiver at den er for fodgængere) og at der nu ikke længere er noget der angiver at der må cykles på den. Jeg tror det er bedst vi ruller denne ændring tilbage.
AsgerFrank (2016-08-15 11:07:32+00:00): Blot for at bidrage, hvis det kan forklare logikken: 
En cykelsti er ofte til både cykel og fodgænger, fordi det ses af færdselsloven, at fodgængere gerne må gå på en cykelsti, med mindre der også er fortov, gangsti eller egnet rabat.

Nok derfor fremgår det af wiki'en, som jeg forstår det, at man som udgangspunkt fx ikke behøver at skrive foot=yes på en cykelsti; det er implicit/underforstået vha. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Denmark

Det omvendte er forresten ikke tilfældet efter færdselsloven: Cyklister må ikke køre på fortov eller gangsti (med mindre der er lavet en særlig undtagelse (§14stk4) med arealadskillelse).
FredrikLindseth (2016-08-15 13:54:44+00:00): This hostel is a duplicate of an already existing node. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/434237494
user_5359 (2016-08-15 04:19:48+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please check the position of your node! A restaurant can’t be placed in the middle of the street.
Planer47 (2026-05-19 09:14:25+00:00): Es handelt sich um eine Sommer-Linden-Allee , nicht nur um eine Baumreihe!
mucx (2026-05-20 20:51:20+00:00): Geht es um die folgenden ways:

437201633, v1
[natural=tree_row]
437201634, v1
[natural=tree_row]
437201635, v1
[natural=tree_row]

? Das sind definitiv Kastanienbäume welche sich nur auf einer Seite des Weges befinden, also nicht der Definition einer Allee entsprechen.

Andere "tree_row" ways finde ich nicht im Changeset. Nördöstlich auf der Zufahrt nach Holzen von der B11 aus sind weitere eingezeichnet. Die Baumart könnte hier ggf. noch ergänzt werden. Für eine Allee steht sonst nur das Tagging "tree_lined" für die Straße selbst zur Verfügung. Ich kann leider nicht (mehr) einschätzen wie das sich vor Ort verhält, war schon länger nicht mehr dort.
Planer47 (2026-05-26 18:15:32+00:00): Da lief was falsch! Von der Münchner Strasse kommend, nahe Schützenried führt die KASTANIEN-BAUMREIHE vorbei am Abzweig zur Lindenallee und  weiter, westlich um Holzen herum bis zur Verbindungsstrasse nach Norden. Dort beginnt die Kastanienallee (einige wenige Lärchen und Ahorn dazwischen) in Richtung Ebenhausen.
Arma IRM-ED (2020-09-21 06:45:11+00:00): Hi, ArizonaMapper. I have adjusted the unclassified highway (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/437203534) based on Maxar Premium Imagery
mavl (2019-05-09 10:45:28+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-09 10:45:32+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-09 10:45:36+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-09 10:45:39+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
user_5359 (2016-08-15 04:18:18+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Neighbourhood ...
mavl (2019-05-09 10:45:43+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
Commodoortje (2016-08-16 07:14:35+00:00): Gecontroleerd,  changeset gerevert. Plaatsnaam is geen Gouda! Gelieve niet toevoegen omdat het kan, dit schaadt de OSM kaart in ernstige vorm. MAPS.ME is helaas niet de optimale editor voor OpenStreetMap. Waardoor vervuiling kan ontstaan.
mavl (2019-05-09 10:45:47+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-09 10:45:51+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
FTA (2017-09-02 19:59:26+00:00): Hey ToeBee, I noticed the way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13136793 is one way all the way into the base. It looks like you were perhaps adding the divided one way roads at the entrance and didn't split the way on the right side? Looked odd to me based on satellite, so thought I'd check.
Cheers,
Ethan aka FTA
mavl (2019-05-09 10:43:20+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-12 16:09:48+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-12 16:09:31+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-12 16:09:56+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-12 16:10:05+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-12 16:09:59+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-12 16:10:16+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-12 16:10:12+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-12 16:10:09+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
mavl (2019-05-12 16:10:25+00:00): This changeset was redacted.  
Reason: «Guichet cartographique cantonal de l'Etat de Vaud» is an incompatible copyrighted source.  
  
Please, see:  
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/60664933
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-01 11:07:13+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4350335791/history has barrier=g that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
what this tag means? Is it maybe supposed to be barrier=gate? Or is maybe some other barrier?
Yorvik Prestigitator (2024-02-01 14:44:43+00:00): oops! I must have been relying on autofill too much - now fixed
SomeoneElse_Revert (2017-01-22 00:30:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 45360825 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some Google tracing usage
literan (2016-08-15 15:19:59+00:00): Почему ОРЕТЕ??? Здесь исправлю, но если будете писать капсом - придется откатывать.
JozefM (2016-08-15 00:02:18+00:00): I have reversed this change and added a bridge to Minster Road in Changeset #41456439
lyctkel (2022-05-30 16:23:38+00:00): Hi DTHG,
the tags recycling:deposit_bottles and recycling:deposit_cans at node 4350354692 are not often used. 
Maybe you meant https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vending%3Dbottle_return
Regards,
SomeoneElse (2016-08-29 09:25:17+00:00): Hello,
Here you've changed the building tag on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38551185/history from a detailed one to a different less detailed one.  Doing this removes information from OSM, so please don't do it.  In this case also I'd expect a "school boarding house" to be much more like a house or dormitory than a school, so the new tag is likely just wrong. If you can't find anywhere else for it maybe a description tag would be suitable for the fact that this is a boarding house and not any other sort of building?
Best Regards,
Andy
osmbuildings (2016-08-29 09:32:59+00:00): Hi,
removing information from OSM might not be wrong per se.
In this case, I have perhaps simplified too much. What about building=school and building:use="school boarding house".
If you check taginfo, building tags are going wild.
Regards,
Jan
SomeoneElse (2016-08-29 09:40:36+00:00): I'm not convinced that the best type of building for it would be "school" - it's a large residential building (from the imagery it looks like an older building with a newer extension).
osmbuildings (2016-08-29 11:32:20+00:00): Alright, I have no time to discuss this further. I'm fine with a revert or feel free to improve it.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-08-11 16:12:44+00:00): castle here?https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4350327192
Alecs01 (2016-08-15 09:50:03+00:00): Duplicato di https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4305609878 già presente, credo sia una questione di aggiornamento della App
Tomio (2016-08-15 19:08:27+00:00): Saudações Grutzmacher.
Acho que vc tem uma informação equivocada. A SC 110 tem o nome de Rod Est Wolgang Weege da serra até Jguá.
Da serra até a SC 421, por dentro de Pomerode, a SC 110 tem o nome de Rod Est Hermann Weege (usar no alt_name).
Consta no site do DER Estadual:
http://www.deinfra.sc.gov.br/jsp/relatorios_documentos/doc_rodoviario/download/denominacao_de_trechos_por_rodovias.pdf
tyr_asd (2016-08-16 15:33:17+00:00): Hi!

I think this changeset accidentally broke the outline of Italy! There are a couple of pieces missing between Fano and Pesaro, see https://imgur.com/a/CuM4e
tyr_asd (2016-08-16 15:39:48+00:00): Also, did you discuss this large-scale edit with the community (I didn't see anything on talk-it lately, but that doesn't have to mean anything ^^).

More to the point: I don't think that removing "name:it" tags, e.g. from boundaries (e.g. of "Pompei" or "Trento") was a good idea. What was the rationale behind it?
tyr_asd (2016-08-16 16:04:31+00:00): Oops, I think my first comment went to the wrong changeset (the boundary actually got broken in another changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41453004). Sorry for the confusion.
fayor (2016-08-17 13:37:06+00:00): Scusa se ti rispondo in italiano: ho tolto "name:it" quando era uguale a name. C'è qualche ragione per tenerlo lo stesso? Cioè, dovremmo mettere "name:it" sempre?
tyr_asd (2016-08-17 15:12:05+00:00): Excuse me for writing in English ;)

It's common practice to include the local language also in the name:* tags. Just take a look around how similar objects are tagged, for example Praha has a name that's the same as name:cs: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/439840

There's a reason for having the local name also in its own separate name:* tag when also other name:* tags exist. This is how keepright.at puts it: “To help applications choose the best matching language they should know the language used for the name tag. It is therefore necessary to provide a name:XX tag with the same content as found in the name tag where XX specifies the language used for the name tag.”

For example, let's assume there's a place node with only name=Roma and name:en=Rome set, and an Italian-speaking citizen comes along, whose navigation device is set to prefer languages in the following order: 1) Italian 2) English 3) Whatever the local language is. If there's no name:it=Roma, the navigation software can't know that "Roma" is actually an Italian name and would falsely fall back to English.

A similar problem occurs if one would try to produce a worldwide map in a specific language with fallbacks (e.g. an Italian map with English as fallback).
tyr_asd (2016-08-17 15:15:34+00:00): PS: There's no reason to put name:it tags on objects that only have one name alone (which the majority of places, roads, shops, etc). The above mentioned ambiguity-issues are only present when an object is named in at least two different languages.
fayor (2016-08-17 15:27:49+00:00): Ho capito, è una ripetizione necessaria per venire incontro a casi particolari. Questo significa che ogni volta che si aggiunge un tag "name:xx" a un oggetto che ha solo il tag "name" si deve anche cercare in quale lingua è il tag "name" e aggiungere il tag "name:xx" in quella lingua!
tyr_asd (2016-08-17 15:36:48+00:00): Esatto!
user_5359 (2016-08-15 04:29:58+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Can you please tell me the source of these information?
SomeoneElse (2016-08-26 14:43:40+00:00): @user_5359 Some of this looks rubbish (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4350476993 ) and no reply above - revert maybe?
SomeoneElse (2016-09-16 17:27:13+00:00): I've reverted this.  Pretty much all the v1 objects are rubbish.
user_5359 (2016-08-15 04:31:15+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM description of the objects has the highest priority. Objects that have only one name, have little sense. As home page for the question "How do I describe you?" I recommend the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_to_map_a.
aharvey (2018-02-19 08:37:55+00:00): Hi, I couldn't find a ferry terminal here, so I've deleted it.
Carnildo (2016-08-15 06:24:15+00:00): Did something go wrong with this edit?  You've got a couple of nodes tagged as "railway=signalGEIGER JCT".
Natfoot (2016-08-15 06:39:33+00:00): Yes it did, Thank You
Derick Rethans (2016-08-15 10:43:30+00:00): Hi Andrew,

These schools were both mapped already I think: 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353481869
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353481872

But in slightly different places (on the buildings it seems). 

Which one is correct?

cheers,
Derick
Andrew Burns (2016-08-17 07:06:01+00:00): Hi Derick,
The way that the school was mapped before was incorrect, as both of the buildings shown on the are actually used by both schools. 

The infant school is situated to the North of both buildings, and the junior school to the south, and they are split at the hall location on the main building (infant hall is on the left, junior on right).
The secondary building is also mainly used by the junior school, but is split at roughly the same location as the hall on the main building. 

I would have removed the old locations, but I couldn't work out how to do it with Maps.me on my phone. 
Cheers, 
Andrew
Derick Rethans (2016-08-17 08:37:08+00:00): Hi Andrew,

thanks for getting back. I have made an attempt at mapping this "properly". With conflating the information already on the original buildings, and your description of which school belongs where. It's likely not a 100% accurate, but likely better to what it was :-)

thanks again!

cheers,
Derick
oini (2016-08-31 10:54:58+00:00): Hey Gerardo,
I've reverted your changeset as it contained fictional and untagged ways. Please check http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways to know more about the mapping conventions on OSM. Let me know if you have further queries.
Cheers,
Oindrila
luiswoo (2016-08-15 13:46:32+00:00): Да, снимки бинга здесь маленько устарели. В районе съезда с трассы построили какое то здание. Что видно на снимках Мапбокса, которые есть среди доступных.
luiswoo (2016-08-15 13:49:45+00:00): Хе-хе, вру, не видно — поправил как это должно примерно быть. Но Мапбокс всё равно новее.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2016-12-14 21:39:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 44403770, 44396421 where the changeset comment is: Initial revert of some google.cn sourced data in China
LLlypuk82 (2016-08-16 00:04:41+00:00): Вы не находите, что «слегка» перебарщиваете с офисами и помещениями одной и той же фирмы на одном пятачке территории? При этом каждый раз выдаёте их за государственные органы, почему-то. Прекращайте вандальные правки, пожалуйста.
literan (2016-08-15 15:11:55+00:00): а зачем тогда заметку в некорректном месте оставлял? Кстати, время работы и адрес ввел в неверном формате - ни одна программа не увидит, все равно что и не вводил.
iRFi (2016-08-16 07:14:10+00:00): Был неправ. Первоначально вводил метку с телефона и неразобрался, что она положение неправильное определила.
А Какой формат для времени работы правильный, Я б подправил.
literan (2016-08-16 12:28:34+00:00): Вот здесь синтаксис времени http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:opening_hours а здесь адрески http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:addr
mavl (2019-01-13 16:58:19+00:00): This changeset was redacted.