piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
AlexJ (2021-03-24 21:44:35+00:00): Layer 1, weil die Markierung als Baugebiet von einigen anderen noch vorhandenen Flächen überdeckt wurde.
Layer wurde hier nur zur richtigen stapelung der Flächen verwendet.
Ficky IRM-RV (2021-06-29 02:13:03+00:00): Olá narceliodesa,
com base em (https://maproulette.org/challenge/17412/task/97109200), encontrei um problema de crossover neste objeto (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/relation/12484365) não detectado em JOSM porque o objeto está na forma de uma relação

você consertaria isso? deixe-me saber se houver alguma atualização de dados.

Obrigado
!bm (2021-03-26 18:41:11+00:00): s. Anm zu https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101601988
!bm (2021-03-26 18:41:08+00:00): Hallo degutant,

du hast in Cs 101601955 [1] das Dach daneben(!) gelöscht, aber dieser highway verläuft unverändert durch ein Gebäude, war also gar nicht darunter eingzeichnet. In der derzeitigen Form scheint es mir fehlerhaft.

Anhand der als Bildquelle angegebenen TrueDOP2020 ist es mir auch nicht nachvollziehbar, mapillary von 2020 zeigt auch noch die überdachte Durchfahrt. Wurde das Dach über die gesamte Gebäudelänge entfernt?

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101601955

--besteGrüße!bm
gscholz (2021-04-02 06:42:29+00:00): Hi fgp789,
this changeset has destroyed the relations for Distrito II, Distrito III  and Daniel Chavarria:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-86.30015&lat=12.10506&zoom=13

Can you please fix this?
Kind Regards
Guido
wolfgang8741 (2021-05-25 19:01:51+00:00): seems some crossings were overlaid on existing crossings - see example this changeset and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/921514444
wolfgang8741 (2021-05-25 19:02:56+00:00): Example location https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=21/40.03421/-82.98385
wolfgang8741 (2021-05-25 19:05:58+00:00): Might be a conflation detection issue by due to the existing crossings not being attached to the road, but the way and crossing node are present on the path.
Yalvex (2021-03-25 20:58:58+00:00): Hello!  Why did you remove the correct tag name=Молодіжна вулиця from this street https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/284332086/history ?
bkw777geo (2021-03-26 23:22:24+00:00): Hello Yalvex, thank you for contacting me. I have added the street name back to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/284332086/
Yalvex (2021-03-27 17:07:56+00:00): Cool 👍
archie (2022-07-18 06:49:15+00:00): Sydväst om Långeudde har du tydligen misstagit stora vattenområden (Vänern) med algbeläggning som landområden. På så  sätt har ön Lindön fått landförbindelse. Har du möjlighet att rätta till det här? Tack i så fall!
mariotomo (2021-09-19 22:23:50+00:00): aside the "Strava" hint, it is particularly valuable if you provide **connectivity** in the roads you add, whenever possible. here you forgot to connect to way 919389683, also edited by you 5 days before this changeset.
abakus_uploader (2021-03-24 23:31:02+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
user_5359 (2021-03-24 03:43:02+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please don't mark the whole property as building. Only mark the building as building. 
I remove the way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/921520090.
The way https://www.osm.org/way/921520091 and https://www.osm.org/way/724275587 could not be buildings, because the way isn't closed.
blackboxlogic (2021-03-24 02:05:51+00:00): Hi, I see you deleted way 782245043 and commented "Deleted road that doesn't exist". I noticed that old imagery doesn't show a road here, but new imagery does. I wonder if you were looking at the old imagery?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101603135
Bluebasaur (2021-03-24 23:28:17+00:00): You know what, you're right. 

There should be a road there; my bad. Certainly just a regular road though; I believe the one I removed was tagged as a highway or something If I'm remembering right?
blackboxlogic (2021-03-24 23:58:03+00:00): I put back what was there 'highway=construction' which means "it looks like someone is building something that cars will be able to go over, but don't try to send traffic this way yet". That's all I can see from the imagery, the same as the person who put that road there. If you have more up-to-date information, feel free to upgrade it (maybe to service or driveway)
Scout Jens (2022-08-06 13:00:00+00:00): Sportpläzt, öffentl. Parkplätze und Freizeitgelände sind doch kein Wohngebiet? Auch die angrenzenden Straßen nicht. Oder wie siehst Du das? Viele Grüße, Jens
Scout Jens (2022-08-06 13:00:47+00:00): Ich beziehe mich auf Weg: 921523280
Warin61 (2021-03-24 07:46:33+00:00): Hi,

Continuing problems with duplicated segments. 

Suggest you monitor them using https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=138.57146&lat=-35.00876&zoom=17

and fix them as they show up.
user_5359 (2021-03-24 03:26:19+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please be careful when editing the map data. You moved the node https://www.osm.org/node/7238546064/history over 100 meters, so there were problems with the corresponding way. I have moved the point back to its original position.
kartler175 (2021-03-25 09:23:55+00:00): Was ist daran besser https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=12.11284&lat=47.84981&zoom=16&opacity=0.95 ?
GOwin (2021-03-25 01:18:51+00:00): Hi Ace! In OpenStreetMap (OSM), changeset comments give your fellow mappers some idea about the edits you made.  For example, "Added a street name," or "added a building", or similar.

"ALKJNFVIHEWBFGOBQAIF" is a kinda hard to decrypt. 😅
ravali_78 (2021-03-31 08:16:24+00:00): Hi mapper,
Fixed the alignment, as building polygons overlapping with residential road way 442094883
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102037196.Thank you
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101605358
Matt McCutchen (2021-03-24 02:51:01+00:00): Information about the construction project is at https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/whiteflint/ .  I used the vehicle detour map there to plan where to survey, but I didn't copy any information directly from that map because I was unsure of the licensing.  I used GPS traces to locate the closures and tried to get the connectivity right, at least for motor vehicles.

Review requested!!!  I've probably done some things not according to convention, but I hope this is at least much better than the status quo.  And someone who cares about pedestrian and bicycle access is invited to update that part.  Discussion of the complete update to this area beyond this initial changeset can take place at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2590993 .
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 14:44:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103958280 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits believed by the local community to be derived from Google Maps.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4899 .  Some have already been dealt with; this should address the rest.
TomPar (2021-03-25 02:39:48+00:00): I see you updated access= to "permissive" on some islands in the Quabbin.  Where are you getting this information from?  According to DCR, this is strictly off-limits.  https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/02/01/2018quabbinaccessplansummary.pdf
user_5359 (2021-03-25 04:41:50+00:00): Thanks for asking. The value restricted for the access key is obsolete. The example replacements from the wiki do not fit here in my opinion. Also, the value no is too restrictive, as it does not allow employees of owners to enter the site. Therefore I consider the value permissive to be correct, but can be replaced by no if they are indeed not allowed to enter.
ZeLonewolf (2021-03-25 04:57:57+00:00): Thanks for helping us get rid of obsolete tagging :)  The US community tends to be quite in favor of rooting out bad tagging.

I'm thinking the definition of access=no fits quite well here -- "No access for the general public", unless I am mis-reading the wiki definitions, this would not preclude employees from entering the site.  I recall offhand that the state used to run an annual tour of Prescott Peninsula, so if there is very occasional public access allowed, from reading the wiki perhaps access=private is a good fit here.  It is *certainly* not permissive, access is definitely controlled here, just based on what I saw visiting Quabbin Park.
TomPar (2021-03-25 05:00:30+00:00): Thanks for the response.  From the wiki:

"The access=no tag indicates that the object is not to be used by the general public".  Furthermore, it specifically references "government facilities" which this land is basically.

"(access=permissive) open to general traffic until such time as the owner revoke the permission"

This is a state-owned restricted area for the protection of drinking water.  Of the two, per wiki and local practice norms, access=no seems to be the more appropriate choice.

I appreciate access=restricted is obsoleted, however, I'd caution semi-automatically updating these tags without more local knowledge or have more specific sources of data than "bing" to support the change.

Thanks for mapping.
ZeLonewolf (2021-03-25 05:04:12+00:00): Tom, I tend to agree.  An area marked "restricted" is almost certainly supposed to be =no or =private.
user_5359 (2021-03-25 05:11:40+00:00): i would never have thought of access=private for a stately property, but on rereading from the definition of access=no, no is an acceptable value for me even for annual one-time tours.
bhietsch (2021-04-07 15:26:55+00:00): Thanks for adding these businesses! Please make sure you avoid abbreviating any names (e.g. use street instead of st.)
marc__marc (2021-03-24 11:42:47+00:00): Hello,
Could you please try to send the modifications before flying or at least before making a change in another country ? it avoids to make a group of modifications with a part in Switzerland, and a part in the USA.
there are also many duplicates (3x the same bank, 2x the startbucks)
Regards,
Marc
Dimacn (2021-03-24 17:41:50+00:00): Вы преднамеренно, несмотря на предыдущие замечания, добавляете несуществующие объекты в виде замков, меняете теги существующих точек, добавляете дубли. Подобные правки подпадают под вандализм. Ваша правка отменена.
nashdoug (2021-06-25 16:56:03+00:00): The name change from Rocky Fork Road to Newsome Lane was incorrect.  The name of the street is Rocky Fork Road, not Newsome Lane.
amarajz (2021-06-28 09:56:11+00:00): Hi,

Thank you for reviewing my changeset and correcting the road name.
Apologies for the incorrect road name that was added.
I will be extra cautious going forward. Happy to learn from you! 

Regards,
amarajz
tastrax (2021-04-02 00:15:51+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
habi (2021-03-25 09:49:48+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap

It would be good if the comment of your changeset describes what you actually changed and is not just some random sequence of characters.

Happy mapping and greetings from Switzerland,
habi
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/101621476
Talkless (2021-10-31 19:01:00+00:00): Labas,
Kaip suprasti tuos "landcover=grass" IR "landuse=grass" vienu metu?
Tomas Straupis (2021-10-31 19:12:15+00:00): landcover=grass|trees yra toks pereinamas/bandomasis variantas (nors jau virš metų bandomas, tai gal pats laikas į paviršių kelti). Mintis tokia, kad kai turim nedidelius žole ar medžiais apaugusius plotus gyvenamojoje, komercinėje, pramoninėje žemėnaudoje, tai tada dedam landcover, kurį vaizduojam tik stambiausiuose masteliuose (vidutiniuose/smulkiuose jie tada neužteršia žemėlapio). landuse=grass/natural=wood mūsų openmap.lt žemėlapiuose nenaudojami, jie paliekami tik OSM vizualizacijose - kad „nepasijaustų“ įtaka. Arba kitais žodžiais landuse=grass|natural=wood yra skirtas OSM-Carto vizualizacijai, o landcover - openmap.lt žemėlapiams.
Talkless (2022-01-07 22:39:15+00:00): Tai apibendrinant:

* Pievoms, kurios tikriausiai naudojamos galvijams ganytis ir/arba šienui auginti - landuse=meadow
* Didesnėms ne ūkinės paskirties pievelėm, kurios matosi žemėlapyje ir iš "aukščiau" - landuse=grass
* Mažom pievelėm prie degalinių, eismo juostų ir panašiai - landuse=grass ir landcover=grass

Ar taip teisingai?
Tomas Straupis (2022-01-08 06:42:19+00:00): Mano galva neįmanoma/nepraktiška atskirti pievas, kuriose ganomi ar neganomi gyvūliai (tuo labiau, kad ir oficialiuose duomenyse šitie dalykaip niekaip neskiriami, pieva yra pieva). Tuo labiau, kad net atskyrus neaišku, kur mes tą diferenciaciją dėtumėm, vaizduojam vis tiek taip pat, skaičiavimų nelabai yra kokių su tuo daryti. Todėl landuse=meadow yra visos pievos: ir tos, kur galbūt gyvuliams ir/ar šienui, ir tos, kur žolę pjaus, bet nerinks.
O grass - tai mikro elementams, kurių žemėlapyje (išskyrus pačius stambiausius mastelius) iš viso neturėtų būti :-)
Talkless (2022-01-08 09:09:10+00:00): Na aš "pievelę" (=grass) man norėtųsi laikyti  miesto "detalę", pvz pievą prie kažkokios aikštės:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/680949334#map=17/55.93085/23.32616

Arba pievelę prie sankryžų/degalinių:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435100128

Gal dar kokio privataus namo didesnį kiemą. Ten, kur tikriausiai apdirbama paprastais trimeriais ar stumdomom ar net savaeigėm žoliapjovėm-traktoriukais.

O tokias pieveles vadinti pievomis kur " mainly used for hay (meadow) or for grazing animals (pasture)." kaip pagal wiki, kažkaip sunkiai kyla rankos. Turbūt lengvas "ADHD", nepakankamas "tvarkos" kiekis man :-D .

O kas už miesto ribų, kas viršija kažkokį "plotą", kur gal o gal o gal ir ne pjauna šieną ar ganosi gyvuliai, man iš tikro labiau asocijuojasi su "meadow". Nors aišku, praktinės naudos mažai, jei vis vien taip pat atvaizduojama... bet kažkaip.. vis vien nepatinka :( . 

Turbūt reikės sukąsti dantis ir žymėti akivaizdžiai ne-ūkinius plotus kaip meadow :( .
Tomas Straupis (2022-01-08 09:22:37+00:00): Priminsiu, kad wiki yra tik kažkieno nuomonė - nei patvirtinta, nei peržiūrėta, nei kažkokia viena teisinga (priešingai - dažnai NEteisinga, žinant, kas dabar tą OSM wiki tvarko).

Pradėkim nuo tokio klausimo: KAM (kokiu tikslu) būtų naudojama tokia diferenciacija? Jei atsakymo nėra - tada teks grįžti prie mano minties - žymėti kiek galima paprasčiau. Nes na kam žmogui sukti galvą, vat gali čia karvė ganytis ar negali, jei vis tiek vėliau niekas nenaudoja tokios diferenciacijos :-) O net jei kažkam reikia siauro panaudojimo, ar nebus geriau tada ne kurti atskirą pirmos eilės žymą/klasę, o pridėti papildomą žymą „animal_grazing=yes“ ar pan.

Beje, oficialiuose duomenyse GRPK nėra skirtumo, pieva yra pieva ir tiek. O tie mažiukai grass gabaliukai apskritai nežymimi.

(Jei skaičiuojam pagal plotą, tai nėra prasmės pagal tai žymes dėlioti, galima paskaičiuoti naudojant)

Beje, galima būtų šitą pokalbį į talk-lt perkelti, daugiau dalyvių/nuomonių būtų. Ir šitas bus įdomu daug kam.
user_9385968 (2021-03-26 15:44:24+00:00): wieso access no ? schon mal auf https://www.nationalpark-saechsische-schweiz.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/10-Schmilkaer-Gebiet-Blatt-01.pdf nachgesehen ? War der Kaffee schlecht ?
Nationalpark Sächsische Schweiz (2021-03-30 09:12:43+00:00): Das PDF ist mir bekannt - danke für den Hinweis.
Hier hatte ich ein kleines Experiment an 2 Sackgassen gestartet um zu testen, wie und ob das access destination tag von Navigationsportalen ausgelesen wird.

Wie bereits per Mail mitgeteilt - sachliche und konstruktive Beiträge, Kritik, Hinweise und Anregungen sind sehr willkommen! Ein respektvoller Umgang miteinander ist jedoch die Bedingung dafür. Bitte achte in Zukunft etwas mehr auf Ausdruck und Umgangsform zu achten - egal ob on- oder offline. 
Danke.
MichaOSM (2021-04-05 08:30:17+00:00): Mit OSM ein "kleines Experiment" 
zu machen und dabei den Weg auf access=no zu setzen falsch.
Nationalpark Sächsische Schweiz (2021-04-06 07:19:46+00:00): Tut mir leid - kommt nicht wieder vor!
user_9385968 (2021-04-06 09:04:59+00:00): Herzlichen Dank für diese Aktion !
Jetzt ist damit endlich auch die Klettertruppe aufgeschreckt worden.

Besser konnte es nicht laufen ...
Nationalpark Sächsische Schweiz (2021-04-06 09:11:17+00:00): Gern kann ich die Hintergründe dafür persönlich erläutern - Kontaktdaten sind bekannt.
habi (2021-03-25 09:47:11+00:00): Ciao Abnm

It seems that you're adding bogus data to OpenStreetMap, which is considered vandalism.
Please refrain from doing so.
Additionally, it would nice if the comment of your changesets is not just keyboard-mashing, but describing what you're changing.

I've reverted this changeset with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101706394
valhikes (2024-08-31 03:58:42+00:00): You can see that the scary bridge over 44 Creek is no more from satellite imagery?
O_Tkachenko (2021-05-17 07:59:12+00:00): Why are you, not the first time, making incorrect edits?
"Молоко від фермера" is a local chain of dairy stores, not just a milk store, much less, not a beverages store.
kate_rocketdata (2021-05-17 08:03:01+00:00): Good day. Which set of tags would you like best for this company?
O_Tkachenko (2021-05-17 08:21:13+00:00): For this chain, "shop=dairy" is much correctly
kate_rocketdata (2021-05-17 08:29:55+00:00): Well, we will use this tag for this company, if you have any more suggestions, you can write them on the forum, there we always throw off our proposed imports.
gileri (2021-03-27 21:39:22+00:00): Bonjour, est-ce le nom du gymnase ? Ou c'est juste un gymnase abandonné où certains font de l'urbex ?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-18 09:52:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103129129 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  In this case, the mapper has been contacted about their edits but problems still persist.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-18 09:52:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103129129 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  In this case, the mapper has been contacted about their edits but problems still persist.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-18 09:52:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103129129 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  In this case, the mapper has been contacted about their edits but problems still persist.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-18 09:52:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103129129 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  In this case, the mapper has been contacted about their edits but problems still persist.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-18 09:52:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103129129 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  In this case, the mapper has been contacted about their edits but problems still persist.
habi (2021-03-25 10:07:50+00:00): In Concourse A you've added several ways through the building, you might/should tag them with either a descriptive 'layer' tag or mark them as `covered=yes` to describe their vertical relation to the building.
habi (2021-03-25 10:08:09+00:00): Additionally, what's GCAA exactly, which you mention as source here?
KhaledN (2021-03-25 10:11:22+00:00): GCAA is the airport authority in the middle east. they publish charts of airports. aa.gov.ae/aip/current/UAE_AIP.html
dieterdreist (2022-09-15 08:28:44+00:00): In questo changeset è stato introdotto la way 921603750 con la classe "living_street", lo trovo improbabile, forse si tratta di una residential? service=alley? footway? "layer=-1" da solo non è sufficiente, sarebbero da indicare le situazioni dove si passa sotto una casa con tunnel=building=passage.
Saluti e buona mappatura,
Martin
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-18 09:52:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103129129 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  In this case, the mapper has been contacted about their edits but problems still persist.
valhikes (2023-02-18 16:31:37+00:00): Was there a reason beyond not appearing on the very old USGS for deleting this trail?
Matija Nalis (2023-02-26 16:02:41+00:00): After reading https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/valhikes/diary/400998 and comments there, as well as any lack on response on this (and original changeset 90213462), I'm also of the opinion that this trail should not have been deleted.

Also for further reference, when asking a question on a changeset, it is customary to wait at least few days to give author a chance to respond (especially before deleting someone's work without any delay).

Does anybody object on reverting this changeset and restoring this trail to OSM map? @geomap6 ?
valhikes (2023-03-06 00:19:54+00:00): Picked some slightly different tagging and reinstated it, including a note with the description on the "to Emerald Ridge Trail" sign in the Tall Trees area.
marc__marc (2021-03-24 11:46:45+00:00): Hello,
Could you please avoid a changeset with building in France and Libya ?
I also don't understand the source, how are you tracing those building ? with an aerial imagery ? if so, that's the source
Regards,
Marc
marc__marc (2021-03-24 12:55:43+00:00): looking at the modifications in France, the sat imagery used is off and the building moves are all wrong, there are even buildings that have been moved across the road.
there are some strange looking buildings https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/921605856
I'll look into undoing the wrong moves while keeping the few missing buildings you added
fick89 (2021-04-02 21:58:55+00:00): Per quale motivo è stata eliminata la pista ciclabile? La descrizione del gruppo di modifiche è "eliminato doppione cycleway" ma era presente un'unica pista ciclabile che ora non c'è più a seguito della sua eliminazione
itineralp (2021-04-03 17:54:41+00:00): Ciao, la pista ciclabile è presente come tag "cycleway:left - track" (situazione di fatto ed in concordanza con gli altri segmenti). A te non compare così? Nel caso apporta le modifiche che ritieni opportuno, ciao
fick89 (2021-04-05 12:05:17+00:00): Effettivamente è presente il tag che hai indicato. Pensavo però che il rendering di default di OSM disegnasse in modo diverso le strade con annessa pista ciclabile e quelle senza, altrimenti è molto difficile capire a video la presenza della pista ciclabile. Al fine di evitare doppioni concordo nel non disegnare un ulteriore pista ciclabile.
itineralp (2021-04-06 06:14:18+00:00): Sì, sulla mappa Osm standard questi tag non sono visibili, ma su mappe specifiche per la bici (opencyclemap ad esempio) sono ben indicati. Ciao
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-11-03 10:39:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113325200 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some POI edits of unknown provenance where the editor has refused contact with the US community.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5420 ..