piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
aachso (2020-12-16 00:14:34+00:00): Hallo leajun und willkommen bei OSM!

Das Sportgeschäft https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4747399472 hat laut Webseite auch Samstags geöffnet. Da es an Feiertagen, die auf einen Mo-Sa fallen, geschlossen sein dürfte, wäre "Mo-Sa 10:00-20:00; Su,PH off" der richtige Wert für opening_hours. Ich kann https://openingh.ypid.de/evaluation_tool/ zum Prüfen der Werte für opening_hours empfehlen.

Die Fahrradständer einzeln einzutragen ist zwar prinzipiell nicht ganz falsch, aber ich würde sie eher als Fläche mappen (wie gegenüber), auch wenn die Stadt hier ausnahmsweise mal so viel Platz gelassen hat, dass man ohne Verrenkungen an sein Fahrrad kommt :-)

Der Rest sieht super aus!

Gruß
leajun (2020-12-17 17:28:15+00:00): Hi aachso, danke für dein Feedback! 

Ja, ich bin ganz frisch dabei und blicke beim Beschriften der Eigenschaften noch nicht zu 100% durch...aber die Seite scheint echt hilfreich zu sein, die werde ich mir aufjedenfall mal angucken, danke :) 

Ehrlich gesagt glaube ich, dass ich einfach die Öffnungszeiten vom alten Standort vergessen habe anzupassen...wird sofort korrigiert :)

Tatsächlich glaube ich das ich die gegenüberliegende Fahrrad-Fläche selber eingezeichnet habe (wenn wir vom selben Ort sprechen ;)) und ich habe sogar frecherweise am Kapuzinerkarree einen Punkt in eine Fläche umgewandelt, weil mir das deutlich angemessener vorkam ;) Weil die Ständer an dieser Stelle aber schon ziemlich weit auseinander sind, war ich mir nicht sicher und hab sie lieber einzeln eingezeichnet :) Zum verrenken kommt ja normalerweise auch das kämpfen durch Fahrradleichen dazu ;)

Du scheinst dich gut auszukennen, von daher frage ich einfach mal: Ich hab jetzt schon öfters gesehen, dass die Umrisse von Häusern samt korrekter Form eingezeichnet sind, aber doch sehr stark verschoben sind, also deutlich von den Satellitenbildern abweichen. Hat das einen besonderen Hintergrund, liegt das am editor, oder hat da jemand nicht ordentlich gearbeitet? Lohnt es sich dann im nächsten Schritt, das ganze zu Korrigieren? 

Nochmal danke für dein Feedback und viele Grüße! :)
aachso (2020-12-17 23:20:31+00:00): Hi,

das mit den verschobenen Umrissen liegt häufig daran, dass sie mit Hilfe von schlechteren Luftbildern angelegt wurden. Vermutlich weil es damals einfach keine besseren gab.

Verzerrungen in Luftbildern entstehen schon allein durch die Perspektive, aber auch durch Schrägaufnahmen und durch Höhenunterschiede in der Oberfläche.

Manche Mapper machen bei Schrägaufnahmen den Fehler, den Umriss anhand der vollständig sichtbaren Dachfläche einzuzeichnen, statt den (an 1-2 Seiten nicht sichtbare) Grundriss zu verwenden, was natürlich etwas komplizierter ist. Teilweise muss dabei der Verlauf des nicht sichtbaren Grundrisses geraten werden.

Ein gutes Beispiel ist das Europa-Hochhaus. Klick im Editor mal die verfügbaren Bilder durch, dann erkennst du die Unterschiede: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=13865239

Eine Abhilfe verschaffen Orthofotos, bei denen selbst hohe Türme so dargestellt werden, dass das Dach mit dem Grundriss übereinstimmt. Wirklich gute und rechtlich benutzbare Orthofotos (z.B. das NRW Luftbild) gibt es aber erst seit kurzem.


Ein Korrigieren mit Hilfe von besseren Quellen halte ich für sinnvoll.

Gruß
RehanSees (2020-12-15 22:06:57+00:00): Approved.
RehanSees (2020-12-15 22:07:21+00:00): This place is now a playground.
clay_c (2020-12-27 15:57:32+00:00): Reverted in changeset 96489307. Retagging these underground train stations to building=no + railway=station has introduced duplicate station objects with labels, and doesn't match up with how underground buildings are mapped elsewhere; see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11Cc
WoodWoseWulf (2020-12-15 23:39:55+00:00): Hi Yuri,

Welcome to OSM!

This school is already on the map, here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29688528#map=16/41.9902/-70.9932

Were you trying to add something in addition to the existing school?
Yuri6050 (2020-12-16 00:43:04+00:00): not really
WoodWoseWulf (2020-12-16 01:36:58+00:00): Are you good to remove the duplicates?
I noticed you just added a a recreation ground to your house as well? What were you trying to add there?
On OSM, a recreation ground is "an open green space for general recreation, which often includes formal or informal pitches, nets and so on."
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Drecreation_ground)
Vinber-Pro (2020-12-16 06:00:04+00:00): Le magasin à la ferme est devant la maison ou dans la maison plutôt non ?
LucieALO (2020-12-16 08:35:01+00:00): Je n'ai pas modifié l'emplacement du point, je ne connais pas le point de vente. Il faudrait vérifier avec Jérôme.
Vinber-Pro (2020-12-29 09:45:22+00:00): Ok je vais voir cela avec lui, merci
clay_c (2020-12-27 15:56:18+00:00): Reverted in changeset 96489307. Retagging these underground train stations to building=no + railway=station has introduced duplicate station objects with labels, and doesn't match up with how underground buildings are mapped elsewhere; see https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11Cc
eggie (2020-12-15 22:10:33+00:00): Koen.. denk dat het prima kan zo. 
gr eggie
bhietsch (2020-12-16 02:14:35+00:00): Nice additions to these neighborhoods! So I guess they're eventually going to link the two sections of Jensen Drive?
mbeyerle (2020-12-16 02:24:43+00:00): Thanks! Ostensibly, yes
BCNorwich (2020-12-16 08:30:14+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Just a couple of points that you might be able to amend. 

The other cairrageway (northern line of the dual way), I would think this is also now oneway?

There's a bridleway in the middle that crosses the motorway via a bridge. Has this been reinstated where the bridleway crosses the A21?

There are two othe bridges crossing the motorway that look like they may join to or cross the A21, do you have info that could amend these?

Regards Bernard.
Loopapool (2020-12-15 22:18:47+00:00): A huge playground and park built recently.
x a (2020-12-16 14:27:10+00:00): Hallo!
Gibt es zu dem Hausnamen eine Quelle?
Beste Grüße.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95902867
tafelriss (2020-12-16 14:57:58+00:00): Hallo!
Ich kenne den Namen so als Spitznamen für das Haus. Eine Quelle kann ich leider nicht nennen.
Viele Grüße
Frans S (2020-12-16 13:26:17+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here

Experenced mappers, validators, review mappings of (new) mappers. 
This is a check on the Imagery which has been used.
According to the records you mapped from the Bing Imagery.
The Bing imagery is often loaded as standard Imagery in iDeditor. This is an issue which still has to be solved.
Please change to the Maxar Premium Imagery to map from the Imagery which is prescribed.
That is the most recent imagery.
(Bing is outdated and dates from  2009 - 2014)


See this document how to change the imagery
https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/#configuring-the-background-layer
(Often Bing select standard the Bing Imagery)

Best regards and keep mapping.

ps: It is possible that you received this message on another changeset as well. 
Sorry for that. There is no way to avoid duplicate messages.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95902888
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-05-22 17:30:53+00:00): Hello!

You used
man_made=cutliner
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/885305791/history

Have you maybe meant
man_made=cutline
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?
Frans S (2020-12-16 13:10:04+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here

Experenced mappers, validators, review mappings of (new) mappers. 
This is a check on the Imagery which has been used.
According to the records you mapped from the Bing Imagery.
The Bing imagery is often loaded as standard Imagery in iDeditor. This is an issue which still has to be solved.
Please change to the Maxar Premium Imagery to map from the Imagery which is prescribed.
That is the most recent imagery.
(Bing is outdated and dates from  2009 - 2014)


See this document how to change the imagery
https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/#configuring-the-background-layer
(Often Bing select standard the Bing Imagery)

Best regards and keep mapping.

ps: It is possible that you received this message on another changeset as well. 
Sorry for that. There is no way to avoid duplicate messages.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95903247
Frans S (2020-12-16 13:10:35+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are a bit inaccurate and not squared.
This document might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sSghBZ1xSoo0JKAWUJH8VYood6VSL5eUI4ICnO_jg0/edit?usp=sharing

Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95903247
Frans S (2020-12-17 09:19:18+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project
Your mappings are quite accurate but are not always squared with the Q key. Please keep that in mind at future mappings.
Best regards
Frans S (2020-12-18 12:53:50+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this task
A remark
According to the records you mapped from the Bing Imagery.
The Bing imagery is often loaded as standard Imagery in iDeditor. This is an issue which still has to be solved.
Please change to the Maxar Premium Imagery to map from the Imagery which is prescribed.
That is the most recent imagery.
(Bing is outdated and dates from  2009 - 2014)


See this document how to change the imagery
https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/#configuring-the-background-layer
(Often Bing select standard the Bing Imagery)

Best regards and keep mapping.

ps: It is possible that you received this message on another changeset as well. 
Sorry for that. There is no way to avoid duplicate messages.
Frans S (2020-12-16 13:12:33+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested.  Your mappings here are a bit inaccurate and not squared.
Please use the ESRI imagery when the project imagery is clouded. Bing is rather old and outdated

This document might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sSghBZ1xSoo0JKAWUJH8VYood6VSL5eUI4ICnO_jg0/edit?usp=sharing

Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95903638
eggie (2020-12-15 23:04:49+00:00): Oke...Ben nu toch aan het screenen, name=Wasboxen verwijderd of is dat de bedrijfsnaam?... building=roof toegevoegd.
Wel kun je toevoegen operator=???
Nooit name= gebruiken voor de functie of wat iets is.
Dus niet name=bankje of name=benzinepomp  Wel de bedrijfsnaam.
Koen Zomers (2020-12-16 00:14:28+00:00): Check. Weet zo niet of ze een naam hebben. Weet alleen dat er self service wasboxen staan.
Glassman (2020-12-24 17:42:15+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/95903753
tastrax (2020-12-20 23:41:37+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added 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
Mxdanger (2020-12-21 08:09:04+00:00): Thanks for the correction!
smootheFiets (2020-12-15 23:10:14+00:00): Euh, verkeerde link onder bronnen aangevoerd. Dit is hem: https://www.ns.nl/stationsinformatie/emn/emmen
user_5359 (2020-12-16 21:22:50+00:00): Welcome to OSM! The tag access=no means nobody (also the owner) is not allowed to use the way. Did you mean access=private?
Cutch25 (2020-12-16 21:31:51+00:00): Yes your right i will fix it. Thanks
Luuuddooo (2020-12-16 22:26:35+00:00): Hello,
with your deletion it is not possible any more to cross by foot. OK to remove the bicycle tag but I think the streets are still connected for pedestrians.
Spontex (2020-12-16 23:14:26+00:00): Hello,
These streets are connected "everywhere", since rue d'Alsace-Lorraine is a pedestrian way. There is no physical path specially here. So you may add this path, but you could as well add some more paths between these streets. Note that we do not want to tag for the routers.
Regards
Luuuddooo (2020-12-16 23:24:35+00:00): So how should we map it correctly but still routable here ?
Spontex (2020-12-17 00:06:31+00:00): I think that the pedestrian area "rue d'Alsace Lorraine" should share some nodes with the connected streets. But very few routers handle pedestrian ways, anyway, they generally use only the borders of the way (this is the case here).
As a general principle, you should not map for the routers, and only consider the "visible" paths.
Luuuddooo (2020-12-17 00:20:19+00:00): The following page says the contrary

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Guidelines_for_pedestrian_navigation

Recommendations:
    Join together the ways leading to a pedestrian area, to enable linear routing engines to produce (possibly less realistic) itineraries that cross the area.
Spontex (2020-12-17 05:57:30+00:00): Please look at this one :-)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area
Note: Most pedestrian routing algorithms do not currently route (correctly) across area features, tending to route around the edge or not at all (especially in case of multipolygons). Do not alter your mapping to accommodate such routers. 

I have tried the routing without this little path, and it seems good enough to me:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=43.60800%2C1.44564%3B43.60677%2C1.44564
Luuuddooo (2020-12-17 19:42:57+00:00): The routing seems terrible to me:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=43.60846%2C1.44705%3B43.60760%2C1.44393

This is not an acceptable solution for pedestrian. I hope for them they will use other maps than OSM with more common sense.
Spontex (2020-12-17 21:35:01+00:00): Hello,
Indeed, this is not good.
Please note that OSM is not a router but a database. There are many routers relying on OSM, not all of them have the same behaviour (and most of them having poor performance with pedestrian areas).
If you want to add virtual paths, please do so.
I have just made an edition in order to join rue de Rémusat and the edge of rue d'Alsace-Lorraine. I think it is the right way to connect them. This way, I hope the router will understand it can go from the one to the other at any point of the border. Let us wait and see :-)
Spontex (2020-12-22 14:49:48+00:00): Hi,
Thank you for your patience. The mapping does not seem to have improved the routing. I propose to add again virtual footpaths if you want, until OSM provides a solution (e.g. a "virtual" tag between all entrances, for routers). See for instance https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1590336#map=19/51.50749/-0.12664 and this debate: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64478 .
Luuuddooo (2020-12-24 12:38:28+00:00): OK thanks, I added back the footpath at a location compatible with wheelchair.
JochenB (2020-12-30 10:50:33+00:00): Ich habe festgestellt, dass meine Änderungen die Radverbinduingen in den Karten verschwinden lassen, ich werde das daher demnächst zurücknehmen.
larcminder (2021-06-08 19:39:43+00:00): Hallo,
hast Du den Key schon wieder hinzugefügt?
VG Marc
JochenB (2021-06-08 20:09:36+00:00): Ja das habe ich alles einzeln wieder in route-Relationen zurückgesetzt und ich hoffe, dass ich nichts vergessen habe. 

Im Forum habe ich eine Diskussion gestartet, wie wir Radnetze taggen können um sie von Themenrouten zu unterscheiden.

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=72458
Cartographer10 (2020-12-16 08:22:08+00:00): Hey,

Bedankt voor je bijdrage. Aan een van de bomen heb je de tag "diameter=5m" gegeven. Als je op onderstaande wiki kijkt is diameter=* voor de diameter van de stam (op 1,3m hoogte). Ik denk dat jij "diameter_crown=5" bedoelde. Zoals je ziet hoeft de eenheid er ook niet achter. Standaard wordt het getal wat je invuld als meter gezien. Mocht je trouwens ooit decimalen willen gebruiken dan moet je een punt en niet een komma gebruiken. Zou je het even kunnen corrigeren?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=tree
WolreChris (2020-12-29 00:23:14+00:00): Thank you for the heads up! I actually realized that diameter was referring to the trunk and not the crown while making the edit and thus removed it from all the other objects but seemingly forgot this one. Fixed it now though!
smootheFiets (2021-06-26 08:18:45+00:00): Hey Koen,
Since you've asked to 'please check': the paths look fine for the most part.  Except the tag to use is tunnel=building_passage instead of tunnel=yes.  I've just fixed that while I was busy in the area.
Happy mapping!
smootheFiets
Koen Zomers (2021-06-27 19:25:33+00:00): Thanks for checking and correcting @smootheFiets!
John Hanover (2020-12-15 23:37:20+00:00): Planned to make two separate changesets, accidentally uploaded as one. 

Added streams and roads in lower Newsome Creek drainage.
SomeoneElse (2020-12-16 08:24:58+00:00): Sorry about the incorrect changeset comment above.  It should have been:
Reverting some inappropriate Golf-themed edits across two continents.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4614 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4589 and http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11890137 for more details.
❤️‍🔥 (2020-12-16 05:30:43+00:00): nice work! i would suggest using `building=roof` in some cases instead of `amenity=shelter` & `building=yes` but that's pretty trivial 🤷‍♀️

fyi i've made some minor changes to nearby features that you didn't touch: https://osm.org/changeset/95915154
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95904729
dónal (2020-12-16 11:30:05+00:00): Nice additions... way # 51263051 probably needs to be squared off. don't forget to add additional parking=* tags too.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95904803
dónal (2020-12-16 11:50:06+00:00): I took care of it since it was an easy edit. :)
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95904803
Florent Ch (2020-12-16 17:59:12+00:00): Can't see the OSMcha links. And what parking tags? I did not add any parking, nor did I look at the parkings on the way 😉
dónal (2020-12-16 21:18:27+00:00): The parking area was highlighted because you added a gate (resulted in a node being added to the parking way). Sorry for the confusion.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95904803
Basstoelpel (2020-12-31 22:46:24+00:00): Hallo teufli,

hast Du die Erlaubnis, Daten vom Lageplan der Stadt abzuzeichnen?

Abgesehen davon, das sind weder Postadressen noch Eigennamen.

Gruß,

Baßtölpel
teufli (2021-01-01 04:22:55+00:00): Hallo Baßtölpel, ich bin alle von mir editierten Wege und Änderungen persönlich wenige Tage vor dem jeweiligen Eintrag abgegangen. Die hier genannten "Abteilungen" finden sich auf den entsprechenden Steinen am Fuße neben den jeweiligen Eingängen. Die Bezeichnung "Abteilung" kommt tatsächlich vom im Source genannten PDF der Stadt Hannover - auf dem Stein steht jeweils nur die Nummer - "abgezeichnet" habe ich von dort aber nichts.

Dementsprechend habe ich auch nur als Tag "name" hinzugefügt, die Adressdaten sind jeweils der Friedhof selbst. Das schien mir der am Wenigsten schwerwiegende Eingriff in die Kartendaten zu sein und wird weder in OSM.org noch bspw. in OsmAnd gerendert. Ich suche etwas, wo es nicht unbedingt angezeigt, aber zumindest bei einer Suche einfach gefunden wird. Wenn Du da etwas Besseres weißt?
Langlaeufer (2022-11-27 18:56:40+00:00): Deine Eintragung hat nun jemand gelöscht, da es keine Adressen sind. https://osmcha.org/changesets/129432881
Falls ich dir beim Wiederherstellen und finden der richtigen Kategorie behilflich sein soll, gib bescheid.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95904953
teufli (2022-11-27 21:51:58+00:00): Hmm auf osmcha kann man nichts sehen, solange man sich nicht anmeldet. Wofür ist die Seite? Wenn ihr die Abteilungen nicht braucht, obwohl sie für die Friedhofsbenutzer wahrscheinlich sehr hilfreich sind..? Nagut, ich weiß, wo "mein" Grab ist, aber wenn man sich dort nicht auskennt, finde ich die Angaben nützlich. Auch der Grund, es sei keine Adresse, ist ja so nicht richtig. Es sind sehr wohl - städtische - Angaben in der Art von Flurangaben zur Adresse des Friedhofs.
Langlaeufer (2022-11-27 22:24:56+00:00): Die Abteilung wurden mittlerweile korrekt gemappt also alles gut
Enock4seth (2021-06-15 21:23:52+00:00): Could you please check again and move node to the appropriate location? It's in the middle of highway now.
Enock4seth (2021-06-15 21:42:22+00:00): Duplicate exists - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7533627637
Leo Slager (2020-12-19 11:14:50+00:00): Dag Koen,
Dat is goed gedaan.
Ook de bijbehorende adresnode met nummer 18 mag verwijderd worden.
Koen Zomers (2020-12-21 16:00:02+00:00): Thanks Leo. Eerder begreep ik van iemand dat je die adresnodes juist niet mocht verwijderen omdat die gekoppeld zitten aan het kadaster? Weet ook niet of ze op die plek nog weer wat anders terug gaan bouwen.
eggie (2020-12-21 16:33:54+00:00): Koen.. Er zit niets gekoppeld. De import is eenrichting BAG (Kadaster) > OSM
Dus als er nieuwbouw wordt gepleegd komen de nieuwe adresnodes weer mee met de import.
De adresnode is nu buiten gebruik en kan dus weg zoals Leo aangeeft.
gr eggie
Koen Zomers (2020-12-21 16:39:22+00:00): Helder, bij deze verwijderd
Frans S (2020-12-16 13:13:32+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here

Experenced mappers, validators, review mappings of (new) mappers. 
This is a check on the Imagery which has been used.
According to the records you mapped from the Bing Imagery.
The Bing imagery is often loaded as standard Imagery in iDeditor. This is an issue which still has to be solved.
Please change to the Maxar Premium Imagery to map from the Imagery which is prescribed.
That is the most recent imagery.
(Bing is outdated and dates from  2009 - 2014)


See this document how to change the imagery
https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/#configuring-the-background-layer
(Often Bing select standard the Bing Imagery)

Best regards and keep mapping.

ps: It is possible that you received this message on another changeset as well. 
Sorry for that. There is no way to avoid duplicate messages.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95906033
Warin61 (2021-01-13 04:17:53+00:00): Hi
The name tag should be for the name only .. not a description. In the case of multipolygon relation 12026324 named "Private Residence" but tagged as a garden... ... possibly access=private? and description=Private garden??? Similar comments for the house... adn 'residential garden'..
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
dónal (2020-12-16 11:24:54+00:00): Is this change correct? The original wikidata entry is for Tesco Express, the newer one for Tesco Plc.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95906081
dónal (2020-12-16 11:26:37+00:00): Is this change correct? The original wikidata entry is for Tesco Express, the newer one for Tesco Plc
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95906087
VictorIE (2021-02-10 19:46:18+00:00): Talking to another user, he thinks I've been wrong on accepting the advice of the iD Checker and they have raised the issue with the Checker manager.

We had unwittingly been engaged in an edit war for almost a year. :D