piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Pikse (2022-05-17 09:50:53+00:00): See ei ole õige:
https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/682099037
Silt building=* on hoonete jaoks. Siin on tegu tänavaga. Kui tänavat looduses (veel) pole, siis pidanuks jääma highway=proposed. Parandan selle esialgu tagasi.

Kui tänavat parasjagu ehitatakse, siis sobiks highway=construction+construction=residential.
Vt https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dconstruction
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-05-14 11:48:59+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 120753679, 120754193, 120754203, 120754219, 120754223, 120754238, 120754266, 120754297, 120778910, 120778929, 120778949, 120778964, 120778978, 120778982, 120779002, 120779019, 120779043, 120779054, 120779070, 120779086, 120779110, 120779523, 120779535, 120779560, 120779576, 120779591, 120779601, 120779616, 120779634, 120779650, 120779665, 120779685, 120779706, 120779725, 120779743, 120779757, 120779769, 120779784, 120779797, 120779814, 120779832, 120779856, 120779874.
santamariense (2022-06-09 13:47:09+00:00): Olá,

Notei que tu excluiu as cercas que tu mesmo havia adicionado. Poderia ter deixado sem problema pois faz parte do que é mapeável.

Bons mapeamentos,
[]'s,

santamariense
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120906541
danieldegroot2 (2022-05-13 10:56:25+00:00): Beste Xyberion,

Als je zelf al deze foto's hebt genomen, vermeldt het er dan alsjeblieft bij. Al behoudt de eigenaar van de content de rechten op hun content -dus ook voor gebruik in OpenStreetMap-, zonder expliciete vermelding van de bron (de auteur), kunnen andere mappers het idee krijgen dat deze bron (de website) te gebruiken is voor OpenStreetMap. Dit is echter niet zo lijkt mij, voor zover ik dit heb bekeken is content buiten de eigenaar om onderhevig aan auteursrechten (copyright).
Zie de Terms of Use voor Wikiloc
https://www.wikiloc.com/wikiloc/terms_en.html
( wklcdn.com stuurt door naar wikiloc.com )

Anders (als je niet de eigenaar bent, dan wel ter informatie):
We kunnen niet zomaar zonder de juiste licentie of expliciete, geschreven toestemming data -in welke vorm dan ook- gebruiken in OpenStreetMap e.d.
Bekijk de licentie van OpenStreetMap;
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
(Zie ook: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Getting_permission )
Als dit het geval is, neem dan contact op met de Data-werkgroep om je edits te laten terugzetten (redacteren)..
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group

Overigens zou het handig zijn als deze foto's geupload zijn op een website die per definitie het gebruik in OpenStreetMap toelaat, zoals Mapillary, KartaView (was: OpenStreetCam) of Wikimedia Commons (hier moet de licentie wel zelf aangegeven worden).

Ik zou daarnaast graag een antwoord krijgen op dit bericht. Dan weten mappers zoals ik dat je het gelezen hebt.

Groet,

Daniel
Xyberion (2022-05-18 19:45:20+00:00): Beste Daniel,

Bedankt voor de uitleg. Het zijn niet mijn eigen foto's, dus ik ga contact opnemen met de data-werkgroep. 
Er zijn een aantal andere wijzigingensets waarbij ik deze externe bron heb gebruikt, die zal ik ook laten terugzetten.

Mvg,

Wouter
multimodaal (2023-01-23 16:58:42+00:00): Hoi, ik neem aan dat de discussie ging over de foto die aangehaald is in "soure: " bij de Changeset?

Van dat bord heb ik een tijdje terug een foto op Mapilary gezet, die mag je wel gebruiken voor OSM

Foto: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=482144582889477

Licentie:
https://www.mapillary.com/osm?locale=nl_NL
"Rechten voor OpenStreetMap
Je hebt het recht om elk beeld van Mapillary te gebruiken, de metagegevens te bewerken en op te halen om bij te dragen aan de inhoud van OpenStreetMap. Dergelijke metagegevens kunnen bijvoorbeeld huisnummers, verkeersborden, straatnamen, beschrijvingen van gebouwen en de staat van wegen omvatten. Afgeleide metagegevens kunnen rechtstreeks worden gepubliceerd in OpenStreetMap conform de . Mapillary-beelden zijn beschikbaar op basis van een open licentie 

Mapillary waardeert de toeschrijving van afgeleide metagegevens. Dit kan bijvoorbeeld door de tag source=Mapillary te gebruiken of een koppeling naar mapillary.com bij te voegen. Dit stelt ons ook in staat om bij te houden en inzicht te krijgen in welke typen gegevens en beelden het nuttigst zijn voor OSM en deze kennis mee te nemen bij de ontwikkeling van onze tools."

Groet!

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=482144582889477
Glassman (2022-05-12 22:37:40+00:00): #TIP: A steam is still needed to connect water flow downstream. Otherwise the flow will end in the area. We typically call these areas either natural=water or natural=wetland. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwetland
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120906856
Romwriter (2022-05-14 16:30:36+00:00): Physiotherapie oder Psychotherapie?
user4816003805 (2022-05-13 03:22:55+00:00): Hi,
I've removed the duplicate Del Popolo and Tacorea nodes (which already exist) in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120912021.
Thanks for making sure they exist, though!
user4816003805 (2022-05-13 03:16:37+00:00): Hi C1ochette,
I removed the duplicate Peacekeeper node (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120911850), because it already exists at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/71515257.
confusedbuffalo (2022-06-24 18:14:38+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3210786 suggest you have the name wrong on the church.
Is it something like two churches using the same building?
Mariusz256 (2022-05-12 21:59:16+00:00): Odnośnie tego rozdzielenia na osobne ścieżki dla drogi rowerowej to była ostatnio dyskusja o tym (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120559367). Ale wtedy nawet nie zauważyłem, że ta droga rowerowa na północy już była rozdzielona wcześniej. Teraz przynajmniej jest spójnie na całym odcinku promenady.
Ale jak ktoś z Wrocławia uważa że wolałby jedną ścieżkę to nie mam nic przeciwko zmianie ;)
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-05-14 11:49:04+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 120753679, 120754193, 120754203, 120754219, 120754223, 120754238, 120754266, 120754297, 120778910, 120778929, 120778949, 120778964, 120778978, 120778982, 120779002, 120779019, 120779043, 120779054, 120779070, 120779086, 120779110, 120779523, 120779535, 120779560, 120779576, 120779591, 120779601, 120779616, 120779634, 120779650, 120779665, 120779685, 120779706, 120779725, 120779743, 120779757, 120779769, 120779784, 120779797, 120779814, 120779832, 120779856, 120779874.
RaphaelPasloin (2022-08-11 13:20:54+00:00): Not sure that highway=cycleway.

If you come from BBP it's a little confusing because it's the same level of street , but the exit and entrance in "chaussée de Mons" is a sidewalk and no belittled access.
user_8101879 (2022-05-22 13:07:01+00:00): Please don't forget to add roles "outer" to ways on the boundaries
englu (2022-05-16 15:49:04+00:00): Przebieg linii 967009497 w okolicach 49.418882, 20.251817 po zmianie jest gorszy niż był poprzednio. Proszę, porównać przebieg z warstwą nagranych śladów ze Stravy. Proszę o poprawkę w OSM.
Władysław Komorek (2022-05-18 09:57:07+00:00): Przebieg oparty jest o aktualne dane z Geoportal 2 (2021) jak widać w "source".
Poprzednie źródła mogą być mniej aktualne. A potoki mogą zmieniać swój bieg po każdych większych opadach. Tak więc wątpliwości można zgłosić do Wody Polskie.
Władysław Komorek (2022-05-18 10:06:14+00:00): Jeśli jednak masz bardziej aktualne dane to popraw.
wireguy (2022-05-20 12:37:27+00:00): hi technogeek,  the scrub relation 2592470 updated in this change is now unclosed.  It also overlaps with wood areas. There is also over 1000 individual natural=tree, all with a height of 10 (not created by you).  All of it seems like it needs some brush/tree trimming.
rbijnen (2022-09-11 08:31:31+00:00): Source pdf is offline, but archived here: https://archief11.archiefweb.eu/archives/archiefweb/20220719163219/https://www.enschede.nl/sites/default/files/Definitief-ontwerp-Molenstraat-Oldenzaalsestraat.pdf
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-05-14 11:49:03+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 120753679, 120754193, 120754203, 120754219, 120754223, 120754238, 120754266, 120754297, 120778910, 120778929, 120778949, 120778964, 120778978, 120778982, 120779002, 120779019, 120779043, 120779054, 120779070, 120779086, 120779110, 120779523, 120779535, 120779560, 120779576, 120779591, 120779601, 120779616, 120779634, 120779650, 120779665, 120779685, 120779706, 120779725, 120779743, 120779757, 120779769, 120779784, 120779797, 120779814, 120779832, 120779856, 120779874.
mbeyerle (2022-06-02 18:23:50+00:00): Is way 51653473 intended to overlap the building or are the nodes in it somewhat imprecisely placed?
dufekin (2023-08-29 00:29:25+00:00): That way was a commercial landuse area.  From the clues, it probably should have surrounded and not overlapped the building.  I cannot say whether the landuse area or the building or both needed revision.  The buildings come from a dataset (with some errors), but the areal imagery can have offsets and quirks, so it isn't typically easy to determine which to shift.  Even global positioning system readers are imprecise too.
Filip009 (2022-06-01 17:28:18+00:00): Hello, phone numbers needs to be in international format, so in Slovakia it is +421 XXX XXX XXX.
l0cKy (2022-06-06 20:45:34+00:00): Thanks for the advice. I will correct it with the next "revision" of the store data
Filip009 (2022-06-07 06:09:10+00:00): I have already corrected these which algorithm has found, so it is just advice for the future mapping :)
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-05-13 05:19:47+00:00): Hallo SLMapper,
bitte verwende bei Telefonnummern die internationale Schreibweise mit Ländervorwahl (+49 0...).
Gruß Roger Wilco
OSM_RogerWilco (2022-05-13 05:21:47+00:00): (ohne '0' nach +49) ;-)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:phone?uselang=de
SLMapper (2022-05-14 21:14:01+00:00): sure I will change it. thanks
SLMapper (2022-05-15 19:31:17+00:00): upsi. geht auch in Deusch ;-)

Ja die Strommasten auf dem Dach existieren. Siehe auch https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1062527760939209&focus=photo
zluuzki (2022-05-14 07:51:02+00:00): "railway=abandoned" means "A railroad was here once, the tracks were removed, but there are still traces of the railway." For example gravel, embarkments, vegetation changes, property lines etc.
It does NOT mean that there are rusty and overgrown tracks, that would be railway=disused, thats a common misconception.

Because railway=abandoned is correct tagging, i restored it.
emersonveenstra (2022-05-14 11:26:43+00:00): That's... not at all what the wiki says? "A tag to map former railways, where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible with ties/sleepers, signals or other railroad right of way signs or infrastructure" "If it is impossible to determine the former route of a railway from the ground or through aerial imagery you must not map it."  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=abandoned

I'm not going to revert this fully, but I will remove the parts of the ways that are clearly not visible on satellite imagery, because that's what the wiki says is correct (and also re-remove the level crossings you readded)
emersonveenstra (2022-05-14 12:02:13+00:00): I've reverted your careless re-additions of level crossings on an abandoned railway here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120976251
zluuzki (2022-05-14 13:58:23+00:00): The route is definitly still visible. It is veery easy to guess the former route - I looked at https://osmcha.org/changesets/120909006/ and the location of the old route can be perfectly recognized on the background aerial images, everywhere.
And even if you can't recognize the route somewhere, you should use railway=razed instead of deleting.

Also: By deleting such data you do not improve the data quality at all - you actually make it worse, because OSM-data comsumers like openrailwaymap.org, which render these old routes, become incomplete.
emersonveenstra (2022-05-14 14:49:43+00:00): Starting at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3673965527 and going east through the town, there is no evidence at all of a railroad route, it's a sidewalk and some front lawns, so no, it's not "perfectly recognized everywhere".

Also: One of the overarching tenants of OSM is Verifiability and mapping what's on the ground. A no longer existing railroad going through someone's lawn (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3673965528) is not visible, let alone verifiable, in a survey, and therefore should not be mapped.

I'm going to leave the sections that could be recognized and delete the aforementioned sections through the town.
Noen (2022-05-13 21:49:31+00:00): Denne gangveien er på flyfoto. Når ble den revet?
Tufte (2022-05-15 22:26:25+00:00): Når ny vei ble åpnet, forsvant denne strekningen bak en jordvoll og går nå i ett med naturen.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-06-25 19:46:39+00:00): Edite y ponga el nombre correcto, sin abreviaturas
Noen (2022-05-13 21:47:10+00:00): Du behøver ikke å spesifisere at denne veien er tillatt for gående, syklende og ridende og forbudt for kjørende.
Angi heller når noe avviker fra det forventede, f.eks hvis det sto et stort rødt «forbud for ridene» skilt i nærheten.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-05-13 17:21:57+00:00): você removeu algumas coisas e escreveu "teste", as coisas que você excluiu de fato não existem?
ivanbranco (2022-11-20 01:37:20+00:00): Hi,

seems like you deleted some highway name: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1nXk

could you fix it please? Good mapping
আফতাবুজ্জামান (2022-11-20 03:29:09+00:00): Hi, Excuse my English, I deleted some highway name because the person who added the name basically spammed. They added their name to these road. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117173807
আফতাবুজ্জামান (2022-11-20 03:39:08+00:00): I will cross-check and add name.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-05-14 11:48:58+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 120753679, 120754193, 120754203, 120754219, 120754223, 120754238, 120754266, 120754297, 120778910, 120778929, 120778949, 120778964, 120778978, 120778982, 120779002, 120779019, 120779043, 120779054, 120779070, 120779086, 120779110, 120779523, 120779535, 120779560, 120779576, 120779591, 120779601, 120779616, 120779634, 120779650, 120779665, 120779685, 120779706, 120779725, 120779743, 120779757, 120779769, 120779784, 120779797, 120779814, 120779832, 120779856, 120779874.
user_8101879 (2022-05-31 12:58:39+00:00): Hi,

Please don't forget to add roles "outer" to the ways on the boundaries : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary

(relations 14134224 and 14134223)

I fixed them.

Best regards
hatul (2022-05-19 14:33:11+00:00): בבקשה להימנע מנקודות מיותרות כאלה שאין להן משמעות למפה.
חיליק אגמון (2022-05-19 16:05:21+00:00): שלום לך, אפתח ואומר שאני מסכים איתך במאה אחוז. הנ״צ הזה לעמק השלום היה שם כבר הרבה זמן אלא שזה היה ממוקם במגרש החנייה (ראה p בתמונה מעל) גם אני חשבתי שזו נק׳ מיותרת אבל מי אני שאבטל דברים שאחרים עשו, חשבתי לתומי המעט שאני יכול לתרום זה להזיז אותה למקום תורם ו..בסוף אני מקבל על הראש
hatul (2022-05-19 19:00:46+00:00): מצטער, לא ראיתי שלא אתה יצרת את הנקודה.
אתה לא צריך לחשוש למחוק נקודות שבוודאות אין בהן צורך.
matheusgomesms (2022-05-14 17:07:03+00:00): Oi Diego, tudo bem? Vimos aqui que você deletou vários endereços no entorno da Borges de Melo, ao redor da escola Jenny Gomes. Aconteceu alguma coisa ali com aqueles prédios da Aeronáutica?

Desde já agradeço suas contribuições! Continue com o bom trabalho!
DiegoRibeiro (2022-05-14 17:20:13+00:00): Sim! Toda aquela região está passando por modificações, entre elas, a demolição das casas que eram da base aérea e toda a região se tornará no Centro Integrado de Segurança Pública, inclusive as obras já foram iniciadas e parte das novas estruturas foi entregue, por exemplo um corpo de bombeiros, o restante está em obras ainda
matheusgomesms (2022-05-14 17:32:48+00:00): Ahhh, excelente! Pois é, inclusive sobre os bombeiros, acabei de adicionar lá!

A minha dúvida era sobre ali em volta da escola Jenny Gomes, todos aqueles edifícios vão ser demolidos também (no entorno da Rua Cumbica e Travessa Afonso)?

Vi que ali no entorno da Rua do Galeão sim que já foram demolidos (fiz uns ajustes de etiquetas ali, se não se importa), mas não consegui checar se os edifícios da rua Cumbica e Travessa Afonso forma demolidos também.

Obrigado pela rápida resposta, e se quiser papear mais com a comunidade cearense, temos um canal do Telegram!
DiegoRibeiro (2022-05-15 00:01:42+00:00): Quando passei a pé por lá, algumas regiões estavam isoladas e com o maquinário estacionado ao lado, inclusive tinha operários lá, os quais eu perguntei se ali também seria demolido e fui informado que sim. Quando terminarem de construir os edifícios, vou adicionando com o tempo, pois fui parado e questionado pela polícia o quê eu estava fazendo ali kkkk mas da nada não. Agradeço o convite para entregar no telegram mas já tive aborrecimentos com edições/ conversas com a galera do OST por conta de via para ciclismo que eu havia adicionado na avenida aguanambi alguns anos atrás, então resolvi só deixar pra lá
matheusgomesms (2022-05-16 16:01:36+00:00): Ahh entendi, excelente! Bom saber disso! Se tiver qualquer dúvida me avisa, posso ajudar em algo! Também estou trabalhando em vários projetos, então se quiser dar uma mão me avisa também!

Boas edições!
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-05-14 11:48:56+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 120753679, 120754193, 120754203, 120754219, 120754223, 120754238, 120754266, 120754297, 120778910, 120778929, 120778949, 120778964, 120778978, 120778982, 120779002, 120779019, 120779043, 120779054, 120779070, 120779086, 120779110, 120779523, 120779535, 120779560, 120779576, 120779591, 120779601, 120779616, 120779634, 120779650, 120779665, 120779685, 120779706, 120779725, 120779743, 120779757, 120779769, 120779784, 120779797, 120779814, 120779832, 120779856, 120779874.
Trevor_1 (2022-05-14 22:47:29+00:00): Por que cambiaste todas estas calles y carreteras? Boulevard Mirasierra debe ser "Secondary" o tal vez "Tertiary" pero no "Resedential".
lizzyd710 (2022-05-23 23:57:08+00:00): Oops
sam-mapbox (2022-05-14 00:53:38+00:00): monster_truck=yes
okwithmydecay (2022-07-17 15:10:03+00:00): I've recently done some ground surveys of the cycle lanes on Victoria Park Road and I have some questions as to how this is mapped.

Whilst doing a StreetComplete survey I saw that there is a one way dashed cycle lane on Victoria Park Road. However https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/294423308 is a separate bidirectional cycle lane that is shared with pedestrians.

I couldn't see anything to indicate that the pavement is shared with cyclists, nor that cyclists can cycle in both directions. A photo of the road is attached to this note 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3204456

Am I correct in assuming that the LCN relation needs to be updated to follow the cycle path on the road way and the cycle path needs to be removed from the pavement way?
MacLondon (2022-07-18 02:52:23+00:00): Hi. This way is definitely correctly tagged.

There are some details on the introduction of the shared use here in a 2014 article at https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2014/01/20/hackney-council-pavement-cycling-trial-victoria-park. Although this was introduced as a trial (as far as Wetherell Rd), it was never removed (or improved upon!)

A few years ago, a shared use sign beside some tactile paving (https://goo.gl/maps/LC6F5Hn1sJdR3GSJ9) was replaced at the NE end of this way by a large Controlled Zone sign (this is actually just inside the TfL 'red route'), but this pavement is still a shared use path.

To the SW, there is signage at the next junction (https://goo.gl/maps/u6Aehcgp9PSMi6QNA) for cyclists from Homer Rd who have a dropped kerb to access the pavement. There are at least 8 further shared use signs along the pavement between this point and Gascoyne Rd, plus more signs down to Wetherell Rd.

In practice, this all serves as a night-time detour for cyclists when Victoria Park is closed. As it is shared use, it is not oneway although SW-bound cyclists still have the option to use the road which has some of its pre-trial lanes. (However as mentioned in the article, "Victoria Park Road is a designated ‘A’ road used by heavy goods vehicles and buses.")

Despite being low quality infrastructure, I suspect it never had too negative an impact as it is seems to be mainly used at night + by a small number of cyclists. It's also not a busy pedestrian route at any time of day.
okwithmydecay (2022-07-18 14:52:22+00:00): Thank you for the detail explanation, that makes sense and I didn't know historical context behind all this. I shall close my note accordingly
user4816003805 (2022-05-13 17:04:12+00:00): Hi Brendan,
Is Mr. Smiths vacant now?
If so, it might be useful to add a `disused:shop=yes` tag on it, as described in https://osm.org/wiki/Key:disused:shop.
If there's something else there, but you don't know what, you can add `shop=yes`, and people with StreetComplete will fill in the details later.
Thanks for not deleting the node! This helps to preserve history.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-05-14 11:48:55+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 120753679, 120754193, 120754203, 120754219, 120754223, 120754238, 120754266, 120754297, 120778910, 120778929, 120778949, 120778964, 120778978, 120778982, 120779002, 120779019, 120779043, 120779054, 120779070, 120779086, 120779110, 120779523, 120779535, 120779560, 120779576, 120779591, 120779601, 120779616, 120779634, 120779650, 120779665, 120779685, 120779706, 120779725, 120779743, 120779757, 120779769, 120779784, 120779797, 120779814, 120779832, 120779856, 120779874.
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 04:41:31+00:00): This is a `place=locality`, not `place=hamlet`.
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 04:48:32+00:00): Also please don't Map For Renderer. In https://gk.historic.place/historische_objekte/l/en/index.html for example, it is properly displayed.
minghong (2022-05-13 04:50:24+00:00): I didn't map for renderer. The locality (if any) should be called Yung Long. Yung Long Village (or Yung Long Tsuen) should be a hamlet.
minghong (2022-05-13 04:54:01+00:00): Yung Long, Tsang Tsui, Nim Wan, Tai Shui Hang, etc were all standalone villages. They do not cover a bigger area (as a comparison, Lung Kwu Tan covers many villages). It is unnecessary to separate locality with the village. Separating them is over-mapping.

These villages are disappeared also. The names are now solely used by locality/suburb. So one point is good enough to represent them.
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 05:36:42+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element please. 
Nim Wan and Tsang Tsui  shows exactly the problem of conflating a village proper with the area.
minghong (2022-05-13 05:43:06+00:00): I'm not opposing "one feature, one element". The two features are village and locality/suburb/quarter respectively. The village is gone already, this is OSM, not OHM (open historical map). So disappeared feature does not need to be mapped.

The disappear features that needs to be mapped are like ruins or ghost towns. For the case of Yung Long, nothing is left already. So the village doesn't need to be mapped.
user_8101879 (2022-05-22 13:35:30+00:00): Hi,

Please don't forget to add roles "outer" to the ways on the boundaries : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary

Best regards
عثمان ਉਸਮਾਨ bgo_eiu (2022-05-29 17:03:50+00:00): Good catch, thanks
MxxCon (2022-05-14 05:16:04+00:00): Hello.
Could you please elaborate why did you delete name of this school and deleted a perfectly valid self-storage node only to recreate another one with less information?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120914731
MxxCon (2022-05-14 05:42:10+00:00): Hello.
Why did you delete valid tags from this flag pole?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/120916178
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 09:50:32+00:00): Can you please stop changing HK Tramway Ltd to RATP? That's not the  company directly.
Kovoschiz (2022-05-13 09:50:52+00:00): Please don't remove `barrier=kerb` either.