piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
David Crochet (2015-09-08 18:04:46+00:00): Pouvez-vous réparer le rond-point (vous avez déplacer un point). Merci
frafra (2018-05-02 22:27:19+00:00): Hi!
I hope you didn't copied data from a proprietary map, that would be a problem! Be sure to gather information by survey or from a dataset with a compatible license, thank you!
Alecs01 (2015-09-08 18:30:09+00:00): Ciao, ho visto che hai inserito alcune relazioni come questa che impediscono di prendere contromano una strada a senso unico. Di norma in questi casi non si mappano neppure, il fatto che ci sia l'indicazione di senso unico impedisce già l'accesso in direzione opposta, sia per un umano che guarda la mappa e vede le "frecce" del senso unico, sia per un software che legge i dati, puoi vederlo provando da qua: http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions
5m4u9 (2015-09-09 04:23:49+00:00): Gracias por la edición, pero Google es una empresa privada y su información tiene DERECHOS RESERVADOS, es decir, no podemos usar fuera de su web. 

Voy a revertir los cambios. Te animo a ir al lugar y capturar las calles, o bien conseguir el mapa de la ciudad y llenarlo desde allí.
w_terkin (2015-09-08 13:19:43+00:00): эххх... так и осталось это уточнение границ...
GerdP (2015-10-25 21:15:15+00:00): please review:
the tag highway=motorway_junction is for nodes, not for ways. I guess you meant motorway_link ?
Danidin9 (2015-09-09 04:06:21+00:00): Добрый день!
Пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с темой  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Использование_аэрофотоснимков
literan (2015-09-09 12:45:33+00:00): не может быть - сносят Китайгородскую стену???? и дом 14 по Варварке?
literan (2015-10-21 09:49:46+00:00): Сергей, здравствуйте. Я прошу вас не ставить на дороги теги foot=yes, bicycle=yes. Эти теги не имеют смысла (ходить пешком и ездить на велосипеде и так разрешено везде). А эти теги обозначают именно административный запрет/разрешение, а не физическую возможность. теги удаляю (их везде все удаляют, таков консенсус)
M!dgard (2015-09-16 11:08:47+00:00): Dag plantrekker
Je mag het punt van het café ook verwijderen.
Is het gebouw ook weg? Dan mag je dat namelijk ook verwijderen.
Groeten, M!dgard
xujiayi_1256 (2019-02-25 09:18:56+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369692769
请不要这样画线
luschi (2017-01-24 20:54:56+00:00): Hi Barrocas,
you have added a lot of "user_defined_other=*" to OSM     
OsmAnd can not use these and no one other.     
here a link where you an find(and fix) these keys:     
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ltT     
regards
Barrocas (2017-01-25 08:49:03+00:00): Hi,
Yes, those were added by an old defective Osmand version, when adding POI.

I'll try to correct them next month, thanks.
mweper (2015-09-08 16:35:19+00:00): Hola ReinaMarian. Bienvenida a OSM y gracias por colaborar.

Te recomiendo que leas [1], para un correcto etiquetado de la escuela y se pueda mostrar correctamente.
Cualquier duda, me puedes contactar.
Saludos.-@mweper

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:amenity%3Dschool
woodpeck_repair (2015-09-11 15:40:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 33960782 where the changeset comment is: revert ficitional edits and other damage, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/804 and http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/805
user_3205047 (2015-09-10 19:45:33+00:00): What does it take to make the Big Green Trail footpath connector to Mac's Gap Trail section routable?
SomeoneElse (2015-09-10 20:47:08+00:00): Which router were you using?  I'm guessing that it might be just a matter of time before it updates its data (things will appear on map tiles before the router data updates)
Swen Wacker (2015-09-08 22:12:47+00:00): Hallo,
 das ist kein Tunnel, da geht eine Brücke drüber. Bitte nehme Deine Änderungen zurück.
hans-mueller (2015-09-09 09:26:24+00:00): Alles klar, der Tunnel ist weg.

Könntest Du mir dann aber bitte mal dabei helfen, das die Bahnsteige nicht unter sondern über der Lünertorstraße liegen sollen? Layer geht offenbar nicht, denn die Bahnsteige sind Flächen. Und Layer soll nicht auf Flächen angewendet werden. Insofern komme ich nicht darauf, wie ich die Bahnsteige über die Lünertorstraße bekommen kann. Weiß Du, wie das geht?

Danke Dir..
Hans
hans-mueller (2015-09-09 09:31:44+00:00): Die Bahnsteige als Bridge deklarieren geht auch nicht, denn auch Bridges dürfen keine Flächen sein...Wie kann man denn dann eine Fläche auf die richtige Ebene bekommen? Irgendwie schnall ich das nicht so ganz?
Swen Wacker (2015-09-09 11:57:30+00:00): Hallo,

warum soll man Layer nicht für Flächen verwenden?

Layer sollen die "Überlagerung von Elementen (Wegen, Knoten oder Flächen) angegeben". Also immer dann, wenn die "natürliche (implizite) Ordnung zur Beschreibung der Höhenbeziehungen nicht ausreicht". So sagt es das Wiki. Auch in der englischen Fassung, in der Flächen sogar erwähnt werden. "For areas, it could be used in combination with tags such as man_made=bridge, building=* and similar." Bahnsteige fallen da wohl ohne Diskussion drunter. 
Ich habe zufällig gerade gestern etwas weiter südwestlich zwei Brücken (im Verlauf der Altenbrückertorstraße) als man_made=bridge mit Layer=1 benutzt, um mal zu schauen, wie das aussieht (man_made=bridge wird von der Standard-Karte erst ganz frisch verwendet. Du könntest den bahnsteigen also Layer verpassen. Du könntest (additiv) auch man_made=bridge probieren. Wobei ich da im Standard-kartenstil noch Fehler beim rendern entdecke (Bei der rechten Brücke rechts neben der Scharff-Kreuzung wird ein Weg, der unter der Brücke verläuft, trotz Layer=1 bei der Brücke oberhalb der Brücke angezeigt.

Gruß

Swen
Swen Wacker (2015-09-09 12:30:16+00:00): man_made=bridge bei Bahnhof gibt es jetzt.
Swen Wacker (2015-09-09 15:09:08+00:00): Ich setzte das mal als TOP beim nächsten Lüneburger Stammtisch 8https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/L%C3%BCneburg/Mappertreffen#Dienstag.2C_15.09.2015_um_19:00_Uhr)
hans-mueller (2015-09-10 09:53:03+00:00): Du hast Recht. Im verabschiedeten Proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport wird auch implizit davon ausgegangen, dass der Layer-Tag bei Bahnsteigen verwendet werden kann (Layer wird dort bei coverered erwähnt). Und wie Du schon sagst, sind Bahnsteige ja auch so ähnlich wie Buildings. Insofern sollte Layer bei Bahnsteigen funktionieren. 

Beide Bahnsteige haben jetzt Layer=1 aber das hat keine Wirkung. Kann es sein, dass die Standardkarte das bei Bahnsteigen nicht richtig rendert?
Swen Wacker (2015-09-10 10:04:26+00:00): Letzteres vermute ich stark. Falls ja, würde ich ein Ticket draus machen. Ich warte aber erstmal den Stammtisch ab.
imagico (2015-09-25 14:26:22+00:00): Hello fx99,

good to see you are trying to improve mapping in northern Canada.  The Canvec data conversion you seem to be using as a basis here is deeply flawed though, in particular for the hydrography.  For example what you tag as waterway=riverbank/natural=water + intermittent=yes here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1656894
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369713173

is not an intermittent river but a river floodplain which in the dry climate of northern Canada is - if at all - only partially water covered during snowmelt.  For reference here an up-to-date image of the area of the second sample:

http://www.imagico.de/files/LC80532472015223LGN00_exp.jpg

In addition tagging all waterways as waterway=stream independent of size is not a good idea.

And for the ice shelf areas you should follow the tagging conventions from the Antarctic (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Antarctica/Tagging) which were also used elsewhere in the Arctic - creating large multipolygons like this

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5489293

including both ice shelves and glaciers is generally not a good idea.

On a general note the Canvec data in this region is also usually very old, in most parts even older than Bing images.  Importing this without cross checking with up-to-date data is highly questionable.  And in any case please use a separate import account.
literan (2015-09-09 12:50:29+00:00): Пожалуйста, не ставьте теги bicycle=yes, horse=yes, foot=yes - эти теги описывают ЮРИДИЧЕСКИЙ (а не физический) запрет/разрешение доступа. В России по умолчанию по всем дорогам/дорожкам можно передвигаться пешком, на велосипедах, на лошадях, т.е. эти теги бессмысленны
lcmortensen (2015-09-21 21:51:12+00:00): Ways deleted or shortened partially due to carelessness of reverter (list is incomplete)
way 3469285 
way 292150815 
way 367741232 
way 367742752 
way 367742755 
way 367742820
way 367747455 
way 367747458
way 367786116 
way 367786117 
way 367786118 
way 367786120 
way 367792699 
way 367790099 
way 367790100 
way 367790101 
way 367790102 
way 367790103 
way 367790104 
way 367790105 
way 367790106 
way 367790107 
way 367790622 
way 367790623 
way 367790624 
way 367792702 
way 367792703 
way 367792706 
way 367792707 
way 367792708
way 367913826
way 367913827
way 367913829
way 367913830
way 367913832
way 367913834
way 367913835
way 367913836
way 367913837
way 367912262
way 367912265
woodpeck (2015-09-22 22:15:17+00:00): Changeset 34193524 makes an attempt to fix the broken geometries that this revert left behind.
Ergerzher (2018-02-25 15:13:20+00:00): Bonjour,
Je suis désolé de vous embêter à nouveau à propos d'un chemin qui n'existe probablement plus. 
Est-ce que vous avez vu la note suivante ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/965145
Serait-il possible qu'une partie de ces chemins disparus soit issue d'une ouverture exceptionnelle dans le cadre d'un événement VTT ?
Si oui, aurait vous une idée comment on pourrait nettoyer la base facilement ?
Mersi bras, kenavo.
Justyna | Yanosik (2015-09-22 10:31:58+00:00): Hej, prośba o usuwanie tagów construction i end_date przy zakończeniu remontów. Pozostał również dwukierunkowy odcinek na zachodniej nitce. Zmiany już dodałam.
skquinn (2021-04-13 11:23:27+00:00): Hi,

Please see the wiki for proper opening_hours syntax. For example this should be (and has been updated to): opening_hours=Fr[4] 10:00-11:00; Sa[3] 12:00-14:00
marc__marc (2023-03-29 20:04:32+00:00): Bonjour,
n'hésitez pas à soit renseigner les différentes valuers de surface séparée par ; soit à découper le chemin au changement de surface.
par ailleurs que veux dire le "permissive" pour le vélo à cet endroit ? cela a l'air d'être un lieu public oü le permissive ne s'applique pas vraiement : soit il y a un panneau d'interdiction soit on peux y aller
Cordialement,
Marc
uvi (2017-02-24 12:56:21+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369730279
Handelt es sich hierbei möglicherweise um einen Milchautomaten? Erfahrungsggemäß empfiehlt sich folgendes Beispiel ganz gut: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4264211545 . 
Bist du ortskundig, kannst du dies ändern?
Gruß Uwe
uvi (2017-04-11 13:41:50+00:00): Ich konnte den Standort und ergänzende Angaben ermitteln und habe diese nachgetragen
VivianaL (2015-09-08 23:13:57+00:00): Hola! Estoy realizando una actividad para un postítulo y necesito etiquetar la escuela donde trabajo, espero que no borres mis futuros cambios para poder realizar mi trabajo y que me califiquen. Gracias!!!
neuhausr (2015-09-09 14:34:01+00:00): Please look at the area more closely before adding your data--there was already a repair station node at Seward Co-op, you could've added to it rather than creating duplicate data!
Dero Bike Racks (2015-09-09 14:51:51+00:00): My bad. I usually do notice existing stations. Not sure why I missed this one. I delete the point that was further away from its actual location.
neuhausr (2015-09-09 15:36:32+00:00): thanks!
Javierpf (2015-09-10 12:26:30+00:00): Hola, varios usuarios que seguimos este sitio estamos notando que se estan agregando escuelas. Está buenisimo que se haga. Queriamos ponernos en contacto con el responsable de la iniciativa para darles unos tips de cómo hacerlo correctamente. 
¿Tenes el contacto de quien coordine esta iniciativa? 
Gracias.
Jean-Marc Liotier (2015-09-09 08:27:06+00:00): Hello, thanks for those new ways ! I notice that you chose to model them as highway=track, a tag which according to the Highway Tag Africa convention should be used for ways whose usage is mainly agricultural - a very common mistake for foreign Openstreetmap contributors in Africa. Ways connecting inhabited locations should be highway=unclassified, especially if they are used by vehicles - or highway=residential within a residential area. To convey the physical nature of those ways, you may combine them with tracktype=* and surface=* but their topological role and their usage makes the highway=track unsuitable.
palimpadum (2015-09-15 17:14:10+00:00): Thanks a lot. I just corrected my mapping will note your advice in future.
Jean-Marc Liotier (2015-09-16 07:53:37+00:00): You're welcome ! For further reference, you'll find the Highway Tag Africa documentation here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa
Luzandro (2023-03-15 11:49:31+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2907373
user_5359 (2017-07-29 06:18:14+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.
mweper (2015-09-08 22:22:58+00:00): Hola Fabiana. Bienvenida a OSM y gracias por colaborar.
Anteriormente correjí y mejoré los datos de las escuelas que creaste y como puse en el área del edificio, los datos de la escuela no se colocan en el edificio si existe un área como amenity=school (zona amarilla). 
Anteriormente se mostraba el nombre en esta area amarilla pero recientemente hubo un error que no lo muestra y están tratando de corregirlo. 

Por favor quita el nombre de la escuela del edificio ya que genera datos duplicados. Cuando se corrija el error del nombre en amenity=school, se mostrará correctamente.

Más info de como mapear escuelas correctamente: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=school

Cualquier duda, estoy para ayudar.
Saludos.-@mweper
DaveF (2015-09-08 22:02:21+00:00): Hi mdt3k
Could you explain in more detail what you've done generally, & specifically the Kelston & Swinford relations?

If changesets are problematic the creators needs to correct their own errors & revert them.
SomeoneElse (2015-09-09 08:23:42+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5494099#map=19/51.42139/-2.44548 certainly looks a bit problematic, in that there seems to be an unfeasibly thin bit of the natural=wood to the east of the stream.  I'd suggest that it doesn't make sense to use a multipolygon for this area of woodland at all - it just looks on the imagery like one area.  If there's a choice between using a multipolygon to represent something and not using a multipolygon, using a multipolygon is almost always the wrong answer for all sorts of reasons, including ease of maintainability going forward.
mdt3k (2015-09-10 11:18:53+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for the feedback. My intent was to map the farmland in the area between the A420 and the A431. Rather than create a new area/way by tracing along the outlines of the roads, existing residential landuses etc., I opted to create a multipolygon, re-using existing of ways as required. In some places this required existing land-use ways to be split (and a multipolygon created). I accept this complexity is bad.

Doing this was far more problematic than I anticipated, and required a number of existing land-uses to be converted into multipolygons. This is what's happened at Kelston and Swineford, so that the "farm-side" of the residential land use way could be re-used (as the edge of the farm multipolygon). The picnic area at Swineford (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5494099#map=19/51.42139/-2.44548 ) was particularly problematic, but the intent was the same - use the edge of the wood as the limit for the farmland multipolygon. I will revisit it and tidy it up.

As neither of the options I'd identified  seemed particularly good for mapping the farm land use (which is undeniably present). I'm open to suggestions, and happy to revert this change and attempt the other option. 

The options in my mind were: 
-re-use existing ways (seems excessively complex) 
-trace a new farmland way along parallel to them (a lot of work to get an outline that's accurate)

On the plus side it seems to render ok :)

Mark
SomeoneElse (2015-09-10 17:54:15+00:00): If it helps, here's an example of what I've done nearer to home:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/250738518

Survey and map all the field boundaries, gates, stiles, hedges and fences first, then reuse the fence / hedge nodes for a separate farmland way.  It's not the only way to do things - just providing it as an example.
mdt3k (2015-09-11 11:14:56+00:00): That looks good. I will try and use a similar model. I will adapt this set of changes as I have time to reflect this.
DaveF (2015-09-12 12:14:31+00:00): 
Hi mdt3k
I believe making OSM more entropic by unnecessarily splitting way makes it more confusing & harder for others to edit. 
Instead of splitting & creating an unnecessary relation for this residential area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5494095 the farmland way should be drawn as a parallel way adjacent, or even on top of the residential.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369745839
Road way represent the infinitesimally thin centre line of the road. Adding field boundaries to them cause mayhem for routing software. If other entities are added, such as barrier=gate/fence it says that they're in the middle of the road. Clearly not the case. Please offset the farmland to the side of the road Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.38766/-2.40862

FYI I've started a conversion on the tagging list to fid out how others are using landuse=farmland:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-September/026477.html
mdt3k (2015-09-12 17:02:36+00:00): Thanks for the feedback Dave, I'll sort those out.
Mark
DaveF (2015-09-22 23:06:56+00:00): Thos were just a couple of examples. You've placed many ways on the roads that need to be offset. 

Please be aware farmland is meant to be used to map individual fields, not swathes of land

Rather than split every entity up into small sections & spend a lot of time creating relations, why not just trace around those entities & roads? It would be much quicker. 
You've ended up this kind of nonsense: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.41423/-2.39307
mdt3k (2015-09-23 21:40:17+00:00): Hi Dave, I have updated the problems highlighted, and the relation no longer uses the roads.

Regarding the intent for landuse=farmland, I do not believe this is clear. No conclusion was reached on the tagging mailing list, and the wiki is not explicit.

I believe am using landuse=farmland in a manner that is consistent with the other landuse tags (e.g. landuse=residential).
woodpeck_repair (2016-01-13 23:31:58+00:00): Edits in this changeset have partly been reverted or modified in 36561697 after complaints to DWG.
Tararan (2015-09-09 16:39:25+00:00): Я написал не «Вита», а "Салон красоты «Вита»", потому что «Вита» написано слишком витиевато (как на сайте) — не разберёшь.
Tararan (2015-09-09 16:48:24+00:00): https://imgur.com/GxxoE6Q
literan (2015-09-09 21:57:19+00:00): как бы оно ни было написано, на сайте, или на вывеске, в OSM мы никогда не пишем родовое обозначение - оно задается соответствующим тегом, в данном случае shop=beauty. Так же, как мы не пишем на карте "Город Москва", а пишем просто Москва. Тег name - только для названий, для имен собственных.
ForstEK (2018-04-07 08:53:20+00:00): Hi! Don't you think should delete this unexisted border? It waste the map and can be easily saved and store as geojson for example. When we have more hi-res 5 layers over the world, bing cover sould be deleted from main base cause it's no really physical object/relation.
mweper (2015-09-09 01:27:46+00:00): Hola Liliana. Para marcar el perimetro de la escuela, se utiliza la etiqueta amenity=school, no se utilizan las etiquetas boundary y admin_level, por favor, quitalas y etiqueta correctamente.

más info: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:amenity=school

Saludos.-@mweper
Mars-Curaçao (2015-09-13 03:54:36+00:00): Correcting map errors? Which errors?? You just created an error: you forgot the streetname!!  Where do you live, in Curaçao??  If NOT please don't fuck with the map of MY Island!!  I live here and people NOT living here make a big shit off this map using old fashioned maps! I get grazy of that kind of people NOT living here and think they now it better because now I have a lot of work to correct everything!!!!!
Javierpf (2015-09-10 12:27:57+00:00): Hola, varios usuarios que seguimos este sitio estamos notando que se estan agregando escuelas. Está buenisimo que se haga. 
Queriamos ponernos en contacto con el responsable de la iniciativa para darles unos tips de cómo hacerlo correctamente. 
¿Tenes el contacto de quien coordine esta iniciativa? 
Gracias.
Javierpf (2015-09-10 12:29:27+00:00): Hola, varios usuarios que seguimos este sitio estamos notando que se estan agregando escuelas. Está buenisimo que se haga. 
Queriamos ponernos en contacto con el responsable de la iniciativa para darles unos tips de cómo hacerlo correctamente. 
¿Tenes el contacto de quien coordine esta iniciativa? 
Gracias.
saikabhi (2016-01-19 09:22:49+00:00): I have observed your edit in this area specifically this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/369769205 which does not have any proper tags. Can you please check this way out and re tag with correct tags or maybe remove the way?
YagilH (2016-01-20 22:07:28+00:00): How do I remove it?
saikabhi (2016-01-21 12:18:48+00:00): Can you tell me what did you mean to represent by the tag "Rec center- Around"? Did you mean to represent a road or a landuse?
Mateusz Konieczny (2015-09-09 05:57:29+00:00): see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/431684#map=19/51.38467/-2.37691 - it seems that Destructor bridge was recently demolished
Polarbear (2015-09-09 09:33:50+00:00): Thanks, changed to construction status (2015-2016) according to the news report, and previous tags on the bridge way about its closure in 2013.
Warin61 (2025-07-11 07:02:53+00:00): HI,
This does not look to form a single route? Might be a collection of ways that a government website uses to generate a route?
Marián Kyral (2015-09-14 05:26:15+00:00): Ahoj,
díky za tvé příspěvky do mapy. 

Chtěl bych Tě poprosit, abys neznačil parkoviště popisem "parkoviště" - je to zbytečné.

Dále chodník se značí jen jednou čárou (není třeba značit uzavřenou plochu) a měl by to být objekt typu chodník (highway=footway) a ne pěší zóna (highway= pedestrian) s popisem chodník.

Například takto: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/49.69108/18.34499

Pokud budeš mít dotaz, tak se zeptej mne, nebo na fóru http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=47 nebo na emailové konferenci talk-cz ( https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-cz )

Díky,
Marián
NitramFM (2015-09-14 05:45:18+00:00): Díky za přípomínky. Parkoviště jsem upravil bez popisu parkoviště,chodníky jsem tedy upravil do linii a objekt typu path-footpath (nenasel jsem objekt highway-footway).
Martin
Marián Kyral (2015-09-14 11:56:16+00:00): Díky.
Ta parkoviště teď vypadají hodně nezvykle. Asi bych to zmapoval jako oblast (tak jak jsi to měl před tím) s tím, že ty chodníky bych tam nechal. A pokud trváš na detailech, tak si tam můžeš "zasadit" i stromy nebo vytvořit ostrůvky zeleně. 

Kde co hledat v Potlachu moc neporadím, ale zdá se, že to je ono. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370526557

A jestli můžu poprosit, vždy vyplnit krátký popis dané změny. Může to být česky.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34006442

Díky,
Marián
GOwin (2015-09-12 08:43:40+00:00): where does this road lead to? Tertiary roads are often roads that leads to, and passes through another barangay. If doesn't tag it as unclassified or residential, whichever is appropriate.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2019-10-13 10:08:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 75619145 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some licence-incompatible changes in the USA.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3195 etc. for details.