piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
VLD151 (2021-08-24 19:28:44+00:00): Hi Dukie,
Thanks for all of your contributions to OSM! I came across one of your edits, way 956245647 in particular. It looks like you have added an explosive storage depot near a popular tourism site. Do you mind sharing more info that supports the edits?
Jakka (2021-06-20 09:57:40+00:00): Trap (gelijk welke type highway) is niet verbonden met weg op parking zelf . nu vast op definitie van gebied. Weg op parking intekenen aan daar aan verbinden...
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106658814
user_2066394 (2021-06-20 11:13:31+00:00): Das Gebäude war ursprünglich als Multipolygon erfasst, um den Innenhof im östlichen Gebäudeteil abzubilden.
eheg (2021-06-21 14:02:36+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis! Habe wieder auf Multipolygon umgestellt und den Innenhof eingezeichnet.
eheg (2021-06-21 14:04:27+00:00): Wie kann man das Krankenhaussymbol entfernen? Es handelt sich ja nicht mehr um eine Klinik.
user_2066394 (2021-06-21 14:16:48+00:00): Das müsste sukzessive aus der Karte verschwinden, der Ort ist soweit bereinigt.
eheg (2021-06-23 05:31:15+00:00): Alles klar, danke!
Frans S (2021-06-20 10:13:00+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project
Please square all rectangular buildings with the Q key of the iDeditor. A remark here. When your corners are not close enough to the 90 degrees angle the Issue triangle on the right hand menu don't react so try to map more precise and close to the 90 degrees corners

Did you have seen these pages ?
https://learnosm.org/en/hot-tips/
Best regards and success with future mappings
*abq* (2021-08-22 10:29:15+00:00): Hallo,
why did you delete the alpine hiking path along the south ridge of Gantrisch without any discussion? 
That is not good style. 
It was correctly tagged and is an existing alpine hiking path. 
Regards,
Reiner
jdbonjour (2021-08-22 14:39:24+00:00): Hello Reiner !
It's pretty old, and I don't remember having destroyed a whole path (I never do that!)... or it was a big mistake.
As always, after walking in the field with my GPS, I only improve paths or add new ones.
If I really made a mistake, can you correct it?
Best regards,
JD
*abq* (2021-08-23 07:34:31+00:00): It is w825807162, which is marked as deleted in your changeset dating two months ago. I restored it. 
Regards, Reiner
jdbonjour (2021-08-23 08:19:01+00:00): Ah, ok, I remember now !
Yes I have deleted this (very small, ~60m) path, because it is no more visible on the field and VERY DANGEROUS. It's exactly at the edges of the cliffs (see your track on the SwissImage orthophoto : https://s.geo.admin.ch/929d60a11c). Did you go on the field to verify yourself ??? I think it's not a good idea to suggest walkers to go there... when there is a safe path nearby, no ?
Best regards, JD
*abq* (2021-08-23 08:55:14+00:00): It is a regular T5 path (actually T5-). And yes, I know this path. 
Regards,
Reiner
jdbonjour (2021-08-23 09:03:56+00:00): So it's ok, thanks for these infos !
E de Wit (2021-06-21 10:54:37+00:00): Adressen die zijn verschoven door oa. deze changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2798331273
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2798334987
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2798331011
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2798330805

Herstel je ze zelf?
Andre Engels (2021-06-22 18:06:27+00:00): Ik ben bang dat ik niet zou weten hoe ik dat moet doen...
E de Wit (2021-06-23 18:19:48+00:00): Met de Revert plug-in via JOSM, in iD gaat dit inderdaad niet.

Ik heb de adressen teruggedraaid in changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106854397
eggie (2021-06-23 19:05:00+00:00): Andre
Tip:  Het komt door schuiven met de kaart in editmodus.
http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=106659748
Je selecteert dan per abuis een node met de linker muisknop. Dan ga je vervolgens schuiven met de linkermuisknop  en dan verplaats je de node evt. met alles wat er aan vast zit mee.
Met editor iD zie je dit doorlopend.
Met editor JOSM schuif je met de rechtermuisknop..Dan gebeurt dit niet. 
Het is .. of niet schuiven.. of JOSM. :)
 Dus JOSM is een aanrader. 
editor josm stap voor stap 

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710        

MVG
eggie
tonyf1 (2021-11-03 09:59:34+00:00): revert 13 bicycle=no  Changeset #113323642
tonyf1 (2021-11-03 10:14:47+00:00): revert 6 more Changeset #113324322
Warin61 (2021-06-21 07:25:35+00:00): Hi, 
The building relation does nothing... not required for building part ... deleted.
literan (2021-06-29 20:31:03+00:00): сомневаюсь, что Шехтель в 1672 г храм построил )

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Храм_Владимирской_иконы_Божией_Матери_в_Куркине
Grass-snake (2021-06-30 01:51:15+00:00): Ой, да, спасибо что поправил.
Arnaud Champollion (2021-06-20 12:35:41+00:00): Est-ce qu'il est possible de boire directement (randonnée) à cette source ?
Est-ce qu'il y a un sentier d'accès ?
devot (2021-06-20 13:23:12+00:00): D'aorès NICOD Jean, DELANNOY Jean-Jacques & MAIRE Richard (1984) – Carte des karsts des Alpes occidentales, du Jura méridional et de la Provence. Karstologia, n° 3 les sources sont captées et utilisées par l’usine hydroélectrique de Chanolles. Il doit exister un sentier, mais je ne le connais pas.
Arnaud Champollion (2021-06-20 13:26:23+00:00): OK c'était pour savoir s'il était utile d'ajouter drinking_water=yes
À l'occasion je ferai une balade dans le coin, ce sera l'occasion de découvrir.
augxcgrwxo (2021-06-20 15:13:22+00:00): это дубликат, на этом месте уже существует другая точка. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8812317564
VA00 (2021-07-25 11:47:44+00:00): Czy ta droga https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/388571381

w ogóle jeszcze istnieje?
stephankn (2021-06-22 21:55:22+00:00): you broke the country relation. I repaired it. Please be extra careful when editing relations to keep them continuous.
Hb- (2026-02-03 09:14:42+00:00): Warum wurde für den Kreuzungsknoten node/2883025048 barrier=block gesetzt?
Manuel H (2026-02-03 16:04:56+00:00): Hallo,

das musst du Hans-M-D-F-J-4 fragen, der das vor 11 Jahren so getaggt hat. Ich habe den Kreuzungspunkt nur um 2,1 m verschoben.

MFG, Manuel
Warin61 (2021-06-21 07:20:06+00:00): Roles in parking relation corrected.
tonyf1 (2021-10-19 06:21:27+00:00): See  Changeset #112680506
JeroenHoek (2021-06-20 12:58:52+00:00): Bedankt, inderdaad beter verwoord nu.
tonyf1 (2021-11-03 10:40:44+00:00):  revert 3 bicycle=no see Changeset #113325273
tonyf1 (2021-11-04 07:09:46+00:00):  revert more Changeset #113358316
fghj753 (2021-06-22 10:55:10+00:00): Hello, Thanks for stepping by. 
You seem to be experienced russian-speaking OSM mapper. Parks you deleted were added by relatively new russian-speaking user tetrab0rat, who has added many suspiciously named and overlapping parks all over the town; one park per changeset. Sadly I haven't contacted them directly because i don't speak russian. 
Do you mind leaving some constructive criticism to one of tetrab0rat's recent changesets?

PS. Please consider using more informative changeset comments in the future, such as "deleted bunch of parks".
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2021-06-23 10:05:53+00:00): @fghj753
Hello, I've just been looking at some of tetrab0rat's changesets and already contacted him in English here

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104027105

and I see you also contacted him here

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106293283

I didn't assume his changes were malicious though. I can contact him in Russian if required. 

What was here before? A lot of parks? Maybe he's a pokemon player? Pokemon go uses OSM data and spawns more pokemons in parks.

Anyway, doesn't lake name suggest that it indeed should be surrounded by a park? Maybe the real park was accidenatlly deleted or should be added?
fghj753 (2021-06-23 13:19:52+00:00): @qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
I tried to craft together overpass query to find deleted elements, but it didn't work reliably as it didn't find control sample way/61732730 (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/61732730). Similar situation is also at #map=19/59.40476/27.28695 where's 3 overlapping parks and apartment building overlapping a road.
While there are many Pokemon Go related issues in the world of OSM, their in-game maps haven't been updated for years and I would assume most players don't see point in updating OSM as their changes won't show up in game. Also this user's actions involve more than just parks, for example apartment buildings and footpaths such as "пешеходная дорожка в лесу 2" (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/467983228) north of town. Pay attention to access=no tags on these paths.
As for the real Rahvapark, looks like it haven't been added before. Closest candidate would be way/926197944. Btw, i think only reason Rahvapargi tiik has preserved it's name was because of it's wikidata tag, as iD doesn't let users to easily rename objects with wikidata connection.
Please have a look at avenue aside Kohtla-Järve park (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/48237896). I find it unlikely, that main street of town is two parallel pedestrian streets with sidewalks. Furthermore, there's Maxima grocery store's parking lot on that street with entrance from park's side and on aerial imagery from 30th of May (https://fotoladu.maaamet.ee/?basemap=kiirortofoto&zlevel=15,27.28616,59.40216) cars are still allowed on the street. I tried to fix that road few days after it was edited and my change was virtually reverted within day.

I have been occasionally observer their actions and sometimes written down notes when something is notably odd. "Park for recreation number 4" (way/938285913) for example is part of cluster of 4 intersecting parks, but that particular park has address "пешеходная дорожка 66" named after nearby footway. Officially, all that forest should be called one big Metsapargi.
Just like Keskallee, there are more legit-named streets which have been converted to footways: way/61732621, way/60542348, way/60542353, way/234531443.
fabiotofy (2021-06-22 19:40:22+00:00): siamo sicuri ? perché nel documento ufficiale del Comune di Trieste "Circoscrizioni, rioni e frazioni di Trieste" si parla di OPICINA... niente villa....
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106663952
alessandrocarmeli (2021-06-22 20:09:47+00:00): Secondo me è corretto villa opicina. Wiki e documenti storici riportano sempre il prefisso villa
yxoc (2023-06-04 20:30:34+00:00): Bonjour, merci de ne pas mettre des stationnement de velo en double des ceux qui sont deja en surfacique sur la carte. 

Par ailleurs, a Montrouge ce sont des parking " 2 roues", donc des amenity=motorcycle_parking plus bicycle=yes (voir la page  de Montrouige sur le wiki OSM).

-yxoc
TomPar (2021-11-24 02:06:08+00:00): Hello.  What was the reason for tagging "access=no" on some of the trails near Goose Pond?  They appear as open trails on the DCR map.  Was this done by mistake?  Seems like you were trying to indicate bicycles are not allowed.  But an "access=no" means no one is allowed on these trails.  Was this your intention?  Thanks.
JeffMaps (2021-11-24 03:07:28+00:00): Interesting. In the xml it comes up as access=no, foot=yes. If I look in the editor it says under access:
All = No
Foot = Yes
I may have misunderstood but I thought all should be set to no if its not "all". 

I think what I did was consistent with the description of access=no in the wiki, but maybe I've misread it.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
TomPar (2021-11-24 03:50:29+00:00): There exist default access restrictions:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#United_States_of_America

The wiki is sometimes a bit of a hot mess.  IMHO, in the area you'll generally find:

"hiking" trails, like those at Walden get a "highway=path".  If bicycles are not allowed, then a "bicycle=no" is added.  For extra credit you could add a "horse=no" too but I don't see too many people trying to ride horses there.  A "foot=yes" is redundant.

I think what you did isn't "wrong" per se, it's just stylistically inconsistent with the tagging norms in the region.  Usually, an "access=no" is used in the relatively rare cases where the general public is not allowed on a "path".  Furthermore, the OSM Carto render (default OSM map) and other popular maps like AllTrails/Gaia/etc render the line differently than the other paths right next to it with "access=no".  Note that you did not add an "access=no" to this adjoining way and it looks different on the map:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/55200483

Thanks.

BTW, I'm active on the OSM Slack.  https://slack.openstreetmap.us/  Always happy to meet and collaborate with other local mappers, especially those interested in adding details to our public lands.
JeffMaps (2021-11-25 02:27:34+00:00): Ah, ok. I guess the takeaway is the smaller the change the better. I'll go back and edit these so they are access=yes, bicycle=no. Mostly I care about bicycle access as other mapping sites are based on these maps. I'll join the slack channel @ some point, I didn't even know it existed. Thanks.
mueschel (2021-06-27 09:17:50+00:00): Hi,
could you check this area? It got a strange tag:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/956290942
Russ (2021-06-27 13:16:40+00:00): Oops, fixed. Thanks!
PT-53 (2021-08-08 06:00:17+00:00): Hallo EinEngener,
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz eingaben gemacht, die Du bereits am 11.06. hochgeladen hattest. Die Daten sind nun doppelt in OSM, z.B.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8826146580/history
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8850395824/history
Bereinigst Du das ?
Fragende Grüße
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2021-07-01 14:53:02+00:00): Hej prefixet for danske telefonnumre er +45 (ikke 0045)

Og URL skal indeholde skemaet.her https://
mavl (2022-08-18 14:38:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 125065270 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. The amenity=bus_station as personal note are deleted. Reason: poog mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6253].
user_11418917 (2021-06-20 14:16:02+00:00): Thank you and keep up the good work!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106665483
Gisolic (2021-06-21 08:53:02+00:00): Hello lockdownguy,
Thank you for your review
regards
Gisolic.
jmty8 (2021-06-20 13:28:50+00:00): #mbx_france_roads - right hashtag
jmty8 (2021-06-20 13:29:07+00:00): #mbx_france_roads - right hashtag
PT-53 (2021-06-23 08:52:06+00:00): Hallo EinEngener,
zur Info:
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz 17 Wege und Flächen hochgeladen, die Du zuvor schon im Änderungssatz
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106665127
hochgeladen hattest.

Die Wege waren somit doppelt. Mapper ratrun hat das auf Grund Hinweisen im OSM-Inspector gefixt und die Duplikate wieder gelöscht:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106723146
PT-53 (2021-06-23 08:57:17+00:00): PS:
Dieser Parkplatz ist ebenfalls doppelt:
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/956292514/history
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/956296285/history
PT-53 (2021-06-23 09:00:38+00:00): PS:
Schau Dir mal die Fragezeichen (für übereinander liegende Punkte ) in keep right an:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/956292514/history
PT-53 (2021-08-02 06:40:30+00:00): Hallo EinEngener, 
hast Du schon mit der Korrektur angefangen?
habi (2025-05-19 08:37:43+00:00): Ciao Martha
Ich bin gerade über dieses Changeset gestolpert.
Dazu zwei Fragen:

- Hast du vom Wohnmobilland die Erlaubnis diese Daten in OpenStreetMap zu importieren?

- Genau wie schon in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134227818 duplizierst du hier teilweise Daten, die schon bestehen, nämlich in Münsigen, wo die Ablass-stelle schon seit 9 Jahren existiert, und du die mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8850402470 dupliziert hast.
"Wirfst" du die Daten einfach in OpenStreetMap, oder ist das ein etwas durchdachter Prozess?

Gruss,
habi
jmty8 (2021-06-20 13:29:11+00:00): #mbx_france_roads - right hashtag
jmty8 (2021-06-20 13:29:16+00:00): #mbx_france_roads - right hashtag
Scout Jens (2021-06-21 06:59:59+00:00): Ich habe den Weg absichtlich nicht neu erstellt sondern nur verlegt, damit die zahlreichen Relationen nicht verloren gehen. Der alte Weg wurde auch komplett zurück gebaut. Man sieht das in den Luftbildern noch nicht. Ich war aber dort und habe mich auch an meinem GPS-Track orientiert.
jmty8 (2021-06-20 13:29:23+00:00): #mbx_france_roads - right hashtag
pesec (2021-06-21 06:30:13+00:00): Разделяйте ваши правки по регионам.
dval (2021-06-23 12:37:59+00:00): Присоединяюсь к просьбе.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106666295
L'imaginaire (2021-08-20 19:57:34+00:00): Dag Dirk,
Je heb op elk afzonderlijk perceel de naam "Sint-Donaaspolder" gezet, terwijl me dit eerder de naam van het volledige natuurgebied lijkt. Klopt dat? Zoja, dan behouden we best de naam op het natuurgebied en schrappen we de naam best van de afzonderlijke percelen.
Dirk 03 (2021-08-21 16:59:17+00:00): Ik ben werkzaam binnen de natuurvereniging van Knokke-Heist.
Zij hebben mij gevraagd dit aan te passen, daar alle percelen behoren tot het natuurgebied aangekocht door Natuurpunt België. Dus alle percelen behoren wel degelijk tot het natuurgebied Sint-Donaas.
Groeten,

Dirk
L'imaginaire (2021-08-22 14:30:13+00:00): Dag Dirk,

Bedankt voor jouw reactie en voor de extra info. Ik heb een poging gedaan om de omgeving daar een beetje op te kuisen in OSM. Het volledige natuurgebied (met alle percelen die je had aangeduid) zit nu in één relatie (in overeenstemming met https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12564045
Dat zorgt voor een duidelijkere aanduiding op de kaart (één keer de naam voor het ganse gebied) en ook in de zoekresultaten krijg je nu één resultaat, namelijk het volledige gebied. Mocht je nog opmerkingen of aanvullingen hebben, laat dan zeker iets weten.
user_1566574 (2023-02-23 21:18:07+00:00): Salut !
Concernant https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23993882/, quelqu'un (https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3527739 — qui, bien qu'anonyme, ne semble pas souvent se tromper sur ces notes) ne semble pas d'accord avec ta modification. Qu'en penses-tu ?

Merci ! :)
GerdP (2023-09-12 07:53:49+00:00): Moin aus Wildeshausen!
Ich frage mich, warum Du z.B. hier https://www.osm.org/way/289416224
den "Gehweg + Radfahrer frei" mit 
cycleway:right:segregated=no
cycleway:right:traffic_sign=DE:239,1022-10
cycleway:right=track
erfasst. Laut wiki ist (und war es auch schon 2021) das ein sidewalk mit sidewalk:right:bicycle=yes

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren#Einbahnstra%C3%9Fe_mit_Erlaubnis_f%C3%BCr_Radfahrer_in_Gegenrichtung
GerdP (2023-09-12 08:12:43+00:00): Sorry, falscher Link zum Wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren#Stra%C3%9Fenbegleitende_Wege
Romwriter (2023-09-12 08:19:11+00:00): Das ist verkehrt, ja, sorry. Ich mache mal eine Overpass-Turbo-Abfrage, sobald ich eine Stunde Zeit habe, und schaue, an welchen Stellen mir derselbe Fehler auch unterlaufen ist.
GerdP (2023-09-12 10:25:34+00:00): OK, prima
Romwriter (2023-09-23 18:05:27+00:00): erledigt: Bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141655940 und https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141655623 habe ich solche Kombinationen gefunden
GerdP (2023-09-23 18:56:05+00:00): Es gibt da noch eine Variante mit sowas wie bicycle:freedom_of_choice=yes oder so ähnlich. Ist vermutlich auch immer Gehweg + Radfahrer frei?
Romwriter (2023-09-23 19:04:22+00:00): cycleway:freedom_of_choice habe ich bisher nur in Bremen gesehen, überregional ist das nicht in Gebrauch, glaube ich, und im Wiki finde ich auch nichts dazu außer <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:cycleway#cycleway:mandatory=yes>. Für hier wäre das aber m.E. sowieso der falsche Schlüssel, denn um einen Weg als nicht-benutzungspflichtigen Radweg zu kennzeichnen, muss der Weg ein Radweg sein (und nicht bloß ein freigegebener Fußweg).
user_2066394 (2022-06-02 21:57:35+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/956301008
Vermutlich auch Tiefgarage?
ratrun (2021-06-21 15:17:52+00:00): This changesset looks like a bad import, see http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=14.78493&lat=48.24178&zoom=8&overlays=snap_points,unconnected_open_ends_1#

Besides that the tag Shape_Leng looks pretty strange. Please correct, or otherwise I would like to revert it.
karussell (2021-06-21 17:24:45+00:00): Yes, please revert this and make sure that there are no duplicate nodes. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/karussell/diary/396620
karussell (2021-06-21 17:26:17+00:00): Currently planet has nearly 500 duplicate nodes due to this single changeset.
ratrun (2021-06-21 18:09:02+00:00): I have reported the user to the data working group as it is multiple changesets which need to be reverted, It is all the changessets tagged with "new paths". I believe that they have a script via which these can easily be reverted.
karussell (2021-06-22 06:43:01+00:00): Thanks!
MrRapsi (2021-06-23 08:37:10+00:00): Hey guys, I'm here. I uploaded all these new linees through JOSM.
I put up a lot of hard work in sampling these new roads and paths so I think it is better to fix the changeset rather than reverting it.

Is it possible to remove the tag 'Shape_leng' in JOSM?
ratrun (2021-06-23 14:54:01+00:00): I think that all the new paths need to be reverted. I could not find your import on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue, it looks there was no discussion in advance about it. Where does this data come from, this was not even documented in the changesets.

Please don't manually start editing the data as this would make the task of reverting more difficult.
zstadler (2021-07-11 09:46:49+00:00): @ratrun, @MrRapsi,

Is there any progress in resolving this issue?
What did the DWG decide about it?
zstadler (2021-07-11 11:26:34+00:00): Here is a list of issues related (primarily) to the "new paths" changesets by MrRaspi:

- Duplicate nodes in a way:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=34.29645&lat=31.39732&zoom=10&overlays=duplicate_node_in_way

- Unconnected nodes:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=34.29645&lat=31.39732&zoom=10&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1

- Single node in a way:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=34.29645&lat=31.39732&zoom=10&overlays=single_node_in_way

- Self-intersecting ways:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=34.29645&lat=31.39732&zoom=10&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points

The "new paths" changeset include:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106666666
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106666674
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106666680
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106666686
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106666689
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106666694
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106666695
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106666705
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106666722

The above changesets include 80776 new elements.

All new ways are highways. The new highways were not connected to any existing highways.

All new ways had the non-standard "Shape_Leng" tag, indicating a potential import form an undisclosed external source. None of the changesets had a "source" tag.
ratrun (2021-07-11 14:48:22+00:00): I was in contact with the DWG last week. I had the impression that they will revert the changes. Unfortunately they didn't promise a date for it. User SomeoneElse said that he is still busy with other big reverts.
woodpeck (2021-07-11 20:32:38+00:00): MrRapsi, it is unfortunate that you have spent a lot of time with this but we still have to remove the data, it is buggy in many different ways which are documented above. I will deal with this now. For future imports, please discuss the data sources and processes with the community beforehand to avoid situations like this. (DWG Ticket#2021062310000094)