piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
trial (2021-07-14 09:16:00+00:00): Hier je suis bien passé sur un défibrillateur dont le pseudo numéro de rue était celui de la mairie mais le nom de rue la rue la plus proche (qui n'est pas la même) : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1757658911/history. Je vais être un peu radical  : si addr:city et postcode avaient un intérêt on devrait passer sélectionner tous les bâtiments d'une commune pour ajouter l'info. À regarder Osmose, les erreurs sont courantes (ici c'est juste inutile). Si on met code postal et ville sur tous les bâtis, on alourdit la base et on pénalise tous les consommateurs de données. Quand Esquibien et Audierne fusionnent, les POI suivent sauf si l'info redondante a été ajoutée. Il est plus efficace de faire "déteindre" les données ville et CP sur les POI dans la base des POI qui nous intéresse. Sinon en France on préfère utiliser les contact:addr: sur les POI afin de laisser les addr: sur les points adresses (qui sont en général placés au droit de la limite public/privé souvent au niveau de l'entrée principale). Un point d'adresse doit être unique.
De plus le principe d'OSM c'est de ne pas décrire deux fois la me chose. Et mettre une zone de code postal et les codes postaux sur le bâti de la zone contrevient à cet esprit.
fabiotofy (2021-07-17 18:32:55+00:00): Ciao e benvenuto. Non è corretto modificare le caratteristiche tecniche di un edificio per aggiungere la specificità di un attività commerciale. Dovresti aggiungere un punto (POINT) senza andare ad intaccare le caratteristiche della costruzione. Il municipio di Castelnovo del Friuli era già correttamente mappato su OSM oltre 7 anni fa. Vedasi gruppo di modifiche #20480879. Buone mappature!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107918101
angys (2021-07-14 04:59:26+00:00): place=hamlet is more appropriate
Marc_ch (2021-07-13 16:39:19+00:00): Hello Habi,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7716099614
look like a unwanted move :)
Regards,
Marc
habi (2021-07-13 18:28:03+00:00): Oops!
Definitely, I was looking at the long fountain (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/826422118/) from changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88018192 which starts at the TCS Camping.
I must have inadvertently moved the southern node of this fountain.
I hope @ViS can explain me soon where the fountain should actually be, then I can get rid of the 7 km long way :)
E schöne Abe no,
Habi
angys (2021-07-14 04:58:16+00:00): Hello, when you add POI for places, please put full name like Kampung Melayu not Kg. Melayu
DressyPear4 (2021-07-13 15:54:50+00:00): Olá, não há necessidade de adicionar nomes genéricos, pode manter essa tag em branco.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107919419
SherbetS (2021-07-16 01:22:03+00:00): Hello,

The tag man_made=communications_tower is for very large structures, man_made=mast is more fitting for these structures.
Rainero (2021-07-14 20:49:24+00:00): Hallo ColaStreet,

durch Qualitätssicherungs-Tools bin ich auf die unstimmigen Adresseinträge gestoßen.
Mir scheint, du wolltest den Fotografen von der Wichernstraße in Roßberg in die Bienstraße in Nürnberg umziehen. Das Objekt wandert nicht einfach durch Änderung der Adresse an einen anderen Ort; das muß man selbst machen. Die App Omaps scheint dafür nicht das geeignete Werkzeug zu sein.
Ich verschiebe das mal und korrigiere die Adresseinträge (Nürnberg gehört in addr:city und nicht in addr:postcode).
Überprüf es am besten nochmal und meld dich, falls du Hilfe brauchst.

Servus,
Rainer
Hanan Tikveša (2021-08-11 22:13:32+00:00): Hi.
i removed the image and the description in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/109538834
Tomas Straupis (2021-07-13 17:07:08+00:00): Nelabai aišku, kas buvo bandyta padaryti, gal galėsiu padėti? O kol kas atšaukiau visus pakeitimus, nes buvo sugadinta adresų informacija.
BCNorwich (2021-07-13 16:24:01+00:00): Path tags amended to OSM practice.
BCNorwich (2021-07-13 16:29:41+00:00): Path tags amended to OSM practice. Please note there is foot access to a footpath so access=no shouldn't be used.
Sergey82K (2021-07-14 08:20:24+00:00): Згідно прийнятих домовленостей правильно назву вулиці писати не "Кільцева" а "Кільцева вулиця".
eggie (2021-07-13 16:36:15+00:00): Dag Superscout,
resolved:almost_junction:highway-highway 	1
resolved:crossing_ways:highway-highway
Opgelost.
De voorgaande mapper had van een topony =park (naamdrager) een leisure=park gemaakt .
Het is nu weer alleen de naamdradger. Dan zie je niet alles door elkaar. 
Lastig om paden goed te leggen tussen de bomen.
Wanneer je de BGT omtrekgericht als achtergrond zet of de AHN3 hoogtekaart dan zie je de paden precies lopen.
Kijk eens naar editor JOSM editor josm stap voor stap 

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710        
MVG
eggie
Parzelle13 (2021-07-16 21:57:49+00:00): Vielleicht solltest du mal vorher prüfen, ob entsprechende Eintrage (hier St. Antonius) nicht schon existieren und diese ggf. anpassen.
joebird (2021-07-17 07:49:12+00:00): Hallo Parzelle13, momentan probiere ich StreetComplete für daa unterwegs-Mapping aus. Vieles ist einfacher einzugeben - besser und vorallem schneller als unterwegs etwas in Vespucci einzugeben. Allerdings zeigt die App nur minimalistische Infos an, so fehlen mir  in SC oftmals Attribute (z.B. Namen von Geschäften/Plätzen, oder Strassen/Fahrbahn Infos). Oder ich habe .nur die entsprechende Anzeigeoption nicht gefunden.
Die Frage wäre nun vor allem, warum hat SC nach dem Namen gefragt, wenn dieser doch schon hinterlegt war?  Die manuelle Doppelprüfung vorort  mit  SC und Z.B. Vespucci  kann ja nicht im Sinne der App und der Community  sein. Ich schaue mir diesen Change nochmal an, sobald ich Zugriff auf JOSM habe. 
Auf alle Fälle danke für den Hinweis, ich werde ggf die Nutzung von SC überdenken.
joebird (2021-07-18 13:28:55+00:00): Offenbar ist das Gebäude bereits doppelt getaggt gewesen. Als Gebäude-Tag, und als zusätzlicher Punkt.
Beim Punkt war bislang "amenity=social_facility, social_facility=group_home, cocial_facility:for=senior" gesetzt.
Hier "merkte" StreetComplete, daß "Name" fehlte. Aufgrund der fehlenden Anzeige von Namen in SC konnte das auch bei Taggen via SC Frage-Antwort nicht bemerkte werden.
Das Gebäude ist übrigens mit "amentity=nursing_home, building=yes, name=Alten- und Pflegeheim St. Antonius, website=http://antonius-wuerselen.de/" getaggt.

Da das gar nicht so mein Gebiet ist in dem ich mich auskenne, nehme ich gleich den von mir eingetragenen Namen aus dem "Punkt-Tag" wieder heraus. Evtl kann jemand mit mehr lokaler Kenntnis besser beurteilen, ob die "Punkt-Tags", oder die "Gebäude-Tags" besser sind, und dann das jeweils andere Tagging entfernen.
Parzelle13 (2021-07-21 19:13:21+00:00): Hab das mal zusammmengefasst.
dvdhoven (2021-07-13 18:42:27+00:00): Aub niet met ID routes gaan bewerken en elementen gaan toevoegen. ID is daar absoluut ongeschikt voor. 
De toegevoegde elementen worden door ID achteraan in de route geplaatst en dat is vrijwel nooit de plek waar je ze hebben wilt.
De wegen in een route liggen op volgorde van laag naar hoog nummer.
Verder moeten eenrichting stukken met forward/backward worden ingevoerd, iets wat ID helemaal niet kan.
Alleen met JOSM kun je routes bewerken.
Je kunt het beste mij even een berichtje sturen als een route moet worden aangepast.
Ik werk dagelijks met routes, dus veel werk is het meestal niet.
Succes met mappen.

Vriendelijke groeten,
Dick van den Hoven
SafetyIng (2021-07-13 19:55:20+00:00): Hey, 
du hast mehrfach hier Flächen eingezeichnet, die so garnicht existieren. 
Diese Fläche sieht sehr nach einem Garten aus....?
mweper (2021-07-13 21:46:49+00:00): Hola CapAhab, gracias por la corrección. No había tenido en cuenta este tema de los semáforos en las rotondas.
Ahora se deberían corregir varias rotondas de este tipo, por lo menos en el Gran Rosario. Trataré de ver si puedo hacer algo al respecto.
CapAhab (2021-07-13 22:20:37+00:00): No problem, mweper.  There were many cases of junction=roundabout flagged in the validator, which is how I found this one, and there are many more I haven't looked into yet.  Thanks for the collaboration.  -CapAhab
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-17 15:12:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 108163891 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some worldwide mechanical and 'tagfiddling' edits.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5232 and links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-17 15:12:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 108163891 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some worldwide mechanical and 'tagfiddling' edits.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5232 and links from there.
felipeeugenio (2021-07-13 18:13:50+00:00): Hola
Con la letra Q se pueden cuadrar las casas.
saludos
karson_ (2021-07-13 17:47:04+00:00): Do you have a source for this information? County GIS does not show this road as having a name. It is on private property. The adjacent school is not addressed with this road name.

With 2500 edits, I would also assume you are well aware that names should not be abbreviated. "W 2nd St" should be written out in full as "West 2nd Street"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107923219
EZRouting (2022-03-18 02:14:13+00:00): Hi karsonkevin2, sorry for the late reply. Thanks for reminding the abbreviation issue. We are working on expanding the wrong names we added. 
We are a company providing routing software for school districts. The road name is provided by the transportation department of Solon school district.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-17 15:12:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 108163891 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some worldwide mechanical and 'tagfiddling' edits.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5232 and links from there.
ivanbranco (2021-08-29 11:38:10+00:00): Ciao M_Fanti,

il nome della strada era giusto prima, come da convenzione della community italiana: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Nomi_delle_strade

procedo a ripristinarlo
mweper (2021-07-13 21:47:28+00:00): Hola y gracias por interesarte en contribuir a OSM. Respecto a las notas, a veces se da la confusión de que son para realizar comentarios generales o notas personales, dar información sobre hechos históricos o eventos temporales. En realidad se utilizan para informar de datos erróneos o inexistentes en el mapa.
Gracias por tu comprensión y si quieres saber más al respecto, véase: https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/ES:Notes
-- 
Si tienes problemas con alguna aplicación externa que use OSM, por favor, contáctate directamente con ellos.
Para crear mapas personalizados, puedes usar la herramienta en línea http://umap.osmfr.org/es/
Si quieres ponerte en contacto con la comunidad argentina, puedes seguir este enlace https://wiki.osm.org/ES:Wikiproyecto_Argentina#Contacto

Saludos.
mweper (2021-07-13 21:48:11+00:00): Perdón, ese comentario era para una nota en otra pestaña del navegador.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-17 15:12:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 108163891 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some worldwide mechanical and 'tagfiddling' edits.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5232 and links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:42:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
user_2066394 (2021-07-14 09:57:39+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/964019355
Der Wegabschnitt wird dann fortgesetzt mit
bicycle=no ,
sind da die Beschränkungen noch auf dem neuesten Stand?
ebdu (2021-07-14 13:10:44+00:00): Beschränkung ist auf dem neuesten Stand.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-17 15:12:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 108163891 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some worldwide mechanical and 'tagfiddling' edits.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5232 and links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-17 15:12:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 108163891 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some worldwide mechanical and 'tagfiddling' edits.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5232 and links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-17 15:12:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 108163891 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some worldwide mechanical and 'tagfiddling' edits.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5232 and links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-17 15:12:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 108163891 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some worldwide mechanical and 'tagfiddling' edits.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5232 and links from there.
ovruni (2021-07-13 21:30:03+00:00): Hola steban18, tal como le habia escrito en el conjunto de cambios 98870150. El uso de la etiqueta de edificios es solamente para edificios individuales, no para las áreas que contienen uno o varios edificios en su interior, procedo a retirar las etiquetas de edificio que ha agregado y recuperar la vía de servicio que ha eliminado.
Si tiene cualquier consulta sobre como editar puede hacerla por el canal de telegram https://telegram.me/osmPe o la lista de correos de la comunidad de OSM en Perú https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pe
Saludos
vorpalblade (2021-07-24 22:02:55+00:00): Just an FYI, I *have* georeferenced all the available imagery using the imagery offset database. 

Unfortunately, the editor you are using doesn't pull from that database, and JOSM requires a plugin for that.

Anyway, just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018". You may also want to take a look at "Mapbox Satellite".

JOSM also has access to the 2019 (County wide) and 2020 (Grand Valley) aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS".

Thanks for your contributions,
vorpalblade
phidauex (2021-07-24 23:26:35+00:00): Thanks, I have used your synced alignments before in JOSM, they are quite helpful, and Mesa County’s imagery is very good. In this case, I’ve noticed some skew in the canyons in all the imagery sources, so the alignments I updated were to correct my own initial rough trace from trail maps (before the trail was visible in any imagery), and I aligned to Strava heat map wherever available to avoid imagery skew.

Is there somewhere you noticed that I appear to be off? Happy to go back over and see if there is anything I missed or over-corrected.
vorpalblade (2021-07-26 11:59:53+00:00): I didn't see anything off -- I just saw `iD 2.19.6` which doesn't integrate with the layer offset db, and I figured I'd point it out due to the use of `improve alignment` in the comment. That and "Bing" as an imagery source.

I do have some aerial imagery in Palisade I need to process so that I can add some offset points there, but aligning to Strava traces should help a lot (compared to non-aligned imagery).
eggie (2021-07-30 10:35:29+00:00): Hi John,
Please verify if a restaurant is already mapped.
It has no use to add a restaurant tree times on the map.
Greetz eggie
John Moose (2021-07-30 10:49:31+00:00): Sorry, dit come nog the fitst time.
eggie (2021-07-30 11:06:36+00:00): No problem.. It's okay now. 😀
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:57+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:54+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:50+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:47+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
sheldonelectric (2023-01-12 00:44:37+00:00): Аthens is not a goddess, Lamia is not a ghoul and Volos is not a marble. Please do not try to translate city names. When in doubt, ask the greek community or do nothing at all.
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:44+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
◪ Jarv (2021-07-13 22:57:34+00:00): Hi mark. Not too sure if these changes for the cycleway on Madeira Drive area  good thing. I know for fact that there isn't a prohibition on pedestrians, although "use_sidepath" could be applied in this situation. Also access for horses shouldn't have to be specified since it would be a bridleway instead of cycleway if they were allowed.
oneway was set to no, as the adjacent road (which technically is on the same carriageway) is one-way.
Wih surface tags its better to keep to known ones unless they are no describable as commonly used tags, so in this case asphalt is the best used.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107926450
MarkSStrong (2021-07-14 14:38:49+00:00): Hi Thomas, 
I'm commenting as a transport planner & also a member of the stakeholder group for the cycle track. 
1. While pedestrians aren't banned (in the same way that they're not banned from walking along any road!) the intention is to discourage people from walking here so this was to stop it being shown on route planners as a walking route
2 Horse use is very very very unlikely so happy to delete this - its not a bridleway as you say
3 There is a debate to be had as to whether the one-way tagging is correct
4 There was a question about the slipperiness of the surface which I was trying to address but maybe this is too technical so I've reverted to asphalt
◪ Jarv (2021-07-15 12:47:08+00:00): Hi Mark,
I've recently done a bit of work mapping Maderia Drive, I've provided both a pedestrian "area" as well as a footway, so routers should have no issues selecting a suitable path.
The oneway tag is a bit of a tricky one, but mostly there to avoid confusion if someone looking at the map data was wondering if the cycleway was oneway like the road adjacent, of course this tag isn't needed, but a nice to have.
With the surface and slippiness, I've never had an issue with it since it was done, however if you think this is an issue you could add "hazard=slippery" to the way
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:hazard%3Dslippery
MarkSStrong (2021-07-15 14:28:19+00:00): I've reverted most of the changes to what you put. It's NOT slippery, that was (probably) a myth put about to discredit the route. But OSM is not the place to address that which is why I've removed my change
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:38+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:35+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:31+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
ovruni (2021-07-13 21:32:47+00:00): Hola, he visto que varias de sus vías que agregado como highway=footway parecen ser highway=path, les he cambiado la etiqueta.
Saludos
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:28+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
Kogacarlo (2021-08-17 18:59:45+00:00): Hoi Joop, je bent allerlei stukken bos aan het samenvoegen die beter niet aan elkaar horen. Wil je in de toekomst even goed kijken of het verschillend bos is, bijvoorbeeld dit stuk: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/84178970#map=18/51.39936/6.11717
Dat is overduidelijk heel verschillend bos, kijk maar eens goed.
Joopvdl (2021-08-18 20:34:05+00:00): Ik heb even op de luchtfoto van Slagboom en Peeters gekeken. Ik zie inderdaad dat het bos wat begint bij het smallere gedeelte (t.h.v. het gebouw met nr 6) richting het zuiden een ander type boom lijkt. Tevens lijkt het nog smallere stuk "bos" wederom een andere boomsoort te zijn.

Ik heb dit destijds samengevoegd omdat het exact dezelfde tags had en aan elkaar grensde, maar in dit geval is dat dus niet logisch/terecht?
Kogacarlo (2021-08-19 15:52:29+00:00): Zoals ik het zie zijn het twee verschillende stukken bos en een rij bomen. Om die rij bomen als hetzelfde "stuk bos" te zien als het "echte bos" dat er boven ligt gaat mij wat ver. Dus afgaande op de foto's had ik het inderdaad drie losse stukken gelaten.
Bij het drinkwaterpompstation (gebouw nr 6) rendert het bos nu fout. Daarom had ik er zo'n ingewikkelde constructie van gemaakt ;) Daar kun je natuurlijk over discussiëren. Kijk maar eventjes. Als je het niet erg vindt knip ik het bos op het terrein van WML weer uit.
Gr Carlo
Joopvdl (2021-08-23 17:25:36+00:00): Bijzonder dat het bos op het terrein van de WML roze rendert, wees vrij dit aan te passen.

Ikzelf ben nog continue aan het leren en alle feedback is dan ook meer dan welkom! Ik zal volgende keer in ieder geval niet blindelings bossen samenvoegen zonder de situatie goed te hebben bekeken. Het feit dat het exact dezelfde tags heeft wilt nog niet zeggen dat het exact hetzelfde is.
Kogacarlo (2021-08-26 21:09:14+00:00): Iedere mapper ontwikkelt een eigen stijl denk ik. Ik voeg alleen bossen samen als het op de luchtfoto hetzelfde uitziet en ook de grond hetzelfde uitziet. De grond kun je goed zien op de hillshadelaag.
felipeeugenio (2021-07-13 18:12:06+00:00): Estimado. gracias por su tiempo. pero hay tags para describir las cosas. no se borran caminos que si existen. Por favor consultar la wiki o a la comunidad. saludos
CurlingMan13 (2023-02-16 02:31:11+00:00): If you are going to check connections, you should actually check the feature exists.
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:25+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:22+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
unen (2021-07-14 13:25:25+00:00): binaların geometrilerini oturma alanlarına göre daha hassas bir biçimde yapman iyi olacaktır. Tüm parseli çevirim bina olarak etiketlemek doğru değil
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107927286
Владимир К (2021-12-24 11:04:43+00:00): Hi!
what did you tried to do? 
you moved the barrier on wrong position. it was right.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8917287324
this gate also wrong, it is the pipeline above the road.
please, be careful.
i'm reverting the whole set
GeoidDude (2022-01-05 21:11:47+00:00): Hello Владимир К!!
suchAnight is not currently on our team, so I will reply on his behalf. It looks like while editing around this area, suchAnight must have accidentally moved the `landuse=industrial` polygon (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97165667), which resulted in the gate being moved. For the gate at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8917287324, suchAnight cited “Maxar Standard Imagery”, and must have mistaken it for a gate. Thank you for mentioning this is actually a pipeline and for the corrections on this edit!
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:19+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-17 15:12:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 108163891 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some worldwide mechanical and 'tagfiddling' edits.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5232 and links from there.
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:16+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
Luzandro (2021-07-13 18:26:13+00:00): s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107621197
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-17 15:12:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 108163891 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some worldwide mechanical and 'tagfiddling' edits.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5232 and links from there.