piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
btwhite92 (2021-06-04 16:50:51+00:00): Hello,
I'm likely going to revert this change again for a couple of reasons:

1. While it may be officially the case, signage indicating this section is US 395 Business Route is nearly non-existent and thus is not useful for navigation. This is why I had this section tagged with 'unsigned_ref', rather than 'ref'. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:unsigned_ref)

2. This section is not up to 'primary' standards as indicated by wiki guidance: "A few major urban arterials also may merit highway=primary if and only if they provide a clearly better routing (higher speeds and fewer delays arising from traffic signals, stop signs, or other obstructions) than available urban arterials bearing highway=secondary" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Primary_tag_2).

3. While it is a "through" road, it is not as important as other primary roads in the region. Virginia doesn't move the same level of traffic as other nearby primary roads; especially through the urban core it is narrow and slow moving. It doesn't augment the freeway network like McCarran, Pyramid, and Veterans do. It isn't used as a major route through town; instead it mainly services inter-urban traffic, similar to other 'secondary' roads in Reno/Sparks.

I understand that road classes are very fuzzy in the US and are still a subject of debate, and that old 'main' through roads are tagged 'primary' in many other parts in the US, but for this region this tagging is inconsistent relative to other 'primary' roads in the region. I appreciate your desire to contribute here, but I am asking that you respect the fact that I currently live locally in the region, that I have lived in the greater region here for as long as you have been alive, and I have been driving here for over a decade. I have received complaints from another active mapper in the area about your changes to the road classifications in the greater Nevada region, and while you're certainly welcome to make changes wherever you like, you will receive pushback from local mappers who have put a lot of thought into local road classifications, especially since they are time-consuming changes to correct.

I am willing to leave the changes you recently made on US 50 (primary->trunk) since 'trunk' classification in particular is unsettled and recently came up again on talk-us without consensus. Nevada's multi-lane highways with occasional divided carriageways and sporadic access control are a pretty grey zone. However, I will most likely revert any changes bumping any more roads in the Reno/Sparks area up to 'primary' or 'trunk', given that there are relatively unambiguous examples of both in the region (in urban context).

Bradley
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-04-12 05:09:16+00:00): Virginia Street appears to be the most major through street in Reno–Sparks, running between SR 430 to the south and the California state line to the north. Also, not many other roads in Reno–Sparks are classified as primary; Veterans Parkway and McCarran Boulevard are other good examples.
aharvey (2021-05-28 13:10:25+00:00): how do you know this is really a building passage? It's too hard to tell from the imagery so I'll revert. Please don't just blindly "fix" iD warnings, mostly they need a survey to check what the issue is, is it the road not tagged correctly, the road in the wrong location, the building in the wrong location?
aharvey (2021-05-28 13:11:08+00:00): reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105384967
Adiatma IRM-RV (2021-05-28 14:24:19+00:00): @aharvey. Thank you Sir for your revert.
We should stick more to your suggestion "Please don't just blindly "fix" iD warnings..."

Kind regards.
aharvey (2021-05-28 13:13:52+00:00): I don't see the issue with layer=0 here, it's making it clear someone with knowledge knew this as ground level, or at least level 0 relative to other layer tags. Without it you don't know where you've checked and where you haven't.
Adiatma IRM-RV (2021-05-28 14:16:21+00:00): @aharvey Hello Sir. Thank you for your feedback. I have double-checked this (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer) and agree with you about layer=0. 
Should be reverted here (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105497388)

Kind regards.
DP24PH (2021-05-27 02:17:32+00:00): This changeset likewise corrects the source to RA 9723. More information on the ongoing GitHub #papercut_fix tickets: https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/82 and https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/76
iandees (2021-05-27 14:36:54+00:00): This building seems to have been torn down quite a while ago.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105385366
clay_c (2021-12-08 18:59:41+00:00): It looks like this changeset mistakenly merged the node for the Mystic Amtrak station with the station building outline. Since the node represents the whole station, rather than just the building, please keep them separate going forward.

Partially reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114713974
Mashin (2021-12-08 19:26:19+00:00): Noted!
Thanks for fixing it!
archie (2021-05-27 06:12:09+00:00): Hej, jag tror inte det var en bra idè att tagga om dessa gemensamma gång-/cykelbanor från path till footway. Varför gjorde du det? De används eller får användas av både cyklistr och fotgängare, eller hur?
WoodWoseWulf (2021-05-27 06:09:56+00:00): Hi Anisa,
Thanks for your contributions around Ourimbah. I noticed you deleted the building:part area representing the two story section of Ourimbah RSL - this wasn't a duplicate way.
Anisa IRM-ED (2021-05-27 06:54:29+00:00): Hi  WoodWoseWulf, thank you for reviewing my mapping. I have reverted the data as before and I found overlapping building data. how should I do to fix the warning of the overlapping building?
WoodWoseWulf (2021-05-27 09:55:16+00:00): Hi Anisa,
Is it possible your software or query is detecting the building:part key as a stand alone building?
Adiatma IRM-RV (2021-05-27 12:15:49+00:00): Hi Daniel,
Hope you don't mind if I'm jumping here.
Not sure if Atlas-checks detecting is as a stand-alone building. Seems it detect duplicate/overlapping ways rather than as building/polygon.

For more info please check this (https://github.com/osmlab/atlas-checks/blob/dev/docs/available_checks.md).

Kind regards
WoodWoseWulf (2021-05-27 21:17:58+00:00): Hi Adiatma,

I'm not experienced with Atlas-checks so I appreciate your expertise.

I had a look at the building:part area and there was a very tiny intersection with the building area. I believe this is what might have triggered the detection in this case?

I have refined and adjusted it, so we should be all good now.
Adiatma IRM-RV (2021-05-28 01:31:16+00:00): Hi Daniel,

Yes, the tiny intersection might have triggered the detection.
Thank you for adjusting it, I really appreciate it.

Kind regards
=)
tux67 (2021-05-27 10:44:01+00:00): With this changeset you connected tow major roads across private property. Amazon mappers should be aware of this being not a good approach.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105386454
gilasri (2021-05-28 13:37:53+00:00): Hi,
I have added the segment as per Esri World Imagery dated Feb 27,2019. As I could not find any information regarding the access of the segment, I have not added any. Apologies for the miss from my end as I realize the impact of it. I have now added access=private as per your suggestion. Please find the changeset (105495512) with suggested modifications. Thanks for the information.
Thanks and Regards,
gilasri
user_11418917 (2021-05-27 06:51:38+00:00): Reverted. next time don't add spam.
user_5359 (2021-05-27 04:58:15+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please use the key building instead of buildings.

I have already corrected the error
radiotrefoil (2021-05-27 03:58:18+00:00): More details: changeset was https://osmcha.org/changesets/105386680/
The changeset misaligned landuse=residential away from DCS NSW Base map geometry to avoid crossing building way. My fix reverted to the old alignment and improved the alignment of the buildings.
aharvey (2021-05-28 12:49:04+00:00): reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105388046 due to deletion of valid area:highway=* tags
Adiatma IRM-RV (2021-05-28 14:28:29+00:00): Thank you Sir, for your revert on this
(https://osmcha.org/changesets/105493086/)
Kind regards.
starsep (2021-05-27 11:10:10+00:00): Dużo nazw usunąłeś. Dlaczego? Czy były niepoprawne?
RicoElectrico (2021-05-27 13:55:10+00:00): Zdarzało się, że ktoś robił tak, bo przygotowywał sobie mapę do własnego projektu i jakiś aspekt graficzny się mu nie podobał.

@ndr1x: edytujesz mapę publiczną, dostępną dla wszystkich, z których korzysta wiele instytucji, aplikacji, stron internetowych. Jak chcesz sobie zrobić własną mapę opartą o dane OSM, to jest dużo tutoriali opartych na QGIS-ie, Mapbox Studio itp.
VA00 (2021-06-02 14:21:12+00:00): Facet właśnie skasował parę kilometrów dróg rowerowych!
aceman444 (2022-11-23 06:41:57+00:00): Well, the name is already at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7338922201 so having it on the track is kinda duplicate and removing it was not totally wrong. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:roller_coaster%3Dtrack and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:attraction%3Droller_coaster .
starsep (2022-11-23 07:00:33+00:00): You might be right on this particular change but many names were removed here which weren't duplicates
iWowik (2021-06-01 10:53:42+00:00): День добрый!
Вы много ставите адресной информации, но делаете это не так, как принято в проекте.

1) не надо писать сокращения а именах кварталов. Сокращения не приветствуются. К тому же сам объект квартала обозначен с именем без сокращения.
2) адресация по объектам, не являющимися улицами (кварталам, микрорайонам,   населенным пунктам) делается не через addr:street, а через addr:place
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/947570585

Не вынуждайте ваши правки за вами исправлять или откатывать.
ScottWalkerAU (2021-05-27 08:13:32+00:00): Hi. When aligning buildings, you're meant to align to the footprint on the ground, not the sky. (the imagery you used is skewed and misaligned)
Please use DCS NSW Imagery in this area for checking alignment
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105392187
Riyadi IRM-RV (2021-05-27 09:15:48+00:00): hi ScottWalkerAU, 
thank you, for reviewing our work.
I'm riyadi, let me represents Diah to respond this issue. She's part of my team

yeah actually i do agree with your advice and suggestion. This is a new area for us to do mapping, we get very little information in this area.

however thanks to your advice, we know which image more appropriate to use. and some technical advice its helpful.

I think the data better align refer to DCS NSW. 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=105410195&relations=true
Happy Mapping
Zeazon (2021-05-27 05:28:31+00:00): I wrote wrong comment. It should be "correct format name of ถนนเทศบาล 2"
stragu (2022-05-04 05:27:28+00:00): Hi there
I noticed that this changes deleted building parts that were more precisely mapped, for example the central tower of the Forgan Smith building and the roof at the Sir Llew Edward’s building. Was this an automated edit? I’m not sure how damaging this kind of change set has been and how many there has been, but it seems it’s a net loss of details for the database.
Was this part of a concerted effort by Facebook? If so, where can I see documentation on the project?
stragu (2022-05-04 05:38:26+00:00): Looking at the changeset on OSMcha, it looks like about 7 building parts were lost in this single changeset:
https://osmcha.org/changesets/105394982
DiahW IRM-ED (2022-05-09 03:38:26+00:00): Thank you Stragu for your review and I very apologize about it. This is indeed part of  FB project and the documentation for this work (https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/17380), any other suggestions for improvement besides reverting data?
DiahW IRM-ED (2022-05-09 04:40:18+00:00): I checked the changeset data (changesets/105394982) and found that you fixed it earlier (changeset/120525055). I apologize for that. Please let me know if any questionable edits from my end. Thank you again.
stragu (2022-05-11 05:29:29+00:00): Hi Diah
Thanks for the replies. I only fixed it partially by recreating a couple of building parts before realising it was your changeset that removes them.
Could you please have another look and try to bring back the other missing building parts? There are about 7 building parts that were removed in your changeset. I assume it might be tricky because it was such a long time ago. Please let me know how you go: I'd be interested in hearing why they were removed in the first place. I think I created most of those, so would like to know if I didn't tag them properly – or if it was our automated process (or the maproulette challenge) that was not doing the right thing.
Much appreciated.
stragu (2022-05-11 05:30:21+00:00): ("our automated process" should read "your automated process")
DiahW IRM-ED (2022-05-11 07:34:18+00:00): Hi Stragu, thanks for the explanation, actually it's quite hard to remember the data due. It was such a long time ago. I've been deep analyze to the right issue. According the comparison data changeset/05394982 and changeset/120525055 also https://maproulette.org/challenge/17380/task/122936792. There was 12 data has been removed, 7 data building part still remove and fixing yet properly.

I found there's warning issue determination between JOSM and Maproulette/MR. The MR Challenge is about to fixing the overlapping edge check due overlapping building draw between primary building and building:part. (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/701725977) The issue should detect warning in MR but it's not detect as warning in JOSM.

So I coordinate with my colleague the at least 7 building:part removed. I appreciate your notice and fixing the problem. 
Thank you
DiahW IRM-ED (2022-05-11 07:41:28+00:00): Sorry, I mean the changeset link (https://maproulette.org/challenge/17380/task/94138808). Please let me know if any other questions or suggestions.
Thank you
ScottWalkerAU (2021-05-27 08:16:32+00:00): How did you determine these are fords?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105395185
Fanny IRM-ED (2021-05-28 03:08:25+00:00): Hi, ScottWalkerAU. Thank you for your attention. When a small river is crossing a highway, I think it should be ford based on wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:ford%3Dyes. Or you have any suggestions? Happy mapping
aceman444 (2022-11-12 12:48:06+00:00): There is no sidewalk on the south of Furdekova here, why are you saying it is sidewalk=both?
!bm (2021-06-01 21:08:06+00:00): Hallo ATARI_forever,

kann es sein, dass es hier eine alte (runde) "City Toilette" durch eine neue (eckige) "Berliner Toilette" ersetzt wurde? 

Zum Tagging: Ist das Wasser hier als "Trinkwasser" gekennzeichnet? (Andernfalls scheint es mir gerade bei Toiletten nicht sinnvoll, es so zu taggen.)

Beachte bitte OSM-Grundlagen – ganz allgemein[1] und im konkreten Fall: Name ist nur der Name – nutze name=* nicht, um Dinge zu beschreiben [2]. 

Vorerst habe ich hier nichts korrigiert – bitte um Rückmeldung bzw ggf auch selbst korrigieren!

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Verwende_das_Name-Tag_nicht.2C_um_Dinge_zu_beschreiben

--besteGrüße!bm
ATARI_forever (2021-06-12 15:06:36+00:00): Hi !bm
Supercool dass du schreibst. Es ist folgendermasse: Es ist eine eckige city toilette wie sie mitlerweile an vielen orten steht.
Ist also Kostenpflichtig.
ABER hintendran ist sind an der Toilette 2 öffentliche (kostenlos) benutzbare pissoirs.
Und 2 Toiletten eine mit sitz für geld und eine zum stehen ohne zugangsbeschränkung, war da die einzige Lösung die mir einfiel.
So sind 2 Toiletten am gleichen Ort gettagt ( was technisch ja auch der fall ist) und man sieht das es ein pissoir zur freien benutzung gibt)

Danke für den Hinweis mit dem Namen.

Was das trinkwassser betrifft - warum hälst du es für nicht sinvoll das bei toiletten zu taggen?
Ich mache das immer wenn es irgendwo öffentlichen zugang zu trinkwasser gibt, nähmlich damit man nach trinkwasser suchen kann und auch welches findet.
Ausserdem ist es ja auch einfach eine faktische eigenschaft, die diese toilette erfüllt.
Ser9ei (2021-05-27 08:01:39+00:00): Найдите тут, как обозначаются колонки: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C
В name не пишем пояснения, а только наименования, как они указаны на табличках. Если наименования нет, то и тег не надо использовать.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105399111
alexey_zakharenkov (2021-05-29 00:28:21+00:00): Адрес в виде 165Д/1/2 указан на табличке и в ПКК, в отличие от соседнего похожего здания 165 корпус 1 стр. 1. Надо заносить, как на табличке.
iWowik (2021-05-30 10:13:39+00:00): В ПКК не адрес, а описание местоположения. Там допустима более свободная форма.
Но вот и в ФИАС тоже эта чушь внесена "дом 165Д/1/2"
alexey_zakharenkov (2021-05-30 17:51:40+00:00): Не настаиваю, но разве то, что адрес в таком виде указан на табличке, не бьёт все прочие аргументы?
gileri (2021-05-29 22:05:28+00:00): Bonjour TitiABCD,

Les trottoirs sont inaccessibles, c'est pour ça que tu les as retirés ?
TitiABCD (2021-05-29 22:39:36+00:00): Oui c'est ça.
C'était la discussion qu'on a déjà eu sur les trottoirs, si on commence à les faire qq part, il faut les faire partout. Ils ne peuvent pas finir nulle part...
C'est peut-être une erreur, mais j'ai trouvé plus simple de les supprimer ; outre le fait qu'ils ne servent pas à grand'chose pour les itinéraires, ça avait tendance à surcharger la carte.
gileri (2021-05-30 09:31:37+00:00): Je me rappelais plus qu'on en avait parlé, en effet. Mais je maintiens que cette approche ne peut pas fonctionner. Sinon on aurait une carte vide : rien ne sert de mapper une route, elle est connectée à rien (pour le moment), et personne ne s'en sert car pas d'applications.

Ils étaient bien raccordé aux passages piétons, donc ils n'était pas "isolés" d'ailleurs.
TitiABCD (2021-05-30 09:46:26+00:00): Oui sûrement, mais je comprenais pas pourquoi mapper un trottoir juste entre 2 rues (un des segments devaient aussi se terminer nulle part / faisait un angle bizarre pour se connecter). Il faudrait au moins faire tous les trottoirs de tout un quartier, alors que si j'ai bien compris l'intérêt est extrêmement limité (pas d'utilisation via les applis de guidage).
 En plus, sur les segments de route eux-mêmes, il y a déjà l'autorisation de circulation pour les piétons.
Jakka (2021-05-27 07:37:26+00:00): Deze opmerking afgesloten. Er wordt aan gewerkt tot verbetering. Hulp via privé berichten
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105400352
eggie (2021-05-27 08:05:59+00:00): Dag Flakkeeënaar.. Je zult ongetwijfeld gelijk hebben, maar in de BGT omtrekgericht zie ik staan
Halsweg ipv Halsgat.
Wanneer je het zeker weet dan graag doorgeven 
https://verbeterdekaart.kadaster.nl/#?geometry.x=63945.05&geometry.y=422898.22&zoomlevel=9.84

Wat staat op het straatnaambord?
Geef je het zelf door?
MVG
eggie
Flakkeeënaar (2021-05-27 08:09:33+00:00): https://www.ggof.nl/nieuws/algemeen/115809/plaatweg-stellendam-moet-veiliger-worden-
In dit artikel staat het straatnaambord op de foto.
Flakkeeënaar (2021-05-27 08:14:58+00:00): Ik heb het doorgegeven.
eggie (2021-05-27 08:16:55+00:00): Top!
Cdrik_69 (2021-07-12 09:12:41+00:00): Bonjour,
Ceci est une très mauvaise contribution, mettre une mauvaise adresse sur un bâtiment d'une chapelle. Je supprime la contribution.

Plus d'information pour SNT : https://dane.ac-lyon.fr/spip/bonnes-pratiques-osm-en-snt
Jakka (2021-05-27 07:37:59+00:00): Deze opmerking afgesloten. Er wordt aan gewerkt tot verbetering. Hulp via privé berichten
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105400587
Frans S (2022-10-03 13:15:18+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Did you read the instructions how to tag buildings?
Buildings: Simply trace the outline of all buildings. A building should be tagged as a Building (building =yes) because we don't know the exact function of that building from satellite imagery. Make sure you SQUARE (shortcut key = 'S' in iD editor) the corners of square/rectangular buildings. For a demonstration, view this 2 minute tutorial on mapping buildings.
Please tag accordingly.
Best regards
Frans S
Global validator
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105400679
joost schouppe (2023-02-01 16:49:21+00:00): Beste GISninove,
Volgens hoe het nu gemapt is, is dit kleine stukje geen onderdeel van het geheel Bedrijventerrein Ter Groeninge, zie https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/111245301/
Klopt dat? Dit lijkt me gewoon een stukje dat toevallig al wat sneller in gebruik is genomen?
De naam die je hier gebruikt lijkt me eerder een omschrijving van de administratieve toestand, op zich is Ter Groeninge in combinatie met industriegebied hier voldoende denk ik.
GISNinove (2023-02-02 07:38:47+00:00): Dit was ween bestaand bedrijf dat mee werd opgenomen in het PRUP. 
De industriesite heeft nu als naam Doorn Noord gekregen
joost schouppe (2023-02-02 09:35:23+00:00): Hartelijk dank voor de aanpassing. Ik heb nog de naam van het gehele terrein aangepast.
PT-53 (2021-05-28 06:04:10+00:00): Hallo FloToHu,
dieser Geh- und Radweg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/947608302/history
überdeckt teilweise diesen Weg:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/414574491/history
Das sollte nicht sein.

Am besten diesen Weg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/414574491/history
entsprechend kürzen und auf path umstellen.

Grüße
FloToHu (2021-05-31 08:37:47+00:00): Ah, das wollte mir die Meldung sagen. Hab's nicht geblickt, wo da der Fehler war. Habs (hoffentlich richtig) angepaßt.
PT-53 (2021-05-31 08:49:58+00:00): Hallo FloToHu, 
Du hast jetzt - nur - diese beiden  Wege
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/947608302/history
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/414574491/history
aufgetrent, also jeweils in 2 Teile zerlegt.
Jetzt liegen hier
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/948974825/history
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/948974826/history
immer noch 2 Wege übereinander.

Dieser Weg
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/948974825/history
sollte noch gelöscht werden.

Machst Du das oder soll ich das übernehmen?

Grüße
L'imaginaire (2021-05-28 14:21:42+00:00): Bedankt om deze wijzigingen te mappen. Ik heb wat opkuis gedaan, waaronder:
- aangeduid dat het bedrijventerrein nog in aanbouw is met landuse=construction
- naam aangepast, zodat het echt een naam is en geen beschrijving
- één gebied gemaakt van de verschillende stukjes die op dezelfde manier getagd waren
- rotonde ingetekend
- connectie gemaakt tussen Doorn Noordstraat en Aalstersesteenweg
eggie (2021-05-27 07:29:42+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback.. 
Alle begin is moeilijk.. 
Hier is iets niet helemaal goed gegaan. 
Routes bewerken met editor iD is niet gioed mogelijk.
Wat was je bedoeling?
De Lagen-Aarleseweg   heb je met fietsroute en al ergens anders heen verplaatst en geplakt aan het fietspad. Moet die route over het fietspad lopen?
MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2021-05-27 07:39:27+00:00): reverted by changeset #105403330

Je mutatie heb ik even teruggedraaid, want het was nu een rommeltje geworden.

Geef even aan wat de bedoeling is.
Waar ligt knooppunt 54 nu?
Dat is belangrijk anders zijn de routes onlogisch hier. 
Je kunt ook in een opmerking op de kaart plaatsen.. Dan pakt een ervaren mapper het wel op.
Routes bewerken is eigenlijk niet iets voor starters. Het kan alleen met editor JOSM en een hele dot ervaring.
Graag reactie.. Dan kunnen we helpen.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-05-27 07:53:33+00:00): Dit waren je eigen edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=105401038