piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
parsd51 (2021-02-05 12:55:41+00:00): @b-holdet, tak for hjælpen.
Jeg har tidligere søgt der både på forslag/vedtaget og aflyst uden resultat. Selv hvis nummeret er en trykfejl, finder jeg den ikke. 

Jeg har tidligere bedt Allerød Plan og Byg om hjælp til at finde den, så hvis den var officiel, vil jeg antage de sendte et link.

På alleroed.dk (detail søgning i referater og dagsordner) finder jeg heller ikke noget.

Eneste (vild)spor er fra retten i Hillerød, hvor det skrives at lokalplan 3-392 vil erstattes af 3-393, men den har ikke noget med Lynge at gøre.

Det samme gælder Birkegårdene (som rimer på kirkegårdene), som er totalt begravet.....
Jørn-osm (2021-02-07 22:57:26+00:00): Her er nogle links.

Link til
Referat Økonomiudvalget 10-11-2020
Punkt 22, Almene boliger ved Langkæret - revideret projektforslag.

https://www.alleroed.dk/politik/dagsordener-og-referater/udvalg/dagsorden?agendaid=f32a661e-d376-4949-8996-60309a67ad3e&searchText=

Link til
BIRKEGÅRDENE - BOLIGER VED LANGKÆRET OG BIRKEKROGEN
https://www.alleroed.dk/document/96ed06ea-1448-45b8-b022-db80334fe098

Link til
39 almene boliger på vej på Langkæret i Lynge
https://sn.dk/Alleroed-Nyt/39-almene-boliger-paa-vej-paa-Langkaeret-i-Lynge/artikel/1298697

Link til
Forslag: Nye boliger ved Langkæret i Lynge
https://e-pages.dk/allerodnyt/887/2
parsd51 (2021-02-08 11:14:48+00:00): @jørn-osm

Super, mange tak :-)

Jeg har nok i min søgning været for fokuseret på en lokalplan og nummeret, som i noten.

Hilsen
parsd51
stefanct (2021-03-01 12:14:27+00:00): Das Wiki ist allerdings geduldig und sollte auf keinen Fall als alleinige Begründung für eine Änderung herhalten, die schwer nachvollziehbar und ggf. strittig ist. Was hast du konkret geändert?
PPete2 (2021-03-01 19:20:34+00:00): Grundsätzlich sind solche massiven Löschungen ohne vorige Diskussion in der Mailingliste oder Forum generell abzulehen und wird oft wieder revertiert bevor es dazu nicht einen Konsens gibt.

Was und warum geändert wurde würde mich auch interessieren. Im Normalfall gibt es zu jeder Buslinie im aktuellen Schema PTv2 je 2 Relationen. Dazu theoretisch noch weitere für jede Verzweigung dieser Linie.
Jgaordhelagenornres (2021-03-03 18:15:22+00:00): Hallo stefanct und PPete2,
danke für eure Nachrichten.
Der Grund für die "Löschung" war, dass einige Teilstücke der Linien 620, 622, 623, 625 und 626 aus NÖ doppelt waren.

Beispielsweise gab es die Buslinie 625 aus Seitenstetten Gemeindeamt nach Steyr City Point, sowie aus Seitenstetten Gemeindeamt nach Steyr Bahnhof (ebenfalls 625). Im Teilstück Seitenstetten Gemeindeamt - Steyr Bahnhof waren diese beiden Relationen ident.

Wie PPete2 richtig schreibt, gibt es laut PTv2 jedenfalls 2 Relationen (für jede Richtung eine), und ggf. Varianten. Um bei oben genannten Beispiel zu bleiben: Da die Relation Seitenstetten - Steyr Bf in einer anderen Relation der gleichen Buslinie vollumfänglich enthalten war (Seitenstetten - Steyr City Point), habe ich die Relation Seitenstetten - Steyr Bf gelöscht.

Ich habe jedenfalls nur idente Teilstücke gelöscht, keine Varianten (wo der Bus eine andere Fahrtroute beschreibt)!

Wie ich bereits in der Beschreibung erklärt habe, soll die OSM kein Ort für vollständige Fahrplaninformationen sein. Exakt dies war allerdings vor meiner Löschung der Fall! Es wurde ganz einfach für jeden Fahrplankurs eine eigene Relation erstellt - und dies soll ja NICHT passieren! Wichtig ist ja nur zu sehen, wo welche Buslinie entlangfährt, und wo der Bus stehenbleibt.

Es tut mir leid, wenn ich meine Änderungssatz zu ungenau beschrieben habe, und ich hoffe, ich habe nun alles genau genug dargelegt. Sollte ich allerdings auf weitere Relationen mit identen Teilstücken treffen (davon gibt es einige in NÖ), würde ich dies allerdings exakt wieder so machen. Selbstverständlich würde ich niemals Varianten, wo der Bus eine andere Fahrtroute beschreibt, löschen!

LG Jgaordhelagenornres
user_5359 (2021-01-26 17:44:12+00:00): Hello! Don't store any GPX tracks inside of the OSM database.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:22:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
olo81 (2022-06-01 20:24:14+00:00): nazwa opisowa do poprawy
user_5359 (2021-01-26 17:43:48+00:00): Hello! Don't store any GPX tracks inside of the OSM database.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:44:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
mistergoodnight (2021-01-26 17:29:47+00:00): Weg: Seenerstrasse (25472229)
bus lane existing!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:23:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:52:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
Tomas Straupis (2021-01-26 18:11:10+00:00): Tai šitais pakeistais keliais mašina neįmanoma važiuoti? T.y. tai siauri takeliai, kur mašina (tarkim miškininkų ar policininkų) netilptų? Tepa tik pėstieji ir iš bėdos dviratininkai?
Petras Kudaras (2021-01-27 12:20:18+00:00): Kai kuriose atkarpose teoriškai galima pravažiuoti, jeigu nebūtų įkalti mediniai kuolai, kad niekas nepravažiuotų. Kitose atkarpose, ten arčiau Neries – niekaip. Lygiai tas pats galioja ir kitiems šio miško takeliams, kurie pažymėti type='path'. Nuotrauka daryta šiandien: https://imgur.com/a/TjbmEj5
Tomas Straupis (2021-01-27 12:53:21+00:00): Supratau, tai tada nuimsiu ir trackgrade žymas. Ačiū už info!
eggie (2021-01-27 10:12:20+00:00): Hier vast een voorproefje van AHN3
Scroll  even naar Doetinchem. 
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~allroads/NLOSMOK/OSMOKNL/OSMOKNL.html

Dan zie je dat het toch net iets anders is.
Gr eggie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:27:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
Geim (2021-03-07 21:36:33+00:00): Als je met de editor ID wegen verwijderd, krijg je geen melding dat er routes op liggen. Zo had je b.v. de MTB route Smilde beschadigd.
linuxrev (2021-03-08 08:28:13+00:00): Dat wist ik niet. Bedankt voor de uitleg. Zal voortaan eerst checken of er ergens routes liggen.
linuxrev (2021-03-08 08:28:56+00:00): @Geim Heb jij die route nu weer hersteld?
Geim (2021-03-08 08:40:15+00:00): MTB route heb ik gedaan, fietsroute 38-53 had iemand anders al gedaan.
Als je editen leuk vind kun je JOSM eens overwegen. Is een veel betere editor met meer mogelijkheden.
linuxrev (2021-03-08 17:09:59+00:00): Ik heb JOSM wel geïnstalleerd, maar moet nog even uitvinden hoe die werkt...
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-11-19 03:54:40+00:00): How you know that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19695719/history is private and inaccessible to general public?
Cabot's Underhill (2023-11-19 12:16:40+00:00): The road sign has "PVT" on it. Public roads don’t have "PVT" on the sign.
hrhino (2023-11-19 14:42:51+00:00): PVT indicates ownership=private, though, no? access=private would be a "no trespassing" sign or similar.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-11-19 18:22:26+00:00): Note that I am not asking is it publicly owned, I am asking is it accessible to general public.

road which is privately owned but usable by general public is not access=private
Cabot's Underhill (2023-11-19 18:28:15+00:00): This road is supposed to be accessible only to the homeowners on this road and their guests. Random members of the public unassociated with the homeowners on this road should not go on this road.
Cabot's Underhill (2023-11-19 18:28:38+00:00): Feel free to update the tags to whatever meets that criteria.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-11-20 14:03:34+00:00): "should not go on this road" - are they legally forbidden from doing this?

or is it only typically weird or pointless?

Is there any sign beyond PVT marker?
Cabot's Underhill (2023-11-20 14:47:40+00:00): Think of this private road I like a private driveway. You can technically drive into someone’s driveway. But you have no legal right to be there if the homeowner doesn’t want you there and you should not enter private property (including roads) without permission from the owner. If the homeowners don’t want you on their private property they can call the police and have you and your car removed. 

The PVT marker is all that is there.
ezekielf (2023-11-20 15:37:49+00:00): Hey Cabot's.  This is a common misunderstanding because the tag access=private is supposed to have a more specific meaning than common meaning of the word "private" (what you describe above).   More details here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate#Clarification_of_the_term_%E2%80%9Cprivate%E2%80%9D

This is indeed a private road as indicated by the PVT on the sign.  However all this means legally is that the road is maintained by the property owners rather than the town.  It doesn't carry the same weight as a sign reading "no trespassing", "residents only", or similar would.  Such a sign means that access is preemptively restricted and definitely indicates `access=private`.  This road lacks an access restricting sign, but we still call it a "private road" and people generally do not go down private roads like this out of respect for the privacy of others.  If someone with no business there go down this road, the property owners have the right to tell them to leave (trespass them) and now they legally must leave.  The tag for this situation in OSM is access=permissive.  This is confusing because it sounds like property owners are happy to allow you access to their land.  What it really means is any normal private property situation.  There is not preemptive indication of restricted access, but if the owner tells you to leave then you are legally required to do so.

For reference: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values
Cabot's Underhill (2023-11-27 18:10:50+00:00): Hey Ezekielf,

You learn something everyday. I've clearly always treated these private roads as equivalent of no trespassing. Thanks for clarifying the pre-emptiveness of my thinking. I'd say feel free to update these access tags as you or anyone else thinks best.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:44:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
Glassman (2021-01-26 18:07:31+00:00): This looks more like a parking lot than a park.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98174776
Petomas02 (2021-01-26 18:14:13+00:00): While this is a parking lot, this is a seasonal established "Sno-Park" which offers many kilometers of groomed cross country skiing and snowshoeing.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:20:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
Glassman (2021-01-26 18:07:11+00:00): This looks more like a parking lot than a park.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98174839
Petomas02 (2021-01-26 18:12:17+00:00): while it is a parking lot whithin USFS land, it is an established "Sno-Park." this Sno-Park offers many kilometers of groomed xc ski trails and snowshoe routes. in the winter months.
WoodWoseWulf (2021-01-27 22:05:01+00:00): Hiya Petomas,

I know it sounds a bit counter-intuitive due to the name (sno-park) but I'm not sure if leisure=park imparts the right meaning here.

I might suggest something like 
landuse=winter_sports instead?
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dwinter_sports)

If there's also many kilometers of this area, it's probably best to include the entire area than just using the parking lot as a proxy.

A lot of this comes down to verifiability (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice), especially outside of the snow season.

It might be a good idea to reach out to local mappers to discuss, the OSM mailing lists are a good place to start: https://lists.openstreetmap.org but there may also be other local services you can use to find follow local mappers :)
Lachgast (2021-02-02 15:07:51+00:00): Ha Jwieman,

Mooi werk! Ik kwam je werk toevallig tegen toen ik zojuist in de buurt wat wegen aan het 'uitlijnen' was op de ondergrond van de gemeente.

Er is nog veel werk aan de winkel in Utrecht, dus dat loont de moeite!

Ik vroeg me af of je ook gebruik maakt van de kaartlagen die wij allemaal kunnen gebruiken. Er is door Allroads een mooie set gemaakt voor JOSM, met onder andere gemeente-ondergrond (die met contouren is vooral fijn). Die kun je apart inladen in JOSM.

Kijk maar eens of je er wat aan hebt:
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~allroads/JOSM/Saved_session/NL_OSM_basis_%20layers.zip
Lachgast (2021-02-02 15:08:11+00:00): Bestand uitpakken, en het .JOS-bestand openen in JOSM.
janolezab (2021-01-26 17:23:43+00:00): Man könnte aber darüber nachdenken, den Raum mit dem POI "Spline" zu mergen (mit laboratory=computer und so)
janolezab (2021-01-26 17:24:11+00:00): Würde ich aber erstmal nicht machen.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:31:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
skyper (2021-01-27 15:16:12+00:00): Habe ich aus dem Grab geholt und als abgerissen eingetragen.

Grüße skyper
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:37:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse (2021-01-26 20:03:31+00:00): Hello,
You appear to have broken the geometry of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2374762#map=11/39.6779/46.5831 .
Do you need help understanding what's changed and why it might be a problem?  Let me know if you do.
Best Regards,
Andy
Hb- (2021-01-27 04:57:30+00:00): Reverted with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98196900. Please see notice.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:47:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
Allison P (2021-01-26 18:13:02+00:00): I accidentally put the changeset comment in the source field. Oops.
hsc666 (2021-01-26 20:32:13+00:00): Hallo Womo12 und willkommen bei OSM!

Bitte bedenke, dass OSM kein Spielzeug ist oder zur Eintragung privater Informationen gedacht ist. Deine Änderung habe ich daher wieder zurückgesetzt.

VG
hsc666
mavOsaure (2024-04-03 13:39:46+00:00): Problème!
Nécessite un "revert"!
mavOsaure (2024-04-03 13:41:22+00:00): Oups, commentaire posé sur un changeset sans problème
Hb- (2021-01-27 04:57:17+00:00): Reverted with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98196900. Please see notice.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:23:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:56:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:34:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
JayTurnr (2021-01-27 04:52:34+00:00): Ooops!
geomap6 (2021-01-26 18:10:00+00:00): Hi, I see that you are deleting the trails that I'm adding here.
I hope you are doing this based on proper sources or a field survey.
However, I can see those trails appears clearly on "USGS Topographic 3D Elevation Program" layer. I hope you can check it and edit it accordingly.

Thanks,
tpcolson (2021-01-26 18:26:33+00:00): Yes, in fact, this is based on "proper sources", which include field survey with survey-grade GPS. " those trails appears clearly" are in fact old logging skids from the early 1900's which are resolving as ground disturbances due to the incredibly high posting density of the lidar data. Ground disturbances do not meet the definition of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath. If you have any ground truth data that can substantiate your remotely sensed data source, such as photographs, GPS, etc.
ivanbranco (2021-01-27 10:04:00+00:00): Hi fesbir,

don't add test nodes to te map please. I'm going to cancel it.
ivanbranco (2021-01-27 10:05:43+00:00): Hi fesbir,

don't add test nodes to te map please. I'm going to cancel it. Also make a significant changeset comment next time.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:32:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:51:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:40:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
Syl (2021-01-27 09:49:03+00:00): Bonjour, je viens de supprimer ce point, le parking était déjà présent : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/82269293
baranah (2021-03-06 21:03:27+00:00): Hi. Good to find another local (-ish) mapper who is active. I cycled along Way: 52091394 a few days ago. It has always been tagged as highway=unclassified and I was expecting it to be paved. I'd be inclined to re-tag it as highway=track, surface=unpaved, tracktype=grade3. What do you think? I glanced at Way: 52492865 as I went past. It didn't look like highway=unclassified either. Actually, it looked private but I could be wrong there.
Puxan (2021-02-10 11:58:55+00:00): @kibira,  En este conjunto de cambios has creado una mini rotonda (900473095 (way)), como una circunferencia, pero la etiqueta de mini rotonda está definida para un nodo. Creo que deberías decidir si la pones en un punto manteniendo el concepto de mini rotonda o la dibujas como rotonda usando los tramos de vía.    

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98178811
user_5359 (2021-01-26 20:13:15+00:00): Hello! Did you know the page https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:osmc:symbol with a accept notation of background and text color?
cafeconleche (2021-01-26 22:10:06+00:00): Interesting, I didn't know it. But that is only for hiking routes, isn't it?
user_5359 (2021-01-27 04:55:32+00:00): Yes, that's right, but I think the procedure makes sense as an alternative.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:43:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
letihu (2021-02-15 19:59:54+00:00): tags fehlen
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/900477299/history
Salmonleg (2021-01-27 21:58:04+00:00): Привіт,
Тег barrier=gate зараз позначає всю вулицю як одні суцільні ворота: його треба забрати і повернути їй highway=residential. Це її поверне на карту. 

Шлагбаум може уже бути точкою на цій дорозі.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:56:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:43:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
ElliottPlack (2021-01-26 21:26:53+00:00): Looks good here, thanks for fixing all these! Related changeset comments here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80153952#map=19/39.50097/-76.67446
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:37:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al