piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse (2022-11-13 22:08:21+00:00): What's the source of the name "Leeds Road" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42084602 here?  I've never seen it signed.  There may be some signage at the top of the A162 by John Smiths brewery, but I've never seen any signage out here.
Falsernet (2022-11-14 01:21:36+00:00): The A659 beyond the A64 sliproads seems to be quite clearly Leeds Road, going off of OS OpenMap and google. Before the construction of the bypass this would've been the A64. I figure the name would continue to meet York Road at the original Bramham Crossroads (next to the Crossroads Farm), which has moved to accommodate the A1(M). These together appear to date back as Roman roads. I think we can agree that this stretch of the A64 existed before the Tadcaster Bypass, likely not as a dual carriageway. I'm not of the mind that it would've lost its name by becoming a dual carriageway.
SomeoneElse (2022-11-14 02:05:01+00:00): > going off of OS OpenMap and google

(at the risk of stating the obvious) we can't use Google here.

OS OpenMap Local and OS OpenData just have the current A64 as "A64" which fits with the (lack of) local signage. 

> I figure the name would continue to meet York Road at the original Bramham Crossroads 

We can't just guess (or worse, make things up) like that.

I travelled along the current A64 and its precursors pretty regularly over the last few decades (and for a period in the late 1960s was driven every day to school through here).  I have no recollection of "Leeds Road" being mentioned at all, apart from the bit in Tadcaster by the brewery, already mentioned.

> I think we can agree that this stretch of the A64 existed before the Tadcaster Bypass, likely not as a dual carriageway

Please don't just guess!  Some of us can remember when Bramham Crossroads actually was a crossroads.

Please revert the name changes in this changeset where you have just guessed them, and in any other changesets where you have similarly guessed names.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-11-24 01:21:06+00:00): why you deleted service highways here https://osmcha.org/changesets/128757237/
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-11-24 01:34:23+00:00): ¿Por qué borraste las rutas internas aquí? https://osmcha.org/changesets/128757273/
Kovoschiz (2022-11-11 04:43:12+00:00): This Maps.me changeset needs to have the `name=` removed (is personal itenary), and their existence verified (some may be valid features.
Glassman (2022-11-11 18:10:38+00:00): I recommend reverting this changeset. While the changeset has been marked as resolved, it doesn't appear to be. What I've investigated so far appears to be fake data.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128757402
CarraSoft (2022-11-11 23:55:36+00:00): yo vivo en esta zona y el recorrido que hago es real, los cambios son reales, no veo porque cuestionarlo, de que manera tengo que comprobar los datos o quienes son a distancia para decir que es falsa la informacion
CarraSoft (2022-11-11 23:56:21+00:00): le inverti tiempo en corroborar y realizar los cambios para que alguien lejos de este lugar opine que son falsas, basado en que??
Glassman (2022-11-12 03:01:24+00:00): I looked at additions in my area. For example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10174879932 is tagged as a hotel. There is no hotel here. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10174885817 is supposed to be an attraction. There is nothing here according to Kartaview imagery. 

Another example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10174879748, is not a hotel - just someone's house. 

Why keep a large geographical edit when it clear that some of the entries are false?
map per (2022-11-12 20:27:16+00:00): I just checked Nodes 1-20 but from what I saw a revert is probably the best. 

@Anitalin326: Unless of course you can come up with good arguments to convince us that your edits are not trash. So Anitalin326, IF YOU READ THIS PLEASE TALK TO US!
map per (2022-11-12 22:42:35+00:00): @CaraSoft: I'm a little confused about what you said. Are you and Anitalin326 the same person?
Carnildo (2022-11-14 23:00:10+00:00): Reverted.
LuxuryCoop (2022-11-11 10:08:46+00:00): 안녕하세요! 오픈스트리트맵에 기여해 주셔서 감사드립니다.
바뀜집합 검토 요청을 주셔서 확인해 본 결과, 문제가 없습니다.
앞으로도 꾸준한 기여 부탁드립니다!
map per (2022-11-15 21:21:37+00:00): This changeset appears to have been reverted as well
Fizzie-DWG (2022-11-14 05:56:36+00:00): Hi IWC. Thanks for making changes to OSM, but a couple of things to mention. When adding buildings, please "square" them by using the Q key. & what does building=work_well mean thanks? Building= refers to what type of building it is: residential, apartment, school etc: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building. Thanks, Fizzie
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128757934
mavl (2023-04-25 09:02:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
Paul Berry (2022-12-23 15:23:42+00:00): Not your fault but the busways are no longer showing up on the Standard layer. Might be the "access=no" tagging?
Falsernet (2022-12-29 16:52:27+00:00): Nah it's the renderer. The new busway tagging has only recently been adopted and hasn't yet been incorporated by OSM Carto. highway=busway is definitely the current tagging scheme - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbusway
Paul Berry (2023-09-20 08:45:25+00:00): I noticed you had to revert some tagging-for-the-renderer changes elsewhere regarding this - has the invisibility issue been raised with OSM, do you know?
Paul Berry (2023-09-20 09:00:29+00:00): Found it: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4226
Paul Berry (2023-09-20 09:02:13+00:00): It's embarrassing how long it's taking for this to be fixed.
Falsernet (2023-09-21 03:26:03+00:00): Yeah I 100% agree, it's problematic.

I can understand why bus guideway tagging was established first, as they're definitely less of a normal road, however the fact they've been prioritised as far as rendering with highway=busway still on the backburner is questionable. The issue on GitHub has been open since October 2020, nearly three years ago, as you may have seen.

It's happened numerous times that non-guided busways have been tagged as bus guideways too. I'm not sure if this still happens but it was a bigger issue before highway=busway was recognised in iD editor.

I don't really have much else to add and in fairness I'm not familiar with the team that works on OSM Carto.
GeorgeHoneywood (2022-11-16 10:56:02+00:00): Hey there!
Thanks for contributing to OSM.

Just wanted to check that you meant to change these areas into grasslands?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/248997775
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/911843414

From Bing these look like woodland to me.
Thanks!
GeorgeHoneywood (2022-11-26 18:28:27+00:00): I've now retagged both these areas as natural=wood, and created a new way for Pad Park: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/248997775
LuxuryCoop (2022-11-11 10:08:28+00:00): 안녕하세요! 오픈스트리트맵에 기여해 주셔서 감사드립니다.
바뀜집합 검토 요청을 주셔서 확인해 본 결과, 문제가 없습니다.
앞으로도 꾸준한 기여 부탁드립니다!
limes11 (2022-11-11 17:32:41+00:00): Hi, 

bitte prüf nochmal die geänderten Wege. use_sidepath ergibt nur dann Sinn, falls ein Weg separat erfasst wurde. Das ist an einigen Stellen nicht der Fall, z.B. hier
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1052070780/history#map=18/50.74228/7.12221

Ohne jetzt jeden Fall einzeln geprüft zu haben, würde ich sagen, dass es vorher bereits korrekt war.

VG
limes11 (2022-11-11 20:44:55+00:00): Hi, 

du hast jetzt den von mir zitierten Beispielfall geändert. Hier sind noch viel mehr Wege, die du gleichermaßen falsch getagged ist. Bitte repariere dies vollständig. Bei 102 angefassten Wegen bliebe andernfalls nur ein voller Revert des gesamten Changesets.

Danke, Limes
Jule_Beuel (2022-11-11 22:34:05+00:00): Hi Limes,
dann revertier bitte komplett und ich schaue mir bei Gelegenheit nochmal die Fußwege an. 
Mir ist bei den mehrspurigen Straßen aufgefallen, dass das use_sidepath Tag für Fußgänger zumeist fehlt, wenn ein separater Weg daneben erfasst ist. Oder es stand bei den Fußgängern ein no und für Radler ein use_sidepath. Aus meiner Sicht müsste dann auch bei den Fußgängern ein use_sidepath genutzt werden.
Aber wie gesagt revertier lieber und ich schaue es mir einzeln bei Gelegenheit neu an. Sorry für den Aufwand!

Meinst du mit den erzeugten Widersprüchen "nur", wenn der Fußweg nicht separat erfasst ist oder hab ich da noch was anderes nicht beachtet?

LG Jule
limes11 (2022-11-12 19:32:24+00:00): Hi,

habe es zurückgesetzt.

Generell wird foot=use_sidepath wenig verwendet, da Fußgänger - anders als Radfahrer - nach StVO Gehwege benutzen müssen (falls es sie gibt). Dazu braucht es keine Schilder. 

Möglich ist, dass an diesen Wegen ein explizites Verbot für Fußgänger besteht (VZ 259) aber nicht für Radfahrer. Ist selten, kommt aber vor. Müsste man dann vor Ort prüfen.

Was die Widersprüche angeht: Hier zum Beispiel waren die beiden Richtungen unterschiedlich erfasst: separater Weg in eine Richtung, lane am Hauptweg in die andere. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23270296

Das passt auch zu Luftbildern. Dein zusätzliches bicycle=use_sidepath widerspricht dann diesen Angaben.

Hier wird es noch komplizierter:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/235468151/history

Der parallele Weg ist ein Fußweg, dort kann keine Benutzungspflicht existieren und Radfahren ist auf der Busspur außer nachts erlaubt. bicycle=use_sidepath kann bei der Konstellation nicht stimmen.

Es gibt sicher Situationen, in den ein bicycle=use_sidepath angebracht ist, aber falls bereits bicycle/cycleway-Tags am Weg erfasst sind, dann sollte das Gesamtkonstrukt nach der Änderung passen.

VG Limes
julcnx (2022-11-11 13:27:23+00:00): Hi Russ, welcome back, and thanks as usual for your updates! Regarding that old visible 1263 section with a bridge overpass (ID 1112198010), is it permanently closed due to a landslide? I got curious and asked for global feedback on how to tag this common use-case and this is what I got: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-to-tag-road-that-does-not-exist-anymore-to-prevent-someone-from-tracing-it-again-with-older-imagery/5302
Russ McD (2022-11-12 03:43:57+00:00): Tnx Julian - the section is completely new and permanent. While you can still see remnants of the old road, it does not connect to the 1263 any more, as far I cud tell while whizzing past.
I have changed the tag to "abandoned", as perhaps a little more accurate than "no", but in cases like these, I do think its important to leave the way showing (with a note), as hopefully it will prevent zealous mappers from using the imagery and re-tracing the out of date section.
Russ
Russ McD (2022-11-12 03:49:32+00:00): To add a little more detail, the old road has been demolished at its ends, and a brand new bridge has been built following the new line which I got from my GPS.  While technically parts of the old road still exist. a concrete barrier and broken surface prevents any access, so for OSM purposes, as it doesn't connect to anything, I see no point in showing it on the map.   
I'm sure in time, the jungle will reclaim it anyway!
nevw (2022-11-11 11:12:44+00:00): Hi
Osmi picks up a couple of your errors
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=153.42322&lat=-27.97358&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways
John Bek (2022-11-13 02:11:30+00:00): All of these relate to the rollercoaster  I drew. I've now deleted the roller coaster and retraced it as separate lines. Hopefully this has fixed the issues.
GD9G47RBNP (2022-11-11 06:35:59+00:00): Sure! I'll fix it.
rhtb0 (2022-11-11 08:36:04+00:00): 암봉 전망데크는 정상이 아닙니다.
정상은 산의 봉우리에만 해당합니다. 경승지가 전망을 볼 수 있는 곳을 뜻합니다. 번역이 잘못되어 있는 경우가 꽤 있습니다.
rhtb0 (2022-11-11 08:39:48+00:00): 오픈스트리트맵을 처음 볼 때 나타나는 '표준 레이어'만 편집하는 것이 아닙니다. 지리 정보 전반을 편집하는 것이고 이를 다양한 방식으로 나타낼 수 있습니다.
recoverpoint (2022-11-13 12:17:04+00:00): '암봉' 자체도 용문산 남릉에 있는 정상 봉우리 중 하나 입니다. 
그 봉우리의 정상에 용문산 남릉 을 조망 할 수 있게 양평군 에서 전망데크를 설치 해 놓은 것 이고요.
그렇기에 '암봉' 이라고만 표현 하는 것이 사실 더 적합한 표현 이기는 한데, 그 곳을 다니는 사람들 에게는 봉우리 이름인 '암봉' 그 자체 보다 전망데크가 더 부각 되어 '암봉전망데크' 라는 명칭으로 오래 전 부터 불리어 지고 있기에 이름은 그를 따르고 형태는 viewpoint 가 아니라 peak 으로 한 것 입니다.
rhtb0 (2022-11-13 12:45:45+00:00): 그럼 따로따로 만들어야 합니다
peak과 viewpoint를 따로 만들어야 합니다
rhtb0 (2022-11-13 12:47:04+00:00): 같이 표기하면 정상적으로 나오지 않습니다.
rhtb0 (2022-11-13 12:47:33+00:00): 전망데크는 viewpoint로 peak은 암봉으로 하세요.
rhtb0 (2022-11-13 12:51:14+00:00): 경로 이름들은 실제 이름들인가요 아니면 그 지물이 무엇인지 설명하려고 표기한건가요? 이름 태그는 기능의 일반 이름으로 사용해야 합니다. 기능을 설명하거나 레이블을 지정해서는 안 됩니다. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ko:%EC%9D%B4%EB%A6%84
recoverpoint (2022-11-13 13:18:47+00:00): 암릉 봉우리의 넓지 않은 정상부 전체를 그와 거의 동일한 크기로 데크를 덮어 설치 해 놓아서 데크와 봉우리의 좌표가 정확히 일치 합니다.
그리고, 등산로의 명칭 표시는 고유 이름이 있는 계곡, 능선 만으로 이루어진 등로의 경우는 그 이름을 사용 하고, 그렇지 않거나 복합적 인 코스인 경우는 출발점-도착점 을 사용 하는 것이 일반적 입니다. (예1, 설악산 서북능선 구간, 설악산 공룡능선 구간.  예2, 설악산 오색-대청 구간, 설악산 백담사-봉정암 구간 등)
rhtb0 (2022-11-13 13:30:53+00:00): 알겠습니다 그럼 경승지와 정상 둘다 표기하면 될것 같습니다.
Dodko (2023-01-02 20:41:06+00:00): Je tam predajňa mäsa?
Potom treba pridať značku
shop=butcher
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:shop%3Dbutcher
HellMap (2022-11-11 14:23:14+00:00): Es pielaboju ar https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128779524. Te vecais P28 palika pa https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/672636141/history līdz https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/199260488/history
Pēteris Caune (2022-11-11 14:29:45+00:00): oops, nepamanīju, paldies!
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2022-11-24 11:26:56+00:00): يا أستاذ رعد ، هذه الخريطة عامة نرجوا منكم عدم وضع أماكنك الخاصة فيها
Supaplex (2022-11-12 04:00:22+00:00): 新增加的路等級太高啦，應該用highway=service就好
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128763569
twF6wdEYwL (2023-03-01 12:09:29+00:00): 已經修正

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1112211004
ezekielf (2022-11-13 03:08:26+00:00): Hey Necessarycoot72, I've reverted this because you added information that applies to the Town of Colchester and this node only represents the smaller village of Colchester: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8897022

The two objects do not represent exactly the same thing.  I explained this in a note on the village node.  Please read notes left by other mappers before making changes.
Necessarycoot72 (2022-11-16 00:40:46+00:00): ah, sorry about that.
tom_yorados (2023-09-28 20:45:41+00:00): Hi,

der name=Maidbronn ist jetzt doppelt vergeben, was dazu führt, dass im standard-renderer der Bezeichner 2x dasteht. 
Ich schlage vor, dass name=Maidbronn auf dem landuse=residential wieder zu löschen.
Ok?
Niiepce (2023-10-13 12:03:25+00:00): Hallo,
Gut, dass dir das aufgefallen ist. Entweder wir machen es so wie du es vorgeschlagen hast oder wir übertragen die Tags des nodes auf die landuse=resiential Fläche und löschen den etwas willkürlich gesetzten Punkt.
Du kannst es so ändern, wie du es für sinnvoller erachtest. Ich wäre mit beiden Lösungen zufrieden.
archie (2022-11-11 09:53:03+00:00): Kan det tänkas att du går till överdrift åt andra hållet nu? I går fanns det endast unclassified och idag verkar allt vara jordbruksvägar. Den här vägen (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1112215737) - jag har sammanfogat den av tre delar - är faktiskt en unclassified enl trafikverket. Varför inte kolla in sånt i trafikverkets databas? Då blir alla glada. Även du som utför editeringsarbetet på betald arbetstid åt PostNord.
006KemoPostNord (2022-11-11 10:02:39+00:00): Den var Jordbruksväg från början , jag la endast till motorfordon där så jag har inte ändrat benämningen på den .
archie (2022-11-11 10:13:38+00:00): Jag vet det och har inte påstått annat. Men att lägga till motor_vehicle=yes på en väg som i det här fallet varit feltaggad bidrar ju inte till att göra osm bättre. Men det är måhända inte heller det främsta målet med PostNords betalda verksamhet på osm. Du borde givetvis gjort det jag gjort. Kollat upp vägen i trafikverkets databas och sedan editerat därefter. Då hade vi alla varit så glada och nöjda. Du förbättrar ju inte osm genom att göra det tillägget (motor_vehicle=yes) som är helt irrelevant för en väg som är unclassified.
006KemoPostNord (2022-11-11 10:20:22+00:00): OK , ska kolla upp det hädanefter
archie (2022-11-11 10:40:17+00:00): Tack snälla! Även om PostNord betalar dig för ditt osm-arbete måste du ju tänka själv. Även din betalande uppdragsgivare vill nog att vägarna finns. Men deras främsta mål verkar vara att vägarna är GPS-anpassade och då är "unclassified" säkraste kortet. Vi som jobbar som vanliga mappare, som inte erhåller betalning från PostNord, vill göra osm så som det verkligen är och vad gäller vägarna har vi bästa stödet av trafikverkets databas.
006KemoPostNord (2022-11-11 10:49:43+00:00): OK , om jag är osäker på någonting i fortsättningen kan jag ställa frågan till dig då ? Vi har inte fått den bästa utbildningen i detta så det blir nog många fel gällande benämningar av vägar och sånt .
archie (2022-11-11 11:05:55+00:00): Du får gärna återkomma om du har frågor. Men försök att tänka själv. Försätt dig i läget att du kör eller vandrar längs vägen som du editerar. Hur hänger just den vägen ihop med övriga vägar i området som anslutar till vägen.  Kolla upp med trafikverkets databas. Sedan blir det bra. Återkom om du undrar något.
006KemoPostNord (2022-11-11 11:49:56+00:00): Tack , det ska jag göra !
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-03-19 21:20:11+00:00): Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3605155 ?
archie (2022-11-11 09:03:01+00:00): Hej, de vägar som du ritar in finns inte på rätt plats. Du använder Bing som bakgrundsbild och då måste du justera bakgrundsbilden först annars hamnar det på fel ställe. Det har betydelse - förutom att vägar givetvis skall ligga på rätt plats - när andra mappers så småningom kommer att rita in byggnaderna; då är dina fellägesinritade vägar i vägen. Hur du gör justeringen framgår här: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_aerial_imagery
archie (2022-11-11 09:06:55+00:00): Jag ser det på andra ställen också. Du placerar vägarna en bit offset. Även rätt placerade vägar förskjuter du åt fel håll.
"Postnord"Mjaaaa (2022-11-11 09:21:27+00:00): Noterat =) .
archie (2022-11-11 09:28:01+00:00): En fråga. Du gör ju editeringarna här på osm på arbetstid som PostNord betalar. Har PostNord inte instruerat dig och dina kollegor om detta med imagary offset vad gäller satellitbilder?
"Postnord"Mjaaaa (2022-11-11 09:32:40+00:00): Har skickar vidare allt du skriver till min chef.
Nakaner-repair (2024-03-07 12:59:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 148340823 where the changeset comment is: Revert all changesets by 'babis b' because they were uploaded using MAPS.ME, look suspicious (ATM on roads) and the user is unresponsive.
archie (2022-11-11 09:13:03+00:00): Området här har tidigare minitiösts editerats av en annan mappare. Så om du ändrar från track till unclassified så måste du anföra goda skäl.   
Jag misstänker att du arbetar för och åt PostNord. Vid sådant förhållande är kravet att detta även skall framgå av ditt användarid. Eller har jag fel?
habi (2022-11-11 20:44:05+00:00): Ciao anonioanton

Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap, schön machst du hier mit!

Auch wenn sich das Gebäude unter der Erde befindet ist es rechtwinklig, du könntest das mit der 'Q'-Taste oder mit einem Rechtsklick auf den Umriss und 'Rechtwinklig machen' machen.

Du hast dem Gebäude den Namen Wabeweger gegeben, ist das dasselbe wie https://www.wabeweger.ch ?

Ä Gruess usem Liebifäud,
habi
Kovoschiz (2022-11-11 15:45:42+00:00): 1. Please don't merge sections  mindlessly. They have different attributes. 
2. `=pedestrian` is not the same as `=footway`. They are physically travelable by maintenance vehicles.
archie (2022-11-11 09:26:27+00:00): Även dessa vägar är förskjutna till fel läge. Du ställer till med problem för andra mappare som senare kommer att rita in byggnaderna, där dina vägar fleplacerats.
"Postnord"Mjaaaa (2022-11-11 09:31:21+00:00): Vi använder Bing. Vad använder du ?
archie (2022-11-11 09:38:08+00:00): LMs bakgrundsbilder resp justerat  Maxar. 

Problemet är inte att du använder Bing - ju förresten Bing är rätt oaktuell - utan att du först måste justera Bing eller för den delen andra bildbakgrunder innan du ritar. Du kan inte helt sonika utgå från att bakgrundsbilden "ligger rätt". Vad är det för mening med att rita in nytt eller förskjuta redan rätt inritade grejer?
archie (2022-11-11 09:40:18+00:00): Detta är så grundläggande för arbetet att jag är förundrad över att PostNord som betalar dig under din arbetstid för det här inte har upplyst dig och dina kollegor om detta.
euroPathfinder (2022-11-11 16:34:12+00:00): Hey,
Ich habe gesehen dass Du eine Prüfung Deiner Änderung angefordert hast. Grundsätzlich geht Deine Änderung in Ordnung, allerdings handelt es sich sicherlich nur eine befristete Aufhebung der Einbahnstraße, richtig? Für den Fall folgender Vorschlag:

oneway=yes
oneway:conditional=no @ (2018 May 22-2018 Oct 7)

wobei das Datum durch Dir bekannte Daten zu ersetzen wäre. Siehe hier für mehr Informationen zu conditional: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Conditional_restrictions

Falls Du nicht genau weißt wie lange die Baustelle und Aufhebung der Einbahnstraße besteht finde ich Deine Änderung so aber auch völlig in Ordnung.

Gruß und schönes Wochenende!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128767074
GISTEAMVRM (2022-11-14 09:40:03+00:00): Hey,
super. Danke für deine schnelle Antwort. Tatsächlich weiss ich nicht genau wie lange die Baustelle dauern wird, von daher würde ich so lassen.
Beste Grüße
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128767074
euroPathfinder (2022-11-14 14:33:21+00:00): Ich habe mal noch eine Note hinzugefügt damit andere lokale Mapper den Sachverhalt auf einen Blick verstehen bzw. regelmäßig auf geänderte Situation vor Ort achten.

Beste Grüße
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128767074
Frans S (2023-01-19 13:33:17+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator, at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say, but your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to next points:
A: Buildings not accurate drawn.
C: Collecting multiple buildings and mapped them as 1 building.
E: Not all buildings squared/
H : Incorporated the yard or a clearing into the mapping



Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/128767364
SekeRob (2022-11-11 09:27:35+00:00): Errata: Blunt force in places and may have lost a few country way. Added dozen driveways and tracks while there. Will folllow up on next Inspector update but for now all Anello delle Bregonze n.11 overlapping itself in sections, are gone.
sorcrosc (2023-01-04 22:07:53+00:00): Ho visto che hai etichettato le vie di accesso ai parcheggi con barrier=lift_gate
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/437143798/history
Questo non è corretto. I cancelli o barriere mobili in genere si mappano con dei nodi sul percorso. Ho modificato.

Ciao