piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Jordi MF (2022-08-12 16:00:41+00:00): Es verdad que no he esperado un tiempo razonable para discutir cambios. A veces también he desistido de comentar tus changeset porque, después de no responder a algunos comentarios, llegué a la conclusión que no querías hablar nada. Ahora intento esperarme un tiempo prudencial (10 días) antes de hacer algún cambio que pueda considerarse conflictivo. Otros cambios que he hecho, como eliminar los nombres descriptivos ('Barranco') si no existe el nombre específico, los he hecho siguiendo las normas de la wiki y he pensado que no hacía falta comentarlo cada vez.

Mis aportaciones no tienen ninguna intención de deshacer tu trabajo. Pienso que la mayor parte de tus aportaciones son positivas. Añadir barrancos y topónimos oficiales completa mucho el mapa. Al igual que los puertos. Aunque en este caso, también me he fijado que hay errores de estilo (como escribir todo el nombre en mayúsculas) y que la procedencia de algunos nombres noe queda clara (como estamos debatiendo en otro changeset).
Sin más, gracias por responder y vamos comentando. Un saludo.
Jordi
ToniE (2021-12-11 18:48:53+00:00): Servus xyzlr,

Danke für's Anpassen, hier hat sich wohl viel getan.

Leider ist iD, der Browser-Editor, nicht so gut geeignet für ÖPNV-Relationen - JOSM ist da besser.

https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/relation.php?id=9551162&lang=de

https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/relation.php?id=9566474&lang=de

zeigen, dass die Reihenfolge der Stops nicht richtig ist.

Außerdem fehlen die 'role' für platforms und stop_positionen.

Morgen wird PTNA evtl. noch weitere Dinge melden - über Nacht läuft eine Analyse

https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/results/DE/BY/DE-BY-MVV-Analysis.html#bus_157

Wie gesagt "iD" ist hier das Problem, besser geht's mit dem nicht.

Viele Grüße
Toni
xyzlr (2021-12-11 19:09:38+00:00): Hallo Toni,

vielen Dank für den Hinweis, ich nutze nur iD, mit dem JOSM kenne ich mich (noch) nicht so gut aus. Da müsste man dann noch die Reihenfolge anpassen. Role für die Haltestellen ist noch nicht vollständig.
Ubostr./Germeringer Weg belassen, da fährt 2 mal am Tag der Bus noch vorbei.

Grüße, Paul
BeKri (2021-12-12 16:11:36+00:00): Servus zusammen,

UND es gibt einen neue "tolle" Haltestelle, gleich nach der Unterführung, bin gespannt was das gibt,wenn da der Bus hält ...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9311631592
Bitte noch einbauen zwischen 11-12 und 28-29
Daaankkkee ;-)
derBeKri
ToniE (2021-12-12 16:37:24+00:00): Danke, alles klar BeKri.
user_11418917 (2021-12-16 09:08:37+00:00): Hello Aboli405, Can you please describe what are these nodes? Thank you.
مرحبا، هل يمكنك شرح ماهي هذه النقاط؟ شكرا لك.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114827830
MarcoR (2025-06-10 13:32:03+00:00): Ciao sto cercando di togliere i "fixme=continue" obsoleti; nel nodo https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9330421359 hai lasciato una note con scritto "Indicazione pilastri di greppolungo"; ti ricordi mica cosa intendevi? Forse era presente un cartello?
Matteo Calosi (2025-06-14 22:04:56+00:00): Non me lo ricordo ma la traccia per i pilastri è stata aggiunta quindi direi che il fixme è obsoleto
MarcoR (2025-06-15 10:05:30+00:00): Grazie per la risposta; ho rimosso i tag da quel nodo.

Buon mapping,
Marco
czubi (2021-12-14 10:36:52+00:00): Entenhaus ist kein Eigenname, gelöscht
name der KITa doppelt, 1x gelöscht
marczoutendijk (2021-12-11 19:46:45+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 111569320, 111569385, 112352816, 112353532, 112353714, 112354349, 112482386, 112720680, 112817263, 112817681, 112823863, 112892367, 112893299, 112893578, 112893811, 113307898, 113314745, 113315527, 113318170, 113342658, 113393087, 113393656, 113393930, 113395265, 113396811, 113456714, 113545928, 113590020, 113591095, 113672400, 113677089, 113679574.
eggie (2021-12-11 20:00:22+00:00): In het begin wordt vaak meegekeken. Uiteraard om te helpen.
Winkels en bedrijven taggen we bij op de adresnodes. Wanneer die er (nog) niet zijn (import)  .. dan in ieder geval een winkel/bedrijf op een node zetten.
Dus niet op gebouwomtrekken.
Alleen het de naam van een gebouw is gebruik je de 'buildingshape'. Bv kerken kastelen e.d 

Gr eggie
eggie (2021-12-11 20:05:14+00:00): De winkel heb ik op een node gezet. Gebouwen kloppen meestal wel, want ze zijn ingemeten door het kadaster. Een enkele keer is er nog niet ingemeten, maar wel geimporteerd.
In ieder geval niet naar de daken kijken. Dat klopt niet
eggie (2021-12-11 20:12:11+00:00): De gebouwen weer uitgelijnd met de BAG.. 
Mocht iets niet kloppen dan doorgeven aan het Kadaster middels deze site
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=rijperweg%2020b&resultOffset=0&objectId=0370200000004153&geometry.x=120385.57&geometry.y=507611.17299787&zoomlevel=5&detailsObjectId=0370010000004122
Nixspers (2021-12-12 09:00:40+00:00): Duidelijk thanks!
mueschel (2021-12-13 16:25:12+00:00): Hi,
these waterways got a strange tag "gpx:name". Could you check this and either convert it to a proper 'name' tag or remove it?
OSMWeekly (2021-12-11 19:59:10+00:00): looks good! I don't know if you need separate 'entry' nodes for each door unless those doors go to explicitly separate parts of the building.
OSMWeekly (2021-12-17 16:55:05+00:00): for the pedestrian way, you have it tagged as highway=pedestrian (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=pedestrian?uselang=en)

but you may want to use highway=footway (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway)

there's a subtle difference which boils down to how often vehicles are able to use the way.
OSMWeekly (2021-12-17 16:55:40+00:00): specifically this way: 1011305256
fossisthefuture (2021-12-17 22:06:19+00:00): The two nodes are for different doors that do lead to different spaces (one the woodshop, the other the entryway/front desk)- the woodshop shouldnt really be used as an entrance.
OSMWeekly (2021-12-18 04:07:05+00:00): Rad, that's good
Jordi MF (2021-12-15 00:53:44+00:00): Hola Jose,
Cuando añadas barrancos en JOSM, debes descargar toda la zona en la que estás trabajando para poder unir los diferentes barrancos. Casi todos los que has añadido no comparten nodos y, por tanto, la base de datos no reconoce que los diferentes barrancos de una misma cuenca están unidos.
Saludos,
Jordi
MarcoR (2022-08-22 15:12:33+00:00): Ciao!
Con questo changeset hai creato un luogo chiamato "Manaril¡" (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9330553024); penso si tratti di un errore (forse il nome corretto è "Manarili"), potresti darci un'occhiata?

Grazie e buon mapping!
Marco
Glassman (2021-12-11 21:33:05+00:00): You changed the Shingle Point 4 type from multipolygon to building. Is this a typo?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114829530
lizzyd710 (2021-12-12 20:42:04+00:00): Yes, it was a typo, I meant to type boundary.
Glassman (2021-12-12 21:03:10+00:00): Thanks for fixing it.
alester (2021-12-13 18:59:19+00:00): This changeset removed the cut-outs for the TCH and E&N Railway right-of-ways, making those now part of the Oyster Bay 12 area (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2098476). What was the source for the change of jurisdiction? AFAIK, those have not been turned over to the local First Nations and should still be excluded from the relation.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-07-16 23:30:05+00:00): No use el mapa para marcas personales, solo información de relevancia pública.
Frans S (2022-02-15 15:08:01+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:
A: buildings not always accurately drawn.Please pay more attention on following the outlines of a building (with extentions).
E: Rectangular Buildings not squared.They are mostly strickt rectangular.




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 !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114829926
_PG_ (2022-01-24 08:59:03+00:00): seasonal=winter, поставленный на highway=cycleway, означает, что эта велодорожка существует только зимой, а летом её не найти. Прошу исправить этот тэг для всех объектов, куда вы его случайно поставили.
neo-plan (2022-01-24 10:30:43+00:00): Я его использовал для лыжни, которой становится велодорожка на зимнее время. Но, наверное, сделал неправильно. Пока удалил его с velo1, где вы заметили, до выяснения как правильно его нужно ставить в таких случаях, когда летом - это вело или пешеходная дорожка, а зимой - полностью лыжня. Позднее - всё потом переделаю и в других местах.
DJ_frombelgium (2022-10-12 18:21:40+00:00): Salut Roman.

Je vois que dans ce changeset, t'as remis "hangar" a des bâtiments que j'avais passé de hangar à warehouse.

Comme indiqué dans le wiki, un hangar est un bâtiment pour y stocker des avions.  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhangar

Les bâtiments utilisé pour du stockage (céréales etc) doivent être des warehouse
TomPar (2021-12-12 06:25:35+00:00): Hello.  Really great to see someone from The Trustees here on OSM mapping!  I'm a big fan of your organization.

I was just recently mapping in this area a week or two ago and meticulously aligned the whole TTOR parcel to the MassGIS L3 Tax Parcel map.  I noticed you moved this boundary slightly away.  Was this intentional?  Do you know if the MassGIS data is wrong (sometimes it is)?  Or were you hoping to create a visual buffer to the private land?

I also noticed you added an additional mini-triangle for the Mill Farm private CR.  This is duplicative data as there is already a way for the whole parcel.

Additionally, I noticed you (accidentally?) connected a wetland way point to a cadastre way.  Please be careful.

I appreciate this is a very contentious area, and you are dealing with trespassers.  But some of your changes do not conform to OSM mapping norms.

This private CR should probably never have been added to OSM in the first place.  There was a MassGIS OpenSpace layer a decade ago that brought them in.  I've spent a lot of time this past year cleaning this data up throughout the state.  I've worked on many TTOR properties lately.

If you'd like to collaborate further, please send me a message.  I have a passion to make it easier for people to find where they can get outside...and also want to make sure they know where they can NOT go too.

Thanks.
mueschel (2021-12-14 14:42:36+00:00): Hi,
it's not necessary to invent a new 'url:hjdsafhdskl' tag for every different website. It's perfectly fine to just use 'url' for these.
ivanbranco (2021-12-15 11:39:11+00:00): Come avevo già detto in questo changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114442475 anche secondo me sarebbe meglio utilizzare i tag già esistenti, io sarei per correggerli. Tu Martino cosa ne pensi?
user_10901495 (2021-12-15 15:01:38+00:00): Non sono proprio d'accordo. Inserire solo "url" sarebbe meno chiaro, e in più cosa si farebbe se ci fosse più di un url? Io cerco di "inventare" nuovi suffissi per il tag seguendo una logica.
Non trovo sia una cosa problematica, se qualcuno vuole aggiungere un sito guarderà su TagInfo se è stato già creato un tag url:ufudywyay per quel sito e si adeguerà a quello spelling o cambierà lo spelling a quelli già presenti per mettere il suo. Gli spelling che ho creato io sono abbastanza semplici, sito Paesi di Valtellina url:paesi_di_valtellina per esempio, non ho mai fatto giri strani di parole che rendano impossibile il fatto di andare su TagInfo a verificare.
Andrea Musuruane (2021-12-15 16:30:21+00:00): OpenStreetMap non è una directory o un motore di ricerca. Il suo compito non è associare ad una feature qualsiasi url che lo riguardi. Il tag url viene utilizzato per tipi di contenuto molto diversi: siti web ufficiali di un servizio o del suo operatore, pagine di terze parti, voce di Wikipedia dell'oggetto, fotografie che raffigurano l'oggetto o persino documentazione sul wiki di OSM. Pertanto è meglio non utilizzare questo tag quando sono disponibili alternative più specifiche come website=*, contact:website=*, contact:facebook=* (facebook=*), contact:twitter=* (twitter=*), image =*, wikipedia=* e così via. Inoltre, tag come url:hjdsafhdsk non verranno mai usati dai software che usano i dati OSM. Quindi la loro utilità è nulla. Ciao, Andrea
user_10901495 (2021-12-15 18:06:15+00:00): Ma in che modo sarebbero più specifiche le alternative che hai citato tu? Sono letteralmente meno specifiche. Se la logica conta qualcosa non devo aggiungere altro a questa frase.
Detto questo chi l'ha detto che devono essere usati dai software che usano dati OSM? Possono essere usati da qualunque utente che utilizzi anche semplicemente osm dal sito ufficiale usando la funzione query features. Chi l'ha detto che anche se avessero solo lo scopo di essere utilizzati dai suddetti software essi non ne possano fare uso?
Inoltre mi sembra che nel tuo commento ci sia un non sequitur: se non si devono associare tutti gli url che corrispondono a una feature mi dovresti suggerire di eliminare gli url, non di metterli sotto un altro tag.
user_10901495 (2021-12-15 18:08:40+00:00): Inoltre mi sembra che il tuo commento sia un non sequitur*
user_10901495 (2021-12-15 18:09:41+00:00): Boh non so se questa correzione sia meglio o peggio dell'originale sono un po' confuso.
ivanbranco (2021-12-16 23:03:45+00:00): Secondo me questa correzione è in meglio, innanzitutto si rispetta uno standard, inoltre se si comincia a creare un tag per ogni sito diventa una giungla. Mi sembra la maggioranza sia d'accordo, Mueschel ("it's not necessary"), Andrea Musuruane ("è meglio non utilizzare questo tag quando sono disponibili alternative più specifiche"), Mannivu (che li ritiene inutili), e io (che mi sono già espresso in due changeset).

Dato che c'è un consenso diffuso sull'argomento nei prossimi giorni procedo ad allineare i nuovi tag a quelli già esistenti.
user_10901495 (2021-12-17 08:55:22+00:00): Intendevo la correzione sulla mia frase del non sequitur (btw era meglio la correzione). 
Possiamo provare a vedere se è della vostra opinione anche qualcuno che non ha già un bias nei miei confronti?
user_10901495 (2021-12-17 08:57:05+00:00): Questi tag sono fatti apposta per poterci mettere il suffisso che si vuole tra l'altro.
Andrea Musuruane (2021-12-17 09:12:02+00:00): Il canale per le discussioni è la mailing list talk-it. Sentiti libero di scrivere lì per questo o altri dubbi. Ciao, Andrea
user_10901495 (2021-12-17 09:27:57+00:00): Ho scritto sulla ML tagging, dato che è un problema che riguarda i tag.
user_10901495 (2021-12-17 09:28:50+00:00): (stavo già scrivendo prima che mi venisse suggerito)
user_10901495 (2021-12-17 11:06:36+00:00): https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2021-December/063327.html
Okay si è raggiunto un consenso anche qua. 
Adesso correggo.
user_10901495 (2021-12-17 11:55:46+00:00): Comunque voglio ribadire il fatto che non sono d'accordo, perché questa cosa potrebbe anche per esempio permettere di vedere quante chiese hanno il tag che rimanda alla loro scheda su Chiese Italiane.
wireguy (2021-12-12 21:03:47+00:00): hi TTOR, there seems to be some other items wrong.  You changed one section of wire fence, but not the other.  The fence looks more like it should be highway=path access=no.   Are two Mill Farm boundary ways needed?
Allison P (2024-07-31 01:01:42+00:00): Please explain why you have added address info for an Ocala school to a school in Virginia!
MapMapper_ (2024-07-31 01:35:40+00:00): I got the schools mixed up — my apologies! I'll correct the address right away.
conradoos (2022-01-02 10:47:32+00:00): Cześć. Dlaczego usunąłeś dwa mostki nad kanałem?
Leszek999 (2022-01-03 10:54:11+00:00): Mój błąd.
Poprawiłem.
conradoos (2022-01-03 11:53:29+00:00): OK. Dzięki.
conradoos (2022-01-03 22:05:23+00:00): Byłem tam dzisiaj. I faktycznie jednego mostku już nie ma. Więc go usunąłem. Piszę, żebyś się nie zdziwił:)
danieldegroot2 (2021-12-12 20:11:17+00:00): Beste padvinder,

Ik kom een hoop punten zonder tags tegen. Daar is iets fout gegaan.
De eerste rij lijken bomen ter vervanging van de bomenrij, alleen staat deze er nog.
De tweede rij lijken me de straatlampen.

Kijk je nog even?

Groet,

Daniel
padvinder (2022-01-08 22:41:23+00:00): Daar is softwarematig iets misgegaan. Dat komt af en toe voor. Intussen e.e.a. rechtgezet. Dank voor je opmerkzaamheid.
aleph_null (2021-12-22 23:47:16+00:00): Hi brevans,

this changeset added admin_level=4 to suburb boundaries. That level is reserved for Regions in NZ. (See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative). These boundaries should probably place boundaries (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dplace). Could you look at those boundaries again?
18Lub06bik92 (2021-12-20 15:47:51+00:00): nespravne udaje GPS mal byt toto 48.510 ,, 17.722
18Lub06bik92 (2021-12-20 15:50:55+00:00): aj 48.51 17.72
aceman444 (2022-01-17 22:06:56+00:00): A preco by to malo byt zle? Aky mate lepsi zdroj?
18Lub06bik92 (2022-01-19 21:13:19+00:00): ano mam lepsi zdroj
aceman444 (2022-07-09 19:13:49+00:00): Ano, aky?
OSMWeekly (2021-12-12 03:43:46+00:00): hello.

I believe you confuse d building=retail for landuse=retail.  I am changing these.
habi (2021-12-16 09:45:54+00:00): Hey!
In this changeset you introduced a bunch of 'new' tags, namely "STREET_NAME", "STREET_TYPE" and "STATUS".
It seems to me that these keys might come from your source, but are not known in OpenStreetMap.
Are these from your 'import' process and would you care to change these to the correct address tags in OSM?

Greetings from Switzerland,
habi

PS: I came here via http://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htm
user_5359 (2021-12-19 10:48:24+00:00): Hello habi, 
we have two possibilities: To revoke the change set (because we have to accept licence violations) or we remove the keys (Assuming that the sample drawn is true and that all the information in addr:full or building=construction has been included.)
mueschel (2021-12-19 13:15:44+00:00): Comparing outlines of buildings with images, it seems the old data was much more precise then this newly imported data. I suggest to revert this and about  additional changesets.
user_5359 (2022-01-05 17:25:41+00:00): jpeterson1346 doesn't reacted. Should we revert the records or do we pass the Data Working Group?
habi (2022-01-11 09:38:56+00:00): I honestly don't know the best way of dealing with this. A revert seems to harsh, but jpeterson1346 should answer on what (s)he did here.
I just sent a message to him/her through the OSM messaging system and told there that I'll notify the DWG in a week or so.
user_5359 (2022-01-11 10:01:46+00:00): +1
habi (2022-01-20 10:46:55+00:00): I sent an email to the DWG and BCCed both of you.
ElliottPlack (2022-01-20 17:35:10+00:00): Thanks for contacting the DWG. I am familiar with this data source and the local area. Taking a look at things I agree that this appears to be an import of the Montgomery County dataset. I've actually working on a proposal for a more wholesale import of the MoCo data but would have conflated addresses and excluded existing features. Therefore I would agree that rolling this back may be the best option.

@jpeterson, please respond here to the comments. We all appreciate efforts to update the map but when using external data, there are some important considerations to make with the formal import process.

-- Elliott
OSMF Data Working Group
ElliottPlack (2022-01-20 17:37:19+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5607
jpeterson1346 (2022-05-11 15:36:49+00:00): If you're looking to do a wholesale import, then rollback is fine by me.
EP_Repair (2022-07-26 03:51:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124073966 where the changeset comment is: revert undiscussed tags as per changeset 114831535
eggie (2021-12-12 07:43:30+00:00): Beste appie.. Beter niet schuiven met de kaart in editmodus met editor iD.
Dat kan schade veroorzaken. 
oneway=no is default. Alleen toevoegen als je bang bent dat een andere mapper oneway=yes gaat taggen. Bv op een tweerichting fietsrotonde.
Geef concreet aan wat je edits zijn. Kleine aanpassingen zeggen medemappers helemaal niets.
Mapse,
eggie
archie (2021-12-11 22:58:56+00:00): Jag har reverterat denna cs. Man puttar inte undan gränserna för naturreservatet bara för att göra plats för editering av annat. Att du behöver dra till med sådant visar att du inte har justerat din imagery offset ordentligt (så som jag nämnt för dig tidigare utan framgång, tyvärr). Se i övrigt min kommentar till revert-cs (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114832603). Vänligen fixa din bildbakgrund ordentligt så behöver du inte flytta på annat, som är rätt placerat, tack!
Glassman (2021-12-12 19:00:23+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114832249
dafadllyn (2021-12-11 22:24:38+00:00): Changeset-Kommentar falsch. Tatsächliche Änderung: Wegweiser hinzugefügt (inkl. destination_sign-Relationen)
גמד וענק (2021-12-18 12:30:34+00:00): Please use more of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
nevw (2021-12-11 23:18:30+00:00): Hi
the military tags are not appropriate for a local gun club unless it is operated by and for the military forces.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:military
An internet search for the following should help with ideas...
openstreetmap shooting range
nevw (2021-12-16 04:27:13+00:00): This now seems ok. 
I added sport =shooting + shooting=clay_target
but I notice https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport=shooting
suggests clay_pidgeon but I think clay_target is better and used by the Australian association https://www.claytarget.com.au/
eggie (2021-12-12 07:51:55+00:00): Appie.. Dus als commentaar.
note= verwijderd en oneway=no toegevoegd (hoeft niet)
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=114832568
Nu weten we nog de status van het fietspad niet?
Vermoedelijk G13 net als het aansluitende stuk.
Dit zijn de tags die op de verschillende fietspaden horen.
G11: mofa=yes, moped=no, traffic_sign=NL:G11 
G12a: moped=designated, mofa=designated, traffic_sign=NL:G12a 
G13: moped=no, mofa=no, traffic_sign=NL:G13 

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Cycleway 

Dus welk bord staat vooraan? G13?
Ik draai deze changeset even terug. 
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-12-12 07:57:07+00:00): reverted by changeset #114838360
Wellicht leuk om uit te zoeken welk type fietspad het is. Zal vast wel G13 zijn.
Dus 
moped=no 
mofa=no 
traffic_sign=NL:G13
eggie (2021-12-12 08:02:45+00:00): https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2020-1087.html
黄庭坚 (2021-12-11 23:04:00+00:00): Dear Sal73x,

even if landuses are traced not perfectly it's a loss of information to delete them: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=114832771
Sal73x (2021-12-11 23:11:39+00:00): I have replaced them after deleting.
Glassman (2021-12-12 19:06:10+00:00): #TIP: marking the sidewalk going through Bryant Heights as private seems like overkill unless the way is explicitly marked as such.

#TIP: Be sure to connect the sidewalk to the existing sidewalks to allow routers to take advantage of the new sidewalk
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114832798
Steven Petryk (2021-12-13 22:24:16+00:00): Yeah, they are explicitly marked as private. Ugly white signs that say "PRIVATE PROPERTY: TOWNS AT BRYANT HEIGHTS RESIDENTS AND GUESTS ONLY"
Glassman (2021-12-13 23:44:03+00:00): Since it says residents and guests only, I'd change it to destination. That should prevent routers from taking a short cut through the area.
meinmap (2021-12-11 23:25:37+00:00): Perchè stai cancellando così tanti indirizzi?