piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-20 21:07:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 121260282 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some implausible mapping.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5998 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6004 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
GinaroZ (2022-04-11 11:41:49+00:00): Is there a particular reason why you've added a building on top of all the other buildings?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
osmviborg (2022-04-11 05:45:40+00:00): Nu da vejen er færdig, ved du så om broen over banen er blevet lukket/fjernet?
Jørn-osm (2022-04-11 19:28:16+00:00): Broen ved Skibsholtvej er stadig åben:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38152630

Broen ved Ulbækhusvej kender jeg ikke status på:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38152641
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
TurntSnacko (2022-04-14 03:25:09+00:00): Incredible job (I struggled with this area months ago, lol)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:12:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
ignaciolep (2022-04-11 19:44:31+00:00): Hola nikitapauchek, Me llamó la atención que borraras el nodo de "Cerro de Las Hormigas" que tenía su etiqueta de wikidata correspondiente (Q21840412) y luego lo crearas con un nodo nuevo sin esa etiqueta. Sería mejor que, en lugar de borrar y volver a crear, trataras de mover el nodo hasta la ubicación que consideras correcta para no perder etiquetas ni la historia del mismo. También sería ideal si pudieras describir tus conjuntos de cambios con comentarios más descriptivos de lo que se modificó y la fuente de los datos. Gracias!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119552136
nikitapauchek (2022-04-12 01:18:30+00:00): Hola ignaciolep, cabo de corregir y agregar nuevamente la etiqueta correspondiente. La opción de mover el nodo y no borrarlo lo voy a tener en cuenta para la próxima. También te comento que la información esta sacada del mapa topográfico de la region: "Carta de Refugios, Sendas y Picadas. Parque Nacional Nahuel Huapi, S.C de Bariloche, Patagonia, Argentina."
Gracias por la critica constructiva!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
user_5359 (2022-04-13 06:37:33+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24209923. Did you mean moped instead of mped?
user345 (2022-04-11 16:16:02+00:00): Diese zwei Gebäude sind schon lange abgerissen und wurden durch einen Neubau ersetzt // These two buildings have long been demolished and replaced by a new building.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:24:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
emersonveenstra (2022-04-11 01:18:59+00:00): Hi,

Are you local? Last time I visited https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1037219241 it was definitely not suitable for bikes, only about 4ft wide with a 3in curb, that's why I didn't add `bicycle=yes` to it. Did that change recently?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-20 21:07:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 121260282 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some implausible mapping.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5998 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6004 .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:17:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
VictorIE (2022-06-25 14:13:44+00:00): waterway mapped as both stream and river

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1050880650#map=17/52.56349/-7.85969

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1054781619#map=17/52.56313/-7.86163
b-unicycling (2022-06-26 11:15:31+00:00): Thanks for pointing that out.
Emilius123 (2022-04-11 14:50:09+00:00): Hi,

Bitte vermeide Änderungssätze mit solch übergroßen Flächen. Danke.
user_5359 (2022-05-02 20:33:28+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/693080640. What is the meaning highway=park?
em1nk (2022-05-07 09:37:07+00:00): It was meant to be a garage road. Fixing it now, thanks for the notice.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
felipeeugenio (2022-04-12 12:45:21+00:00): Hello. What is the source of this name? it is not in the official sources of Chile.

regards
Juandax (2022-04-12 14:44:03+00:00): Hi, we use a word in Mapuzungu to identify this island.
Glassman (2022-04-12 22:03:34+00:00): #TIP: OSM spells out street name - ie. no abbreviations. The reason is that software has a hard time unabbreviating. Can you update 9th Street Northeast (assuming that's correct)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119553228
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
Conanmangaka (2022-04-14 02:46:16+00:00): SALAM, EST CE QUE TU HABITES A LAAYOUNE?
Alec Coates (2022-04-11 01:26:47+00:00): Hey, I was wondering why you decided to remove / replace some of the wikidata links for some of these nodes?
Yorvik Prestigitator (2022-04-11 02:04:37+00:00): which ones are you referring to? i removed the ones for Kent Street as they were for a kent street not in york
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:18:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
ElliottPlack (2022-05-04 14:02:20+00:00): Hi there DUGA, I see in this changeset you have changed some bridges to culverts. That is incorrect here. The bridges are tagged as bridges so that they can have max weight restrictions applied. Culverts cannot have a maximum weight. Please do not adjust any bridges in Baltimore County. We just went through a process with the county DPW to tag all the bridges with their weights to help routing software work around them.
DUGA (2022-05-04 15:33:25+00:00): Noted thank you!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
WoodWoseWulf (2022-04-11 01:49:50+00:00): Hi Rebecca,

Welcome to OSM!

I'm not sure if leisure=park would be the best tag to describe this particular location - it might be better tagged as a nature reserve or protected area?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dnature_reserve

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area
ZLima12 (2022-04-11 23:19:36+00:00): It's been a little while since I've been on this trail. What exactly does this part look like? Does the wood carry the trail over some kind of water? If so, maybe it should be bridge=boardwalk or something similar.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119553865
Nat Bradley (2022-04-11 23:48:40+00:00): Yup, bridge=boardwalk is what it is. I didn't know that tag exists, thanks!

Changed it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119598789
eggie (2022-04-11 06:17:33+00:00): Welkom bij OSM..  Kleine aanpassing verricht. Uw info samengevoegd met de officiële adresnode.
Format phone aangepast. 
MVG
eggie
ZLima12 (2022-04-11 23:20:56+00:00): Changeset looks good, but in the future, for driveways and swimming pools on private property, please add access=private.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119553965
Nat Bradley (2022-04-11 23:50:19+00:00): Thanks for the input. Please feel free to add more detailed tags yourself.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:23:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
MxxCon (2022-04-11 04:43:09+00:00): Hello.
Building address should not be part of building's name unless that is its name. If a building has multiple names, it should be tagged as documented in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119554247
user_5359 (2022-04-12 17:46:05+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119545649!
user_5359 (2022-04-12 17:46:22+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119545649!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
DressyPear4 (2022-04-14 23:29:16+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119554502
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:16:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
joel56dt (2022-04-11 05:14:42+00:00): You have got me thinking... I think adding genus=prunus would identify them as cherry/plum trees?
Warin61 (2022-04-11 23:16:03+00:00): Hi,
See 
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=152.98684&lat=-27.90318&zoom=12
for an error in this relation...
CorruptComputer (2022-04-12 22:14:07+00:00): Format for hours should be written as "Mo-Sa 09:00-21:00; Su 10:00-21:00", but otherwise looks great, welcome to OSM!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/119554809
user_5359 (2022-04-11 04:12:35+00:00): Hello! Please have alook on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357412222. What is the unit of the height value? Is the unit really metres or more feet?
user_15544657 (2022-04-11 04:30:21+00:00): It's meters.
user_5359 (2022-04-12 17:11:20+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/node/9657301504, http://www.osm.org/node/9657301503. What is the meaning of the tag Order=1 ?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:14:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:21:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:13:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:19:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
Thomasle994 (2022-04-11 02:40:42+00:00): Yes
Thomasle994 (2022-04-11 02:40:14+00:00): Corrected
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-04-15 09:58:24+00:00): Please don't just delete features. Your changes have been reverted.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:15:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:20:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-04-15 18:22:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 119755674 where the changeset comment is: Following numerous complaints to the DWG, reverting some data believed not to be licence-compatible. Meaningful communication with the mapper failed. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5913 and previous blocks.