piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
vespax (2016-08-04 17:27:03+00:00): Jirón Carabaya es una calle importante al lado de la Basilica de Lima.  No debe ser una "linea" sino debe ser residencial o calle minor.  También, borremos la nueva linea/calle Jirón de la Uníon y quedemos la antigua.
vespax (2016-08-04 17:28:37+00:00): Changeset #41243109
tyr_asd (2016-08-06 13:39:55+00:00): Hi Danilo!

Thanks for the addition, but don't forget to connect the cycleway back to the main road where it ends (here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4335647647) and to any side roads it's crossing (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1736129692).

Also: On aerial imagery this looks more like a cycle lane and/or cyleable sidewalk, in which case the mapping as a separate cycleway is probably not optimal. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway#When_not_to_use for more information and also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle.

Thanks and happy mapping! :-)
DaniloP (2016-08-22 09:50:35+00:00): Hi tyr_asd,

thanks for your comment! I will fix the intersection points. Regarding the type of path, I just extended the one that was already there, it is indeed a mix walk/cycle path.

I took a photo to show how the situation looks like (this is a photo of the new part I drew): https://postimg.org/image/jcbejadqh/

maybe I should add segregated=yes?

any suggestion on how to implement changes is highly appreciated as I am beginner.

Thanks!
tyr_asd (2016-08-22 12:23:42+00:00): Thanks for your answer! Yes, adding segregated=yes makes sense in this case. Don't forget to add foot=yes or foot=designated if pedestrians are allowed on the cycleway – by default they are for-cyclists-only in OSM.

And, if you want, you can split the cycleway and add the tag "cycleway=sidewalk" where it runs on the actual sidewalk.

Analogously you can also split and add "cycleway=crossing" where it crosses a street via zebra-crossings (e.g. here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2396669945).
mavl (2019-04-24 16:19:18+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:19:27+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:19:31+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:19:34+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:19:37+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
Hjart (2016-08-04 17:45:54+00:00): Jeg var i tvivl om der var tale om en gravsten, men du har sandsynligvis ret.
highflyer74 (2016-08-06 08:48:43+00:00): Hallo und willkommen bei OSM!

Ich habe gesehen, daß Du Informationen zu OSM hinzugefügt hast, was sehr gut ist. Bitte denke daran, daß die hinzugefügten Daten nach dem OSM-Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page) getaggt werden müssen, damit sie für andere Menschen nutzbar gemacht werden können. Ansonsten kann Software, die die Einträge nutzen möchte, diese nicht lesen.

In diesem Fall: eine Haltestelle mit Telefonnummer....? Klingt merkwürdig...

Wenn Du Fragen hast, immer her damit!

Viele Grüße,

highflyer74
Helfer2 (2016-08-06 10:49:12+00:00): Guten Tag!

Es handelt sich um die Haltestelle eines Anruf-Sammel-Taxis. Damit kann man Mo.-Fr. von 6(?) bis 20 Uhr abfahren, wenn man bis eine Stunde vorher die angegebene Telefonnummer anruft. Wie sieht denn ein korrekter Eintrag für diese Haltestellen aus? Ich würde gerne alle AST-Haltestellen ergänzen, dies hier ist nur ein erster Test...
highflyer74 (2016-08-06 11:11:27+00:00): Hallo und danke für Deine Antwort!

Handelt es sich denn hierbei um eine richtige Haltestelle? Mit Schild o.ä.? Ich bin leider kein ÖPNV-Spezialist, deshalb kann ich Dich nur auf https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Public_transport verweisen. Das Thema ist recht komplex und für Einsteiger nicht wirklich geeignet.

Wenn es ein kommerzielles Taxiunternehmen ist, welches dort hält, könntest Du auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dtaxi nehmen.

Viele Grüße!
Helfer2 (2016-08-06 12:09:49+00:00): Genau, die AST-Haltestellen haben auch Mast und Schild. Das kommerzielle Taxiunternehmen fährt nach Anruf im Auftrag der Gemeinde. Die Wikiseite kommt kein AST. Vlt. kannst du mir einen ÖPNV-Spezialist empfehlen, der mir Tipps geben kann?
Hubert87 (2016-08-06 21:36:47+00:00): Hallo.
(Habe den link in der Bremer Maillingliste gesehehn.)
In Rostock gibt es sog. Abruf-Linien-Taxis z.b. (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3894079) welche von dem Nahverkehrsunternehmen (RSAG) bestellt werden, nach einem normal Fahrplan fahren, an normal Haltestellen halten. Im Grunde verhält sie sich wie eine normale Buslinie. Man muss nur 30min vorher anrufen und es kommt ein Taxi was einen ohne Umweg zur Zielhaltestelle fährt. Es seiden es steigt unterwegs noch einer zu.
Die Telefonnummer hängt zwar mit dem Fahrplan der Linie zusammen aus, nach meinem dafürhalten ist Sie aber keine Eigenschaft der Haltestelle, sondern der entsprechenden Taxi-Linie.
Helfer2 (2016-08-06 22:16:53+00:00): Ein ALT hat einen großen Unterschied zum AST: Das Linientaxi fährt einen festen Linienweg (wie ein Bus), das Sammeltaxi nicht (deshalb der andere Name). Ein Sammeltaxi beginnt an einer Haltestelle und endet "überall".
highflyer74 (2016-08-08 07:53:32+00:00): @Helfer2: Es gab noch mehr Feedback auf der Bremer Mailing List. Bei Interesse kannst Du es hier https://lists.openstreetmap.de/pipermail/bremen/2016-August/thread.html nachlesen.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:19:40+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
literan (2016-08-05 13:14:25+00:00): поле "название" - только для имен собственных. Описания туда пихать не следует. Поправлю.
F-5 System (2016-08-05 13:47:08+00:00): Спасибо за комментарий, пойду ещё раз почитаю рекомендации по объектам.
literan (2016-08-05 13:50:10+00:00): Для описаний используют тег description=
BeKri (2016-08-06 08:35:04+00:00): Servus, Danke für's rumschieben ...
Und wenn Du jetzt bitte in Zukunft die Straßennamen ausschreibst und nicht abkürzt fällst Du in der Hausnummerauswertung auch nicht mehr auf ;-) Bitte ... Danke.
Siehe:
http://regio-osm.de/hausnummerauswertung/auswertung_auswahldetails?land=Bundesrepublik%20Deutschland&stadt=M%C3%BCnchen
user_5359 (2016-08-21 08:39:52+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Did you see the building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/292354265. I think your node is a duplicate.
Hjart (2016-08-04 18:04:09+00:00): "Vestjylland" er ret stort område. Er der mulighed for at du kan være lidt mere specifik? I dette tilfælde f.eks. "Søndervig"?
user_870861 (2016-08-06 11:57:13+00:00): there is a large number of exactly duplicated ways and node
(buildings, roads, barriers, street_lamp, stops ...)
with your changesets :
41224595 vs 40403208 or 40618846 or 40978488
41243789 vs 40403208 or	40618846 or 40978488 or 41224595
mavl (2019-04-24 16:19:44+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:19:55+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
twirth (2016-09-11 01:40:22+00:00): Totally agree about the rude locals! Glad you got it on the map!
mavl (2019-04-24 16:19:58+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:02+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
Aleks-Berlin (2017-02-03 18:44:13+00:00): Hi jconstanti, you inserted an invisible char (ASCII 0x7F - its only to be ignored) into many names during last year into Spain. E.g. way/435702970 . Invisible means: depending on tool, they are seen or not.
These strings are not searchable and sometimes not rendered correctly. KR, Alexander
Aleks-Berlin (2017-02-07 15:41:05+00:00): please check, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435702970/history
I fixed it. As it is invisible in many views, you have to copy the name to a tool that shows all chars.
Another example (another changeset, perhaps another user),
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=Carrer%20de%20Josep%20%7FMaria%20Caparr%C3%B3s
These special char makes it impossible to search! You need some hacks to locate them! There are about 500 objects in OSM withc such names. And about 80% was entered by 3 users mostly last year !
Graf Westerholt (2017-03-27 09:36:56+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/313575725

Straßenbegleitende Stellflächen werden nicht als Parkplatz eingetragen, sondern mit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:parking:lane
mirekremi (2016-10-08 10:44:02+00:00): Witam. Nie znalazłem informacji o nazwaniu tej uliczki. Można prosić źródło pozdrawiam.
ここらの野菜 緑の玉手箱 (2016-08-04 18:47:30+00:00): ここらの野菜
Hjart (2016-08-04 21:12:14+00:00): I saw this and have since gone through all camp sites in south jutland to make sure they are all tagged caravans=yes or no.

See a search here: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/hGD
ThomasBloo (2016-08-04 22:50:43+00:00): I feel just a little bit sorry for falck, but this is nice work ;) Thanks!
Klumbumbus (2016-08-04 18:53:40+00:00): versehentlich changesetkommentar nicht angepasst. richtig ist: kleine fixe rund um Nossen
pitscheplatsch (2016-09-12 18:11:10+00:00): Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test Test
pitscheplatsch (2025-01-29 07:21:30+00:00): test2
naoliv (2016-09-13 13:35:56+00:00): Felipe, não é correto criar proibições de retorno para a própria rua, principalmente quando ela é de mão única (isso já implica que não é possível trafegar na outra direção).
Fischkopp0815 (2016-08-07 07:46:41+00:00): Die Eigenschaften eines Hydranten bitte nicht in name schreiben sondern in die passenden Tags wie z.B. fire_hydrant:diameter. Genaueres gibt es hier http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_hydrant. Ich habe das mal für die von Dir bearbeiteten Hydranten in Meldorf gemacht.
BCNorwich (2016-08-05 07:02:04+00:00): Hi and Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The website you posted for the restaurant is no valid so I have removed it.
trigpoint (2016-08-05 15:49:34+00:00): The website which this changeset removed, does appear to be valid.
trigpoint (2016-08-05 15:49:50+00:00): http://kirazu.co.uk/en/
BCNorwich (2016-08-05 17:50:27+00:00): But apparently the restaurant is now under new ownership and a new name.
fayor (2016-08-05 01:33:51+00:00): Ciao, per quale motivo hai annullato in blocco tutto il mio lavoro di qualche giorno fa ?
Ti faccio notare che si era discusso sulla lista talk-it del fatto che non si trattasse di admin_level ma di place ma forse non l'hai letto.
Oltre a ciò avevo corretto anche evidenti errori di confine, come zone non coperte.
Sarebbe stato gradito un messaggio per evidenziare eventuali opinioni contrastanti, piuttosto che operare un revert globale, senza tra l'altro controllare.

Provvedo al ripristino, ti pregherei di discuterne qui o altrove, il dialogo è sempre preferibile.
Grazie.
dieterdreist (2018-03-23 11:02:17+00:00): Io non capisco com'è successo che Polline Martignano è diventato il Quartiere Ostiense in questo changeset.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3309225/history
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:05+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
przemas75 (2016-08-07 10:11:59+00:00): To nie jest cycleway, tylko path + odpowiednie tagi.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/236834260
Proszę nie zmieniaj.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:08+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:11+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:15+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:18+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:21+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:24+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
PT-53 (2016-08-05 06:34:45+00:00): Hallo MrWebber,
Du hast mit diesem CS einen Parkplatz gelöscht. Warum ?
Bitte gib Deine Quelle an und trage künftig immer einen entspr. Kommentar ein.
MrWebber (2016-08-05 14:14:58+00:00): Parkplatz wurde entfernt weil dort ein Baugebiet entsteht,  quelle: Zeuge vor Ort
PT-53 (2016-08-07 17:39:53+00:00): Ich vermute Du meinst mit "Zeuge" den Hinweis "Parkplatz existiert nicht mehr" und hast das nicht selbst vor Ort überprüft. Hinweise/Fehlermeldungen ohne Überprüfung abzuarbeiten, ist in OSM nicht erwünscht!
Ich war heute dort und kann bestätigen, daß aus dem (noch vorhandenen) Parkplatz Bauplätze für Einfamilienhäuser werden.
PT-53 (2016-08-07 17:41:29+00:00): Bitte gib bei Deinen Änderungssätzen künftig jeweils die Quelle und einen entspr. Kommentar (was wurde wo gemacht) an.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:28+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:31+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:34+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:37+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
maraf24 (2016-08-04 21:15:23+00:00): Nie ma tu wypożyczalni samochodów.
mavl (2019-04-24 16:20:41+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-04-25 16:45:39+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
alphensebezorger (2016-08-05 17:57:33+00:00): Hallo bas(sie),
volgens mij is hier iets niet helemaal goed gegaan.
1. Het voetpad is nu volgens mij voor niemand meer toegankelijk, zelfs niet voor voetgangers.
2. Er is een strook gras van minstens 1 km lang gewist.
Dat haal ik tenminste uit deze link:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=41247406.

Laat even weten of dit inderdaad vergissinkjes waren a.u.b., en of je het zelf kan repareren.

P.S. Volgens mij was het voetpad trouwens voorzien van de juiste tags. Ik zou bij de makers van OSMAND klagen als je als fietser hierover geleid werd. Daar ligt het probleem.
 
Met vriendelijke groet,
Alphensebezorger.
bas(sie) (2016-08-06 19:08:15+00:00): Hoi,

Die verwijdering is inderdaad niet goed gegaan. Heb een gevecht gehad met mijn browser en die won zo te zien, Maar zie niet hoe ik dat kan terugdraaien. Ook niks over te vinden in de wiki zo snel.
Heb jij een idee?

bas
alphensebezorger (2016-08-06 20:59:45+00:00): Ik vond deze wiki pagina: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Undoing_deletions 
Kun je daar iets mee? Anders kan ik het morgen wel even met JOSM voor je doen.
Groet, Alphensebezorger.
alphensebezorger (2016-08-18 13:51:00+00:00): Ik heb het gras inmiddels weer teruggezet op de kaart met JOSM undelete: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41526785.
 Bovendien heb ik foot=yes aan het voetpad toegevoegd, want het lijkt me logisch dat voetgangers er gebruik van mogen maken. Volgens mij is het zo weer in orde, anders mag het natuurlijk weer verbeterd worden.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-30 13:41:18+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435714034/history has waterway = brook that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What you meant by waterway=brook? Is not using https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream intentional and wanted here? How waterway=brook differs from waterway=stream in this case?
user_870861 (2016-08-04 21:36:10+00:00): 2 natural=waterl exactly duplicated (tags and geom) from the same changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40817916
user_870861 (2016-08-04 21:36:50+00:00): 2 pathl exactly duplicated (tags and geom) from the same changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40817916
user_870861 (2016-08-04 21:37:33+00:00): 2 tracks exactly duplicated (tags and geom) from the same changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/40817916
DD1GJ (2016-08-05 06:56:08+00:00): Bei der Brücke wäre layer anstatt level korrekt.
Aalen1 (2016-08-05 18:09:31+00:00): Vielen Dank!
werde es probieren ob dann die Warnungen weg sind; 
Aalen1
mueschel (2016-08-06 10:10:43+00:00): Hi, could you check the tagging of this node?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4142264094
Looks rather confusing to me.
Cheers, Jan
Filip009 (2022-04-13 08:30:14+00:00): Dobrý deň, nemyslím si, že táto cesta má v teréne overiteľné meno https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/435715981. Pokiaľ sa jedná o chodníček vychodený zvieratami presuňte ten name do description, pokiaľ to tam chcete zanechať.
Mirecnet (2022-04-13 10:01:07+00:00): Opravene - je to zvieraci koridor - jasne viditelna trasa zvierat v tvare klasickeho chodnika.
DaveF (2017-12-23 19:53:00+00:00): Hi
I'm tidying up tagless ways.
Are the ones between the house numbers required?
southglos (2017-12-23 20:16:55+00:00): Hi - they were just reminders to myself that those buildings are joined together; I'll delete them when I trace the buildings off new imagery.
lakedistrict (2016-08-12 15:20:15+00:00): Hi Guy,
Park Terrace and Kensington Terrace no longer match up with the buildings shown on the Bing imagery because they were demolished or partly demolished and have been rebuilt. 
The Bing imagery is fairly outdated in the North of England. 
Is it possible for you to undo your changes to the building shapes? 
Thanks
:-)
woodpeck (2016-08-04 22:16:33+00:00): What do you mean with "change road rev for Rand McNally maps" - you are not copying data from Rand McNally are you?
Víctor L (2017-03-04 16:51:43+00:00): Veo que las vías del FCGU en la zona de Zárate (esas que pasan sobre los Puentes atirantados) aparecen como railway=disused.
¿No hay actualmente un tráfico de cargas?
nicfer (2017-03-06 01:29:27+00:00): Ni idea si hay servicio, al menos de forma regular. Y si pasaran muy esporádicamente, no entrarían en disused de todas formas?
AgusQui (2017-03-09 01:17:31+00:00): Si hay tráfico de cargas, a Buenos Aires no llega, por a la altura del Camino del Buen Ayre las vías no se ven por la cantidad de vegetación. 
Nicfer si hay algún que otro tren cada tanto no va disused.
nicfer (2017-03-09 15:13:43+00:00): Alguien sabe desde dónde están operativas? Hasta el empalme de Rubén Darío tengo entendido que no, que hay tramos cortados, salvo que se hayan reconstruido.
Víctor L (2017-03-12 17:56:52+00:00): La estación Lacroze (cargas) se cerró definitivamente en Enero de este año y esos terrenos se usarán para prolongar la Av. Triunvirato y urbanizar la "Villa Fraga".
No obstante, existe la Estación Zárate Norte, que es una estación multimodal y seguramente desde esta estación hacia la mesopotamia haya movimiento intensivo de trenes de cargas (o sea, por los puentes del complejo y la isla Talavera).
La parte en desuso (y condenada a desaparecer definitivamente -porque ya hay intrusiones-), es entre Zárate Norte y Rubén Darío. Me parece que las vías que están sobre el puente del complejo deberían tener raiway=rail y no railway=disused.
De todas formas, como no estoy recorriendo mucho esa zona, quisiera que alguien que haga un relevamiento en esa zona sea la que decida.
mueschel (2016-08-06 10:13:24+00:00): Hi,
does this bridge have one lane or two? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/70196340

Cheers, Jan
Rps333 (2016-08-06 12:17:40+00:00): one.
Rps333 (2016-08-06 12:33:15+00:00): http://openstreetview.com/details/11394/4
user_5359 (2016-08-21 06:12:36+00:00): Welcome to OSM! You forgot to add any information to your way.
muralito (2016-08-05 01:51:50+00:00): Avisá cuando lo dejes pronto, que es un nudo importante y estaria bueno hacerle una revision de que los nuevos ruteos queden segun lo esperable.
ignaciolep (2016-08-05 13:19:59+00:00): Creo que ya terminé.
El cambio completo está formado por los siguientes conjuntos de cambios:
#41259387
#41258770
#41249967
#41249862
#41246116
#41222111
#41221695
#41220947
#41195439
#41193905
Saludos!
AgusQui (2016-08-06 11:35:48+00:00): ¿El layer de la rama que va de Dellepiane a Campora está bien? No se está renderizando bien en el cruce sobre Dellepiane y la conexión con Campora
ignaciolep (2016-08-07 13:22:41+00:00): Gracias Agus, ya ajusté los layers. Fijate como lo ves.
muralito (2016-08-07 22:42:43+00:00): Hay que poner maxspeed tambien en las otras vias cercanas, sino al poner el maxspeed solo en el intercambiador, queda lento en relacion al resto y te manda por salir por las secondary, que la velocidad maxima asumida por defecto es superior.
muralito (2016-08-16 13:00:07+00:00): Les pongo un ejemplo. http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_car&route=-34.64936%2C-58.47286%3B-34.65424%2C-58.46341#map=17/-34.65099/-58.46643&layers=N
Warin61 (2017-02-15 23:24:03+00:00): Way  435727141 is part of a relation .. this way should not carry tags, it is the relation that should carry the tags.  

Deciduous ??? really! .. Evergreen is what is there.
Warin61 (2017-02-15 23:54:15+00:00): Kenley Park contains areas of grass .. removed tagging for wood. 
Florence Cottan Park changed to LPI boundaries
Delected way 435725409  as this contains houses too. 
Way 144343003  reduced to exclude houses. 

highway=footway excludes motor vehicles by default no need to tag motorvehicle=no.
user_242798 (2016-11-01 21:03:30+00:00): Een brandgang is geen footway!
Brandgangen niet behoren tot de openbare weg met uitzondering van sommige  verbindingsstukken. Ze zijn “private” met recht van overpad. 
Zowel brandgang, path, footway lopen niet dwars door de schuurtjes heen.
En brandgangen zijn i.h.a. 99% kaarsrecht! Dus geen extra nodes op de rechte stukken die bochten suggereren die er niet zijn.
dieterdreist (2017-07-06 11:22:45+00:00): looks like an undiscussed mechanical edit. Deletes 767 ways in one changeset, many of which in mature versions (e.g. v19!).
dieterdreist (2017-07-06 11:24:01+00:00): There even a way in version 57 deleted by this. Please be more respectful with other people's work and modify rather than delete / recreate! E.g. way/15564717
rene78 (2018-10-20 21:36:06+00:00): Not sure whether this reversion was a wise one. In my opinion all "Zonas" of Rome (e.g. this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5319470) should have admin_level=10. All municipalities (e.g. this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1459589) admin_level=8. This changeset removed all admin_level=10 from the zonas.
Alecs01 (2018-10-21 08:56:08+00:00): Don't know what happened in this changeset, but current tagging is fine. I believe the name "Municipio" may be misleading, those are indeed municipal subdivisions, admin_level=10 is correct according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative&uselang=it while the upper level (8) is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/41485. Lower subdivisions such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5319470 have no administrative functions as far as I know.
dieterdreist (2018-10-22 22:17:20+00:00): Yes, for this particular changeset it is too late for a revert, what is unfortunate because of the many deleted objects.
dieterdreist (2019-11-18 21:44:22+00:00): This is still tagged as place=quarter, and the admin_level and boundary=administrative is missing. I am also quite sure this should be an administrative boundary. Fayor, can you explain why you removed the admin tags?
rene78 (2019-11-18 21:48:24+00:00): He never participated in the discussion. Would be surprised, if he replies this time. Maybe doesn't speak English?
dieterdreist (2019-11-18 22:39:04+00:00): Fayor, sembra che questo sia un confine amministrativo (quartiere di Roma), vorrei sapere se fosse stato intenzionale togliere i tag boundary=administrative e admin_level=10. Grazie, Martin
fayor (2019-11-19 14:38:41+00:00): Assolutamente intenzionale, quello non è un confine amministrativo
dieterdreist (2019-11-20 09:24:33+00:00): Rimango ogni volta perplesso quando degli utenti cambiano unilateralmente e senza confrontrarsi con nessuno la mappatura che esisteva da anni. 
In questo caso si tratta di una "zona urbanistica", no? Queste sono suddivisioni dei Municipi, creati per la pianificazione e gestione del territorio. Penso che si possono considerare unità amministrative, visto che sono suddivisioni di più grandi unità urbanistiche. Potresti tu ripristinare il tagging precedente?
Grazie,
Martin
fayor (2019-11-20 15:32:08+00:00): Come ho già detto, quello NON E' un confine amministrativo. 
L'ha chiaramente spiegato anche alecs nel suo commento, che ti riporto: "current tagging is fine. I believe the name "Municipio" may be misleading, those are indeed municipal subdivisions, admin_level=10 is correct. Lower subdivisions such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5319470 have no administrative functions as far as I know".