piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mavl (2021-10-02 15:32:26+00:00): Здравствуйте. Старый адрес имеется на местности (во всяком случае имелся на местности). Не имеет значения, значится он в ЕГРН или не значится. Основным источником данных для OpenStreetMap являются наблюдения на местности. Этот пакет правок отменён.  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%A5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C
SergVer (2021-10-03 03:57:07+00:00): Здравствуйте.
На местности в данное время вообще нет адресной таблички, я его снял. Новый в процессе изготовления.
Вопрос смены адреса - острый, т.к. такого адреса не существует в природе, но вот есть переулок Молодогвардейцев 62, которые в части инстанций почему то значатся как улица, в итоге их долги приносят нам, что не может радовать, когда в 6 утра приходят судебные пристава тыкая в разные карты и табличку и требуя денег, который ты не должен.
mavl (2021-10-03 04:29:21+00:00): Спасибо за пояснения. Пусть будет по вашему.
SergVer (2021-10-03 06:41:11+00:00): Спасибо!)
Как табличку повесим новую - фото пообновляю на всех картах тоже
Carto'Cité (2021-12-10 13:27:16+00:00): Salut Mathieu,
J'ai vu que tu avais supprimé la bande cyclable de cette rue https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27994073 et je vois qu'elle existait en 2019 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=463294434777195. Désolé d'avoir un doute ; est-ce que tu me confirmerais qu'elle n'est plus là ? Je vois que la bande s'efface ; peut-être qu'elle n'est plus du tout visible en effet.
Merci d'avance pour ton aide.
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
_Mathieu_ (2021-12-10 13:34:47+00:00): Bonjour Charles,

Effectivement, la peinture est aujourd'hui (enfin la dernière fois que je suis passé il y a 2 mois) tellement effacée que j'ai considéré que la bande cyclable n'existait plus sur le terrain (elle était de toute façon dangereuse, puisque située dans la zone d'emportiérage, et dans une rue trop étroite pour permettre un dépassement légal)
Carto'Cité (2021-12-10 13:37:45+00:00): Merci beaucoup pour ton retour. Effectivement j'avais vu qu'à la base cette bande était nulle.
À bientôt.
Charles
﴿﴾‎ (2021-10-01 09:36:29+00:00): Hi Edward,

I'm noticing some problems with most of your Wikidata ID additions for streams in the last weeks. 

The absolute majority of streams probably exists as several consecutive ways in the OSM db and therefore would first need a relation or the Wikidata ID is wrongly matched to a random ways of its name.
Edward (2021-10-01 21:01:46+00:00): Hi ﴿﴾‎,

You're right. I'll add the same wikidata tag to the other ways within the streams.
조수미 (2022-07-14 21:42:34+00:00): What are you testing here?
archpdx (2021-10-03 05:59:17+00:00): Reverted - please refrain from using OSM as an advertising platform and adding consultor's homes as businesses in the future. Advertising messages only adds spam to the map (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description) and users might mistake this as an office.
Frans S (2021-10-01 09:45:08+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and  mapped.
I have my doubts about 2 round mapped buildings. To me they are rectangular, 2nd there are hardly round buildings here, as far I can see
 Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111952830
abdurohman (2022-06-15 21:45:44+00:00): Что за урны такие?
ocidi (2021-10-03 08:33:40+00:00): In addition to informal tags, allowed accesses have been edited as bicycle=no and foot=discouraged. Why is that? This Pöllökallio area is by no means special, right?
HSL_PALAUTE (2021-10-06 09:17:05+00:00): These trails are informal unmaintained trails that cannot generally be recommended for walking or cycling and that's what I was trying to define in this changeset. Possibly it would be good to add mtb=yes for these ways?
ocidi (2021-10-08 14:19:26+00:00): Thank you for your answer! The informal tag conveys what you wanted. Access tag is about legality. Since there are no legal limitations, please remove the access tags or change both foot and bicycle access to yes (those are also defaults for a path in Finland).

From mtb tags the mtb:scale is the most important, please keep them as is. Use of mtb=* is not so clear.

You can see how these paths are shown in e.g. trailmap.fi. 

You can getter better advice from OSM Trails Finland group in Facebook, I'm very much novice to this topic.

Links:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Finland

https://www.facebook.com/groups/3315195248586950/
ToniE (2021-10-01 09:45:49+00:00): ähm: add 'check_date'
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2021-10-05 07:11:57+00:00): أستاذنا الكريم تمت إضافة المحطة بشكل متكرر وأظن المشكلة بسبب عدم تحديث خريطة أوسماند بشكل مباشر.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2021-10-05 07:12:53+00:00): لو كان جوالك آيفون جرب Go Map!!  :
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/go-map/id592990211
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2021-10-05 07:13:17+00:00): ولو كان أندرويد جرب Vespucci :
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.blau.android
PPete2 (2021-10-29 09:12:50+00:00): Herzlich willkommen bei OSM. Ich habe deine Ergänzung des place-Tags in der Gemeinderelation von Garsten wieder zurückgesetzt, da diese nicht nötig ist.

Generell bitte ich dich als Neuling zuerst "einfache" Dinge einzutragen und nicht gleich an eher komplizierter Materie wo es auch einiges an Hintergrundwissen benötigt wie Gemeinderealtionen oder place-tags herum zu arbeiten. 

Diese sind im Laufe vieler Jahre in Österreich bereits etabliert und benötigen kaum mehr Änderungen.

Falls du dazu Fragen hast oder doch der Meinung bist, dass etwas geändert gehört, bitte dies zuerst im österreichischen Forum diskutieren, danke: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=89
gabro00 (2021-10-01 10:50:10+00:00): Szia!
A Vár utca Széchenyi tér felőli szakaszán az úttesten megy a kerékpársáv és már jelölve van (cycleway:right=track). A címkézésről itt olvashatsz:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hu:Bicycle
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway

Kérlek javítsd, mert jelen formában mert helytelen.

Egyébként ökölszabályként a kb. 1,5 évnél idősebb kerékpáros infrastruktúráról feltételezhető, hogy fent van és helyes. Módosításnál ezt érdemes megfontolni.
gabro00 (2021-10-01 10:53:58+00:00): *Szegeden, más településekről nem tudok nyilatkozni.
KirillB (2021-10-01 10:44:13+00:00): Addition: tag "official" was changed to "designated" for consistency (btw, using tag "official" was probably incorrect)
user_11435438 (2021-10-13 01:24:30+00:00): 你好。似乎你是新加入的活跃编辑者，欢迎你的加入。
OpenStreetMap是注重于现实的地图。我看到蒲庙一带你添加了很多在建道路，请问都是真实开工在建了吗？如果只是规划中的，切勿标记为在建。例如我有看到“龙岗中央公园（规划）”，如果还没建成的话，则不应该标记为landuse=grass，这会让人以为这里真有一块草坪。如果已经腾出空地了可以标记为landuse=greenfield（虽然地图上不会显示，但，既然没有东西，就不应该强行让它显示），因为OpenStreetMap是体现现实的地图，不是体现规划的地图。
此外在路径https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/839199791/中，你将几条铁路修改名称为“铁路桥”，如果不知道具体名称（例如“某某特大桥”），最好不要标这样一个模糊无意义的名称，本身railway=rail+bridge=yes就已经体现了它是铁路桥，而且还覆盖了原有的邕南铁路的名称。
还有你删除了一段规划道路https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/838823085 ，看起来很自然这里以后会建的（但是目前也许没建），虽然highway=proposed不会显示在地图上，但也不应该删除现实存在的近期规划。
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111956530
tonyf1 (2021-10-01 12:02:07+00:00): Hi. Ive just checked the first way 903991686. You have changed bicycle 	designated
foot 	designated
highway 	cycleway
To highway 	footway
Your description was "Changing shared paths to foothpaths as they had been incorrectly assigned." On what basis did you decide that they were incorrectly assigned? Are there Mapillary photos for example? Did you physically go there? Was there signage?
HighRouleur (2021-10-01 12:49:48+00:00): The path that is located between the front of a house or building and a road is a footpath and not a shared path, hence it has been corrected.
tonyf1 (2021-10-01 13:14:00+00:00): OK, good description, thanks. But it doesn't appear to be between a building and a road but between playing fields and a road. And part of it wraps around the oval and is not in a road related area. You haven't answered whether you have recently been there. And the 56 other changes need documentation. Are they all located between the front of a house or building and a road? Have you been there recently? I appreciate that you are replying to comments, thank you for that. But I request that you stop this kind of retagging till you have reached a concensus with the mapping community.
tonyf1 (2021-10-14 21:31:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by changeset 112521356
dentonny (2021-12-19 07:42:09+00:00): dag Jan,

Je hebt van dit bos https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6265178/history een moeras gemaakt.
Ben je daar heel zeker van? Op de luchtbeelden lijkt het echt wel op een bos. Met wel veel plassen, dat wel
Frans S (2021-10-01 12:13:56+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and  mapped.
A few remarks
Please map as accurate as possible. you tend to oversize some buildings. 
Do not include the shadow in your mapping.
When an object shows no shadow or clear rooflines, be reluctant to map that as a building.
No shadow= not above groundlevel.
 Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111957878
Frans S (2021-10-01 12:18:00+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and  mapped. 
your modifications are correct.

Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111958056
syntex (2022-05-29 17:07:51+00:00): Nie używaj nigdy zdjęć Esri w Warszawie... Te zdjęcia nie nadają się do mikromapowanie. Wszystko jest krzywo
kartler175 (2021-10-06 09:12:29+00:00): Was soll die "Korrektur" von https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/444294401#map=13/50.9283/7.1516 vom outer- zum inner-Member des M
forest-Multipolygons bewirken?
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=7.16594&lat=50.92339&zoom=13&opacity=0.95
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:56:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
Lee Carré (2021-10-01 11:55:30+00:00): Smaller changeset areas, please.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:59:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
gabro00 (2021-10-01 11:22:19+00:00): Légy szíves használd az Szeged ortofotó 2011 légifelvételt, mert sok méterrel odébb rajzoltad a járdát a valós fekvéséhez képest.
Chrome alatt valószínűleg nem működik, Firefoxon viszont igen. 

Másik megoldás, ha a JOSM szerkesztőprogramot használod https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Hu%3AWikiStart
gabro00 (2021-10-01 11:48:45+00:00): Javítottam https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111960118
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:58:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
Frans S (2021-10-01 12:10:17+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and  mapped.
See my comment on previous changeset about vaque traces.
 Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111958913
habi (2021-10-02 16:16:30+00:00): Hey!
I came here from Reddit’s thread about the 3D buildings (https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/pz6cnf/in_open_street_map_not_updating_my_contribution/) and think your the same person that posted the question.

Some comments about your mapping here; the ‘ele' tag is for the elevation above sea level, and probably not 3 for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/988525495.

Additionally you should give your changesets meaningful comments, and not just single letters.

Greetings from Switzerland,
habi
abakus_uploader (2021-10-01 22:32:49+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
gabro00 (2021-10-01 11:35:45+00:00): Köszi! Még egy észrevétel: a segregated címkére be fognak jelezni a QA toolok.
Ez csak akkor kell, ha közös gyalog- és kerékpárútról van szó, ez esetben csak itt maradt az előző szerkesztésből.
gabro00 (2021-10-01 15:28:51+00:00): Javítottam https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111969290
Stylez995 (2021-10-12 13:24:46+00:00): Hei. Krysset er ikke fysisk adskilt med trafikkøy, så det trengs ikke separate veier. Hvis du er ikke sikker, så foreslår jeg at du besøker krysset selv.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:51:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
Frans S (2021-10-01 12:07:02+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and  mapped.
You mapped also a few traces which I should not map. Very vague, No rooflines nor a shadow.
 Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111959483
cyton (2021-10-01 22:49:28+00:00): Ahja, wie lange soll das dauern? Gibt es da mehr infos zu? Würd mich ja interessieren warum.
mmis-berg (2021-10-02 07:58:48+00:00): – Sperrung ab 2021-10-04
– Abriss ab 2021-10-18
– Behelfsbrücke ab circa 2022-04 (zu diesem Zeitpunkt wird in Birkenwerder die B 96a voll gesperrt)
– Neubau ab 2030 (wenn es schnell geht)

Die Straßen vor der Brücke und vor allem die Wege unterhalb der Brücke bekommen sicher noch access=no.

https://www.ls.brandenburg.de/ls/de/pressemitteilung/ansicht/~29-09-2021-bruecke-in-hohen-neuendorf-muss-abgerissen-werden
cyton (2021-10-03 02:01:28+00:00): interessant, vor allem das mit den fledermäusen.

Dann wird das wohl in zukunft sinn machen mittels lifecycle prefix demolished:* die wege umzutaggen.

und vielleicht kann man eine area proposed:man_made=bridge einführen für die behelfsbrücke mit start_date=2022-04

und/oder jetzt noch eine mit man_made=bridge um das in der historie zu haben, die dann zu construction:man_made=bridge wird?
mmis-berg (2021-10-03 09:32:05+00:00): Wichtig ist noch, rechtzeitig vor dem Brückenabriss den Fledermaus-Turm einzutragen (für diejenigen Fledermäuse, die OSM nutzen).
KirillB (2021-10-01 12:20:00+00:00): As this edit shows very broad affected area, I think that I should leave additional comment.

Abandoned "Braunschweig-Schöninger Eisenbahn" was probably affected during my edits of cyclepath in Schapen (this cyclepath, as I suppose, has merged nodes with this former railroad).
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:52:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:49:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
Russ McD (2021-11-07 10:33:37+00:00): Dear asnghpi - Please be more careful about tagging roads as motor_vehicle=no
This is a ford and maybe your driver did not want to attempt it, but I rode through it yesterday on a motorbike ... so it does have vehicular access.
In the summer when its dry, your changes will prevent routing engines from using it permanently. I have reverted and drawn a riverbank so you can visually see what the hazard might be.
Russ
ErraticThunder (2021-11-09 07:28:04+00:00): Hi Russ, 
Apologies for the genuine miss from my end. I have made this edit as per the continuous feedback from our drivers. Thanks for bringing up this to my notice and making the necessary changes. I will take this as a learning from the community and will pass on this information to my colleagues so that this mistake does not repeat. Happy to learn from you. 
Best Regards,
asnghpi.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:59:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
km2bp (2022-02-04 19:42:05+00:00): A dlaczego po prostu nie zmieniłeś Kategorii na graffiti ?  Co w terenie to na mapie . Ja mapuję nawet nielegalne przejścia przez tory. Skoro jest tam wydeptana ścieżka  bo ludzie i tak przechodzą  i widać ją nawet na satelitarnym widoku map google to dlaczego nasze mapy mają być gorsze?
Mapując relacjonuję fakty i niczego nie idealizuję.  Zobacz w Zielonej Górze ile Graffiti pododawałem do mapy. Ale tylko takie które jakiś tam mają poziom . Uwielbiam graffiti i wielu ludzi też je lubi a najgorszą jak dla mnie zbrodnią jest piękne artystyczne graffiti   pobazgrane przez wandali.   Mapuję graffiti nie tylko w moim mieście zawsze dodając zdjęcie. Sam zobacz jaką zgromadziłem kolekcję  https://photos.app.goo.gl/jkT2qjW6paytNFte8
moje_konto (2022-02-06 14:10:50+00:00): Tak, mural czy graffiti może być dyskusyjne, ale opcja graffiti też jest do wyboru w znacznikach, więc lepiej było zmienić na graffiti, jeśli tak wydawało się odpowiedniej.

Ogólnie najistotniejsza jest nawigacja, więc każdy stały obiekt powinien być zmapowany.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6881586814/history

A ten mural/graffiti jest tam od bardzo wielu lat, więc na pewno jest stałym elementem charakterystycznym. Zdarzało się wskazywać drogę zaznaczając, że "obok muralu Lecha".

Znowu się trochę zdegradował, ale dalej jest wyraźnie widoczny i był już kiedyś odnowiony w tej samej formie, więc pewnie kiedyś znowu odnowią. W tym roku też powstał nowy malunek z jelonkiem Bambi na sąsiedniej ścianie tego budynku.

Załączam aktualne zdjęcia: https://imgur.com/a/gXB26q9
szydzio (2022-06-10 16:29:59+00:00): Obiekty istnieją nadal w terenie, zostały przywrócone w https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122218678, z subtagiem 
artwork_type=graffiti
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:55:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:01:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:00:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:58:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:57:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:01:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.