piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
JochenOSM (2021-06-09 14:33:07+00:00): Hi Leen Kievit,
you re-added a historical railway here. Since it has been completely removed on the ground long time ago I see no reason for doing so. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway says: "In locations where the railway has been replaced by new buildings and roads, the mapping of such features becomes out of scope for OpenStreetMap.") You can see in various aerial images that the area is now used as shopping centre and parking space. Therefore I kindly ask you to delete this razed railway again.
Jochen
BCNorwich (2021-06-09 06:17:54+00:00): Hi, lots of duplicated nodes, several self-intersecting area outlines, many overlapping areas, several hedges or tree lines drawn as wood areas in your recent mapping.

Regards Bernard.
Jakka (2021-06-08 07:27:02+00:00): Looks almost good. The building walls are not connected to each other.
It is almost impossible to design individual house from aerial images. OSM be use mostly the standard layer picc compared to aerial image et personal nolige
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105993951
Jakka (2021-06-08 07:28:46+00:00): Perhaps house numbers are very useful not flat number ;)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105993951
fischosm (2021-06-09 00:05:19+00:00): Die Rettungspunkte sind in Sichtweite zueinander. Da ist nicht sehr sinnvoll, aber kein echtes Problem, wenn der Rettungsdienst mit Blaulicht anrollt...
user_5359 (2021-06-23 03:12:38+00:00): Welcome to OSM! The standard key for a road is highway and the value unpaved is normally for the key surface. I correct this.
OSM_RogerWilco (2021-06-09 09:18:14+00:00): Hallo osmwichtel,

die beiden Wege sind hier nicht miteinander verbunden: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8755998360

Ist das Absicht?

Gruß Roger Wilco
osmwichtel (2021-06-09 15:38:56+00:00): Wege verbunden.
In dem Bereich könnten noch mehrere Wege getrennt sein, weil das Gebilde noch nicht fertig ist.
Josef / osmwichtel
Baloo Uriza (2021-06-15 14:01:22+00:00): Did you mean to attach this building to the power line?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105995170
aixbrick (2021-06-08 05:28:10+00:00): Hallo,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38660730 war in Segmente aufgeteilt, weil an den entsprechenden stop_positions Buslinien beginnen/enden. Warum hast du die einzelnen Teile wieder verbunden?
Gruß
aachso (2021-06-08 11:11:31+00:00): Verflixt! Ich hatte daran sogar gedacht und extra alle Relationen in iD mal angeklickt, leider ist die Darstellung da nicht so toll und mir ist keine Relation aufgefallen, die nicht alle Straßenteile beinhaltet.

Danke für den Hinweis, ich korrigiere das später.
aachso (2021-06-08 13:10:39+00:00): Sollte jetzt korrigiert sein.
aixbrick (2021-06-08 13:39:18+00:00): Sieht gut aus. Danke.
aixbrick (2021-06-08 16:25:34+00:00): Leider gibt (bzw. gab) es doch noch ein Problem: iD hat zwei Stücke falsch herum sortiert, wodurch ein Lücke in allen Linien entstanden ist. Ich habe das korrigiert: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106046739.
iD hat mit Busrelationen so seine Probleme, JOSM ist da deutlich besser.
TomPar (2021-09-22 16:37:47+00:00): I'm curious: what is the "TR" ref referring to?  E.g. on Kinsman Ridge Trail it's tagged with ref=TR 31030.  Do you have a link that supports this desgination?  Thanks.
Greg_Rose (2021-09-22 18:17:58+00:00): Ugh. So - the current ref tagging for forest ways is pure chaos, both on OSM and in the real world. The USFS has come forward and **appears** to have endorsed the usage of "FS" as a forest road prefix, and "TR" as a forest trail prefix.
The difference between the two is necessary because in some NFs/ranger districts the road and trail numbers are similar, and there's a need to separate out FS 350 from TR 350.
Some RDs on the IVM have even started adding the TR prefix to the trail numbers there, when they have a lot of trail number collision.
The main thing is that the NF prefix is to no longer be used - although it does appear that some RDs are purposefully still using it just to be rebellious. *sigh* Whatever.
I'm going to be initiating a change to the OSM wiki soon, detailing all of this, and encouraging mappers to climb on board. 
Let me know your thoughts!
Slickdog (2022-04-14 06:32:45+00:00): Greg, Hi-Cannon is NOT a bike nor a horse trail; its as vertical as the Greenleaf some places. Idk how to edit THX!
Greg_Rose (2022-04-14 17:42:40+00:00): @Slickdog Thanks - I was going from the Forest Service data which showed that bikes and horses were "permitted"
Greg_Rose (2022-04-14 17:50:43+00:00): (I've fixed it.)
eggie (2021-06-07 21:35:40+00:00): Hoi emvee

Was toevallig ook bezig hier
Je hebt het fietspad  (oude sitiatie)  verwijderd, maar use_sidepath laten staan op de hoofdrijbaan. 
Ik heb nu bicycle:backward=no toegevoegd.
Denk dat het dan weer routeert.
Je kunt anders niet meer van zuid naar noord.
Eggie
eggie (2021-06-07 21:38:14+00:00): Voor de nieuwste layer : 
Quick ortho  2021
https://service.pdok.nl/hwh/luchtfotorgb/wms/v1_0?&request=GetCapabilities&service=wms
eggie (2021-06-07 21:42:12+00:00): Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=105995538
eggie (2021-06-07 21:48:14+00:00): Nog even aangepast naar bicycle:backward=use_sidepath

Mee eens?
gr eggie
emvee (2021-06-08 22:11:24+00:00): Ja, bedankt voor de correctie, dat was inderdaad niet goed gegaan.

Helemaal eens met bicycle:backward=use_sidepath.
rthik007 (2021-06-08 05:21:12+00:00): Hi Zullymat,
Fixed the alignment, as building polygons overlapping with service road way 903344037.
Kindly check with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106007068
Thank you.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105995731
MxxCon (2021-06-07 23:15:30+00:00): Hello.
Please note that unless value of a tag is a proper name, all tags and values should be in lower case.
Additionally, rather than using a nonstandard "permit:" tag, please use "access:" tag as documented here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access.
👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105995807
Hungerburg (2021-06-08 09:37:03+00:00): Hello HoMaHe

What is the point of this edit?
Hungerburg (2021-06-10 19:28:59+00:00): Es ist, weil, obwohl es dafür Lorbeeren vom Editor gegeben hat, inhaltlich ist alles falsch in dem Satz.
rthik007 (2021-06-08 05:17:44+00:00): Hi RKThaker,
Fixed the alignment, as building polygons overlapping with residential road way 903240258.
Kindly check with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106006865
Thank you.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105996105
cats_pajamas (2021-09-01 21:21:32+00:00): Hey adrianojbr,
I noticed you recently removed the construction tags along Contorno Viário de Florianópolis https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/562608987. Do you know if this stretch is entirely open to public vehicle travel? Based on the most recent imagery it seems like major construction is possibly ongoing on part of the road and perhaps access restrictions should be in place if only certain sections are drivable at the moment. Let me know if you are aware of the current status! Thank you.

/

Olá adrianojbr,
Percebi que você removeu recentemente as marcas de construção ao longo do contorno da estrada de Florianópolis https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/562608987. Você sabe se esse trecho é totalmente aberto para viagens de veículos públicos? Com base nas imagens mais recentes, parece que uma grande construção está possivelmente em andamento em uma parte da estrada e talvez restrições de acesso devam ser implementadas se apenas alguns trechos puderem ser dirigidos no momento. Deixe-me saber se você está ciente do status atual! Obrigada.
adrianojbr (2021-09-02 01:45:15+00:00): Como eu coloquei no comentário do changeset: "atualização de trecho concluído do contorno viário". O que não ficou claro?
fabiotofy (2021-06-08 05:47:53+00:00): ho appena aggiornato anche nei tag indirizzi la I di Jacopo in "J". Un saluto
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105997143
ivanbranco (2021-06-12 13:35:41+00:00): Hai creato un edificio sovrapposto a quelli già esistenti, inoltre sembra esserci un nodo "trascinato", riesci a sistemare?
Peter Newman (2022-05-25 20:46:53+00:00): Did you split some roads in two either side of central reservations in this changeset?

It looks like you left the pavement/sidewalk tagging as it was, so it said both bits of pavement are on one side of the road, rather than there being one on each side of the now two single carriageways.
stick2 (2022-05-25 22:20:13+00:00): Which road?  The only one I spot right now is Hindes Rd right next to the junction (and, wow, the imagery I was working from can't be what I'm seeing now - it's all in shadow).
I can't recall playing with sidewalks at all.
Peter Newman (2022-05-26 00:25:09+00:00): Sorry, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952157069

I suspect you might have made one road into two one-way carriageways (and added the other side as independent ways), but not re-edited the relevant sidewalk tags to match.
stick2 (2022-05-26 09:03:04+00:00): Yup, you're right; I failed to look at the tags.  Sorry!
I'll add LHS sidewalks for both carriageways there, based in today's Bing.  A check on the lane count of the eastbound one might be good; tag is 2 but it looks rather narrow for that...
Glassman (2021-06-08 02:26:48+00:00): Deane,
Thanks for adding the buildings. I'm going to be working with Skagit County GIS department later this summer to import their buildings and address points.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105998543
Deane Kensok (2021-06-08 14:53:02+00:00): Glassman,
Thanks for the heads up on that; it's good to hear.  The edits I made were based on Skagit County GIS data, but only building footprints.  We've made this data available to edit through RapiD and JOSM.  (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Skagit_County,_Washington_Buildings)  I made a few edits to verify it is working as expected.  I'll be interested to see t how the import comes along.
blackboxlogic (2021-06-08 23:08:52+00:00): Did the partial address data come from the data source? For example, way 952160319 is missing a house number which seems problematic. Be careful when merging elements, you've ended up with an invalid building tag on way 952160324.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105998700
Kovoschiz (2021-06-08 13:44:03+00:00): Ok if you are unhappy with the names, please simply remove the `name=` from the `disused:amenity=school`. But the building still has name on it as far as I'm aware.
Nithinat S (2021-06-08 13:45:01+00:00): "street isle" ไม่ใช่ name (ชื่อถนน) ไม่ควรใส่มันลงใน tag "name" นะครับ
Nithinat S (2021-06-08 13:45:55+00:00): "road striping" ไม่ใช่ name (ชื่อ) ไม่ควรใส่มันลงใน tag "name" นะครับ
WilliamHarrison (2023-10-13 13:54:39+00:00): ffs people and adding railroads that aren't visible at all on the map
Riyadi IRM-RV (2021-07-08 03:55:21+00:00): Thank you for your feedback. i reverted to previous version already. please feel free to check Changeset 107597249 
there's a few warning about incomplete multipolygon issue. exp 
Relation ID 11385087, 11385084  and we leave it as is

Happy Mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105999983
Hernan (2021-07-07 11:41:45+00:00): Please stop making edits where you put any line highway = residential. I will have to make the report to the DWG for bad edits if it does not stop.
Thanks
Riyadi IRM-RV (2021-07-08 03:12:07+00:00): helo mr hernan, 

thank you for positive feedback, and fixing the issue.
actually, I accidentally add highway= residential. my bad. due it haven't tag yet based on changeset 89003241.
currently, we stop mapping in this area, as your suggestion. Happy mapping
NieWnen (2021-06-08 04:45:32+00:00): Dlaczego dla ulicy Centralnej zostały dodane tagi private i to w dodatku niezbyt poprawnie?
pcela (2021-06-08 09:55:17+00:00): Z powodu znaku B-1 zakaz ruchu w obu kierunkach z tabliczką "nie dotyczy mieszkańców oraz obsługi posesji". Natomist od strony Ryżonej jest zakaz skrętu w ul. Centralną z taką samą tabliczką.
NieWnen (2021-06-08 12:34:46+00:00): Dzięki za odpowiedź, 
znak skrętu w lewo, to raczej relacja, ale znak B-1 wszystko zmienia – przyznaję dla mnie nowość w tamtym miejscu.

Mimo wszystko w tym przypadku reszta accessów poza globalnym i foot? zbędna. Pod inną zmianą wysłałem komentarz z linkiem z tłumaczeniem.
A samego zakazu bardzo szkoda w tamtym miejscu, bo to świetny łącznik rowerowy między gminą Michałowice a Warszawą, może uda się coś z tym zrobić choćby z tabliczką "nie dotyczy rowerów" (T-22).
tastrax (2021-06-17 03:31:12+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
Nithinat S (2021-06-08 13:37:26+00:00): ทำไมถึงแก้ถนนให้เป็น natural=tree_row ครับ มันไม่ใช่แนวต้นไม้
Martin Constantino–Bodin (2021-06-08 07:26:10+00:00): Hi ☺ Your changeset contains changes both in Japan and in Chile, making is range over a very large area. I imagine that it wasn’t meant to be, but consider splitting such changesets by country in the future ☺ Have a nice day!
Lee Carré (2021-06-08 12:35:33+00:00): Also: what makes for http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments 🙂
rthik007 (2021-06-09 06:35:17+00:00): Hi Narapat P,
Fixed the alignment, as building polygons overlapping with service roads
way 902869300
way 902869295
way 903307389.
Kindly check with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106072431
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106072729
Thank you.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/106002143
tastrax (2021-06-17 03:33:36+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
archie (2021-06-08 05:07:31+00:00): Klockrent!
eggie (2021-06-08 06:15:34+00:00): Scjiven met de kaartin editmodus  geeft schade.
Hoe dus ook.
Zie http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=106006169

Probeer wat met feedback te doen
Je edits http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=106006169
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-06-08 06:17:12+00:00): Het Harddraversplein loopt nu dwars door Appingedam..
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.31567/6.87141

warnings:crossing_ways:building-highway 	2
warnings:crossing_ways:highway-highway 	1
eggie (2021-06-08 09:12:17+00:00): Beste M Keizer, 
Schade Harddraversplein hersteld
middels deze changeset
http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=106021612

Wanneer je schuift met de kaart in editmodus en je hebt daarbij een node geselecteerd met de linkermuisknop en schuift met de linker muisknop neem je deze node met alles wat er aan vast zit mee.
Het is een onhebbelijkheid van editor iD.
Met editor JOSM schuif je met de rechtermuisknop. 
Soms gebeurt dit over de halve wereld. 
Het credo is daarom niet schuiven met deze editor. 
Kijk eens naar editor JOSM
 
editor josm stap voor stap 

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710    

Surface tagging kan ook met Street Complete https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/StreetComplete
    
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-06-08 06:12:57+00:00): Dag M Keizer
Het is niet nodig om oneway=no te gaan toevoegen aan reguliere egen. Wel doen we dat als we het idee hebben dat een andere mapper oneway=yes gaat toevoegen. Bv bij tweerichting parallelfietspaden en tweerichtingrotondes. 
MVG
eggie
mozita (2021-08-17 14:04:38+00:00): Lieber Sebkur,

vielen Dank für deine Mithilfe und die Nutzung des Waldbrand-Editors. Weiter so!
mavl (2021-06-09 14:27:17+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок удалил здание и добавил вместо него другое здание с испорченным адресом.  
  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/293260688/history  
  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952220275/history
nevw (2021-06-09 04:29:59+00:00): Hi
I reverted this building because it bears no similarity to the actual building shape
nevw (2021-06-09 04:37:45+00:00): Hi
I reverted this due to a bus stop being shifted to a park footway.
mavl (2021-06-09 14:47:40+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок изменил для федеральной трассы значение тега oneway со значения no на значение yes. Из-за этого дорога с двухсторонним движением превратилась в дорогу с односторонним движением в сторону города Тюмени. Это не соответствует действительности, так как это обычная двухполосная дорога с двухсторонним движением. Изменения, сделанные в этом пакете правок, отменены.
JONS55rus (2021-06-10 08:19:22+00:00): Добрый день! У меня рабочая программа использует вашу карту и маршрут и Омска до Ишима заканчивается перед этим мостом в  Аббатском и я не знаю в чем проблема.
mavl (2021-06-10 08:32:26+00:00): Я тоже не знаю, в чём проблема у вашей программы. В OpenStreetMap c мостом всё в порядке.  
Могу предположить, что в вашей программе просто нет данных Тюменской области.
Warin61 (2021-06-09 10:35:04+00:00): The 2 relations both have errors and both try to map the same thing. 

Relation 12822203, has 1 member with the role 'outer'. If there is only an outer then it should be a simple way. 

Relation 12822204 has 2 members - both with the role 'inner'. As there is no outer this make no sense. 

--------------------------
You should correct this. 

What I would do is ;
Delete relation 12822203.
The larger way in relation 12822204 should be given the role 'outer'.
Warin61 (2021-06-09 10:57:00+00:00): OK .. just check what is there using Bing. 

I have deleted both relations. 
That larger area looks to be the boundary of a farm .. so not 'grass'. 

The smaller area could be an orchard.

I have deleted both relations. I have marked the smaller area as an orchard. 

The homestead in the middle should be mapped building=farm. The individual fields can be mapped landuse=farmland .. this is not grass but corp growing...
eggie (2021-06-08 06:48:35+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
VA00 (2021-07-04 15:57:50+00:00): vehicle=no implikuje zakaz jazdy rowerem - czy  faktycznie tak jest?
Leszek Czudek (2021-07-05 08:38:22+00:00): Moim zdaniem vehicle=no jest prawidłowo, bo jest tam znak „zakaz ruchu” (B-1). Jednocześnie droga ta posiada tag bicycle=yes, co powoduje, że rozmaite plannery zachowują się prawidłowo. Wcześniej linia ta była narysowana jako ścieżka pieszo-rowerowa, co nie jest zgodne z prawdą.
Goffredo (2021-06-08 09:03:38+00:00): Ciao :-).
Grazie per il contributo positivo di questo changeset. Scusami per questo commento, ma solitamente in OSM lasciamo anche queste tracce, taggandole opportunamente.
Ad esempio, questo tratto di sentiero era taggato come demanding_mountain_hiking	e trail_visibility bad, dunque le informazioni sulla difficile percorribilità e sulla poca visibilità c'erano.
Personalmente non avrei cancellato la traccia.
Buon mapping
zigolo (2021-06-08 11:07:24+00:00): ciao, 
le scuse non sono certo necessarie, anzi io non sono un'esperto per cui l'informazione mi è utile. In effetti ci ho pensato parecchio prima di cancellarlo, Il problema in questo caso è che i tag suddetti non vengono evidentemente presi in considerazione in fase di rendering (io ho controllato su openstreetmap, opentopomap e altri) e quindi l'utilizzatore finale non discrimina questo tipo di percorso.
Che tu sappia ci sono forse tag che possono avere un impatto più incisivo sulla rappresentazione della traccia, al limite anche "disabilitandola" temporaneamente  in modo da non disperdere il patrimonio di informazioni di chi prima di me lo ha inserito?
Goffredo (2021-06-08 11:45:35+00:00): Eh, questo è l'annoso "problema" di OSM. Noi siamo il database ed è (concettualmente) nostro dovere fornire tutte le informazioni aggiornate con il massimo livello di dettaglio.
Il rendering poi è un secondo step (concettualmente indipendente da OSM, difatti citi opentopomap, ma anche lonvia etc...) e dovrebbe dipendere dalle informazioni in OSM. Spesso, come in questo caso, il rendering è approssimativo. E no, non sono a conoscenza di tag per cambiare la rappresentazione della traccia, anche perché cambierebbe in base al render, ed a mio avviso sac_scale e trail_visibility dovrebbero essere già sufficienti per un buon rendering.
Peccato nessun render pubblico (a quanto so) lo faccia....
zigolo (2021-06-09 05:07:42+00:00): Ok, immagino che la discussione sia stata più volte affrontata, a mio parere però in questo caso non si tratta di trail_visibility_bad ma propio di assenza di sentiero in zona impervia, ad ogni modo se verrà valutato opportuno rimetterlo lo reinserirò.
Ciao e grazie
VA00 (2021-07-04 11:16:23+00:00): Rower z sakwami przejdzie?
Leszek Czudek (2021-07-05 08:27:45+00:00): Przejdzie – wiele razy jechałem tam z sakwami :-)
aceman444 (2025-04-20 06:11:00+00:00): Zdravim, podla coho ste pridali tieto skalne oblasti v Polane? Na leteckych snimkach Ortofoto nie su vidiet. Uvadzate zdroj len Freemap.sk Outdoor, co je mapa vykreslena z OSM, takze sa z nej nedaju pridavat nove udaje.

Okrem toho ste nechali tieto skaly prekryte lesom, co sa dost vylucuje, kedze natural bare_rock je definovana ako plocha s holou skalou na zemi (vodorovne), nie nejake utesy (vertikalne), a na nej nerastie ziadny les.
kordoz (2025-04-20 07:01:43+00:00): ahoj, bol som tam osobne, skaly tam su, pozri si lidar
aceman444 (2025-04-20 11:58:02+00:00): Na lidare (a akom?) nie je vidiet, ci su to skaly alebo vybezky na ktorych je hlina a rastie les.
Ak by tam aj boli skaly, bavime sa o tom, ci zvisle alebo vodorovne. A ci na nich rastie les alebo nie. Lebo na Ortofoto vidiet len les. Moze rast na skalach, ale potom to uz nie je bare_rock.
Takze ak viete dolozit nejake fotky, ze su tam skaly aj vodorovne a na nich nerastie les (cize na Ortofoto ide len o opticky klam, kedze je to fotene sikmo a stromy mozu naozaj prekryvat plochy skal).
kordoz (2025-04-21 09:19:10+00:00): skaly trcia zo zeme, nerastu na nich stromy, su to andezity, len koruny stromov ich prekryvaju lebo stromy su vyssie, fotku mam, daj email, lidar mas na freemap.sk , dole si zmenis mapu, das si zobrazit vsetky mapy a LightTerrainShading
fkv (2021-09-06 10:31:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 110793986 where the changeset comment is: revert 106012472
fkv (2021-09-06 10:32:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 110794022 where the changeset comment is: revert 106012544
Nielkrokodil (2021-09-12 20:07:17+00:00): Hallo fkv,
kannst du bitte eine Erläuterung zu diesem Revert abgeben? Was hat sich hier überhaupt geändert? Danke!
fkv (2021-09-12 21:51:43+00:00): Es ist immer das gleiche. Nicht diejenigen, die die Regeln verletzen, werden aufgefordert, sich zu erklären, sondern diejenigen, die es wieder in Ordnung bringen. Warum fragst du nicht willisturm, was ihn dazu getrieben hat, unter Missachtung des automated edits code of conduct alle highway=ford auf ford=yes zu ändern?