piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:49:08+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13440126366 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Law firm"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-18 10:58:05+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177368206
(Deleted leftovers after several edits)
epigen108 (2026-02-07 15:30:50+00:00): @KlausG Warum ist die Uhr  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13440122422 als Teil von https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/742647837 eingetragen, aber https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13440122421 freistehend? Die hängen doch beide an der Wand des Bahngebäudes.
KlausG (2026-02-07 16:55:30+00:00): Stimmt...
Habe offenbar die Linie nicht getroffen.
Ist nun korrigiert und mit weiteren Tags ergänzt
Danke für den Hinweis und weiterhin happy mapping
KlausG
epigen108 (2026-02-08 21:27:47+00:00): Danke. Ein offensichtliche Fehler bei dem Mapping ist mir jetzt erst aufgefallen ... https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178284911
puma515 (2026-01-09 08:41:05+00:00): Ich habe die Kombination highway=track + railway=razed an einigen Abschnitten korrigiert, da eine ehemalige Bahnlinie nicht auf einem heute existierenden Weg getaggt werden sollte. Die historische Trasse ist jetzt komplett separat erfasst.
Hintergrund: railway=razed beschreibt eine vollständig entfernte Bahnstrecke, während highway=track einen heute real existierenden Weg darstellt. Beides gleichzeitig auf derselben Linie führt zu widersprüchlichen Daten und fehlerhaften Auswertungen. Deshalb sollten aktuelle Wege und historische Trassen immer als getrennte Geometrien erfasst werden.   

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:49:09+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13440140330 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Law firm in Richmond"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-18 10:58:08+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177368208
(Deleted leftovers after several edits)
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:49:10+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13440114959 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Law firm in Virginia Beach"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-18 10:58:10+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/177368202
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:49:11+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13440126366 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Tampa family law firm"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-18 10:58:12+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/177368206
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:49:13+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13440114959 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Law firm in Virginia Beach"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-18 10:58:13+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/177368202
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:49:14+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13440140330 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Law firm in Richmond VA"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-18 10:58:15+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/177368208
Fizzie-DWG (2026-01-25 03:36:08+00:00): DWG revert - apparent undiscussed import

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177667924
BaboucheVerte (2026-04-30 04:29:32+00:00): Hi, why did you put this new line as a bridge ? Most of it is underground, can you fix it please ?
BaboucheVerte (2026-04-30 04:41:54+00:00): see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi%E2%80%93Alwar_Regional_Rapid_Transit_System
AnnaCatarina (2026-05-01 09:34:58+00:00): Hello, which section are YOu writing about? Regards, AnCa
AnnaCatarina (2026-05-01 09:49:53+00:00): Ah, I see, I think, I know, what You mean.
This was not meant by me to set the whole Delhi–Alwar RRTS ontop a viaduct. I messed it with the Delhi–Panipat RRTS and thought, it is the 2nd track of this one. I did not follow the DA track any further.
But I changed it into subground now.
Thanks for Your attention.
Regards, AnCa
BaboucheVerte (2026-05-02 06:53:36+00:00): Thanks !
mueschel (2026-01-10 13:38:07+00:00): Please don't just dump new data into OSM. This import should have given you more than 11000 warnings and errors from the validator. These should be fixed before uploading!
marczoutendijk (2026-01-27 18:41:27+00:00): As raimundosbc never seems to reply to any question asked him, we can safely assume that he has no interest in OSM whatsoever.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-01-09 06:28:29+00:00): have you discussed this import?

see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
marczoutendijk (2026-01-27 18:41:04+00:00): As raimundosbc never seems to reply to any question asked him, we can safely assume that he has no interest in OSM whatsoever.
YouDon'tNeedMyName (2026-01-08 17:59:28+00:00): Also Added Lot of POIs to the map
AndyB_66 (2026-01-08 18:41:25+00:00): Informacja, gdzie mieszkasz, nie jest właściwym opisem zestawu zmian - patrz https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
AndyB_66 (2026-01-08 18:42:35+00:00): Poza tym popraw jakość swojego mapowania - rzadko kiedy obrys budynków nie jest prostokątem - a Ty tworzysz nieregularne wielokąty.
rskedgell (2026-01-09 00:03:42+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

This was correctly tagged and changing it to a locked gate is clearly untrue. Removing the highway=secondary tag also breaks routing for all vehicles at all times. Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177005172

If your routing software does not understand conditional restrictions in OSM, I suggest you raise a bug report.

What causes drivers to get fines is deliberately ignoring a TSRGD diagram 619 "motor vehicles prohibited" sign.
felipeeugenio (2026-01-08 19:41:28+00:00): Hola. gracias por sus ediciones.

Hizo los cambios en el camino correctamente, pero luego lo movió varios cientos de metros al sur. Se trata obviamente de un error involuntario, pero por favor cuidado con eso. Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176994903
felipeeugenio (2026-01-08 19:42:01+00:00): Hola. por favor no agregar nombres descriptivos.

Gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176994903
rempshaener (2026-01-08 18:19:31+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
You have requested a review of your edits.
If buildings have not been demolished for very long and still appear on aerial photographs, they should not be deleted in accordance with the lifecycle concept (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix), the building should not be deleted yet, but building=yes should be changed to disused:building=yes. This prevents other mappers from ‘discovering’ the building on the aerial photograph and re-editing it.
Thank you for your contribution.
Best regards
Chepher (2026-01-08 22:03:56+00:00): Hi  rempshaener, thanks for the info and links: Change revertet and tags modified instead.
New changeset: 177002699
Gerold (2026-01-16 16:09:24+00:00): Die Straße zwischen Wilhelmsdorf und Esenhausen existiert nicht mehr:
https://www.rv.de/landkreis/presseservice/Pressemitteilungen/kreisstrassenverlegung+bei+wilhelmsdorf+in+mehreren+bauabschnitten_+vollsperrung+der+kreisstrassen+k+7969_k7970+bei+wilhelmsdorf_esenhausen+vom+10_+juni+2025+bis+voraussichtlich+ende+2026
OF-1 (2026-01-16 17:08:01+00:00): Hallo Gerold,
danke für den Hinweis. Das Teilstück habe ich gelöscht. Werden die Reste an den neuen Verlauf angebunden?
Grüße OF-1
Gerold (2026-01-17 11:10:48+00:00): Nein, das Stück in Verlängerung der Hauptstraße kommt auch weg. Deck- und Tragschicht wurden schon entfernt, nur der Verlauf ist noch sichtbar, wird aber komplett zurückgebaut.
Die Straße endet dann bei der Hausnummer 36.
OF-1 (2026-01-17 11:43:03+00:00): Das Stück habe ich entfernt. Die Klassifizierung wird sich dann wohl auch irgendwann ändern.
Gerold (2026-01-17 12:03:42+00:00): Ja, das muss ich aber noch klären. In den Unterlagen die ich bisher zu dem Vorhaben hab, hab ich dazu noch nichts gesehen.
Ltrlg (2026-01-08 22:58:21+00:00): I don’t understand what is being fixed here. This changeset actually creates an issue with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1217641674 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/611767529 being at the same (implicit) `layer=0` while crossing without a shared node.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2026-01-10 20:51:32+00:00): يا هلا وسهلا بك في خريطة الشارع المفتوحة، وجزاك الله خير على هذا التعديل المهم والمفيد
eggie (2026-01-08 19:39:54+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
I-76 (2026-01-08 18:10:50+00:00): points to areas i mean lol
Rainero (2026-03-22 08:26:28+00:00): Revert mit changeset/180237978
(unzulässige Quelle)
Fizzie-DWG (2026-01-25 03:36:09+00:00): DWG revert - apparent undiscussed import

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177667924
SomeoneElse2 (2026-01-11 12:01:52+00:00): Oops - it looks like this introduced a gap in the Lea Valley Walk relation.  It added a new bit of footpath that wasn't part of the relation.  I've filled it in in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177093285 .
Cheers,
Andy
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:49:16+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13439096764 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Flooring store in Suamico"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-18 10:54:08+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/177363818
dlegg73 (2026-01-12 21:37:41+00:00): Correction: Source used was Mapbox Satellite.
mueschel (2026-01-10 12:02:52+00:00): Hi,
you used many 'addr:...' keys here that are not used in any other place. Please use only those tags that are described in the wiki or are present as presets in the editor - everything else can not be found by any search function.
anshanin (2026-01-09 00:49:32+00:00): Hi, are sure about bridges? It's a bit strange to remove "name:en=Branko's Bridge" from "bridge=yes" and not from "man_made=bridge"
anshanin (2026-01-09 00:51:47+00:00): And I don't see how "int_name=Polasci" can serve the same purpose as removed "name:en=Departures" here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1319101262/history/4
Branko Kokanovic (2026-01-09 11:17:01+00:00): Heya, both of these are part of same class of issues - "there is named highway, but it is not in RGZ, so what to do with it" (name:en and name:ru are just collateral here, question is "should name exist at all"). I am planning to start bigger discussion on forum, but trying to cleanup as much as I can.

Regarding bridge, there is no RGZ highway for street there. So, I was thinking we should remove "name" completely from highways on the bridge and keep it only on relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2670239. Same situations is with other bridges in Belgrade and Novi Sad. But this is too big of change, so I am collecting all cases and my plan is to ask on forum. As you see, I kept name:en on relation of bridge itself.

Regarding "Polasci", this was error on my side, I fixed it now. I tried really hard *not* to delete name:ru and name:en from bus station, as I think it can be really helpful (as you can see, all other name:en and name:ru are still there, both Прибытия and Отправления). Now, this is also same class of problems (should they be named or not), but for this, it is far easier to say "yes, who cares about RGZ here, this is needed". Again, I still plan to bring this to forum, same as "Milos veliki" highway that also is not in RGZ etc (lot of other classes of cases)
Frans S (2026-01-16 16:27:30+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please map more accurate. Don't include the shadow of a building and map the extensions on a building as well.
Best regards
spughetti (2026-01-08 18:38:49+00:00): Damn, I thought the "Upload each object individually" setting in JOSM would create 7 changesets, evidently not.

Apologies for the big bbox, OSMCha folks, it won't happen again.
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:46:57+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 21 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/366522686 v5 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/3705058176 v2
https://osm.org/node/1642736663 v4
https://osm.org/node/1642652813 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176996831
Brian@Castle (2026-01-09 07:38:45+00:00): I have attempted to resolve the issues.
Baloo Uriza (2026-01-09 16:09:22+00:00): construction=minor and opening_date=YYYY-MM-DD seem like useful combinations if this is for roadwork.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176997599
HellMap (2026-01-08 19:38:53+00:00): I am not sure how JOSM managed to do this, but I think JOSM got confused by version synchronization and failed to sync with revert + changes data merge and "uploaded" all elements even though none of them are actually modified. I'm also not sure why OSM server allowed an empty change like this...
eggie (2026-01-08 19:43:49+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  De slagbomen stonden al op access=yes
Ik heb wel gehoord dat slagbomen vertraging kunnen opleveren bij apps voor hulpdiensten. Wellicht help dit?
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
DenCopNL (2026-01-09 08:42:12+00:00): Hallo Eggie, 
Dank voor je uitgebreide mail. Ik ben het nog aan het bestuderen. De access=* had ik denk ik gemist. Ik zie wel dat er soms ook andere slagbomen zijn waar access=yes staat maar waar ik van weet dat die normaal gesloten zijn. Zo te zien moet die dan naar Private toe denk ik. mvg DenCop
eggie (2026-01-09 08:53:10+00:00): Hoi,

Tja.. die slagbomen.
Op parkeerplaatsen gaan ze natuurlijk gewoon open als je een kaartje koopt.
access=yes dus nodig. 
Wanneer access=yes niet is getagd zal het niet routeren voor motorvoertuigen.
Dus die tag is echt noodzakelijk.
Voor hulpdiensten geeft een slagboom in LiveNav vertraging van x seconden, maar zo'n brug wordt natuurlijk opengehouden. De praktijk en de theorie.
Op een priveparkeerplaats kan natuurlijk altijd private.

Mapse,
eggie
eggie (2026-01-08 20:01:49+00:00): Beste DenCop... Beter niet gaan splitsen. Het is nergens voor nodig.
Splitsen in routerelaties levert vaak ook schade op. 
Wat is je bedoeling en waarom denk je dat dit beter is?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-01-08 20:04:28+00:00): reverted by changeset #176999288
eggie (2026-01-08 20:06:51+00:00): De defaults van een busbaan.
Implies

    access=no
    bus=designated
    emergency=yes

Je hoeft er niets aan te veranderen.
MVG
eggie
DenCopNL (2026-01-09 08:53:14+00:00): Hallo Eggie,

Hulpdiensten kunnen op deze twee plekken de busbaan op en afrijden. Doordat de wegen niet aan elkaar aansluiten (geen kruising) is dit onmogelijk in bijvoorbeeld een navigatie product.
Wat zou een andere oplossing zijn?
mvg DenCop
eggie (2026-01-09 09:04:24+00:00): De wegen sluiten gewoon hier aan.
Het is toch een fysieke kruising?
Je kunt gewoon afslaan. Splitsen is niet nodig. 
De standaardkaart laat geen busroutes zien. Andere layers wel.
Ik weet dat sommige routers daar problemen mee hebben. Zou dat met LiveNav het probleem zijn.
emergency=yes is een default. Het zou dus moeten werken.
Evt toch zelf mergency=yes toevoegen?
Beetje taggen voor de renderer eigenlijk.
eggie (2026-01-09 09:07:21+00:00): Ga na hoe LiveNav met busbanen omgaat. 
Nog even gecheckt .. Je kunt gewoon fysiek afslaan op de kruisingen mits je een Bus of hulpvoertuig bent. Svp niet splitsen.. Het zal ook niet helpen als de fout in LiveNav zit.
Gr eggie
eggie (2026-01-09 09:09:26+00:00): Hier een layer die de busbaan wel rendert.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.076119/5.065615&layers=P
eggie (2026-01-09 09:11:59+00:00): typo.. Wellicht toch emergency=yes toevoegen. Zou eigenlijk niet nodig zijn, maar ik ken de scripts van de bv LiveNav niet.
eggie (2026-01-09 09:15:06+00:00): Op een deel van de Rijnvlietsepoort (C1 bord)  staat vehicle=permit
Daar ontbreekt dus emergency=yes
DenCopNL (2026-01-09 09:27:37+00:00): Hallo Eggie,

Mooie aanname dat het om LiveNAV gaat. Maar dat is niet zo. Ondertussen inderdaad een andere oplossing gevonden. Dan is het beter dit zo te laten.
Dank voor je hulp! 

PS. Ik zal me focussen op de barriers zodat de access correct is ingevoerd en geen wegen meer splitsen!
eggie (2026-01-09 09:31:29+00:00): Top!
eggie (2026-01-08 19:53:25+00:00): Dag DenCop   Voor de routering zou het niet uit moeten maken.
Let op... wanneer je wegen met routerelaties gaat splitsen kunnen de relaties stuk gaan als je dat met editor iD doet.
Het kan alleen goed met editor JOSM.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-01-08 20:03:17+00:00): reverted by changeset #176999257
309_308_307 (2026-01-08 20:20:50+00:00): Hallo, wird die Relation noch für irgendetwas gebraucht? Sonst kann die eigentlich auch ganz raus...
Blauer Pfeil (2026-01-08 20:25:01+00:00): Zwischen Basel und Hamburg gibt es noch die Linie 20, aber nicht mehr in der Schweiz. Dort wird sie auch nicht mehr gebraucht.
309_308_307 (2026-01-08 20:21:32+00:00): Hallo, was ist mit dem Gegenzug EC151? Fährt der noch?

Die Relation  8392116 kann eigentlich weg, ohne Tags ist die nutzlos
Blauer Pfeil (2026-01-08 20:27:14+00:00): Ja, es gibt einen neuen Gegenzug EC150. Der fährt aber nicht mehr über Simplon, sondern über Gotthard (selbe Route wie EC151). Relation kann gern gelöscht werden.
Sylabowy Kot (2026-01-08 20:40:53+00:00): Podstawowym problemem z tamtą zmianą była Wikipedia jako źródło. Już to powinno w nas budzić obawy zwłaszcza, że to nie było pierwsze ruszenie tego labela.
A67-A67 (2026-01-09 18:57:30+00:00): Waarom verander je weer de naam Museum Staphorst naar Museum? Het museum heet Museum Staphorst...
A67-A67 (2026-01-09 18:58:29+00:00): Wijziging teruggedraaid
goedegazelle (2026-01-10 11:27:15+00:00): Deze wijzigingenset is voorafgegaan door een lange lijst waarin elke keer min of meer dezelfde objecten voorbijkomen. Het lijkt erop dat er ergens iets verkeerd is ingesteld.
A67-A67 (2026-01-10 11:41:21+00:00): Ik heb het ook op het forum gemeld: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/vreemde-wijzigingen-extreem-veel-nieuwe-versies-van-objecten/140266

De constante herhaling van dezelfde wijziging is waarschijnlijk een bug in CoMaps, maar dat neemt niet weg dat de mapper daar op is gewezen en door blijft gaan van foutieve/buggy CoMaps-wijzigingen
eggie (2026-01-08 20:18:55+00:00): Dag Rienk.. Lijkt me oke.
gr eggie
Norbert Dichter (2026-01-25 15:05:02+00:00): Hello, thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. Thank you for your contribution. The buildings you mapped are well done as to their location. But pay attention to the squareness of the corners. Always draw buildings as square and precise as you can. Then add the Building feature type. And last, right click it and click the square icon. Or just hit the Q-key.
Also please keep in mind: many buildings are very close but do not actually touch each other, try to map them close to each other without letting them connect or share nodes with each other, roads, or residential area outlines. In the iD web editor, holding down the "alt" key will keep nodes from "snapping" to each other and accidentally connecting.  Thanks so much for your contribution, Norbert 'Nodi' Dichter, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176999602
NeisBot (2026-01-09 06:52:35+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13440354765 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Truck accessories store in Nicholasville KY"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-18 10:58:18+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177368215
(Deleted leftovers after several edits)
stasiu512 (2026-02-23 10:58:47+00:00): Cześć zakaz był prawidłowy, ale poprawiłem tagi w taki sposób aby relatify łapało te drogi. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178937609
Taya_S (2026-01-09 11:44:33+00:00): Reverted non-existent features

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177022336