piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
OSM_RogerWilco (2024-07-19 08:02:53+00:00): Hallo Maximilian02,

Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz nicht nur eine Ladestation in Soltau hinzugefügt (Danke dafür!), sondern auch zwei POIs am Walsroder Bahnhof gelöscht. Ist das gewollt gewesen?

Es wäre außerdem schön, wenn Du eine Quelle für Deine Informationen angeben würdest.

Viele Grüße
Roger Wilco
eggie (2024-07-18 20:14:25+00:00): Welcome to OSM..
Thx for your contribution. In OSM we tag the addressnode and not the buildingshape. For your next contribution 😀

Greetz..
eggie
eggie (2024-07-18 20:19:28+00:00): You edits.  You reshaped the buildings. The hotel was already on the map. I will restore the buildings and remove the duplicated tagging.
eggie (2024-07-18 20:20:28+00:00): reverted by changeset #154117727
Santimomarketing (2024-07-18 20:23:59+00:00): Hi, thank you. First time using OSM, but thanks for the tips.👍🏻
eggie (2024-07-18 20:27:06+00:00): No problem
JAAS (2024-07-24 17:41:55+00:00): Hola Mike Ortega,

Estoy cambiando la combinación de etiquetas ingresada como `highway=primary` + construction=yes` por la correcta actualmente en OSM: `highway=construction` + `construction=primary`. Al quedar inaugurada esta carretera podrá quitársele la etiqueta de construction y dejarla como highway=* (primary?) de acuerdo a su clasificación...

Gracias y saludos,
JAAS
eggie (2024-07-18 20:25:34+00:00): Welkom bij OSM

Bedankt voor uw bijdrage. OSM heeft geen wervings- en of advertentie functie.
Ook is de aard van het bedrijf niet getagd. Daarom zie je niets op de kaart. De wervingstekst zal ik verwijderen en een offficetag toevoegen.
MVG
eggie
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-18 20:20:39+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Józefa Piłsudskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932726
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932727
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932728
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932729
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932730
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932731
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932732
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932733
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932734
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932735
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932736
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932737
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932738
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061932739

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Dawid2849 (2024-08-13 14:54:10+00:00): Dzięki za przeniesienie, lecz w Twoim punkcie zniknęło trochę informacji (refy, dane kontaktowe, operator), które już przywróciłem. Przywróciłem też wcześniejsze name. W OSM staramy się nie wrzucać oficjalnych nazw do znacznika name, jeśli są one bardzo długie i nikt ich nie używa. W Biłgoraju poszedłem może nawet trochę za daleko i patronów szkół podstawowych wrzuciłem do official_name.
silversurfer83 (2024-07-18 20:26:58+00:00): Gude :)

kurzer Hinweis: Bei Brücken nutzen wir idR nicht "level" sondern "layer" um zu zeigen, dass die Brücke über dem darunter liegenden Element ist.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302354539

Und wenn die Kartbahn nicht mehr genutzt wird, aber immernoch in der Landschaft rumliegt, dann kannst du das mit einem Lifecycle Prefix wunderbar darstellen:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lebenszyklus-Pr%C3%A4fix

happy mapping
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154117494
NSchwarz (2024-07-18 21:48:51+00:00): Vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Das passiert, wenn man mal eben schnell noch etwas ergänzen will.
Ich habe es angepasst.
Javierpf (2024-07-18 21:46:35+00:00): Hola, buenisimo, muchas gracias por revisarlo.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-18 20:20:40+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12061977458

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
ftrebien (2025-03-10 23:28:49+00:00): As placas de 30 km/h continuam no mesmo lugar, esses trechos não são de 40 km/h.
Dawid2849 (2024-08-13 14:55:47+00:00): Dodałem dodatkowe znaczniki oznaczające trafo. Jeśli znasz jej nazwę to możesz też ją dodać do ref, jak tu: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286302149
Dawid2849 (2024-08-13 14:55:59+00:00): oraz voltage
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-19 04:18:06+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/154119832
dieterdreist (2024-07-19 10:22:38+00:00): Das wäre ähnlich wie zu behaupten die Darstellung von Banken und Polizeistationen sei hilfreich bei der Planung von Banküberfällen. Es stimmt zwar vielleicht, ist aber kein Kriterium für das Löschen, Betretungsverbote können mit access-tags abgebildet werden
StreetSurveyor (2024-07-19 04:35:57+00:00): Hi RHMV, 
I see you're new to OSM. I have personally surveyed these roads and they are not a candidate for access=private. I have changed them to access=destination as this seems the most fitting for the situation. 

Please see below note on Wiki on tagging roads private: 

"Note that access=private is intended to indicate that access is restricted, not whether the object is privately owned or not."
RHMV (2024-07-23 16:07:17+00:00): At the exit of Dodgers Hole Road/beginning of Tar Kiln and Woodhaven there are signs that clearly state the road ahead is private, no trespassing and no through traffic. 
If that doesn't fit the OSM description of a private road, I don't know what I am missing.
The effort here is to stop navigation apps from routing traffic through what is a privately maintained road meant only for local access.
StreetSurveyor (2024-07-23 21:37:10+00:00): Hi again,

For this situation located here and my first-hand experience on the ground, 'access=permissive' or 'access=destination' are the most appropriate. I will share my rationale of how I came to the conclusion to use access=destination.

From the Wikis:

Note that access=private is intended to indicate that access is restricted, not whether the object is privately owned or not. Use ownership=private or operator:type=private to record this kind of status. For example, a privately owned road with public access may be tagged like any other road with public access – without access=* tag, or with the explicit access=permissive.

Unfortunately as of 2023 access=private is widely used as a duplicate of access=permissive as well as ownership=private and should not be expected to match the originally intended meaning.

However, since access=permissive indicates that access can be revoked, (Ie, a gate that is commonly left open) Permissive doesn't seem applicable since there is nothing to physically restrict access located here. 

Access=destination seems the most fitting since the intended use is to stop navigation apps as you desire: ""no thru traffic" / "local traffic only"
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-19 04:17:55+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/154119832
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-19 04:17:47+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/154119832
Dawid2849 (2024-08-13 14:56:45+00:00): Połączyłem chodnik z wjazdem na parking. Aby nawigacje prowadziły po takim chodniku, to musi być on połączony z drogą
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-19 04:17:37+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/154119832
dieterdreist (2024-07-19 10:40:14+00:00): welcher der angegebenen Gründe? Forstwirtschaftliche Anlagen werden nicht gelöscht sofern es sie gibt, bei den anderen ist nicht grundsätzlich von einem Betretungsverbot auszugehen und wenn es ein solches gibt ist “access” der richtige Weg.
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-19 04:17:26+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/154119832
dieterdreist (2024-07-19 10:37:39+00:00): Gibt es eine Quelle dafür dass dort das Betreten verboten ist? Nach meiner Recherche bedeutet es dass dort keine forstwirtschaftliche Nutzung möglich ist, aber zum Betreten habe ich nichts gefunden: par.29) https://www.revosax.sachsen.de/vorschrift/5405-SaechsWaldG#x34
bxl-forever (2024-07-19 07:53:48+00:00): Hello,

You set it as a one-way street but you provided no exemption tag for cyclists.

Most streets have M2 or M3 signs granting access contraflow.  It is very likely there would be one here.
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Belgium-trafficsign-m2.svg)

On top of "oneway=yes" which you added, we must add "oneway:bicycle=no" to reflect this.

Can you please tell us whether you spotted such a sign?  Ideally, did it include just bicycles, or moped A and/or moped P?  Thanks in advance.
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-19 04:17:13+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/154119832
dieterdreist (2024-07-19 10:32:09+00:00): Laut sächsischer Landesregierung können  Prozessschutzflächen weiterhin betreten werden: https://www.wald.sachsen.de/prozessschutz-im-wald-9436.html?_cp=%7B%22accordion-content-9441%22%3A%7B%2214%22%3Atrue%2C%2217%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22previousOpen%22%3A%7B%22group%22%3A%22accordion-content-9441%22%2C%22idx%22%3A17%7D%7D
mavl (2024-11-13 06:13:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 159076991, 159077113 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16857].
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-19 04:17:04+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/154119832
dieterdreist (2024-07-19 10:31:45+00:00): Laut sächsischer Landesregierung können  Prozessschutzflächen weiterhin betreten werden: https://www.wald.sachsen.de/prozessschutz-im-wald-9436.html?_cp=%7B%22accordion-content-9441%22%3A%7B%2214%22%3Atrue%2C%2217%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22previousOpen%22%3A%7B%22group%22%3A%22accordion-content-9441%22%2C%22idx%22%3A17%7D%7D
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-19 04:16:53+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/154119832
dieterdreist (2024-07-19 10:30:20+00:00): Laut sächsischer Landesregierung können  Prozessschutzflächen weiterhin betreten werden: https://www.wald.sachsen.de/prozessschutz-im-wald-9436.html?_cp=%7B%22accordion-content-9441%22%3A%7B%2214%22%3Atrue%2C%2217%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22previousOpen%22%3A%7B%22group%22%3A%22accordion-content-9441%22%2C%22idx%22%3A17%7D%7D
smeòrach (2024-08-09 19:35:40+00:00): B'e "A' Bhruaich" an t-ainm a bha air cleachdadh leis na h-iasgairean à Cataibh agus Taobh Sear Rois, na daoine mu dheireadh aig an robh Gàidhlig dhualchainnteach bho thùs air costa an ear na h-Alba. 'S e modern invention a th' ann am "Baile nam Frisealach".
jSeke (2024-08-09 19:49:11+00:00): Tha thu ceart ach a-rèir 
an stòr-dàta oifigeil (nach toil leamsa nas mò), 's e Baile nam Frisealach an t-ainm aige, agus ri linn sin, bidh a' chomhairle a chleachdadh "Baile nam Frisealach"  https://www.ainmean-aite.scot/?id=39824
smeòrach (2024-08-10 00:27:19+00:00): Chan eil riatanas aig OSM an stiùireadh "oifigeil" a leanail ! Bidh OSM a' leanail cleachdadh àbhaisteach. Dhòmhsa dheth, cleachdaidh mi an t-ainm a bhios aithnichte dha na Gàidheil. Sa chùis seo 's e "A' Bhruaich" a th' ann. A' chuid as motha de dh'ainmean bhailtean beaga 's e an t-ainm Beurla a bhios aig Gàidheil san latha an diugh, mar eisimpleir, mura h-eil tùs ainm "obvious" ann...
smeòrach (2024-08-10 00:28:19+00:00): Bailtean beaga air taobh sear na h-Alba, tha mi ciallachadh.
Bartek93ZGL (2024-07-19 14:15:15+00:00): Linia: Polna (609620871)
Czemu temu odcinkowi nadałeś nazwę Polna? Ta droga jest po za granicami miasta i nie posiada nazwy. Czemu zmieniłeś kategorie drogi z lokalnej na gruntową, skoro droga stanowi dojazd do firmy i innych budynków? Wprowadzasz wiele zmian, ale co raz więcej z nich jest zakłamaniem prawdy.
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-18 22:01:17+00:00): You can actually just remove the name, website, payment, etc. info.   I have gone ahead and removed it for you.  Take a look so you understand.

:)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154119362
woodpeck_repair (2024-07-18 21:29:18+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 154094914, 154095230, 154095457, 154095919, 154107064, 154109230, 154109786, 154111341, 154112848, 154114565.
cuzi (2024-07-19 21:53:52+00:00): Hi!
You have used natural=coastline for this island, but natural=coastline is not for islands in lakes, only for islands in the sea.

For this island in the lake, you should convert the lake into a multipolygon relation and then add the lake as "outer" member and the island as "inner" member. 
Here is an example of a similar lake with islands: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5516281

Let me know, if you have no experience with that, then I can do it, and you can inspect it later to see how it is done.
Lyokoï (2024-07-19 21:59:34+00:00): Wooops ! I’m sorry, I have do an island in a sea just before and I did’nt pay attention.

I have made the correction !

Thanks ! :D
woodpeck_repair (2024-07-18 21:41:52+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 154113763, 154113923, 154114194, 154114252, 154114308, 154114472, 154114587, 154114702, 154114784, 154114893, 154114966, 154118036, 154118106, 154118208, 154118479, 154118594, 154118710, 154118732, 154118750.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-18 21:50:26+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062053930
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062053931

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-18 21:50:27+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera nadmiarowe informacje. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Paczkomat nie powinien mieć nazwy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062053930
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062053931

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Awoobis (2024-07-18 22:09:56+00:00): fix'd
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-18 22:00:02+00:00): good edit
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154119947
Joseph R P (2024-07-22 14:57:57+00:00): Hello cm81447, you have been questioned by both me and other contributors in the past to please discuss mass changes to highways like these before going on a big edit spree like this. You have not yet explained why you are making these changes in your changeset comments or discussion replies, though your edits appear to be based solely on functional classification data. Functional classification definitions typically differ from OSM definitions, and are more geared towards government usages such as identifying how highways should be maintained rather than for civilian navigational purposes. By OSM definitions, a small rural town like Eastport should not have a trunk route. It may make sense from a strategical standpoint in that it links to a cargo port, but that is more of a job for functional classification maps. Primary and secondary would suffice in this scenario, as this is a small town link by relatively minor rural highways.

That aside, you need to please explain what you're doing in changeset comments when it comes to edits like these so other users may understand quickly what's being done. "Fixed road" is very ambiguous, and at a glance to me, I would believe that you have adjusted its alignment, corrected its tags, or something like that which needs very little explanation. If you don't start a discussion for your change, it would be best to at the very least explain why you're making the change so that future questions can be answered.

It is very valuable to have another editor like you willing to make mundane yet big and important highway edits like these, but it becomes disruptive when others can't understand why you're making these changes and can't keep track of them.
user_21410378 (2024-07-22 19:39:12+00:00): The State of Maine has its own classification system for its roads. These changes reflect that. Read here: https://www.maine.gov/mdot/about/assets/hwy/
To view the map, select Layers, then select Highway Corridor Priority
https://www.maine.gov/mdot/mapviewer/
user_21410378 (2024-07-22 19:55:16+00:00): As for your comment about Eastport, Bar Harbor also had a trunk road leading to it, so trunk roads dead ending into small towns was already occurring on this map. The State of Maine has Eastport's highway listed as Priority 1, and Bar Harbor as Priority 2, not the other way around.
Joseph R P (2024-07-22 23:03:42+00:00): Maine's state classifications are the states functional classifications which don't exactly line up 1:1 with OpenStreetMap's highway classification hierarchy and its definitions. For example, a road identified as a Principal Arterial by functional classification varies between Interstates, various other freeways and expressways, and other roads identified as important such as  thoroughfares through major cities, airport/seaport access roads, and rural highways connecting smaller towns, etc. There are many inconsistencies that come with this data that makes it not useful in the scope of OSM. For instance, why should a trunk road end at Gateway Center Drive, a small dead-end road with a couple warehouses and a park & ride in Trenton, miles after it passes through a major highway junction in Ellsworth and before it reaches the bustling tourist destination of Bar Harbor? My concern isn't exactly that these trunk roads dead-end at small towns/lesser roads, but rather that this information is irrelevant to the average Joe who isn't in the loop with FHWA jargon using OSM as a map to get around. What the road connects to and lesser details like traffic data, speed limits, physical construction, etc. are more useful in this case.
user_21410378 (2024-07-23 13:43:19+00:00): The OSM system is incredibly broad and  vague, with no clear definitions whatsoever. Maine's own definitions are clear, and defined by an authoritative entity, not by the opinions of an insignificant mapper. Have it your way, but you can't convince me that some fool with access to the internet is a better authority than the Maine State Department of Transportation's own classification of its own roads. The DOT creates, maintains, and classifies these roads, not OSM mappers.
Joseph R P (2024-07-23 15:40:09+00:00): The OSM road hierarchy being broad  and vague compared to functional class definitions is exactly why this needs to be a team effort based on the bias and consensus among multiple mappers. Please realize that going out and changing everything to fit 1:1 with a government map is still "the opinions of an insignificant mapper". It was your decision to move ahead with these large, rapid changes twice without prior discussion, notice, or explanation. OSM is separate project from the Maine DOT. If we copied other free maps, OSM would not need to exist.
Xvtn (2024-07-22 17:02:17+00:00): Great additions!! :)
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-18 22:30:48+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Rydza Śmigłego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085235
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112983

"Długosza":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085236
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085252

"Łukasiewicza":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085243

"Bora Komorowskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085250

"B. Prusa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085251

"Małachowskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085253

"Frankiewicza":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085254

"Kierocińskiej":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085255

"Gen. Okulickiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085256

"Popiełuszki":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085259

"Witosa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085260

"Infelda":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085261

"Kisielewskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062085262

"Matejki":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112969

"Maliny":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112970

"Dmowskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112972
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112985

"Grota Roweckiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112973

"Piłsudskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112979

"Narutowicza":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112982
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112988

"Kraszewskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112989

"Norwida":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112990

"Ks. F. Blachnickiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112991

"Baczyńskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112995

"Prusa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112998

"Mireckiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062112999

"Sienkiewicza":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062113000

"Naruszewicza":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062113002

"Rozdzieńskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062113005
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062113010

"Hallera":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062113007

"Bednorza":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062113011

"ks. bpa Herberta Bednorza":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062113012

"Pileckiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062113018

"Skalskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062113019

"1-go Maja":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12062113020

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
wille (2024-07-18 23:37:43+00:00): Don't forget to square the buildings. Thanks for mapping!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154120871
Frans S (2024-07-21 10:43:42+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Buildings need to be tagged as building=yes
Building:part is used to map buildings with multiple levels. Here just tag building =yes.
Best regards
rskedgell (2024-07-19 10:25:19+00:00): The tagging looks OK to me, although you could move the unit to addr:unit and add a name:en for just the English name.

What could be a problem is giving Google Maps as a source, as their copyright is incompatible with OpenStreetMap.
AHappyLittleRaccoon (2024-07-19 10:34:07+00:00): For any factual data (opening times, or the name), I used the Instagram accounts bio. Google maps was exclusively used to just prove the place exists as I'm not sure if I had to prove it's existence for it to get accepted? Also, as I didn't somehow copy the coordinates from Google maps, but manually placed the pin, it shouldn't cause issues? 

Regarding addr:unit, that's a good point, I didn't realise that existed to be honest. Regarding the name, I can add it to name:en without the Chinese characters, but I wasn't sure, as all official stuff by them have both the English and Chinese on?
rskedgell (2024-07-19 11:16:46+00:00): That shouldn't be a problem, then. There's no need to prove existence via an external source, just your personal experience (source=survey or source=local_knowledge) is fine.

If the name tags is how they present it, I'd say that's fine. Adding name:en, like name:zh just makes it easier for data consumers. As for addr:unit, you'll still be discovering new tags or ways to tag things years later :-)

For food premises, you can often find additional information including addresses from the Food Hygiene Rating Service (FHRS), which is licensed under the OSM-friendly Open Government Licence. New premises can take a while to show up, but the FHODOT tool makes using the data easier:
https://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhodot/?lat=51.54235&lon=-0.14233&zoom=17&layer=fhrs
AHappyLittleRaccoon (2024-07-19 15:06:34+00:00): Thank you very much. I updated it again, I think it should be fine now? Also didn't realize the FHRS had a website to be honest. Thank you very much for the guidance 🙇‍♂️
mavl (2024-11-13 06:14:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 159076991, 159077113 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16857].
emersonveenstra (2024-07-22 11:13:49+00:00): Hi there,

You created a way with no tags here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302373651

Could you please fix it?