piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Piotr Strębski (2024-07-19 20:35:31+00:00): Hi Colleague! What have you done with this service highway? It's not what we have on orthophotomap, you have made intersections with building  eg.
Robot8A (2024-07-19 20:49:12+00:00): I think I may have moved it without realizing. I just wanted to add the surface and maxspeed. Sorry

Best,
Robot8A
Piotr Strębski (2024-07-19 21:10:17+00:00): Feel free to fix it ;-) I don't want to revert, you are too experienced user. Best!
Piotr Strębski (2024-07-20 06:48:44+00:00): I've already reverted your changeset. It takes too much time and the fear is that some systems and applications will use these broken geometries.
Robot8A (2024-07-20 15:35:28+00:00): Perfect, thanks.
I implemented the correct changes that I wanted to do in this edit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154184658

Best
martien-176 (2024-07-18 17:30:25+00:00): Hi,  thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. You requested a review of your mappings. 

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. 

Also, please avoid mapping buildings that share nodes or overlap. If buildings need to be adjusted or improved later on, it is much harder to do that if they share nodes with nearby features

Please watch these 2 short video for more info: 
-Buildings--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o
-Roads--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBLwb2nisJQ 

Thanks so much for your contribution, Martien, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154063354
NeisBot (2024-07-17 15:32:38+00:00): Hi Mini-Gaster, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1302047890

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-18 05:04:21+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154083028
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-18 05:07:13+00:00): Hi Mini-Gaster, welcome to OSM.

Please have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks!
Anastasiya_Vakulich (2024-11-27 05:17:10+00:00): #mapbox_roads_attributes
eggie (2024-07-17 20:13:37+00:00): Dag nspr

Het oostelijk stukje Liduinatuin loopt dwars door de parkeervakken? 
Straten in woonwijken zijn meestal highway=residential ipv unclassified. Wellicht nog even kijken.

MVG
eggie
user_21763229 (2024-07-17 15:48:14+00:00): source is aerial imagery
a1887 (2024-07-17 16:01:44+00:00): Grob anhand Satellitenbild abgesteckt.

Zutrittsbedingungen vor Ort. Kann ich demnächst nachreichen
silversurfer83 (2024-07-17 20:18:15+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap :)

danke, dass du hilfst die Karte aktuell zu halten.

Du hast darum gebeten, dass sich jemand diese Änderung ansieht. Ich mach das mal.

Wenn ich dein Polygon mit dem Luftbild von Bing und Hessen vergleiche, dann muss ich sagen: ich hab schon wesentlich schlechtere gesehen. Das passt also.
Dazu kommen ein passender Änderungssatzkommentar und eine passende Quellenangabe. Es gibt also nichts zu meckern.

Wenn du dich ein wenig austoben möchtest und gleichzeitig keine Angst vor Fehlern haben willst: Bei Spielplätzen kannst du viel ausprobieren und Details eintragen. Schau dich mal im Wiki um und dann ran an den Speck:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:leisure%3Dplayground
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:playground

Bei Fragen immer raus damit und viel Spaß an der Karte

silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154064925
a1887 (2024-07-17 20:52:35+00:00): Vielen Dank für diesen netten Empfang!

Und danke für die Links. Dann gibt es an dem Spielplatz ja noch einiges zu tun :D

VG,
A.
ChristianA (2025-09-08 06:11:42+00:00): Hej. Have you verified these changes on site? Routing tools now suggest passing through the old air force base, which is still a restriced access area (military). 

According to Swedish law, there are limitations to what one is allowed to map regarding military installations also, so make sure you are allowed to add the access roads.
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-18 21:56:39+00:00): You requested a review on this changeset.  Welcome to OSM!  I have reviewed your changeset and found it to be of good quality.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154065317
sgalaxya71silver (2024-07-17 17:39:59+00:00): سلام وقت بخیر بخشید علت حذف این تگ چیست؟
ChehrehBargi (2024-07-17 19:31:30+00:00): Hello
Due to the unwillingness of the school owner
ChehrehBargi (2024-07-17 19:35:10+00:00): In cases where there is a strong reason, you can edit it yourself. In cases where a person has made a wrong registration (for example, in a business), you can inform him in his change package so that he can fix the problem.
sgalaxya71silver (2024-08-08 05:26:59+00:00): 👍
ChehrehBargi (2024-08-08 07:10:53+00:00): Thank you
Langlaeufer (2025-03-13 20:33:01+00:00): Hallo Rev Grizzly,
 willkommen bei OSM. Danke das du uns helfen möchtest die Karte zu verbessern.

Bzg. kombinierte Rad- und Fußwege. bitte nicht als footway erfassen. Die Erfassung als path ist vollkommen korrekt. siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154066049
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-17 17:00:29+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/127146211

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Langlaeufer (2025-03-13 20:36:42+00:00): Hallo Rev Grizzly,
die Doppelterfassung der Rad- und Fußwege wurde wieder entfernt. Ohne eine echte bauliche Trennung ist ein Fahrspurmapping nicht gewünscht. Grüße Langläufer
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154067084
trigpoint (2024-07-26 09:23:10+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.

We do not tag refs for tertiary and unclassified roads as these are only used internally by local authorities and they are not signed.

Telling a normal user of OSM to follow the C2073 is only going to confuse as there are no signs.

Sabre's wiki is also not a valid source for OSM, we do not know what source they have use to obtain this information.

Where we do map such references we use the tag highway_authority_ref https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway%20authority%20ref?uselang=en

Cheers Phil
trigpoint (2024-07-26 11:26:03+00:00): Changed to highway_authority_ref
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-18 21:50:05+00:00): Please press "Q" after drawing the building to square it up and it give it square corners.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154068197
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-18 21:53:12+00:00): Before making further edits, please review this wiki page:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roof_modelling
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154068783
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-17 17:40:17+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera nadmiarowe informacje. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Paczkomat nie powinien mieć nazwy. Nazwa nadawana jest automatycznie, na podstawie wartości brand. Opcjonalnie, numer identyfikacyjny może być przekazany w polu ref.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12059827398

Dokumentacja paczkomatów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:amenity%3Dparcel_locker

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
jakismietek (2024-07-17 17:57:09+00:00): Dzięki, poprawiono!
DressyPear4 (2024-07-18 18:07:23+00:00): Olá, não é correto adicionar vias por cima das que já existem
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154068862
Sara Rabelo (2024-07-18 22:57:13+00:00): Olá, sou iniciante por aqui, desculpa pelo incomodo. Estou fazendo demarcações para meu TCC, acabei achando um manual em português e aprendi a como melhor demarcar as ciclovias (depois de bastante tempo). Mas lá não explica o pq. Vc sabe me dizer?
DressyPear4 (2024-07-19 11:42:34+00:00): Quando não há separação, são adicionadas tags nas vias existentes 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
Fizzie-DWG (2024-09-07 04:09:41+00:00): Reverted by DWG for poor mapping

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/156297843
AndersAndersson (2024-07-17 20:18:42+00:00): Hej!
Tack för bra tillägg till kartan!
Dock tror jag det blev lite tokigt med denna väg, då den blev taggad som en by. Stämmer namnet på vägen?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1274802373
user_17222985 (2024-07-17 17:54:51+00:00): також школа
FiligranFifak (2024-07-19 08:58:01+00:00): Hej, dlaczego namieszałeś w Kurkach? Punkty adresowe Kurki 23 i 24 na geoportalu są bzdurą. Parę dni wcześniej zaznaczyłem ich prawdziwe położenie. Był znacznik source=survey, więc mógłbyś na przykład spytać mnie, zanim bez sensu zmienisz na nieprawdę.  Droga 1302094544 nie jest compacted, to jest głęboki piach, w którym ugrzęźniesz samochodem. Nie jest też residential, lokalsi dojeżdżają do 23 i 24 drogą 1227134701. Zamierzam to naprawić, ale najpierw potwierdź, że nie popsujesz znowu
kaciorx (2024-07-19 09:19:02+00:00): Jeśli w geoportalu są błędy to warto byłoby je zgłosić od razu żeby dane urzędowe się zgadzały, bo importy są dosyć częste. Jeśli tam jest głęboki piach to dlaczego tam ustawiłeś tracktype2? Zgodnie z wiki ten znacznik jest dla nawierzchni gravel, fine_gravel i compacted. Dodatkowo drogi które służą jako dojazd do posesji to nie powinny mieć w ogóle highway=track bo to jest po prostu błąd i rozwala routing dla samochodów w większości przypadków. Znowu odsyłam do wiki. Btw tracktype=1 i nawierzchnie nieutwartodzone się wykluczają. 
Dane adresowe poprawiłem zgodnie z sugestią i ustawiłem surface dla dróg. Jakbyś edytował drogi to prosiłbym nie nadużywać highway=track dla dróg nieutwardzonych. To nie mówi nic o nawierzchni, a w wielu urządzeniach nawigacyjnych dla samochodów takie drogi się w ogóle nie wyświetlają, a czasami nawet nie są uwzględniane przy wyznaczaniu trasy
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-08-13 08:57:29+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11830803617/history has maxspeed = variable that was added in this edit
Can maxspeed:variable be used instead? See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:variable (feel free to retag it by yourself if it seems like a good idea to you)
emersonveenstra (2024-07-19 11:23:05+00:00): Hi there,

Did you mean to remove the highway tag from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16980764/history?
joost schouppe (2024-07-18 07:39:35+00:00): The bridge is also closed; I've marked it as such just now
neuhausr (2024-07-18 14:32:28+00:00): Hi, I happened across this changeset, and am wondering why you tagged nodes as bicycle=no as well as the ways? Typically the ways are tagged and that implicitly applies to nodes within the ways as well. I don't know if it's explicitly wrong, but it's a lot of extra work with no benefit. Happy mapping!
LaurenHedges (2024-10-30 15:49:45+00:00): Sorry for the slow response on this - I must have missed your message when it came through! 

To answer your question, though, it was no extra work at all to tag the nodes. I set up a filter in JOSM to show just the attributes I wanted, and batch tagged them. I probably should have filtered out the nodes as well, then?
rskedgell (2024-07-21 19:55:52+00:00): These were already tagged as bus=yes. If a road is already tagged with bus=yes and busmiles does not do what you expect, please take this up with the busmiles developers rather than adding unnecessary psv=designated tags to OSM.
Lewwy (2024-07-21 20:15:54+00:00): The actual suggestion was that adding both Bus and PSV= designated as tags fixed the snappping issue. The tag is available to use - it doesn't make it unecessary. Again, if I have set Motor Vehicles as a whole to the incorrect tag, then apologies for that.
rskedgell (2024-07-21 23:00:34+00:00): The problem with the suggested approach is that the bus and psv keys are not synonyms, nor are the values yes and designated. PSVs include vehicles other than buses and there needs to be some evidence that the access restriction or exemption *really* applies to all PSVs and not just buses.

If busmiles doesn't work with the bus tag alone, that is a problem for their developers rather than a reason to break OSM. You are not the first busmiles user to add psv tags or to misunderstand what motor_vehicle=designated means.

People use OSM data for real-world routing applications, so misapplying access tags can cause more significant inconvenience than failing to snap a bus route to a map.

Bus routes can be accurately represented in OSM using route relations. It would be a lot more helpful if busmiles used these rather than interfering with access tags which people have taken the effort to map and survey accurately. e.g. Bus 1C: Newbury Wharf => Thatcham => Newbury Wharf
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17716750
emersonveenstra (2024-07-18 10:47:02+00:00): Hi there,

You disconnected this driveway when changing the road geometry, could you please reconnect it https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/892971332
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-12 04:38:57+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164840069
archpdx (2024-07-17 22:39:58+00:00): Hi,
What is your reasoning for marking this segment of Harbor as closed? As far as I can tell, there don't seem to be any long-term closures for Harbor
Langlaeufer (2025-03-13 20:41:45+00:00): Es handelt sich hier formal um Feldwege. Die auf den wegen verlaufenden Radrouten werden als Relationen oder mit lcn=yes erfasst.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154071026
flohoff (2024-07-18 08:50:29+00:00): Moin,
ich hab hier den changeset gesehen und die Begründung gelesen.

Nur weil dinge auf Privategrund sind löschen wir die bei OSM nicht. Wir mappen das was da ist. Egal wo.

Wenn das von aussen erkennbar als nicht betretbar (Rechtlich oder Phyisch) erkennbar ist taggen wir das als solches.

Also z.b. access=no oder access=private - oder wenn da ein Tor ist - als physische Barriere - dann wird da ein "barrier=gate" gesetzt.

Löschen macht überhaupt keinen Sinn weil der nächste es wieder einträgt.

Keep on mapping.

Flo
heisseiliger (2024-07-18 17:18:33+00:00): Hi Flo,
der Weg endet auf Privatgelände, ist dort auch kein Weg/Pfad mehr. Da ist nur noch Buschwerk.
flohoff (2024-07-19 09:52:08+00:00): Wenn er nicht mehr da ist ist er nicht mehr da.

Aber nochmal weil du es erwähnt hast:

Privatgelände ist völlig irrlevant. 

Wir mappen auch Wege auf Privatgelände.

Dazu wundert mich das JuanCarlos80 den weg 2021 erst validiert hat mit dem Hinweis auf "trail_visibilty=exzellent" 

Flo
heisseiliger (2024-07-19 15:52:32+00:00): Bis zum Knoten 7447376841
ist er auch sehr gut sichtbar. Danach ist er noch 3, 4 Meter gut sichtbar, dann nur noch Buschwerk. Dahinter ist ein kleiner Abhang, Weg 796316050 ist schon unterhalb des Abhangs.
leftybender (2024-11-25 17:08:52+00:00): Coachman's is added in error. They are out of business and have been for over a year.
Kovirii (2025-04-02 03:54:14+00:00): fixed
archpdx (2024-07-17 22:44:50+00:00): Hi,
This changeset seems to tag this segment of Bristol with `access=destination`. This tag should only be used for roads that are explicitly signed to not allow any thru traffic (see https://osm.wiki/Tag:access=destination)
philippec (2024-07-22 22:49:07+00:00): Er zat vandaag geen AED in.  Woensdag zou de mapillary klaar moeten zijn.
Ik vind de AEDs niet meer terug op de website van Aalst.
Hier nog wat werk :
https://www.hln.be/aalst/vijf-openbare-aed-toestellen-in-dender-noord-de-eerste-drie-minuten-zijn-cruciaal-om-een-leven-te-redden~a87f3507/
Gelieve mapillary te gebruiken.
philippec (2024-07-23 13:06:08+00:00): https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/filipc?lat=50.93837559999997&lng=4.0564789999999675&z=17&pKey=1026851445489090&focus=photo&x=0.4920190560522934&y=0.33892631548199975&zoom=0
woodpeck (2024-07-17 20:16:47+00:00): Hi there, the combination of access=no, foot=private, motor_vehicle=designated makes no sense and might actually lead to the road being open for motorised transport in some routing engines. I think that a combination of access=no, psv=yes could make more sense (if taxis are also allowed), or access=no, bus=yes (if only buses). Perhaps check with the talk-ca mailing list to be sure.
zzptichka (2024-07-17 22:50:06+00:00): Yes, it should be "bus=yes". Let me fix it.
City - D G (2024-07-22 17:37:25+00:00): Thanks I just added speeds and didn't check what the tags were set to. I'll make sure they're set to bus=yes and access = no.
zzptichka (2024-07-22 18:50:19+00:00): They should be already set.
eggie (2024-07-17 20:22:15+00:00): Dag 10 NHN  Je zet de Grote Oost gewoon open voor regulier autoverkeer.
Alleen om LiveNav te laten routeren?
Dat lijkt me de verkeerde manier.
In dat geval gewoon emergency=yes toevoegen.
Graag reactie,

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-07-17 20:26:07+00:00): Wanneer een bepaalde tijd van het jaar wel motorvoertuigen zijn toegestaan dan kan dit met conditional tags worden toegevoegd.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
eggie (2024-07-18 06:04:53+00:00): motor_vehicle=yes en emergency=yes verwijderd.
Dit hoort niet op reguliere wegen.
Wanneer er problemen zijn met oneway=yes kan dit op een andere manier worden opgelost.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-07-18 06:09:48+00:00): emergency=yes even teruggezet. Ga na bij LiveNav hoe oneway=yes genegeerd kan worden.
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-18 05:01:14+00:00): Hello EMF123, and welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and changesets, particularly those concerning the names you've added or modified.

It seems that some of these names are a bit unusual.

#NameCheck
emersonveenstra (2024-07-19 11:26:33+00:00): Hi there,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302104044#map=17/33.33604/-111.67522 this road isn't connected to a road at either end, is that intentional?
eggie (2024-07-17 20:31:24+00:00): Dag 10 NHN   Dit gaat niet helpen .
Waarom emergency=yes? 
Wellicht oneway:emergency=no
Het staat hier toch gewoon open voor motorvoertuigen?
Ga na hoe LiveNav omgaat met eenrichtingsverkeer.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-07-18 05:59:56+00:00): emergency yes verwijderd
eggie (2024-07-17 20:14:46+00:00): Dag ndpr  Je vraagt feedback  
Brandgangen krijgen meestal een extra tag naast highway=footway nog footway=alley

Groet
eggie
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-18 21:47:54+00:00): I have reviewed your changeset as requested.  The edits look good - thanks for updating the map!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154072288
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-03-31 17:50:53+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12059914252/history has fixme:type = shop that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What kind of shop is here?

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop for common values - is any of them fitting?
eggie (2024-07-17 20:18:27+00:00): Dag nspr
Wanneer dit ook een fietsverbinding is dan beter highway=path gebruiken met foot=yes en bicycle=yes surface= paving_stones
Er staat immers geen G7 bord. Dan is het geen voetpad. 

Kijk je nog even?

MVG
eggie
dieterdreist (2024-12-12 10:21:44+00:00): Ciao Gigi, ti segnalo che ho cancellato alcuni tag da https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12059951275 perché ha creato un doppione della stazione (se si tratta di una "platform" non deve avere tag come railway=station, e in questo caso c'era già un altro oggetto con "railway=station" e ci deve essere solo 1 in totale.
Saluti
Martin
dieterdreist (2024-12-12 10:42:37+00:00): Ci sono altri doppioni su altre stazioni, generalmente ci possono essere più railway=platform o public_transport=platform, ma sono delle way. Tu hai inserito un railway=platform al centro di due binari dove non si trova una banchina e dove già c'erano delle railway=platform dove dovevano essere.
mueschel (2024-07-20 07:52:13+00:00): Hi,
could you check this way?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/280759570

You added a French "vehicule" tag. I wanted to fix that, but if we add "vehicle=private", the way will be closed to bicycles as well. I guess you meant "motor_vehicle=private"?
papaoscar (2024-07-20 08:31:40+00:00): Hello  mueschel 
This way can be used by bicycles.
Only fishermen are allowed to use this way with a car.They have to request  an authorisation. there is a barier and a placard explain this. so i was perplexed to find a good tag.
mueschel (2024-07-20 08:35:09+00:00): Hi,
that would be "motor_vehicle=private" or "motor_vehicle=permit".
Usually we use 'permit' only if it's possible to get a permit easily for most people, but this doesn't seem to be the case here.
papaoscar (2024-07-20 08:44:40+00:00): Ok, I will correct this now
DawsZed (2024-07-17 19:33:56+00:00): Temporarily removed woods landuse surrounding MHSS while reworking landuse
eggie (2024-07-17 20:05:57+00:00): Dag KrabbeJ,

Je bedoeling was vast goed, alleen de fietsroutering was nu geblokkeerd. Die heb ik hersteld.
Het is geen wandelpad, maar een algemeen pad waar je mag fietsen. 
Op de Watersnip heb ik de wettelijke max.. senlheid van 30 naar  maxspeed=15 aangepast. 
MVG
eggie
KrabbeJ (2024-07-19 06:38:37+00:00): bedankt Eggie,,

ik heb het inderdaad zo bedoeld ! ik zal zorgvuldiger zijn, ik doe dit nog niet zo heel lang !
eggie (2024-07-19 06:42:14+00:00): Hoi.. Laat je niet ontmoedigen door wat krtiek! 😀
Mapse
DeFra85 (2024-07-21 20:57:13+00:00): Hej hej, was für ein Wegweiser ist das denn am Kreisel? Fahrrad?
jk201404 (2024-07-22 09:55:37+00:00): Das weiß ich nicht, ich habe den nicht hinzugefügt
DeFra85 (2024-07-22 09:59:41+00:00): Laut Historie (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12059963378) hast du den erstellt
jk201404 (2024-07-24 18:10:37+00:00): Dass muss dann versehentlich passiert sein. Da ist keiner, der kann weg
jk201404 (2024-07-24 18:12:18+00:00): Ok, hab den Fehler gefunden, da ist eine Lampe und kein Wegweiser
jasonah49 (2024-07-17 19:41:49+00:00): Split unlabeled Rock Island Lake in to  Rock Island Lake and Black Oak Lake
DUGA (2024-10-20 00:25:37+00:00): I have removed your fixme because the message is cryptic.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302108747/history/
m86 (2024-10-20 14:39:51+00:00): If I had to guess, I would imagine it was the probable street number
GerdP (2024-07-18 05:04:39+00:00): Moin aus Wildeshausen!
Schaust Du bitte noch mal die Route 14-? an? https://www.osm.org/relation/11225036
Die ist immer noch Member in der Knotenpunktrelation https://www.osm.org/relation/10996719
Du hast sie aber geändert auf
network:type=basic_network
network=lcn
nurdafur (2024-07-18 05:44:58+00:00): Da hast du natürlich recht, die entferne ich da gleich noch. Danke für den Hinweis.
AndersAndersson (2024-07-17 21:52:48+00:00): Hello!
I changed back to 60 km/h for this roundabout since that is the speed limit for Tunavägen and there is no sign for lower speed at the roundabout.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/12570592

It is also the same speed limit as is the government database.