piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
123_Regina (2024-07-09 07:35:16+00:00): Hallo, 
ohje, also ich habe da wohl einiges angeklickt, was ich nicht anklicken wollte.

Der HEP-Shop ist noch da und meiner Meinung nach hier völlig richtig eingetragen, daran wollte ich nichts ändern.
Ansonsten weiß ich leider nicht was mit review requested und Chapeau Kultur gemeint ist, das habe ich wahrscheinlich versehentlich angekreuzt. 
Am einfachsten ist es wahrscheinlich, wenn ich hier kurz schreibe, was ich machen wollte und dann kann das vielleicht einfach eingetragen werden.
AG Schuldenberatung Mönchengladbach
Odenkirchener Str. 14-16, 41236 Mönchengladbach.
Website: schuldenberatung-mg.de
Als Symbol finde ich das Symbol für Beretumgsbüro passend. 
Viele Grüße
tux67 (2024-07-09 07:54:21+00:00): Ok, die Schuldnerberatung ist jetzt eingetragen. Allerdings mappen wir keine "Symbole", sondern versehen die Elemente in OSM mit einem sog. "tag", welches die Einrichtung möglichst genau beschreibt. 
Das Symbol generiert dann die jeweilige Kartenanwendung dazu.
Schuldnerberatung gibt es so bei OSM noch nicht. office ist ein recht generischers tag. Passend wäre ggf. auch ein tag aus der social_facilities Familie. Solange wir nichts besseres haben werde ich das mal als office=debt_consulting taggen. Aber das wird nicht mit einem schicken Symbol versehen werden, sondern nur einen "." mit dem Beschreibungstext bekommen. Wenn das noch nicht im Browser auftaucht .. einfach mal die Karte mit Strg-F5 im Browser aktualisieren ..
eerib (2024-07-08 16:08:17+00:00): Also cleaned up areas near private property but referencing Land Title's ParcelMap to properly tag areas.
Filip009 (2024-07-10 12:52:51+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3De-cigarette

Toto by bolo asi lepšie.
Gregory Peony (2024-11-02 05:51:51+00:00): I think that WAY: 1300051192 envelopes vegetation. When loooking at ESRI you can better see the colour of the leaves.--- The orientation of WAY: 1300051193 seems a little off (could be rotated CCW), view the image at its native resolution to get the most accurate oreintation information. Its size was appropriate---WAY: 1300051191 is oversized.---See Changeset: 158645319 for my modifications.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153710488
Gregory Peony (2024-11-02 18:51:15+00:00): Most of the footprints in this changeset are invalid, becasue they are within the the banks of a river. They likely envelope things like boulders and tree trunks.--- WAY: 1300054051 & WAY: 1300054050 are good footprints. ---Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153711088
Gregory Peony (2024-11-02 19:51:30+00:00): I believe that the northern footpritns envelope vegetation. The southern footprint is valid.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153711225
Gregory Peony (2024-07-12 02:00:27+00:00): I do not believe the features I flagged represent buildings.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153711889
Gregory Peony (2024-07-11 20:48:00+00:00): I believe that the footprints I flagged are not building footprints. The ones to the NW becasue they are so close to a river and are likely rocks/boulders and the one footprint south of them becuase I would expect the southernly shadow cast by the tree just north of it to interact with it in a different way.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153712026
◪ Jarv (2024-07-09 07:38:11+00:00): Hi Florian yeates, welcome to open street map! I see in this change set you've mapped out some houses and buildings in Plaistow, when adding things to the map they need to have the correct tags on them so the map knows how to show them. It looks like you've mapped the buildings but they have no tags on them so they don't show on the map. If you select the buildings in the editor and then select that they are buildings, or houses then that would be great.
Happy mapping, Jarv
FlorianYeates (2024-12-30 18:16:03+00:00): Cheers for the feedback Jarv, I've updated the map to reflect the fact these are buildings.
Gregory Peony (2024-07-12 15:15:23+00:00): I believe the flagged features are in fact trees.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153712979
Gregory Peony (2024-07-12 15:19:43+00:00): WAY: 1286841096 was more accurate before. The white parts to the East of buildings in this imagery are either paths adjacent to the buildings, and/or the building walls.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153712979
Gregory Peony (2024-07-12 15:22:13+00:00): You didn't modify the footprint, but the buliding just NE of WAY: 1286841096 is T shaped.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153712979
Gregory Peony (2024-07-12 15:24:27+00:00): Overall quite a good changeset. Most of the building footprints modified are more accurate than they previously were, and multiple buildings that were represented by one footprint now have their own.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153712979
mueschel (2024-07-09 10:47:45+00:00): Hallo,
bitte schaut nach den parking-Tags die hier in der Gegend hinzugefügt wurden. Viele sind "parking:side:..." - "side" darf aber nicht im Tag auftauchen und muss durch left/right/both ersetzt werden.
felipeeugenio (2024-07-09 18:44:53+00:00): Hola Richar, se puden agregar atributos a las cosas que ya hay. No es necesario borrarlas. De hecho, es una mala práctica. Se pierde todo el historial.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153713496
Marek-M (2024-07-08 19:05:54+00:00): Cześć, nie rozdzielaj na oddzielne linie chodnika i drogi rowerowej, gdy nie ma fizycznego ich rozdziału. Zmiana nawierzchni nie jest fizyczną barierą. Ciągi pieszo rowerowe mapujemy 1 linią zgodnie z wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery#Drogi_dla_pieszych_i_rowerów

Dzięki!
Adam Haba (2024-07-08 21:22:57+00:00): Cześć. Jutro to poprawię.

Dobranoc
literan (2024-07-23 17:56:02+00:00): откуда вдруг здесь https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28455256 взялась bicycle_road?

поправлю
DegPasha (2024-07-23 18:14:33+00:00): Знак "велозона"
literan (2024-07-23 19:41:55+00:00): да, вижу на зеркалах свежих. Извиняюсь, был неправ
HirschKauz (2024-07-09 07:12:57+00:00): Hallo und Willkommen! 
Openstreetmap ist ein Gemeinschaftsprojekt und es ist üblich seine Mitmapper nicht rätseln zu lassen sondern einen beschreibenden Changeset-Kommentar zu hinterlassen. hier zB "Briefkasten und Recycling hinzugefügt" 
Grüße und weiter viel Spaß :-)
LockOnGuy (2024-07-08 20:08:07+00:00): Hello zhiar590,    
Please do use meaningful changeset comments - “small fixes” does not help other mappers understand what you are doing.    
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments     
Regards.
zhiar590 (2024-08-08 23:43:57+00:00): Hi LockOnGuy 
I apologize for that, ill try use more meaningful words from now on and I also apologize for late reply as I didn't notice that you left me a comment here, thank you for the comment 
regards
mcliquid (2024-07-08 19:11:24+00:00): Grüß dich, sollte eine via Ferrata nicht auch als via ferrata eingetragen werden? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dvia_ferrata
anti-romantic (2024-07-09 04:44:55+00:00): Добрый день! Теги заправки Башнефть уже стояли на точке, которая находится внутри здания. Когда вы добавили теги еще и на здание, получилось, что в базе данных стало две заправки на этом месте, а это ошибка
И я рекомендую оставлять теги организаций все же на точках, а не на зданиях - так правильнее, если здание занимает не одна организация (а чаще всего так и бывает)
TRSteeps (2024-07-09 05:10:19+00:00): А адрес указывать на точке заправке или на здании или и там и там?
anti-romantic (2024-07-09 08:09:58+00:00): На здании - обязательно, потому что в первую очередь адрес относится к зданию. На точке организации - неверно по локальным правилам сообщества: 
"Точечные объекты (POI) не должны иметь собственных адресных тегов, дублирующих адресные теги здания, внутри контура которого они обозначены. В данном случае, при обработке данных адрес наследуется точкой POI от контура. POI, обозначенные самостоятельно, без здания, могут иметь соответствующие адресные теги."

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%90%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B0 - это отсюда, и очень рекомендую почитать, если вы занимаетесь адресами)
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-29 09:49:58+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12042322571/history has fixme:type = house that was added in this edit
Is it an attempt to map a building not present in OSM data? Is it an attempt to add address info to an already mapped building? Something else?
Geo-Tobi (2024-09-30 17:25:39+00:00): Gleiches Problem hier. Footway, aber bicycle=designated. Ungültige Kombination.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/118351654
Geo-Tobi (2024-09-30 17:26:22+00:00): Und hier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24166777
Linda89 (2024-09-30 19:10:23+00:00): Thanks. I've updated the tags in a different commit. But it seems the RC of the problem is in StreetComplete application. The tags were set by it, not manually.
Nathan_A_RF (2024-07-17 21:08:57+00:00): Are you sure the signs are not incorrect or out of date? Do not trust signs alone. It is highly unlikely this road is trunk to the city centre when the M6 bypassed the city decades ago. I am reverting this for now unless proven otherwise.
lefuturiste (2024-07-10 09:18:56+00:00): Bonjour,
Afin de faciliter le travail de review des autres contributeurs.
Pouvez vous SVP, précisez un peu plus le sujet sur lequel vous travaillez dans le commentaire de changeset, 
Quel sont vos sources de travail ?
(À l'avenir si vous avez une source, comme une URL ou un PDF, veuillez l'indiquer si possible dans le champs `source` du changeset).
Merci.
lefuturiste (2024-07-10 09:27:00+00:00): SVP, veuillez utiliser un commentaire de changeset plus explicite, par exemple : « Création d'une piste cyclable nouvellement construite par la métropole. »
Et si possible préciser une source, comme par exemple un pdf ou document de la métropole qui indique la construction.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153718363
Roue-doudou (2024-09-12 12:58:12+00:00): Bonjour,
 J'ajoute que j'ai deja mappé cette piste cyclable directement sur la cote de canteleu au paravant, inutile donc de la mapper en dehors, cela fait doublon, je la retire. Merci de bien vouloir accuser reception de ce msg, car cela fait plusieurs fois que l'on vous remonte des incohérence et des message peu clair.
Frans S (2024-07-09 10:16:56+00:00): Thanks for mapping on this project.
A remark. On this location, it is hard to identify buildings. What helps, is to switch between Bing an Esri world Imagery. Then you hardly find buildings in the northern part.
You can double-check it with an external earth map (G*)
Use in JOSM Ctr+J , copy Latitude and paste it in the (G*) search field. Add a space and repeat the copy /past on the longitude value.
Click the find option. Now you see the most recent imagery. You can use the timeline to see historical data. It is helpful, certainly when the ESRI imagery is not that clear.
Best regards
Frans S (2024-07-09 10:18:04+00:00): Hi. Btw.  Most buildings are round. Please map them as round buildings.
Best regards
Norbert Dichter (2024-07-09 16:28:34+00:00): Danke, Frans.  Thanks for the update💚

Cheers,  Norbert
jhonatabf (2024-07-17 01:50:25+00:00): Boa noite, Romano, sua edição não segue os padrões de código de rodovia do site, como também a nomenclatura não está correta, de acordo com a Lei Estadual nº 15.204 de 10.07.2006 (https://www.legislacao.pr.gov.br/legislacao/listarAtosAno.do?action=exibir&codAto=1393&indice=4&anoSpan=0&anoSelecionado=0&isPaginado=true) que ainda está válida. Também removeu códigos de rodovia válidos de acordo com a Lei Federal e Estadual.
Mizlib (2024-07-08 19:56:19+00:00): The name was not changed on the map.
adas (2025-12-18 08:42:04+00:00): hej, "II wariant linii tramwajowej łączącej pętlę Rycerska z torowiskiem na Gdańskiej"
A można go juz usunać z mapy? Miasto wybrało wariant chocimską, a ten biegnacy Artyleryjską nie biedzie realizowany.
AnnaCatarina (2025-12-18 10:06:57+00:00): Dzień dobry, dziękuję za informację. Czy istnieje jakieś źródło tej informacji, np. z urzędu miasta, które moglibyśmy uwzględnić w poprawce?
AnnaCatarina (2025-12-18 10:09:48+00:00): A jaki jest dokładny kurs na zachód od
ul. Pomorska?
adas (2025-12-18 13:46:55+00:00): Tu info o wyborze trasy wzdłuż Chocimskiej: https://zdmikp.bydgoszcz.pl/pl/transport/6973-projektujemy-nowe-torowiska-po-konsultacjach-bez-wyburzen-na-gdanskiej
AnnaCatarina (2025-12-18 14:47:57+00:00): Źródło wspomina o dyskusji z 2021 r., ale nie wspomina o obecnej decyzji władz miasta odnośnie trasy.
adas (2025-12-18 20:56:54+00:00): No w 2021 wybrano wersję przez Chocimską. I nie zmieniano tej decyzji.

Aktualny artykuł o planach na dokumentację.
https://expressbydgoski.pl/tramwaje-za-pare-lat-pojada-wyszynskiego-i-chocimska-w-bydgoszczy-sa-nowe-informacje/ar/c1p2-28065169
AnnaCatarina (2025-12-19 09:58:31+00:00): Dobrze, skoro przetarg już trwa, usunę opcję północną. Czy w Internecie jest dostępny bardziej szczegółowy plan pokazujący nową trasę z większą szczegółowością?
AnnaCatarina (2025-12-19 10:08:14+00:00): P. S. Oczywiście, nawet przetarg nie daje gwarancji, że linia powstanie zgodnie z planem. Są przykłady, nawet w Byd, jak nagle sprawy potoczyły się inaczej. ;-)
AnnaCatarina (2025-12-19 10:09:18+00:00): Wesołych Świąt Bożego Narodzenia i szczęśliwego Nowego Roku!
adas (2025-12-19 16:29:29+00:00): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/18BR7ujh5uGrqGx6JT5klMlKxM17Yra6v
Tu można zobaczyć koncepcję.
AnnaCatarina (2025-12-19 22:47:29+00:00): Dziękuję bardzo, jutro przeniosę to na mapę.
mavl (2024-07-09 02:38:04+00:00): Здравствуйте. Сомнительно, что у этого дома 6-й номер. Это нечётная сторона.
SomeoneElse (2024-07-08 21:31:03+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16403 .
flohoff (2024-07-09 10:58:26+00:00): Moin,
dieser changeset hat das routing in meiner überwachung ein bisschen gewürfelt. 

Das geht jetzt durch das Wohngebiet - Rot alt - Grün neu.

https://osm.zz.de/routeqa/?rid=679342,799836#51.19669,8.71126,16z

Wenn das mit dem Z20 -> Z30 passt müsste vielleicht mal der weg drumherum ein bisschen liebe brauchen. Geht ja um relative geschwindigkeiten zueinander.

Flo
hoserab (2024-07-08 21:28:14+00:00): Just want to add further context to why I changed this, as it cannot really be captured in a 255-character changeset comment.

The Stoney Nakoda have been historically grouped together as one "First Nation" (as we call them now), as one recognized Indian Band, by the federal government, but they have contested that that was never their intent when they signed Treaty 7, and administratively the Bearspaw, Chiniki and Goodstoney bands (within the context of the Indian Act) have been semi-independent the entire time. As they see it, the Canadian government had unilaterally grouped them together for administrative convenience. (E.g. this is why there is a single reserve area with three numbers attached to it: 142, 143 & 144.)

They do have an overarching tribal council, with representatives from each of the Bearspaw, Chiniki and Goodstoney, but have been seeking independent recognition (and funding agreements) as individual "First Nations". As such they have in recent years been conducting collective affairs as the Stoney Nakoda Nation*s*, and I've updated the name to the plural in English & en français to match this more current usage.
mavl (2024-07-09 02:34:45+00:00): Здравствуйте. У этого здания странная форма. Не все углы почему-то прямые.
mcliquid (2024-07-09 09:12:11+00:00): Review: OK
mcliquid (2024-07-09 09:12:18+00:00): Review: OK
czubi (2024-11-17 09:17:16+00:00): Hallo, hier passt shop=farm besser als place. Place ist eher was administratives.
mcliquid (2024-07-09 06:41:42+00:00): Review: Passt alles.
Leo Slager (2024-07-09 10:09:14+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
syntex (2024-07-09 12:59:30+00:00): Staraj się nie tworzyć obiektów typu multipolygon dla obiektów, gdzie nie jest to konieczne. Utrudnia to edycje innym użytkownikom. Ten landuse residential to powinnien być zwykły obszar, docelowo nawet podzielony na mniejsze fragmenty.
mcliquid (2024-07-09 06:42:49+00:00): Review: Öffnungszeiten mit englischen Kürzeln, sonst kann das nicht ausgelesen werden. Ein tolles Tool ist: https://www.webmapping.cyou/WebToOSMOH/
mcliquid (2024-07-09 06:47:19+00:00): Review: Passt alles.
4004 (2024-07-13 22:56:51+00:00): isn't this basically disused? pociagi z/do Bialorusi ne ida z ~2020?
_red (2024-07-15 09:04:07+00:00): ale w Id-12 wciąż linia istnieje - a był mi potrzebny jej shape (jako że formalnie jest linią styczną do LK57(SZ)- więc przy okazji dodałem relację
mcliquid (2024-07-09 06:47:23+00:00): Review: Passt alles.
Xvtn (2024-07-09 21:14:15+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. In this case, a couple changes are necessary. In OSM, we only use the "name" tag to describe the actual "common name" of a feature. For this driveway, there are other tags to describe the nature of the road, such as
highway=service
service=driveway.
I went ahead and fixed that. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!!
Xvtn (2024-07-09 21:18:07+00:00): Looking at this a little closer, it looks like there might be a problem with the geometry... Were you able to verify that? If not I'd say we should just go off of what looks right on the satellite imagery.
LockOnGuy (2024-07-09 19:59:41+00:00): Thank you! keep up the great work!
mcliquid (2024-07-09 06:47:40+00:00): Review: Passt alles.
emersonveenstra (2024-07-10 20:10:40+00:00): Hi there,

Could you please double check https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/396133969, the turn:lanes:backward and lanes:backward values are conflicting. Thanks!
mapper377 (2024-07-12 01:16:18+00:00): I have corrected the mistake that you discovered. The new changeset is 153833757. Thank you, emersonveenstra, for mentioning this.
VikNil (2024-07-09 19:41:14+00:00): Oh shit, I pressed the wrong button. This elderly peoples home was in fact torn down some years ago and replaced by a new elderly peoples home.
philippec (2024-07-09 17:35:06+00:00): Waar is die grote poort ?
H4N5-antw (2024-07-09 17:48:57+00:00): Mijn node staat redelijk in 't midden van het dakvlak dat op de kolom rust; uw ingang staat ongeveer goed = linker helft van gevel dat zwarte dakvlak; zie ook https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=734454057247417&focus=photo ; mijn prentje nog onderweg - pas deels zichtbaar
citrula (2024-07-08 23:44:35+00:00): Thanks for the fix!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153723082
limes11 (2024-07-09 09:39:04+00:00): Hi, 

diese Daten kommen vom Landesamt für Vermessung und Geoinformation, richtig ?

Wir haben von dort meines Wissens keine Freigabe zur Nutzung der Daten. 

Viele Grüße
limes11 (2024-07-11 21:04:34+00:00): Hi

aufgrund der Lizenzthematik leider revertiert. 

Kollateralschäden bitte erneut erfassen.

Viele Grüße
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-09 05:50:57+00:00): Hi TMHWK, welcome to OSM and thanks for your contributions!

I noticed something interesting in your recent edits, specifically with the names at this location.

It appears a bit unusual.

Thanks.
TMHWK (2024-07-09 10:07:04+00:00): I will try to explain this edit:
The "Staabschneise" first of all has a typo in the name, since it is called "Staab Schneise" on OSM, which is not correct according to German grammar. So I changed the name.

Also, the road is too short on OSM: In reality, it continues onward to the south after the intersection with "Lieser Weg" and ends at the "Wildgehege".

I did not know how to prolong the existing road called Staabschneise, so I renamed the other road as well. Maybe there is a more elegant way to make this change?
Makeena (2024-07-08 22:58:03+00:00): Merkwürdig dass das Changeset so gross angezeigt wird. Ich habe eigentlich nur im und direkt um den Hönggerberger Wald Änderungen gemacht.
ZLima12 (2024-07-08 23:23:51+00:00): I forgot to include it in the source field, but I also used Bing Streetside here in a few places.
mcliquid (2024-07-09 09:13:33+00:00): Hallo, wusstest du, dass du die basemap.de nicht nutzen darfst? https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/maps4bw-und-basemap-de/6762
mathesoft (2024-07-13 22:16:35+00:00): Hi, vielen Dank für den Hinweis und Link zur Diskussion.
Nein, das wusste ich nicht - allerdings hatte ich damals bei der Umstellung von map4BW auf basemap in den Lizenzen auch keinen Hinweis entdecken können, der es nicht gestattet. Zwischenzeitliche Lizenzanpassungen bekomme ich nicht mit, weil ich da ja nicht jedesmal vorher hineinschaue.
Die könnten das Lesen der Daten durch OSM ja technisch sperren, wenn sie es verhindern wollten...
mcliquid (2024-07-14 06:41:35+00:00): Sehr gerne. Da hat sich zwischenzeitlich auch nichts geändert in der Lizenz. Die basemap.de war im Vergleich zu Maps4BW noch nie für OSM geeignet.
acarasimon96 (2024-07-09 01:08:28+00:00): Anyone who is more experienced than me please feel free to improve the geometry of the building.
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-09 17:12:41+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/153724264
DressyPear4 (2024-07-09 20:34:50+00:00): Olá, o que seriam essas edições?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153724472
DressyPear4 (2024-07-13 23:49:32+00:00): Áreas removidas
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153913106
não houve resposta sobre o que seriam.
tyfi (2024-07-09 00:48:06+00:00): This involved adding a bridge on a Cape Girardeau County road.
tyfi (2024-07-09 00:48:38+00:00): I am not fusing the county line to the creek without checking legal definitions of the parcels here
streetsurvma (2025-04-11 21:33:02+00:00): Hi Waffl.  While someone may have put up a sign, it's not always a reliable indication of private property.  The town map shows an easement (pubic) to where it's been re-edited to.  I ran it too by the way.  Thanks.
Fizzie-DWG (2024-07-19 03:23:30+00:00): Revertido pelo DWG devido ao mapeamento de baixa qualidade, em particular estradas que passam sob cursos d'água

Reverted by DWG for poor quality mapping, in particular roads passing under waterways

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154124885
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-13 08:59:08+00:00): I reviewed your chagneset as requested by you.  This changeset looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153725766
felipeeugenio (2024-07-09 12:43:14+00:00): reversado
EnumMapper (2024-07-09 09:28:28+00:00): 您好 关于 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/611435474， 它既是堤坝又是道路，所以应标记highway+embankment=yes
EnumMapper (2024-07-09 09:28:54+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/611435474
SomeoneElse (2024-07-09 12:54:51+00:00): As noted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/c%20tito%20young/diary/404518#comment57540 , the "shapes" here seem to be entirely fictional.  Perhaps some other project may be a better outlet for this drawing (uMap, maybe)?
Rodrigo Rega (2024-10-20 21:46:04+00:00): Opened note about this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4349485
SomeoneElse (2024-10-20 23:13:46+00:00): Hello,
I've created a forum topic at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/geoglyphs-added-in-nazca-peru/120420 - it'd be great to see people's comments there too.
Best Regards,
Andy