piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2026-02-13 11:45:42+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/6926045682 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-13 12:10:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/178500987
where the comment is: "Remove spam"
Rainero (2026-03-15 20:16:07+00:00): Revert mit changeset/179916090
(unzulässige Quelle)
Bienson (2026-02-14 17:28:19+00:00): Bitte die Verwendung von species und circumference Tags durchlesen und anpassen:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:species?uselang=de

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:circumference?uselang=de
Svalbard (2026-02-13 13:36:14+00:00): Hallo Peppi95, Du erfasst ja aktuell innerhalb eines größeren Bereiches im Kreis Steinburg Hausnummern u. Gebäude. Hast Du die Hausnummern alle vor Ort erhoben oder nutzt Du dazu das Geoportal SH? Ich frage, weil Du in einem Kommentar mir gegenüber schon einmal auf das Geoportal als „Quelle“ hingewiesen hast. Die Übernahme von Daten aus dem Geoportal ist nicht gestattet und Du würdest damit dem Projekt OpenStreetMap schaden. Praktische Hinweise: Doppelhäuser kann man mit jeder Hälfte als „semi-detached“ erfassen und jeder Hälfte die entspr. Hausnummer zuordnen (müsstest Du bei Vor-Ort-Aufnahme eigentlich leicht zuordnen können). Hausnummern bitte nicht mit „+“ aneinander reihen, sondern „,“ verwenden. Gebäude nicht mit Straßen verbinden (Münsterdorf Schallenberg 4,4a. Gruß Svalbard
rempshaener (2026-02-13 19:19:59+00:00): Hallo,
auch zu diesen Änderungen einige Anmerkungen:
- Du hast Farben angegeben, obwohl Unterflurhydraten in der Regel keine Farbe haben. Nur zur Klarstellung: Das ist die Farbe, die der Hydrant vor Ort hat. Das hat nichts mit der Darstellung in Karten oder Apps zu tun.
- Die Hydrantennummer gehört in „ref“.
Viele Grüße
Bienson (2026-02-14 17:31:07+00:00): Gibt es hier ein Gebäude mit dem Namen "Bildhauerei Breitzke"?
FriedhöfeDortmund_68654 (2026-02-15 13:28:14+00:00): Am Gebäude steht Bildhauerei Breitzke .
Bienson (2026-02-15 23:03:16+00:00): Also das Gebäude heißt "Bildhauerei Breitzke", ist aber kein Steinmetzbetrieb/Bildhauerei? So ist es eingetragen.
FriedhöfeDortmund_68654 (2026-02-16 06:07:49+00:00): Gebäudeart ist korrigiert.
LordGarySugar (2026-02-16 17:31:15+00:00): I have made some corrections here - the dentist and nursery features were duplicated, with nonexistent buildings added.
name=Nursery Staff Parking is a descriptive name, it should be unnamed with access=private and operator=Rothesay Nursery instead
rempshaener (2026-02-13 19:21:26+00:00): Hallo,
auch zu diesen Änderungen einige Anmerkungen:
- Du hast Farben angegeben, obwohl Unterflurhydraten in der Regel keine Farbe haben. Nur zur Klarstellung: Das ist die Farbe, die der Hydrant vor Ort hat. Das hat nichts mit der Darstellung in Karten oder Apps zu tun.
- Die Hydrantennummer gehört in „ref“.
Viele Grüße
Frans S (2026-02-14 16:43:32+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project.

Accurately mapped. However, please, square each rectangular building with the Q key while selected.
Best regards
b-jazz (2026-03-13 18:18:53+00:00): Please stop breaking golf courses by removing the multipolygons. What you are doing is not correct and is not appreciated when I have to come back over your changes and fix them up again. If you have problems with this, let's discuss it. Maybe I can help you understand your error. Thanks.
goodidea (2026-02-20 18:43:09+00:00): Hallo! Kleine Info: du hast am Zigarettenautomat vor 1 Woche check_date aktualisiert .... Ich war gerade dort. Die ref war nicht mehr aktuell, und Zahlungsweise Girokarte auch nicht mehr (jetzt girocard).

Ich ändere es gerade ....

Viele Grüße!
abrensch (2026-05-05 07:33:00+00:00): Gibt es hier einen Update?
NoGeoMapR (2026-05-05 08:48:43+00:00): Habe ein Update auf Basis der aktuellen Straßenverhältnisse durchgeführt. Ein zukünftiges Update wird benötigt sobald die Satellitendaten die neue Straßenführung zeigen.
eggie (2026-02-13 15:24:56+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
aharvey (2026-05-16 11:44:11+00:00): surface=concrete:plates are for prefabricated concrete plates, linked together on site. A typical concrete footpath is cast on site and is usually just surface=concrete.
NeisBot (2026-02-13 12:54:39+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 10 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1477765021 v2 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1477765023 v1 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/9068778160 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178502650
NeisReview (2026-02-22 05:33:48+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178503855
https://osm.org/changeset/178775640
Norbert Dichter (2026-02-20 13:17:17+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/178502738
felipeeugenio (2026-02-13 13:55:57+00:00): Hola. Es evidente que no todo es un scrub en este polígono; Hay una laguna completa. Incluso da la impresión de ser mas un heath que un scrub. 

Además, le puso glaciar a un pedazo de nieve.

En otra edición que hizo metió cosas que no son bosque en un polígono completo de bosque. Por favor darse el tiempo de mapear con más detalles y no solo para rellenar zonas vacías. Gracias y Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178502845
Horzhiy (2026-03-29 20:41:11+00:00): yes
woodpeck_repair (2026-04-09 09:08:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181086344 where the changeset comment is: revert implausible edits by Horzhiy
VictorIE (2026-03-05 01:39:47+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2643835/

"FIXME=What is this the boundary of? Should remove if we don't know."

That started life 13 years ago as an attempt at some form of definition of Rathfarnham, based on vibes, not legalities. Rathfarnham townland and Rathfarnham parish seem to be mapped separately, so I think this can be deleted.
Stalker61 (2026-02-13 13:28:36+00:00): В связи с чем удален участок кругового движения?
Stalker61 (2026-02-13 13:29:08+00:00): Вандальное исправление откатил.
Sotot (2026-03-05 12:44:54+00:00): Это не вандальное исправление, прошу изучить спутниковые снимки (https://retromap.ru/0020092_z18_62.351150,74.352223).

Также если не затруднит, можно проверить по Яндекс зеркалам (лето 2025 года) и подтвердить информацию со спутниковых снимков о том что там не полноценное круговое движение.
Stalker61 (2026-03-05 16:09:19+00:00): Вандализм самый примитивный. Я более 10 лет поддерживаю актуализацию автодорог в округе. Поэтому не надо мне подсказывать по НЯК. Есть еще и Google и Esri и т.д. Все доступные ресурсы мониторятся постоянно. Если не поняли, то объясняю популярно. Удалив участок кругового движения и оставив на way тег oneway=yes со стороны Когалыма на въезде на круг и выезде с круга в направлении на северо-запад вы сломали маршрутизацию для въезда в город через круг со стороны северо-запада. Этим загнали водителей на лишние 63,612 км, т.к. маршрутизатор именно так и "потащит". Как сказал один авторитетный осмер - за такое пальцы ломать надо.
GinaroZ (2026-02-13 17:39:37+00:00): This is the only object with boundary=religious_administration tagged in the entire UK, I really don't think it is required...
Martin Fairbairn (2026-02-14 09:29:06+00:00): Thanks GinaroZ.  You're right that it doesn't seem to have been used in the UK (although there are a couple of instances in the Republic of Ireland). But it is a valid value and I can't see a better tagging solution.
NeisBot (2026-02-13 13:18:41+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 17 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/229032726 v9 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/706561786 v3 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1476985507 v2 | 4 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/13546883956 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178503855
NeisReview (2026-02-22 05:33:48+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178776371
https://osm.org/changeset/178776892
https://osm.org/changeset/178852507
rempshaener (2026-02-14 07:24:13+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.

Du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Den Weg hast du mit der Begründung gelöscht, dass es sich um eine illegale MTB-Strecke durch ein Naturschutzgebiet handele. Daraus schließe ich, dass der Weg grundsätzlich vorhanden, die Nutzbarkeit aber eingeschränkt ist. Solche Wege erfassen wir üblicherweise. Erfasst wird, was vor Ort sichtbar ist. Die tatsächliche und rechtliche Nutzbarkeit wird z. B. über access-Werte angegeben. Das war hier der Fall, der Weg war mit access=no angegeben.
Etwas ausführlicher ist das Thema hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F beschrieben.
Für dieses Gebiet ist darüber hinaus hier https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/wegeloschungen-markischer-kreis-nahe-iserlohn/121121 eine Diskussion anhängig. Gerne kannst du dich zu diesem oder den anderen betroffenen Wegen dort einbringen.

Den Weg habe ich mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178532265 wiederhergestellt.
Viele Grüße
woodpeck (2026-03-05 13:04:56+00:00): Hallo 915, bitte bemühe Dich doch, etwas aussagekräftigere Changeset-Kommentare als "Update" zu nutzen ("Update" passt schliesslich auf jeden Edit). Details zum wieso und warum hier: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments
catgirlseraid (2026-02-24 20:19:09+00:00): Hi,

Can you please write more detailed changeset comments about what your changes are? Fixed logical issue on all changesets isn't very helpful when trying to look through history.

Thanks,
Phoebe
trigpoint (2026-02-14 00:03:43+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/178525774
trigpoint (2026-02-14 00:03:36+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/178525774
trigpoint (2026-02-14 00:03:33+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/178525774
trigpoint (2026-02-14 00:03:29+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/178525774
woodpeck_repair (2026-07-03 14:55:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 185044755, 185044712, 185044792, 185043031, 185044858, 185044854, 185044726, 185044802, 185044684, 185044693, 185043064, 185044766, 185044834, 185044779, 185043050, 185044776, 185043074, 185043054, 185044732, 185043091, 185044704, 185044746, 185044715, 185043085, 185044894, 185044810, 185044795, 185044765, 185044862, 185043059, 185044750, 185044758, 185043076, 185044812, 185044785, 185043015, 185043039, 185044823, 185044748, 185044738, 185044744, 185044734, 185044845, 185044702, 185044835, 185044888, 185044873, 185044731, 185044879, 185044817, 185044827, 185044789, 185044865, 185044720, 185044843, 185043045, 185044839, 185044849, 185044771, 185044694, 185044768, 185044707, 185043066 where the changeset comment is: revert undiscussed and buggy imports in Ivory Coast
jack walker2 (2026-02-13 13:54:59+00:00): 同时增加了蒲河 但两条河流的绘制还比较粗糙 需要进一步优化
trigpoint (2026-02-14 00:03:24+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/178525774
Marc_ch (2026-02-18 14:04:10+00:00): Bonjour,

Merci pour cette contribution.

Pourrais-tu mettre une description de changement plus parlante ?
la géographie du change dit déjà que c'est à Genève, ce qui est important c'est plutot le pourquoi, par ex "le Quai des Vernets a été rebatisé Chemin Renée-Colliard"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications

Pour la source, "vu" en terme osm se dit "survey" :)

Bonne continuation et encore merci.

Salutations,
Marc
NeisBot (2026-02-13 14:24:44+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/way/944787735 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "guide office"
---
Наприклад, більш нейтральна й фактична версія вашого тексту могла б бути: "офіс-гід"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-22 05:33:42+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178885362
(No visible changes after review)
b-jazz (2026-02-18 23:01:36+00:00): RE: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1477800833

When drawing golf course areas (i.e. greens, fairways, bunkers, tees, etc.), please be aware that the ways (lines) used to outline those areas must not cross over each other. Fairway outlines shouldn't cross over greens or bunkers or other fairways for example. Take a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Golf.png for an example of the "Wrong" way to map a fairway and a green along with the right way. There are some cases where a fringe exists around a green and you should draw the fairway outline completely around a green, leaving room for the fringe. Other times, the fairway and green butt up against each other. In that case the fairway and green should share the same nodes at the boundary between the two, and every node at the boundary needs to be shared leaving no gaps. When drawing these shared nodes, editors like iD (built into openstreetmap.org) will "snap" to an existing node if you get close enough. If you have any questions about golf course mapping, feel free to reach out. Thanks.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-22 08:16:01+00:00): Reverted changeset adding SEO POI from Google Maps, which is not allowed per both OSM and Google's policies (see https://osm.wiki/Google ), in changeset 184420162

https://osm.org/changeset/184420162
LordGarySugar (2026-03-19 03:01:43+00:00): Hey, I've corrected the buildings here as they didn't match very well with reality. You can use OSMUK cadastral parcels to see where the terraced houses should be split. Also, building=house + house=terrace should be used instead of building=terrace for individual houses. Thanks.
vogelfreier (2026-03-22 12:30:24+00:00): Hi, of course I can use Osmuk – it’s always been there for me when I’ve needed it. In other words, if for some reason I can’t access Osmuk, then I can’t use it.
Since we use JOSM, there’s the ‘terracer’ tool alongside the ‘Building’ tool to break things down more precisely. Osmuk can be helpful for capturing details more accurately, but are these taken from official survey maps? Without wanting to spark any property boundary disputes here, I find the blue lines too imprecise.
I remember the term "Terrace" being used differently to record rows of buildings; it must have been yet another change over time that one doesn’t really notice.
Regards, Rüdiger
Translated with deepl.com
NorthCrab_upload (2026-02-14 01:34:11+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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/node/13555958859

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2026-02-14 01:34:09+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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/node/13555955545

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NeisBot (2026-02-13 14:54:43+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/13311802251 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-22 05:33:42+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178885363
(No visible changes after review)
lslgr (2026-02-20 08:49:19+00:00): Der Acker "Obergefell" besteht aus zwei getrennten Äckern, die von einem ehem. Fußweg von Weidhausen nach Lind getrennt werden (siehe Boris-TH: https://thueringenviewer.thueringen.de/thviewer3/boris.html?DATECHANGER=%7B%22date%22%3A%2201.01.2024%22%7D)

Mir ist klar, dass dieser Weg nicht eingezeichnet werden sollte, da er nicht mehr existiert, aber die Flurgrenze halte ich hier schon für einzeichnungswürdig ... oder nicht?
WoSoe (2026-02-21 05:24:39+00:00): Moin!
Du hast doch selbst die beiden Flächen mit einem Multipolygon (MP) zu einer Ackerfläche zusammengefasst. Siehe hier:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20203085/history/1

Da sich jedoch die äußeren Flächen (Linienzüge) an mehreren Knoten (Punkten) berührt haben, ist ein ungültiges MP entstanden.

Den Datenfehler habe ich behoben, indem ich die beiden Flächen direkt ohne MP zusammengefasst habe.

Kann auf keinem Luftbild eine Trennung der beiden Flächen erkennen.
Sehe nur eine »echte« Trennung der Ackerfläche durch den Weg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/127350279/history#map=18/50.341925/11.200459&layers=N

Diese ist jedoch mit deinen Änderungen verloren gegangen.
eggie (2026-02-13 15:27:03+00:00): Welcome to OSM .. Please stick to the project.
Why changing addressnode 27 to an other area?

Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2026-02-13 16:06:51+00:00): Adres hersteld
Yog Sot (2026-02-13 16:50:09+00:00): a skąd akurat taki przebieg płotu? Jak to mierzyłeś?
Bo wiedza lokalna to za mało.
フーヴァー　リー (2026-02-17 00:27:29+00:00): 嘉兴是什么小地方？
Dino Michelini (2026-02-20 08:19:42+00:00): Hi, I think the change to add Highway=pedestrian when I used place=square is incorrect because it's missing the area=yes tag (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Square). So, you should correct what you've classified. Thanks.
vojtechzaboril (2026-02-20 10:20:27+00:00): Hi,
I didn't find on the wiki, that the area=yes is needed for the place=square. But I added it, because it is easier than finding if it is needed and why.
Stephan Zinke (2026-03-30 12:21:45+00:00): Hi,
warum wurde der nördliche Bahnsteig mit subway=yes attributiert? Der nördliche Bahnsteif ist doch die Stadtbahn, also lightrail.
georginakirrin (2026-03-30 14:16:05+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Da habe ich mich offensichtlich verklickt. Ist korrigiert.
redsixfive (2026-02-13 15:34:21+00:00): This was placed today 02/13/26 unable to determine direction of camera due to it not being fully up yet.
NeisBot (2026-02-13 15:36:43+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/way/559140896 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "water bottling plant"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-02-22 05:33:43+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/178517635
MassCartog (2026-02-13 16:25:10+00:00): Thanks for updating those access tags! Only thing to note is the name tags should be used for a features name not a description of its access. But it seems like those proposed trail features were tagged incorrectly already, they were marked as in construction, when it seems like that's not true. So I fixed that. Thanks for updating osm!

More info if you are interested:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
woodpeck_repair (2026-07-03 14:55:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 185044755, 185044712, 185044792, 185043031, 185044858, 185044854, 185044726, 185044802, 185044684, 185044693, 185043064, 185044766, 185044834, 185044779, 185043050, 185044776, 185043074, 185043054, 185044732, 185043091, 185044704, 185044746, 185044715, 185043085, 185044894, 185044810, 185044795, 185044765, 185044862, 185043059, 185044750, 185044758, 185043076, 185044812, 185044785, 185043015, 185043039, 185044823, 185044748, 185044738, 185044744, 185044734, 185044845, 185044702, 185044835, 185044888, 185044873, 185044731, 185044879, 185044817, 185044827, 185044789, 185044865, 185044720, 185044843, 185043045, 185044839, 185044849, 185044771, 185044694, 185044768, 185044707, 185043066 where the changeset comment is: revert undiscussed and buggy imports in Ivory Coast
Herman Lee (2026-02-13 16:05:08+00:00): 修改集名称：对于副站名的合并性修正
Bartek444 (2026-02-23 18:24:05+00:00): błędna nazwa - poprawiłem
Tomas Straupis (2026-02-13 19:12:36+00:00): O kodėl Marijampolėje 9 metrai pietūs buvo sugadinti? Pagal internetą tai ten tikrai ne parduotuvė, o maitinimo įstaiga.
Ignas07 (2026-02-13 19:17:23+00:00): Pakeičiau atgal į restoraną, nežinau kodėl pasikeitė.