piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
map per (2023-02-28 10:52:30+00:00): Hello silakshm,

You didn't revert the changeset. You just deleted the highways which is not a good solution. These roads exist.
I would suggest to re-add them and  and change the highway value to track (or road if you prefer to do a clean revert of the Amazon edits and feel uncomfortable editing without lokal knowledge)

Do you know how to use the Reverter Plugin of the JOSM editor (2)? Thats, in my opinion, the best tool for the job.

Best regards
map per

(2) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Reverter
silakshm (2023-02-28 11:06:15+00:00): Hi, 

Thank you for your suggestion. Upon performing the necessary checks we see that there is no physical road existing in ground reality based on the available aerial views. The pavement is obscured by vegetation in all the available imageries. Hence I have deleted the segments. 

If you have any local information about the physical existence of the road, request you to kindly let us know and we will make the necessary edits from our end.

Regards,
silakshm
map per (2023-02-28 12:40:30+00:00): I restored the deleted ways
map per (2023-02-28 20:54:28+00:00): Hello silakshm,

There are several similar problems and beginner's mistakes in other changesets of niskumal and yadavzhi.
I would therefore suggest that you or some amazon reviewer should review all of their recent changesets. 
I don't know the changeset number any more, but I saw e.g. ways changed to service roads entirely surrounded by tracks. These ways are probably rather tracks to.

OSMCha (3) is a very good tool for analyzing changesets. You can use the filter function to ony get edits from niskumal and yadavzhi.

Best regards
map per

(3) https://osmcha.org/
silakshm (2023-03-01 10:26:40+00:00): Hi, 

Thank you for your feedback. There appears to be a knowledge gap with the editor which resulted in this error. 

Let us assure you that very edit made by us on OSM is reviewed by our internal team for quality assurance. 
To ensure that we identify and correct any errors that may have occurred in this task, as suggested by you we will recheck all edits made by niskumal and yadavzhi and take necessary actions to avoid any future misses.

Regards,
silakshm
map per (2023-03-09 20:37:53+00:00): Hello silakshm,

what's the current status of this? Are you finished with the review or can you give an estimate how long it wil probably take? Have you found and fixed the service roads entirely surrounded by tracks?

Thanks and best regards
map per
deepikja (2023-03-15 12:33:31+00:00): Hi,
We apologize for the errors created by these two editors which have flown into OSM due to technical issues. We assure you that we will fix all the service roads entirely surrounded by tracks and restore the previous edits based on latest available imageries. 
We are currently re-evaluating every edit made by niskumal and yadavzhi as per your recommendation. We'll make sure the mistakes are fixed by March 18th. 
Regards,
Deepikja
map per (2023-03-15 23:01:36+00:00): Great, thanks!
map per (2023-03-22 12:46:38+00:00): Could you please share the results of your evaluation with me. Which changesets were fixed by you?

The service roads in the forrest, entirely surrounded by tracks weren't fixed yet.
deepikja (2023-04-02 17:32:48+00:00): Hi Skyper, 
We have audited the changesets created by niskumal and yadavzhi, identified majority of the errors created by them and reverted their edits. 
To identify the errors which could have flown into OSM basis we could retrain the team on the etiquettes to be followed while editing, we are conducting a second review of all the 1296 change sets created between Decemeber-2022 to till date by our experienced reviewers and fix errors.
We will update you once the audit is done (ETA: 4/4/23).
The status of the audit will be shared on the changeset 129308457 for your reference. 
Regards,
Deepikja
SherbetS (2023-02-27 04:53:29+00:00): wrong account.
AndresDuhour (2023-07-19 12:04:54+00:00): Buen dia! estoy revisando algunas etiquetas de acceso y veo que el tramo de la calle Italia que cruza la vía dice access=no pero también foot=yes y motor_vehicle=yes.  ¿Será más apropiado sacar la etiqueta access=no? Saludos! Andrés
FS Patagonia (2023-07-20 01:17:21+00:00): Hola Andrés! Quizá la etiqueta más apropiada sea access=permissive (con motor_vehicle=permissive y foot=yes), porque eventualmente se corta el paso para eventos culturales, al igual que la Av. San Martín (en el mismo tramo). De paso, podrías quitar access=no de la calle Elena de la Vega? Si bien es similar a la calle Italia, tengo entendido que no se suele cerrar al paso vehicular. Saludos!
AndresDuhour (2023-07-20 02:49:34+00:00): Hola! ahí cambié las etiquetas de acceso.  Lo que yo veo en las notas del municipio y las fotos que hay es que pasan a ser conexiones entre las dos partes de la ciudad para mejorar el tránsito. Por  eso me pareció mejor sacar las etiquetas de acceso quedando como el resto de las calles, sin restricciones (https://www.zapala.gob.ar/tramo-final-para-las-obras-en-calle-italia/) ¿Qué te parece? Saludos!
AndresDuhour (2023-07-20 02:51:32+00:00): Ahora leo el mensaje de nuevo y decías lo de los eventos culturales, pero por ahí son menos frecuentes que el uso general de la nueva calle, que es la conexión de tránsito. Bueno, vamos viendo. Saludos!
jmarchon (2023-02-28 00:01:41+00:00): Hey!
I've fixed up the geometry on the way you added here.
Have a nice day
silakshm (2023-02-28 06:16:45+00:00): Hi, 

Thank you for reviewing the changeset and making the necessary corrections. We have provided feedback to the editor to ensure that the future edits are made using lastest resources available to avoid such errors.

Regards,
silakshm
jmarchon (2023-02-28 06:26:58+00:00): Sounds great, thank you!
Glassman (2023-02-28 22:55:14+00:00): #TIP: try to match the building outline to the roof. It looks like you included part of the driveway.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133070510
mavl (2023-04-25 08:59:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
hatul (2023-02-27 08:12:41+00:00): תודה על התרומה אבל שברת את שביל ישראל. בבקשה היזהר כשאתה עורך אותו והוסף את היחס לקטע חדש אם הוספת.
zstadler (2023-12-02 10:13:54+00:00): הי חיליק,

שוב תודה על העריכות והעדכונים שאתה מכניס למפה

 לסינגלים רבים, במיוחד סינגלים רשמיים, יש יחס שמחבר את כל הקטעים שלהם. על היחס הזה מתייגים את כל הפרטים של השינגל, בין השאר את השם שלו.
במצב זה, לא משכפלים את שם הסינגל בקטעים עצמם.

אם אין לסינגל יחס, אז השם נכנס לתגיות
mtb:name
mtb:name:he
ולא לתגיות השם הרגילות.

בעריכה הזו, החזרת את השם "ריש לקיש" לקטע
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223925997/history
אחרי שנעשה כבר נקיון של כפילויות של שמות סינגלים

זה נכון גם לגבי הוספת השמות לקטעים של סינגל חנתון בעריכה
openstreetmap.org/changeset/133071841

כן מקובל לתת שם למקטע אם הוא שונה מהשם של היחס. למשל, הקטע של סינגל פילו שהוא חלק ממסלול האופניים של תל חדיד

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/83347910

תודה,
זאב
חיליק אגמון (2023-12-02 13:14:19+00:00): אוקיי, הבנתי, סורי
zstadler (2023-12-02 14:05:06+00:00): הכל טוב! כולנו לומדים כל הזמן!
Bienson (2023-02-27 18:26:01+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133099017
silakshm (2023-02-28 06:23:35+00:00): Hi, 

We appreciate you making the necessary corrections and alerting us about this. The editor has accidentally deleted the tags. To prevent such mistakes in the future, we have given the editor strict feedback.

Regards,
silakshm
mavl (2023-04-25 09:05:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
user_11609320 (2023-02-27 05:16:52+00:00): STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE - SHC
DIVISION 1. STATE HIGHWAYS [50 - 897] ( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 29. )
CHAPTER 2. The State Highway System [230 - 635] ( Chapter 2 enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 29. )

ARTICLE 3. The State Highway Routes [300 - 635] ( Article 3 repealed and added by Stats. 1963, Ch. 385. )

366.
(a) Route 66 is from:

(1) Route 210 near San Dimas to the eastern city limit of the City of Pomona.

(2) The eastern city limit of the City of Rialto to Route 215 in San Bernardino.

(b) The relinquished former portions of Route 66 within the city limits of the Cities of Claremont, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, and Upland are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81
mavl (2023-04-25 09:07:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
mavl (2023-04-25 09:06:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
map per (2023-02-27 07:09:40+00:00): Are you kidding me?

This clearly isn't a service road either

Best regards
map per
deepikja (2023-02-27 10:03:17+00:00): Hi, 
Thank You for highlighting the issue. This is an honest mistake made by the editor. I have reverted the edit basis the ground reality classified the segment as a path. We have provided the feedback to the editor to avoid such mistakes in future. 

Regards,
Deepikja
user_11609320 (2023-02-27 05:27:29+00:00): STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE - SHC
DIVISION 1. STATE HIGHWAYS [50 - 897] ( Division 1 enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 29. )
CHAPTER 2. The State Highway System [230 - 635] ( Chapter 2 enacted by Stats. 1935, Ch. 29. )

ARTICLE 3. The State Highway Routes [300 - 635] ( Article 3 repealed and added by Stats. 1963, Ch. 385. )

366.
(a) Route 66 is from:

(1) Route 210 near San Dimas to the eastern city limit of the City of Pomona.

(2) The eastern city limit of the City of Rialto to Route 215 in San Bernardino.

(b) The relinquished former portions of Route 66 within the city limits of the Cities of Claremont, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Rialto, and Upland are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81
map per (2023-02-27 07:06:58+00:00): Hello niskumal,

from the aerial imagery one can easily tell that this footway is way to narrow to be a service road.
Why did you change the classification form path to service?

Best regards
map per
deepikja (2023-02-27 10:12:24+00:00): Hi,
We appreciate you alerting us about this. I went back and corrected the editor's honest error using the aerial images. To prevent such mistakes in the future, we have given the editor strict feedback.
Regards,
Deepika
Glassman (2023-02-28 23:20:14+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071038
wille (2023-02-28 22:46:10+00:00): Olá,

Muito obrigado por suas contribuições ao OpenStreetMap! É muito importante para nós ter sua colaboração. Algumas modificações que você fez em sua edição não estão corretas. Você modificou a área de um edifício para cobrir todo o terreno do condomínio, o que é considerado errado pela comunidade.

Caso tenha alguma dúvida, pode entrar em contato comigo.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071071
user_18541240 (2023-02-28 23:31:38+00:00): Obrigado por me alerta ! Vou corrigir assim que tiver tempo !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071071
Nomes e Ruas (2023-03-01 00:27:38+00:00): Agradecido pelo Feedback .
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071071
muralito (2023-02-27 12:15:51+00:00): Hola. ¿Que fue lo que quisiste agregar o corregir?
¿El Barrio 17 de Noviembre lo borraste a proposito?
Glassman (2023-02-28 23:23:29+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071163
Glassman (2023-02-28 23:20:57+00:00): #TIP: square buildings by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071166
Baloo Uriza (2023-02-27 13:24:08+00:00): addr:street should contain the full street name without abbreviations.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071217
Glassman (2023-02-28 23:21:47+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071390
Glassman (2023-02-28 23:22:00+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071426
Glassman (2023-02-28 23:22:16+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071451
Glassman (2023-02-28 23:27:47+00:00): This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.

It appears you accidentally dragged a crossing node in Mukilteo. It has been fixed.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071491
mavl (2023-04-25 09:01:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
literan (2023-02-27 11:16:14+00:00): накосячили здесь, стянули дороги в одну точку. Откачу.
Glassman (2023-02-28 23:28:47+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071582
mavl (2023-02-27 07:27:20+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 130823935, 130824110, 130824440, 130824795, 130824866, 130852297, 130852493, 130852528, 130852576, 130858440, 130868631, 131535761, 131536722, 131721390, 131721819, 131722144, 131722399, 131722565, 131730076, 131730564, 131919391, 131925386, 131951900, 131952682, 131954539, 132033296, 132145074, 132157140, 132159284.
mavl (2023-04-25 09:00:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
Glassman (2023-02-28 23:31:53+00:00): It looks like the Whidbey Island Bagel Factory node was accidentally dragged to the service road. Can you review this edit?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133071764
map per (2023-02-27 07:00:28+00:00): Hello niskumal,

why did you delete service=busway on this road? It's not a standard value but it makes sense so please don't do automated edits that delete rare service values (see (1)). (Undiscussed automated edits are not appreciated in OSM)

Best regards
map per

(1) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits
deepikja (2023-02-27 10:32:13+00:00): Hi, 
Thank you for writing us. In accordance with the recommendations listed in the OSM wiki, the editor removed service=busway tagging on the segment. The wiki states that we don't have the tag service=busway. The attribute bus=yes has already been tagged on the road indicating the road to be accessible by buses and the tag busway=* denotes the presence of at least one bus lane on one or more sides of the road. Please feel free to add your recommendations. 
Regards,
Deepikja
map per (2023-02-27 14:41:44+00:00): Hello Deepikja,
Thanks for the quick response.

In OSM there are no wrong or forbidden values. So anyone can come up with a new service=* value if they don't find an established one. See (2) for more on that. 

Its of course necessary for a consistent map to agree on common values and document them in the Wiki. Moreover ther is nothing wrong with changing the value to an established after individually assessing a case but systematically and mechanically deleting values just because they are not documented in the wiki is considered a mechanical or automated edit in OSM (See (1) for more on that). This means that planned changes have to be discussed with and approved by the community in advance.

I therefore think that the whole quest/task of deleting non standard values is not a good idea. I'd suggest to desist from it altogether.

(2) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like
deepikja (2023-03-14 08:15:18+00:00): Hi,
Thank you for providing your insights on the usage of service=* tags. 
We will incorporate this in our internal centralized wiki to ensure that going forward such edits do not flow from our end. 
Regards,
Deepikja
AndersAndersson (2023-02-27 22:02:25+00:00): Hello
What did you change here?
There are no skitracks on that track as far as I know. Since that track is used for parking.
Gobik (2023-02-28 07:33:58+00:00): The route did not connect and therefore it was not possible to plan.
AndersAndersson (2023-02-28 20:11:59+00:00): It is not possilbe to route between the two ski tracks beacuse there are no ski tracks connecting them.
From that track where you park your car you choose either nort or south, then you walk 50 m to the ski track.

Please stop changing things you have no knowledge about.
AndersAndersson (2023-03-02 15:59:55+00:00): I have now changed back so there is no connection between the two separate ski tracks. Like it is in reallity.
Gobik (2023-03-02 19:16:40+00:00): OK.
mcliquid (2023-03-01 07:23:08+00:00): Hallo, ich war so frei den Tippfehler im Namen zu korrigieren und den POI entsprechend als Agentur zu ergänzen, sodass ihr so auch aufgefunden werdet. Viele Grüße
Vonter (2023-02-27 15:17:52+00:00): Hello!

Thanks for your contribution to OSM! It's great to see OSM being used as a platform for documenting civic issues.

Nice to see that the `survey:date` tag was added . Generally the value is written in ISO 8601 with only the date specified, without the timestamp. I've trimmed the timestamps on the nodes where it was included.

Regarding the `status` tag, while it is valid, in this case the `operational_status` tag would be more appropriate. I've already gone ahead and changed it to `operational_status`, but if you feel `status` is better, I'd like to hear why.  I will revert it back to `status` if needed.

For reference, this is the changeset in which I made the above changes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133091628
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-03-04 11:23:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 133285457 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unreliable name changes.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6912 and links from there
OldManCelli (2023-06-22 15:01:15+00:00): Hello Omarshamayleh. You seem to have marked the town area as a building and marked it as a hotel?? I don't understand why you made this change. I'm going to change the area back to a town as this is definitely not a hotel.
marc__marc (2023-03-14 15:25:54+00:00): Hello,
is Horsnæs Fangststation the same as Zackenberg ?
you mapped both at the same location, one as cabin, the other as a building/locality
Regards,
Marc
andershl (2023-03-14 16:06:49+00:00): Needs some cleaning, thank you. Almost: Horsnæs Station and Zackenberg Base are identical. Then one specific building is called Zackenberg. I also note that a b uilding todayt only has a number. Typo.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-03-04 11:23:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 133285457 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unreliable name changes.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6912 and links from there
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-03-04 11:23:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 133285457 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unreliable name changes.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6912 and links from there
user_5359 (2023-05-24 10:03:24+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1149832712. What is the mean of the foreign tags
SHAPE_len = 3666.24525173
path_type  = 1
?
Langlaeufer (2023-02-27 09:12:42+00:00): Surface grass würde ich aber auch nur setzen, wenn wirklich vollständig grass ist und man keinen festen Grund mehr zum (hier Rad-) fahren findet.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/133076499
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2023-03-13 14:48:34+00:00): Vej 577203166 er ikke en tunnel.

Det er kun lige under bygningen at den bure være en building_passage
joost schouppe (2023-03-07 12:41:43+00:00): Niet-openbare wegen mogen wel nog op OpenStreetMap staan. Gelieve ze in de plaats aan te duiden als niet toegankelijk. Wel vreemd dat deze wge dan in GRB staat. De naam die eraan toegekend wordt is sowieso wel onterecht.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-03-04 11:22:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 133285457 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unreliable name changes.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6912 and links from there
eggie (2023-02-27 09:06:44+00:00): Dag Dutch..

Tip.. We zetten niet nogmaals de adressen op de gebouwomtrek. Er zijn al adresnodes.
Je zonnedaj staat 2x op de kaart Als node en als vlak. De node kan beter weg. 
Kijk je nog even? Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=133076731
MVG
eggie
DutchJackal (2023-02-27 09:17:34+00:00): Goeiemorgen. Bedankt voor de tip. Vroeg me al beetje af waarom er nergens een adres in stond. :)
Ik kijk het zonnedak even na.
eggie (2023-02-27 09:22:48+00:00): Top...!   De adressen heb ik net al even verwijderd.
Veel plezier met mappen.
MVG
eggie
DutchJackal (2023-02-27 09:25:04+00:00): Dat van het zonnendak snap ik even niet. Ik zie alleen het vlak dat ik getekend heb. Geen node. Of moet daar een aparte laag voor aan?
eggie (2023-02-27 09:28:44+00:00): Op het linker bovenhoekje hoek van het vlak staat een node met de zelfde eigenschappen als het vlak. Dat zal per abuis zijn gebeurd.
DutchJackal (2023-02-27 12:11:15+00:00): Ja die node kwam automatisch toen ik aanvinkte dat het een zonnedak was. Maar kon hem wel los opruimen zo te zien.
Diógenes de Sinope (2023-04-05 19:07:29+00:00): Hello miroslavuzice87,

As I was reviewing the changesets made to the city of Luanda, this one stood out to me in particular. 

The area that was given the title 'Residência Arão José', is it representative of a private or commercial property?
miroslavuzice87 (2023-04-06 11:11:59+00:00): Hi Diógenes de Sinope thank you for your question. Can't say for sure whether this is private or commercial property.