piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Oregonian3 (2026-07-08 01:48:01+00:00): So far I finished Oregon and received no pushback at all (I don't think I got a single changeset comment in well over 200 changesets tbh). I take the lack of pushback as a sign that I'm doing something right :)

Do you have any specific concerns about any road? It's a very manual process and if I'm doing it right I should be able to answer why I upgraded any road that I did; it's not an automated upgrade with no thought put into it.

BTW I know that changing the classification of roads to and from trunk is controversial, hence I'm avoiding these too, although generally the trunk network in the western US is in a good spot already and I wouldn't make many changes at all even without this.

For rural areas and even some smaller urban areas, there are often no mappers who have ever gone through and looked at road classification at all. This led to inconsistent, nonsensical, or other classifications that were pretty clearly wrong. So this is more of a "first pass" in these areas just to get something on the board beyond automated tiger classifications or large bulk classifications. Will I always be right? Of course not; open to any modifications that anyone makes as long as it's justified.
Ielenia (2026-07-11 02:15:45+00:00): Sorry if I'm coming across as hostile (I hope i don't....), just trying to make sense of some of your edits as someone who's quite familiar with the area.

I do have some thoughts about some of the classifications you've made so far but I haven't had the time to thoroughly review all of your changes - that may be coming soon though now that I'm coming up on the end of my vacation.
In the meantime, I've tried to restart some discussion about road classification in WA on both the wiki [1] and OSMUS slack, and you're more than welcome to have some input into either of those.
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Compdude/Draft:Washington_highways#Primary/Secondary/Tertiary_roads
Oregonian3 (2026-07-12 20:13:09+00:00): Sorry for the delay, been busy the past few days. No need to apologize! I do prefer using the wiki over Slack since it's way more transparent and leaves a permanent record of what's decided so that others can reference it later. Will take a look at the discussion there and respond when I have some time to look it over.
Wildsharky (2026-07-09 05:32:51+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185319396
felipeeugenio (2026-07-08 12:23:12+00:00): Hola. Bienvenido a OSM. Gracias por sus ediciones. Se ve que conoce el lugar.

No obstante, analizando sus ediciones con otro mapero, vemos que varios de los tags usados simplemente no cuadran con lo que se observa en terreno:
1) realmente llevan la palabra "garita" en el nombre los paraderos?
2) varios paraderos llevan el que tienen un time table, una plataforma y un departure board. En ninguno se observa tal.
3) en algunos les puso shelter=no, siendo que claramente tienen techo.
4) algunos están con Paradero L-55 siendo que esa no es la ruta.
En la medida que miramos van saliendo mas detalles. 

En todo caso, cometer este tipo de errores es normal al principio y no pasa nada grave, son cosas fáciles de corregir y da la impresión que está relacionado con que el editor que usa a veces propone agregar propiedades a los elementos que no corresponden. Le pedimos por favor aclarar estos tags para ayudarlo.



Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185305015
Udarian (2026-07-08 00:38:51+00:00): I am pretty sure that the relation added in this changeset is a duplicate of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1236474.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
aighes (2026-07-08 00:55:51+00:00): Apart from that I believe we do not use "superrelations" in the US, that's why I haven't found it. Thanks for pointing that out. Shall can migrate the MSA to the old relation?
Udarian (2026-07-08 01:08:59+00:00): which ever you'd prefer, I don't care much either way.
aighes (2026-07-08 21:44:00+00:00): fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185371457
Minh Nguyen (2026-07-18 00:57:47+00:00): We do use superrelations for some things like routes, but not for boundaries. Anyways, here’s the forum discussion on whether we should even have MSA boundaries in OSM:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/chicago-metropolitan-area-relation/131055/9
eerib (2026-07-08 01:03:24+00:00): Dear EricJMilannn12,

The Parks Act, which governs the management of Provincial Parks, restricts cycling, equestrian use, and motorized vehicle use on trails that have not been officially authorized. However, these restrictions do not apply to pedestrian access. As a result, unpermitted trails remain open to hiking and walking unless access is specifically prohibited through signage or another authorized closure device.

For this reason, the unsanctioned trails in this provincial park are appropriately tagged with the following legal access designations: `foot=yes`, `bicycle=no`, `horse=no`, and `motor_vehicle=no`.

For reference, the relevant legislation is available here:

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/180_90_01

Thank you, eerib
eerib (2026-07-08 01:04:32+00:00): Discussion available in

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185306892
arjunaraoc (2026-07-08 06:41:48+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  Andhra Pradesh page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh) and  join OSM Andhra Pradesh Telegram channel (https://t.me/osmandhra). This software requires that I review everything as either 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. 

Additional comments for resolving the issue: 
 You deleted Wikidata for  and wikipedia tags for https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5478104014#map=19/16.463875/81.746787

Was there a problem? If it is a mistake can you add them back.

If you can't resolve, please respond to the discussion on changset, so that another contributor can help fix it.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185307941
rajdhani (2026-07-09 09:45:30+00:00): Partially Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185396450
arafqus (2026-07-09 17:01:37+00:00): Can you provide the link to this youtube video you are talking about? because irl, it ver much fits the criterias of a motorway
arjunaraoc (2026-07-08 06:34:54+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  Andhra Pradesh page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Andhra_Pradesh) and  join OSM Andhra Pradesh Telegram channel (https://t.me/osmandhra).

Please add source information such as satellite image, local knowledge for your edits.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185308928
JonVader (2026-07-08 02:45:02+00:00): Put in on 7-2-26
citrula (2026-07-08 05:16:45+00:00): Adding the road name to this driveway seems a bit odd. Can you explain why you have made this change?
Wildsharky (2026-07-09 12:10:17+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185390139
Glassman (2026-07-08 20:01:40+00:00): #TIP: when removing a business, leave the address tags for use when another business opens there.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185313258
pwbriggs (2026-07-16 16:36:59+00:00): What do you mean, https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Glassman? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4350176699/history/5 didn't have any address tags.
Glassman (2026-07-16 18:33:41+00:00): My mistake, there were no address tags.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185313258
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-08 06:46:57+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Please see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Reverted adding SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185319741
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-08 06:44:37+00:00): Re-reverted this and changeset 185313988 ( https://osm.org/changeset/185313988 ) in changeset 185318763:

https://osm.org/changeset/185318763
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-08 06:08:15+00:00): Please stop re-adding promotional/SEO text to this node!

description=* is for short, neutral, factual descriptions, not marketing copy or advertising. This has already been cleaned up before; further repeat additions may be reported to the Data Working Group.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-08 06:44:57+00:00): Re-reverted this and changeset 185313923 ( https://osm.org/changeset/185313923 ) in changeset 185318763:

https://osm.org/changeset/185318763

Already watchlisted and reported to Grant with their previous changesets; as I was reporting a hundred or more SEO spam accounts per week and the most they could do was a 0-hour block and various internal watchlisting (otherwise the SEO spammer would simply create a new account), DWG requested that reports be made via the web report feature going forward. I have some ideas on further tools to deal with this that I've been compiling that I'll DM you later today.
Wildsharky (2026-07-09 12:11:28+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185395777
ajmat (2026-07-09 11:09:25+00:00): Partially Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185400668
Sanniu (2026-07-09 09:00:45+00:00): Hi, you've added https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1536436659 without tags, can you add appropriate tags?
eggie (2026-07-08 06:41:56+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback   Meestal zijn tweewielers uitgezonderd van tweerichting verkeer. Is dat hier het geval. Dan toevoegen oneway:bicycle=no en ook evt voor mofa en moped.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
JanjaapR (2026-07-08 06:55:46+00:00): Bedankt voor de feedback, ik ga het aanpassen!
eggie (2026-07-08 07:04:32+00:00): Top.. Ik had het voor fietsers al aangepast,
..maar zie nu op de Obliek luchtfoto dat het ook voor moped geldt volgens het onderbord.
Mapse,
Bij de doorgang door het water hwt ik het water deels verwijderd.
Daar zou je nog een duiker kunnen intekenen.
..tunnel=culvert
..layer=-1
.. waterway=drain
Mapse
eggie (2026-07-08 07:05:52+00:00): ..hwt> heb.. 
Dat gaat over de Beuckelstr
SomeoneElse (2026-07-10 15:22:42+00:00): Hello,
Do the things added here really exist?
manjita pandey (2026-07-28 07:49:25+00:00): This changeset was the part of test datasets unaware that the changesets will be populated on osm production server. You can view the hashtags and host to confirm my statement.
We, however, will make sure not to add any test data to osm on days to come.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-08 06:48:17+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Please see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Reverted adding SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185319815
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-08 06:46:00+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. See https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Reverted adding SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags, likely sourced from Google Maps, in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185319685
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-08 07:02:48+00:00): Skąd pomysł że to nazwy własne? Jest jakieś użycie tego poza tym jednym profilem na FB?
Yog Sot (2026-07-08 08:37:14+00:00): Widać, że więcej osób zna okolicę, 
pozwolę sobie przenieść wiadomości z poprzedniego zestawu zmian:
tak, nazwa jest dość powszechnie znana w okolicy i dla lokalnej wiary, jest rozpoznawalna. Ludzie szukaja tego miejsca i chcą je zobaczyć.
177-letnie Majestatyczne dęby to niejako nazwa własna, ale niewiele już z nich zostało.
https://publicystyka.ngo.pl/raport-monitoring-procesow-ochrony-lasow-w-polsce-czerwiec-lipiec-2025
Chociaż pniaki po tych ściętych dębach są dość okazałe. Można sią bawić w liczenie słoi :)
Ciekawa sprawa dla ludzi, którzy odwiedzają las i chcą znaleźć jego konkretne fragmenty, więc to faktycznie nazwa, a nie opis.

Wczoraj pisałem również iż:
Rozmawiałem z przedstawicielem lokalnej społeczności z Wojnówka nieopodal. Powiedział, że zna las właśnie z tej nazwy i właśnie taka nazwa jest dla nich ważna. Pewno również będą działać w tym temacie. 

Co do samego raportu, skontaktuj sie również z European Space Agency Network of Resources Initiative (ESA) o projekt o numerze ID 5513UJ w okresie 15 czerwca 2025 r. - 15 czerwca 2026 r. Specjalnie dowiedziałem się szczegóły abyś mógł to sprawdzić.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-08 09:58:03+00:00): patrz też https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185036015
dvdhoven (2026-07-08 06:40:23+00:00): Wil je aub wel alle routerelaties inladen voor je met bussen aan de gang gaat?
Ik heb nu al meerdere knooppuntroutes gerepareerd, die als gevolg van jouw wijzigingen onderbroken waren.

Alvast bedankt
Dick van den Hoven
Thierry1030 (2026-07-09 04:08:39+00:00): Dag Mappers_Delight, uitnodiging voor event op 11/7 goed ontvangen?
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-08 23:18:15+00:00): Reverted repeated re-adding of SEO spam tags with blatant advertising and malformed keys/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185375007
eggie (2026-07-08 08:18:29+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
woodpeck_repair (2026-07-24 22:40:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 186321414 where the changeset comment is: revert airport edits by user olehz - Croatia
eggie (2026-07-08 08:19:09+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
BCNorwich (2026-07-08 07:49:16+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The name is on the building outline, it only needs to be tagged once.

Regards Bernard.
MKnight (2026-07-08 09:53:13+00:00): Moin, bitte beim Korrigieren auch drüber schauen ob die Werte schlüssig sind, siehe: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185328892#map=19/51.341533/11.110989
söm4324 (2026-07-08 10:01:18+00:00): Hi, was genau passt nicht?
MKnight (2026-07-08 14:52:07+00:00): das Semikolon.
https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/?EXP=Mo-Fr%2008%3A00-12%3A00%3B%20Tu%2CWe%2014%3A00-17%3A00&lat=48.7769&lon=9.1844&mode=0&DATE=1635174660000 

vs 

https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/?EXP=Mo-Fr%2008%3A00-12%3A00%3B%20Tu%2CWe%2014%3A00-17%3A00&lat=48.7769&lon=9.1844&mode=0&DATE=1635174660000
MKnight (2026-07-08 14:53:21+00:00): uuh 2 Mal der selbe Link, macht nix, schau Dir einfach die Grafik unten an, so war das vor meiner Korrektur
söm4324 (2026-07-08 16:08:16+00:00): Ah, ok, verstanden, was du meinst.

Bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/344996289/history war bereits von vornherein das ; vor "Mo,Tu,Th" falsch, was ich nicht gesehen habe. Danke für den Hinweis und das Korrigieren.
eggie (2026-07-08 07:07:40+00:00): ..oneway:foot=no regel kun je jelemaal verwijderen.
Daar geldt geen oneway=yes voor
mavl (2026-07-10 14:43:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 185480597 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20921].
eggie (2026-07-08 07:09:06+00:00): ..foot=private kan weg. De algemene accesstag is voldoende.
Staat er wel bebording art 461 wvs?
JanjaapR (2026-07-08 07:14:35+00:00): Bedankt! Weggehaald. Bebording wordt binnenkort geplaatst.
eggie (2026-07-08 07:16:50+00:00): 👍
eggie (2026-07-08 07:17:43+00:00): Oke.. motor_vehicle=private is ook dubbel. Kan weg.
eggie (2026-07-08 08:33:21+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
Wildsharky (2026-07-09 12:12:11+00:00): Partially reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185398031
habi (2026-07-08 07:42:24+00:00): Nein, https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5376515 erledigt...
eggie (2026-07-08 08:19:59+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
eggie (2026-07-08 08:50:20+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
eggie (2026-07-08 10:25:59+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
Fraxi (2026-07-08 07:59:00+00:00): стълби. Не сгради...
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-16 06:10:18+00:00): DWG revert - poor quality undiscussed import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185825530
MappingMore (2026-07-10 06:13:11+00:00): Partially Revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185269366
hlfan (2026-07-08 22:14:11+00:00): Does this colleague work at the ÖBB by any chance? I certainly don't trust the distance to the railway being no more than six meters.
Gorger (2026-07-09 12:56:04+00:00): Hi hlfan, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.
Gorger (2026-07-09 15:21:13+00:00): Hi hlfan,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I misinterpreted the request and created a highway=construction feature on another segment that wasn't needed. I've since corrected the issue.
alessandrocarmeli (2026-07-15 18:09:07+00:00): le relazioni nella nuova rotonda?
eggie (2026-07-08 08:34:16+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
Tuplanolla (2026-07-08 19:58:42+00:00): These dirt paths through the bushes are not paved with asphalt. The footways to the buildings may be, although I recall some of them being compacted gravel when I last passed by.
Tuplanolla (2026-07-15 08:35:01+00:00): Are you going to fix this?
de_gorgonzola (2026-07-15 10:40:34+00:00): Fixed, thanks
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-16 06:09:17+00:00): DWG revert - poor quality undiscussed import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185825503
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-12 14:29:55+00:00): Hi, unfortunately I had to remove these house numbers as you had applied them to the whole terrace, and that seems unlikely. I have instead split the buildings into their individual houses, so the individual numbers can now be added
tsoin (2026-07-12 15:47:26+00:00): Thanks for your vigilance ! I used StreetComplete so labelled the exact point it asked me, I had no idea I could cut the terrace into sub buildings.
confusedbuffalo (2026-07-12 16:23:54+00:00): Ah ok, you can't do that in StreetComplete, I'm using a desktop editor. You can add individual house numbers though with the address overlay, if you want to try that
mavl (2026-07-10 14:43:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 185480597 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20921].
eggie (2026-07-08 10:29:29+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  Het is eigenlijk geen parkeerterrein. Ik heb het aangevuld met parking=street_side orientation=perpendicular. Dan krijg je ook minder prominente P's. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-07-08 10:48:01+00:00): name =ChargePoint heb ik verwijderd.
BerryTrails (2026-07-22 13:50:31+00:00): Hey MountGerizim, I reverted your changes. That is not a footway.
MountGerizim (2026-07-23 18:03:02+00:00): Thanks for bringing this to my attention. After further review of this area, I agree with your suggestion and I have made some additional updates. Please let me know if you have any concerns with these updates.
mavl (2026-07-10 14:43:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 185480597 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20921].
Bienson (2026-07-09 03:54:43+00:00): Ein reiner Schnittpunkt mit einer Barriere wird - zumindest bei den gängigsten Routing-Algorithmen - nicht das Routing verhindern. Es braucht einen Barrieren-Node auf dem Weg.

Ein Weg kann nicht gleichzeit abandoned:highway=path und highway=path sein.
Bloomenwease (2026-07-09 09:19:58+00:00): Die Pfadeigenschaften sind jetzt angepasst, ich habe highway=path entfernt. Bei der Barriere habe ich nur eine generische Barriere nehmen können; wenn ich einen Zaun verwende, bekomme ich eine Meldung, dass Zäune Linien sein müssen.
bxl-forever (2026-07-08 17:33:28+00:00): Hello, Pleabargain.

Do you mind explaining what kind of historic ruins you spotted here? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13997151364

I do not see any trace of such an object here. Since you are making edits all over the world, I must ask if this edit was based on your own survey or if you are tagging random places all over the world after looking at aerial imagery. There are some buildings here, they are difficult to spot under the trees but I have checked and they are still there, e.g., https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1802874136958279

Thanks.
puma515 (2026-07-08 21:33:29+00:00): Moin, das war vorher korrekt erfasst, denn dort gibt es keine Geh‑ und Radwegschilder mehr. Die Beschilderung wurde vor etwa 2 Jahren geändert.
Bierphysik (2026-07-09 12:45:25+00:00): Also auf Mapillary gibt es Bilder aus dem Mai 2026 da sind die Schilder zu sehen: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=906751949089221
puma515 (2026-07-09 14:16:04+00:00): Ich war nun vor Ort und habe die Stelle direkt gegengeprüft. Meine Erinnerung war korrekt:
Ab der Ampel ist der Seitenweg beidseitig als Gehweg mit Zusatz „Fahrrad frei“ ausgeschildert.

Die Aufnahme, die du genutzt hast, stimmt aber ebenfalls – dort steht tatsächlich ein Geh‑ und Radweg‑Schild (DE:240).

Aus der Ampelrichtung gibt es außerdem eine Aufnahme eines anderen Nutzers vom 7. Juni, die die neuen Schilder zeigt:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1015285387640028

Und hier sieht man die Stelle mit der widersprüchlichen Beschilderung aus der Gegenrichtung:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/DruideBizeps?lat=54.04657162015201&lng=9.482717307590065&z=19.231960961756624&focus=photo&pKey=986689457309523&x=0.6479521290935426&y=0.6940666518868074&zoom=1.6267018470087073

Da sich die Beschilderung vor Ort tatsächlich widerspricht, ist schwer zu sagen, ob deine Anpassung oder die vorherige Version sinnvoller ist. Rein logisch würde man als Radfahrer den gesamten Verlauf als durchgehend Gehweg mit „Fahrrad frei“ interpretieren und vermuten, dass dort einfach ein altes Schild vergessen wurde.
Bierphysik (2026-07-09 15:13:45+00:00): Ok, da Du local bist, passe du das am besten an :)
Danke fürs aufpassen! ❤️
puma515 (2026-07-09 19:36:22+00:00): Alles klar, ist erledigt.❤️
dzamper (2026-07-17 21:04:21+00:00): Cześć,
problem z tym zestawem zmian jest taki, że nie przesunąłeś przystanku, tylko usunąłeś go i dodałeś ponownie.
Nie tylko zaburza to historię edycji, ale też nie dodałeś nowego obiektu ponownie do relacji, których członkiem był stary.
Tagi też nie do końca były poprawne, bo „2” nie jest częścią nazwy a „PKM Katowice” nie jest operatorem *przystanku* jako takiego.
Dodatkowo usunąłeś węzły oznaczające pozycje zatrzymania.

Poprawiłem to w https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185928638