piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ZLima12 (2025-10-20 20:10:28+00:00): Currently, it is standard to have the ref on both the way and the relation. Not all data consumers honor the relation (notably openstreetmap-carto), so please don't remove refs from roads for this reason. There is a section that talks about this on the wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref#Examples_on_ways
Mundilfari (2025-10-22 04:05:40+00:00): hold on for just one second though - would you mind sharing a link to the proposal that established the tagging style you seem to be preferring personally as "the standard"? All I'm seeing under that link looks like a random dude's opinion on a wiki page - that doesn't quite meet the bar for what I would consider standard. Especially, if the main argument there (and the one you chose to reference here) essentially boils down to "tag for the renderer" (when there is no ground truth for the tags on each of the way segments contributing to the relation).
ZLima12 (2025-10-22 04:16:42+00:00): Tagging both the route relation and the ways is the de facto standard; this is how most of the map is done. If we want to remove refs from ways, that should be discussed first. It is not only a single renderer that wants ref on the ways; many consumers would expect to find these tags.
ZLima12 (2025-10-22 04:19:54+00:00): As for ground truth, I would say that the situation for ref=* is similar to that of name=*. In both cases, signage is going to be intermittent at times.
Mundilfari (2025-10-22 04:50:53+00:00): De facto doesn't make anything a standard, a proposal does. 
De facto, millions of road segments have tiger tags from old imports. That doesn't make keeping them a standard in any fashion. 
De facto, large areas of the US are missing building footprints. That doesn't make "no buildings" a standard.
De facto massive amounts of major roads have lane tags not matching the ground truth along the entirety of the segment, because someone looked at a subsection of that way at some point only when they tagged the entire segment. Again, that doesn't make having miles and miles of road tagged as two-lane the standard when in reality there's sections turn lanes along that segment.

If you want to enforce your preferred tagging style as the standard, there is a process for that - a proposal. Until then, please respect that your preferred style is not everybody else's preferred style. 

Also, be careful with just blindly "inferring" that every way in a route relation should have the segments tagged and forcing these tags in without any further verification. This probably fits the definition of a mechanical edit (which I'm assuming was not discussed in the proper channels either?)
ZLima12 (2025-10-22 07:39:16+00:00): TIGER tags are not meant to be used by consumers, while missing building footprints and inaccurate lane tags are outright deficiencies in the data. refs on the other hand are widely used and are not deficiencies.

I actually would support dropping refs from ways where there is a relation, but I would want to see this voted on by the community first. Prominent data consumers should also have a chance to switch over first. Either way, the proposal should be for switching from the current situation, which is tagging both on the way and the relation.

For each edit I have done so far, I considered each section and consulted the way history to make sure that the ref previously existed and was only removed because there was a route relation.
Mundilfari (2025-11-02 16:07:46+00:00): The point you're missing is that I'm not the one suggesting a change here - you are.
The "standard" you're claiming exists really doesn't, it is nothing more than (your) personal preference. Some folks will agree with that preference, others won't.

There's entire road networks that are not mapped the way you're claiming is the norm.
The status quo is simply that there is no (community-approved) standard for whether to include the refs on the ways if they're already on the relation. If you want to change that, again, please follow the proposal process to establish a standard (be that to always include them, never include them, or something in between). Until then, mappers will do what makes the most sense to them. For me personally, that means not duplicating the refs and fake-tagging them as attributes of ways, when semantically, they're really attributes of the relation, just to satisfy a renderer.

TIGER or not was not the point - the point was that your "but there's a lot of examples on the map that support my preference, and that makes it the standard" argument is flawed.

The process you're describing (=filling in stuff based on history that may or may not have been right) and without verifying whether these segments are actually currently(!) part of that route, is precisely what I expected, and why I believe these are undiscussed mechanical edits. The part that is clearly missing is verification that each of the segments you tagged is indeed part of the route right now.
ZLima12 (2025-11-02 21:23:43+00:00): In this case, this road had been tagged with ref="IL 137" for 13 years before you removed it. The other roads that I touched were similar; I am only restoring these to how they had been for a long time. What percentage of state highways do you think have not been tagged like this?

And again, I mentioned OSM carto because it is probably the most well known consumer that uses way refs instead of route relations. That being said, there are likely many other consumers that look for way refs too. With how significant of a tag this is, we could be affecting a lot of people by removing the data.

As for my process in restoring the way refs, it wasn't only based on way history. For each route, I only touched ways that were in the corresponding route relation, and I also consulted Wikipedia to determine if the path that it followed is current.
Geo-Tobi (2024-09-25 15:25:29+00:00): Hier wurde ein grade2 hinzugefügt; surface ist aber asphalt, das passt für mich nicht zusammen. War das Absicht?
Rosty (2024-09-25 15:32:46+00:00): Sorry, war keine Absicht. Da war noch nie Asphalt!!! Ich korrigiere das.
Danke
Leo Slager (2024-04-16 09:45:12+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
osmviborg (2024-04-16 06:46:08+00:00): Nok så relevant: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:spacing
emersonveenstra (2024-04-16 12:01:03+00:00): Removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150081693, there is only a post office at this location
mcliquid (2024-04-16 07:52:21+00:00): Hi, was war falsch mit den Flächen?
mcliquid (2024-05-15 12:51:49+00:00): Ein paar hast du wieder ergänzt, aber nicht alle. Darf ich meine Frage wiederholen? Was war falsch mit den Flächen?
RobinHx (2024-05-15 19:50:07+00:00): ich bin damals unterbrochen worden und hab die Bearbeitung halbfertig zugemacht. falsch war es nicht, nur sind ein paar Neubauten dazugekommen.
RobinHx (2024-05-16 05:29:00+00:00): ich hoffe, es passt jetzt, hab noch ein paar Wiesen ergänzt, manchmal ist schwierig, ob es noch eine Wiese ist, liebe Grüsse, Robin
Toni100 (2024-09-11 07:58:02+00:00): Hei :) Kertoisitko jatkossa lyhyesti mitä olet muokannut. kävin perumassa tämän muutoksen, geometriavirhe
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150067548
Toni100 (2024-04-21 22:23:59+00:00): Moi Oskari ja tervetuloa OpenStreetMapiin! Hyvä siitä tuli, lisäisitkö ensi kerralla lyhyen tekstin mitä olet muokannut :)
NorthCrab_upload (2024-04-16 06:30:16+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11821149367

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
DD1GJ (2024-04-27 09:37:40+00:00): Revert nach Kontakt mit dem Mapper. Unzulässige Quelle sowie 20% Fehlerquote durch händische Übernahme
DD1GJ (2024-04-27 09:37:34+00:00): Revert nach Kontakt mit dem Mapper. Unzulässige Quelle sowie 20% Fehlerquote durch händische Übernahme
Toni100 (2024-04-23 19:05:22+00:00): Rikoit tien. Perutaan muutos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150068137
NorthCrab_upload (2024-04-16 06:50:25+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, dodaj ją w addr:street. Jeśli nie, zamień addr:city na addr:place - tak oznaczamy adresy bez ulic.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/297022616

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
gscholz (2024-04-19 06:11:09+00:00): Hi amharrak,
I have reverted this changeset to fix self intersecting lines.
Guido
gscholz (2024-04-19 05:54:11+00:00): Hi amharrak,
I have reverted this changeset to fix self intersecting ways.
Guido
amharrak (2024-04-19 06:56:46+00:00): thank u
gscholz (2024-04-19 05:56:02+00:00): Hi amharrak,
I have reverted this changeset to fix self intersecting ways.
Guido
amharrak (2024-04-19 06:57:17+00:00): thank u
gscholz (2024-04-19 06:01:06+00:00): Hi amharrak,
I have reverted this changeset to fix self intersecting ways.
Guido
amharrak (2024-04-19 06:57:57+00:00): thank u
gscholz (2024-04-19 05:52:15+00:00): Hi amharrak,
I have reverted this changeset to fix self intersecting ways.
Guido
amharrak (2024-04-19 06:55:51+00:00): thank u
gscholz (2024-04-19 05:48:41+00:00): Hi amharrak,
I have reverted this changeset to fix self intersecting ways.
Guido
amharrak (2024-04-19 06:52:49+00:00): thank u
gscholz (2024-04-17 06:41:28+00:00): Hi amharrak,
your recent edits have created a lot of errors regarding self intersecting lines and duplicate nodes:


https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-5.68585&lat=35.60756&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Can you please fix this?

You may also like to add reasonable changeset comments, so other users get to know, what you are doing:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2024-04-19 05:48:17+00:00): Hi amharrak,
I have reverted this changeset to fix those issues.
Guido
gscholz (2024-04-19 05:48:27+00:00): Hi amharrak,
I have reverted this changeset to fix those issues.
Guido
gscholz (2024-04-17 06:42:43+00:00): 

Hi amharrak,
your recent edits have created a lot of errors regarding self intersecting lines and duplicate nodes:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-5.68585&lat=35.60756&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Can you please fix this?

You may also like to add reasonable changeset comments, so other users get to know, what you are doing:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2024-04-19 05:43:07+00:00): Hi amharrak, 
I have reverted this changeset to fix those issues.
Guido
Tourismusverein Ahrntal - Associazione Turistica Valle Aurina (2024-04-16 13:28:21+00:00): Ergänzung der fehlenden Daten
gscholz (2024-04-17 06:42:59+00:00): 

Hi amharrak,
your recent edits have created a lot of errors regarding self intersecting lines and duplicate nodes:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-5.68585&lat=35.60756&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Can you please fix this?

You may also like to add reasonable changeset comments, so other users get to know, what you are doing:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Kind regards
Guido
amharrak (2024-04-17 13:10:37+00:00): désolé modification accidentelle.
comment je peux corriger?
gscholz (2024-04-18 05:14:19+00:00): The easiest way is to revert your changeset by using JOSM and its reverter plugin.
Guido
amharrak (2024-04-18 06:13:21+00:00): j'ai fait un essai avec revert est ce que c'est bien
je suis débutant
aide moi svp
amharrak (2024-04-18 06:16:35+00:00): et pour le problème de conflit
comment corriger
Thierry1030 (2024-09-29 09:56:07+00:00): Hello Helge,
You added this parcel locker ... in this note it couldn't be verified ... can you confirm?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4457106
Helge Kreutzmannn (2024-09-29 10:54:47+00:00): No, this is not correct. I reported that I could not locate that parcel locker. (See my picture as welll)

Unfortuantely, I don't know if/when I'm next time in the area, so I cannot check this.
gscholz (2024-04-17 06:41:43+00:00): 

Hi amharrak,
your recent edits have created a lot of errors regarding self intersecting lines and duplicate nodes:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-5.68585&lat=35.60756&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

Can you please fix this?

You may also like to add reasonable changeset comments, so other users get to know, what you are doing:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2024-04-19 06:04:38+00:00): Hi amharrak,
I have reverted this changeset to fix self intersecting ways.
Guido
Metzor (2024-04-17 20:36:48+00:00): Hallo osmSK,

In diesem Änderungssatz hast du leider eine Bundesstraße durcheinander gebracht.

Das wurde schon repariert:
https://osmcha.org/changesets/150112642#map=19/48.12499/8.34059

Dennoch liegen weiterhin drei Knoten übereinander:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11821218792/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8483226122/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11821218795/history

Das sind 2x Ampeln und 1x ein Fußgängerüberweg.

Die Gehwege sehen dann auch etwas seltsam aus (wenn man die Knoten etwas verschiebt)

Könntest du das bitte reparieren?

Hier noch nützliche Dokuseiten:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:crossing
vs
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway=traffic_signals

Wenn du Hilfe brauchst, melde dich einfach!

Schöne Grüße
Metzor
Metzor (2024-04-17 20:47:15+00:00): Und hier sind auch 3 über einander:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11821218794/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8456895386/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11821218793/history

highway=traffic_signals (also "Ampel") wird nur für Autoampeln verwendet und manchmal an die Haltelinie der Straße gesetzt. Aber nicht auf die Fußgängerkreuzung!

highway=crossing (Fußgängerkreuzung) setzt man auf den Knoten, bei dem sich Straße und Gegweg kreuzen.
Um zu sagen, dass diese mit Ampeln gereget ist, setzt man zusätzlich auf den gleichen (!) Knoten
crossing=traffic_signals
Metzor (2024-04-17 20:59:15+00:00): Sorry für die dritte Nachricht am Stück. Die Stelle aus meiner letzten Nachricht habe ich nun korrigiert, damit das Routing wieder schnell richtig funktioniert.

Das ist mein Änderungssatz:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150148125

Jetzt hast du sogar eine Vorlage, wie du die Situation auf der Bundesstraße korrigieren könntest :-)

Viele Grüße und fröhliches Mappen!
Metzor
antonr (2024-04-17 13:26:41+00:00): Det er simpelthen bare dårlig stil at du, uden at sige noget, genopretter denne imens diskussionen ovre i https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150040976 er i gang... 

Udover dårlig stil er det også i modstrid med dokumenteret god osm-skik (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes) som siger "Disputes are not to be carried out in the map, but in discussion. Any editor who does not abide by this, and does not respect agreements in the area, or ultimately the "on the ground" rule, risks losing the right to participate in OpenStreetMap."
osmviborg (2024-04-17 13:38:58+00:00): 'Don't remove tags that you don't understand'
antonr (2024-04-23 14:54:05+00:00): Sølle bortforklaring af din egen upassende handling...

1. Jeg forstår fint hvad place=hamlet betyder. At andet skulle være tilfældet er bare for åndssvagt at påstå.
2. At du mener jeg gjort noget forkert, retfærdiggør på ingen måde at du indleder en redigeringskrig.
antonr (2024-04-23 14:56:23+00:00): Vil du forøvrigt ikke prøve at anstrenge dig lidt mere med changeset comments? "Tilføjelser/rettelser - Vestjylland" er direkte vildledende i dette tilfælde.
do not bring quebec into this (2024-08-27 12:02:58+00:00): hey, I don't think Riselaw road is a living street, and ill probably change it if only source is aerial imagery!
Enock4seth (2024-04-17 06:39:08+00:00): Danke!
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-05-24 12:20:51+00:00): Hello!

You used
incline=upv
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1146176135/history

Have you maybe meant
incline=up
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?
lucka-me (2024-05-26 06:08:13+00:00): Thank you for the message, it's a typo and I've fixed it!
Autom (2024-04-16 23:19:59+00:00): Perrongen mellan spår 7 och 8 (nu gällande numrering) revs i samband med ombyggnaden men finns kvar på många satellit- och flygfoton. Den enda perrongen nu är den nybyggda mellan spår 6 och 7.

Jag var på plats igår eftermiddag.
stojka (2024-04-17 06:34:05+00:00): Hej Autom
Vad bra, det visste inte jag. Du får gärna korrigera. Mitt viktigaste var att se till att det fanns gångvägar från de nya spåren och koppla ihop med befintliga gångvägar så det finns gångvägar hela vägen från perrongerna till hållplatser för buss
MFlamm (2024-05-06 09:24:07+00:00): Hello ;-) 
Sur l'image aérienne et dans les données SITG, je vois que le passage Cabriol est indiqué en double-sens cyclable (a priori, c'est un changement intervenu fin 2023). Vu que tu es passé là tout récemment, peux-tu stp m'indiquer si tu es sûr de ton codage?
Sai_333 (2024-05-06 11:46:06+00:00): Salut, 
La question était, y a-t-il une piste cyclable et la réponse est clairement non. C'est accessible pour les cyclistes donc peut être il faut ajouter bicycle yes  si c'est important pour le calcul d'itinéraire.
MFlamm (2024-05-11 08:27:15+00:00): Après vérification sur place, j'ai codé le double-sens cyclable.
Rolf42 (2024-04-16 15:26:17+00:00): Das war nicht als Problem gedacht, sondern sollte ein Hinweis sein, dass dieses kurze Verbindungsstück sehr steil und unwegsam ist. Für den einen oder anderen Fahrradfahrer könnte diese Steigung Probleme bereiten. Daher ist es nicht hilfreich, dass der Hinweis nun wieder gelöscht wurde.
d_berger (2024-04-16 16:59:25+00:00): 'notes' dienen zum Melden von Kartenfehlern, oder um auf Mappingprobleme hinzuweisen. Nicht zur Kommunikation mit Kartenendnutzern.

Siehe: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Notes
Piagno (2024-04-17 07:45:14+00:00): Genau wie berger schrieb, sind Hinweise nur für Kartenfehler gedacht.
Falls nötig können noch genauere Angaben für Fahrradfahrer gemacht werden. Siehe hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Mountain_biking
Rolf42 (2024-04-17 16:11:57+00:00): OK, ich bin kein OSM-Profi. Ich wollte einen Hinweis hinterlassen. Wenn man auf das Symbol rechts mit dem +fährt, erhält man die Info "Einen Hinweis/Fehler melden..." Ich dachte, man könne so einen Hinweis einfügen. Hintergrund: Ich hatte mit OSM eine Alternativroute zur Strasse von Riehen nach Inzlingen gesucht. Als wir an diese Stelle kamen, waren wir sehr überrascht, wie steil und unwegsam das kurze Wegstück ist. Meine Frau kam fast nicht hoch. Daher der Hinweis für andere User. Man kann ja schliesslich nicht jedes einzelne Stück einer Route mit dem Abfragetool abchecken.
Gibt es eine Funktion, um solche Warnhinweise einzufügen?
Wenn nein, sollt man mal darüber nachdenken, diese Funktion einzubauen.
Sorry und vielen Dank für eure Rückmeldungen.
Piagno (2024-04-17 20:03:53+00:00): Absolut kein Problem. Leider kann man nicht so viel daran ändern. Man könnte schon eine handschriftliche Notiz an diesem Strassenstück notieren. Dann hat man aber ganz viele verschiedene Interessen (z.B.: unterschiedliche Sprachen, unterschiedliche Fahrfähigkeiten, unterschiedliche Fahrräder... und da hat man dann nur das Fahrradfahren abgedeckt...)
Deswegen lohnt es sich leider nicht das vertieft anzugeben.
maxmalrichtig (2024-05-24 10:37:44+00:00): You deleted the POI for the Hair Dresser "Happy Hairy People" (1019621377), but it still exists.

She is an INDEPENDENT  hair dresser that is operaiting INSIDE THE Salon Saur. This is stated in the POI description.

Please do not delete. This is still correct and she is active there.
tekim (2024-04-16 15:12:26+00:00): Hello,  Thanks for your edits to the map.  Unfortunately, when editing OpenStreetMap we are not allowed to use Google Street View due to Google's terms of service.
tekim (2024-04-16 15:13:04+00:00): reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150090065
Leo Slager (2024-04-16 10:00:52+00:00): Dag stelleplas,
leisure=park zal niet de vlag zijn die de lading dekt.
Een park is een uitgebreid gebied met grasvlakten, bossages, waterpartijen etc. Dat is dus een Engelse definitie van een park.
tourism=chalet is de juiste tag.
Verder zou ik nog een telefoonnummer en de website toevoegen aan de kaart.
Wellicht ook de node met gegevens verplaatsen naar het parkeerterrein, waar de klant binnen rijdt.

Up to you.
Langlaeufer (2024-04-19 19:48:36+00:00): sorry chris, beim Radweg https://www.openstreetmap.org?way=1095578380widerspreche ich energisch. Abgesenkter Bordstein und rote umrandung spricht eindeutig für einen designierten Radweg(anschluss)
woodpeck (2024-04-16 12:35:17+00:00): Hallo Tourismusverein Ahrntal, bitte verwendet doch beim Hochladen von Daten in OSM einen aussagekräftigen Changeset-Kommentar. Danke!
Tourismusverein Ahrntal - Associazione Turistica Valle Aurina (2024-04-16 13:24:02+00:00): Ich habe die Trinkwasserbrunnen mit den fehlenden Angaben ergänzt und Bilder der Brunnen hinzugefügt. Die fehlenden Brunnen werden dann, sobald verfügbar, auch mit Bildern vervollständigt.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2024-04-16 09:56:59+00:00): Hi! some of your edits in this area removed the placement=transition tags which were carefully added for precision. All the motorways in the Montreal area have been carefully aligned using theorical and physical gores, as well as transitions between number of lanes. Please keep them as they were. Thanks!
SomeoneElse (2024-04-16 08:20:52+00:00): Clearly the restored state of these objects (with a name of "closed") is incorrect, but the way that they were previously processed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149843868 was obviously wrong.  I'm restoring to the state before so that people can figure out how best to deal with them.

In some cases "disused:amenity=blah" will make sense; in some cases deletion will make sense (but not in all cases where https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149843868 deleted things, for example at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/684681276/history there is surely something on that site now, even if it is only a disused school or a bit of brownfield).
redd (2024-04-18 20:41:39+00:00): Vielen Dank!
NeisBot (2024-04-16 12:34:04+00:00): Hello maxlax, thank you very much for your contribution to the OSM project.

It would be great if you could use the comment field to describe your changes. This makes it easier for others to understand and follow your adjustments on the map more quickly.Please see https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments 

Thanks!

#HappyMapping
#ADescriptionSaysMoreThanASingleChar