piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:09:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:09:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:04:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:02:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:04:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:02:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:09:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:09:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:01:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:07:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:01:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:08:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:09:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:04:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:08:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:05:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:03:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:03:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
Andre68 (2023-01-09 07:54:08+00:00): Seit wann ist Meinersen eine Stadt?
nortvest (2023-02-03 15:59:24+00:00): Die Hauptorte vieler Gemeinden sind als 'Kleinstadt' eingetragen - demnach wäre auch Wennigsen, Eschede, Altwarwmbüchen (Gemeinde Isernhagen) ect. falsch getaggt. ??
Javierpf (2023-01-09 13:03:20+00:00): pusiste la rotonda trunk cuando el resto de la ruta es primary. Lo correcto seria que la pusieras primary. Igualmente, estas seguro que está transitable esta rotonda? si tenes una fuente de internet, una noticia, una foto del lugar, agregues el tag source=... asi haces disponible y verificable para todos el origen de tu moficación.
Estoy buscando fotos satelitales y no veo ni en construcción tal rotonda. Hace un par de meses pase por ahí. Ahora lamento no haberle registrado en una traza GPS.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131033681
jmarchon (2023-06-20 17:07:24+00:00): Hello!
I have split up the huge multipolygon you created in many different changesets, including this one. Large multipolygons with hundreds or even thousands of members are extremely difficult and tedious to work with, especially for newer users. 
Happy mapping!
GDGDOKDPZL (2023-01-09 01:57:18+00:00): Obrigado
GDGDOKDPZL (2023-01-09 02:36:50+00:00): Innature
GDGDOKDPZL (2023-01-09 03:02:35+00:00): INNature 1
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:06:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:08:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:02:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
MxxCon (2023-01-11 05:53:03+00:00): Should w225868289 be a cycleway or a pedestrian path or both?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131034337
MapSpot (2023-01-11 06:03:34+00:00): Good question. I just walked there a few days ago. Considering the paving stone surface and lack of guard rails along the rocky shoreline, I wouldn't consider this to be a great path for cycling like changeset 16570005 implies. I'd favor changing the Esplanade to a footpath.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131034337
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:03:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:03:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:03:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
Javierpf (2023-01-09 14:30:45+00:00): pase el fin de semana y no esta construido este derivador. por favor reversa los cambios
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131034361
Javierpf (2023-01-09 14:30:58+00:00): pase el fin de semana y no esta construido este derivador. por favor reversa los cambios
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131034361
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:08:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:06:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:05:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:05:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
Oriol Raventós (2023-01-13 12:18:57+00:00): Hi,

OSM shows an error coming from this chagnges. When clicking in Edit the Relation: Conneforde/Ost (15098810), there is the error message: "Substation Conneforde/Ost has an unclosed part".

But beyond that: Is there a reason, why to change Conneforde substations as relations instead of ways? I think, modelled as a simple polygon as before is more consistent with the way substations in Europe are modeled and simpler. It seems complicated to model them as relations from their fences (which are actually polygons and not multipolygons).
bahnpirat (2023-01-15 10:12:44+00:00): I can't find the unclosed section in Conneforde/Ost.

Over ten years ago it was one (1) substation. Then regulations of EU forced to split transmission grid and distribution grid to be seperated into different companies, from EON into TenneT TSO (380/220 kV) and EON Netz (110 kV). EON Netz is sold/reanamed to Avacon by now. 

There are only a few fences on the area. But there are seperat entry gates and points on a line, that are labed as if they leave the current substation. (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15098932) Area will be under construction for at least till 2026.
Oriol Raventós (2023-01-16 11:31:18+00:00): Thank you for your response.

I can't see it anymore, because somebody else edited the way 1128250704 and turn it into a closed polygon again and also deleted the relation.

I understand your point about the changing situation in that substation, but I still think that modelled as closed polygons is simpler than defining a relation of fences that determine the polygon.

So I think they should be separate substations, but each modeled as a way.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:09:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:06:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:10:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:06:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:05:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
whammo (2023-01-09 11:40:19+00:00): I've removed the tags on the building and expanded the tags on the node, since I'm not sure the Libertarian party is the only occupant of this building. You only need the office information on one object, not several.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2023-01-10 00:01:17+00:00): você tem certeza que essa via que voce criou é asfaltada como voce colocou ? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1128349827
erickdeoliveiraleal (2023-01-10 00:04:14+00:00): aqui você excluiu a via de acesso a área DVO-GO https://osmcha.org/changesets/131034957 essa edição foi destrutiva. por favor redesenhe a via de acesso ao condominio
erickdeoliveiraleal (2023-01-10 00:05:37+00:00): estou revertendo suas edições.
wkdgs (2023-01-09 10:20:20+00:00): Hi,

ich glaube du hast aus Versehen auch den Tag "tourism=attraction" gelöscht.

Gruß
winkeldings
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131035018
Mapillox (2023-01-09 12:15:48+00:00): ja. sehe es auch gerade in osmcha. war keine absicht. werde es korrigieren
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131035018
Tyler Brown Cifu Shuster (2023-01-09 15:35:45+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Shasta_County,_California
MxxCon (2023-01-11 05:57:11+00:00): Hello.
As documented in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website#Privacy_and_security, please do not add tracking tags to urls. Furthermore, the official website has menu on it. Why link to some 3rd party website?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131035129
Tyler Brown Cifu Shuster (2023-01-09 15:35:44+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Shasta_County,_California
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-17 07:07:17+00:00): (Traduzido via Deepl) Olá Gilmar Parreira. Obrigado pelas contribuições que você fez para a OSM, mas você realmente precisa trabalhar em seus Comentários sobre o Changeet. Para o benefício de outros usuários, você precisa descrever o que realmente fez em qualquer mudança, mas usar o mesmo comentário "Edição" certamente não faz isso. Podemos pedir-lhe que leia https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments, e que melhore seus comentários no futuro? Obrigado, Graeme Fitzpatrick,
Grupo de Trabalho de Dados OSMF.      Hello Gilmar Parreira. Thank you for the contributions that you've made to OSM, but you really need to work on your Changeset Comments. For the benefit of other users, you need to describe what you have actually done in any change, but using the same comment "Edição" certainly doesn't do this. Could we please ask you to have a read of      https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments, and improve your comments in future? Thank you, Graeme Fitzpatrick,
OSMF Data Working Group
Tyler Brown Cifu Shuster (2023-01-09 15:35:42+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Shasta_County,_California
mariotomo (2023-01-09 11:52:18+00:00): Hola! gracias por mejorar el mapa. Me explica algo más? son dos las iglesias dedicadas a San Juan Bosco? o una está dedicada a otro santo? si vives en el área y puedes validarlo? ojalá tengas la oportunidad de seguir mejorando OSM, basado en observación directa!
(entre paréntesis: el nombre de la iglesia no necesita incluir "Iglesia" (es implícito) ni el lugar en que se encuentra (resulta de la ubicación del nodo), puede ser nada más sino "San Juan Bosco".)
user_11609320 (2023-01-09 02:42:37+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
user_11609320 (2023-01-09 02:50:08+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
user_11609320 (2023-01-09 03:12:23+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
hatul (2023-01-09 16:53:39+00:00): מה הכוונה בשם „שיזפים עתיקים 4X4”, זה שם רשמי? אני מניח שלא.
גם התיאור „שביל "שחור"” מיותר. לכן יש תגית colour.
Yitzchak M (2023-01-09 17:33:39+00:00): כן. שם רשמי. תסתכל בתמונה שהוספתי לנקודת עניין הזה.
האנגלית היא התרגום של העברית.
hatul (2023-01-09 17:51:27+00:00): ראיתי עכשיו את התמונה. אני חושב שהכוונה שהדרך מובילה לשם, לא שזה השם שלה. 4x4 רק מציין עבירות.
Yitzchak M (2023-01-09 18:12:41+00:00): בכבוד רב, אני לא מסכים וחושב שזה גם יעד וגם שם הדרך. אבל אני כן מסכים ש " 4 על 4 " זה כן  מיותר בתוך השם ואני כן אמחוק אותו. לגבי השם, תשאל את זאב ואני אעשה מה שהוא יגיד לי.
hatul (2023-01-09 22:39:40+00:00): טוב, מה שנראה לך. את התיאור הייתי מוחק בכל זאת.
Yitzchak M (2023-01-10 00:45:45+00:00): בסדר! מקובל!
Yitzchak M (2023-01-10 00:49:11+00:00): DONE!
Diacritic (2023-01-09 04:53:23+00:00): Hey Derrick,

Again, just wanting to check in to see what you're trying to achieve? You've moved the Clayton labvel right to the north east border, rather than the geographic centre or the political centre (which I suppose would be Clayton south).

I'd strongly suggest you refrain from editing suburb and neighbourhood nodes until you've built a bit more familiarity with editing with OSM. I'm happy to explain the various methods we achieve things (such as how postal codes and addresses are mapped) if you like?

Dian
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131037740
Derrick_86 (2023-01-09 05:05:26+00:00): Hey Dian made some few errors was just trying to understand the mechanics. The reason as to why I put Clayton more towards north is so it is closer to the university which is the main attraction of the suburb as the same reason goes for Oakleigh East.
Diacritic (2023-01-09 05:59:57+00:00): Thanks for the reply Derrick.

I understand your reasoning for Oakleigh East.. There does appear to be another set of shops near Clayton Road, but given the post office is at the Huntingdale Road shops it's not a bad place for the label.

I think moving Clayton makes a lot less sense. Clayton has a very strong set of shops around the station, and the Clayton Hospital is one of the other things most Melburnians would identify with the suburb. The current tag location is kind of close to all three, which I think is probably best given the multiple features of interest. Thoughts?

Dian
Patrickov (2023-01-11 06:58:08+00:00): At least 10316133811 should be in a separate change.
user_18199682 (2023-01-11 09:05:44+00:00): I dont know what to do. it seems i cannot change it anymore.
Patrickov (2023-01-11 14:43:09+00:00): You can't change a change set.  I just said (precisely) what you should do if you meet a similar situation next time.
Tyler Brown Cifu Shuster (2023-01-09 15:35:41+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Shasta_County,_California
Friendly_Ghost (2023-01-10 14:03:53+00:00): Hello Anti1982,

Out of curiosity, do you have a link to a relevant discussion?
user_6110846 (2023-01-11 07:13:53+00:00): was discussed in the Telegram channel of the Ukrainian community
Enter the query ref:ru in the Telegram search. The name of the telegram channel of the Ukrainian community OSM UA
Friendly_Ghost (2023-01-11 09:06:28+00:00): Thank you. Have a good day.
Grass-snake (2023-03-17 10:22:06+00:00): Returned the ref:ru=KRY tag to the node, I consider it vandalism to remove this tag if you leave ref:en and ref:uk.

I need this tag for my algorithm so I added it. Please don't delete this tag (and others I plan to add in the future), it's a ref:* namespace that you can skip in your algorithms, it takes up almost no space and doesn't violate osm rules.

P.S. made an edit before looking at this changeset.
Friendly_Ghost (2023-03-17 11:06:20+00:00): "it's a ref:* namespace that you can skip in your algorithms, it takes up almost no space and doesn't violate osm rules."

This is no reason to have data in OSM. I can add "Friendly_Ghost:ref=*" to all objects I'm interested in, and no one will like that either. What do these ref:ru tags even mean?
Grass-snake (2023-03-17 19:23:49+00:00): in Russia there is an official standard: ГОСТ 7.67-2003 (which is similar to ISO 3166). It contains official country codes, as well as district codes in some countries. In this case, the same area can be written in several ways.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOST_7.67
Full text: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200035671
In practice (IMHO), Cyrillic characters are most often used, this makes it easier for Russian-speaking users to "read" these codes. Numbers are used less often, English letters even less often.

If we are talking about OCM, then in Russia most placs=state's nodes were created and the corresponding tag was set without the country code in 2010, and since then no one has changed (it suited everyone). I can't find a discussion of this tag, I found a few threads from the old forum, but these are not what I was looking for). You can check it in OSM database yourself: enter the following text into the JOSM Query Wizard:
place=state and type:node in Russia
and check the ref=* tag.