piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2024-10-23 06:36:33+00:00): Soms is het schipperen :)
Anders krijg je van die 'hoeken' in de routering. 

Dat oostelijke stukje zou inderdaad weg kunnen.... maar dan wordt de accesstag anders.
Op dat stukje 
bicycle:backward=use_sidepath
en cycleway:right=lane  .. als het een officiële fietsstrook is. Als het een fietssuggestiestrook is dan shared_lane gebruiken. 
De westelijke kant zou wel zo kunnen. Er is zelfs een puntstuk voor de uitrit (die ontbreekt nog) vanuit het bedrijventerrein.
.
... En dat stukje Wekkerstraat omzetten naar unclassified.
Sommige fietsrouters routeren niet fijn over highway=service

En hier gaat de fietsroute gedeeltelijk over die doodlopende Wekkerstraat.

Je ziet .. Het is steeds goed kijken. Je verplaatsen in de fietser en af en toe schipperen.
Up to you.
eggie (2024-10-23 06:43:06+00:00): Die fietspadaansluiting Hoevenweg heb ik ook aangepast. Gedeeltelijk schipperen met het westelijk gedeelte en een stukje bicycle:forward=use_sidepath
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.429044/5.429242

Daar kijk ik dan nog 10x naar om de routering te checken.... en soms kijk je gewoon ergens overheen.
Dan check ik het vaak weer met de Openfietsmap die wekelijks een update heeft.
En iedereen gaat dan wel weer eens de fout in.
Controleer het maar eens :)
cycleway:left=shared_lane erbij? 
Ik zie streepjes op de weg voor de fietsers.
eggie (2024-10-23 06:56:21+00:00): Ben nu toch even serieus aan het kijken...  :)  Die bocht Wekkerstraat noord zou ook twee aparte rijbanen kunnen krijgen (vaak laat ik het toch gewoon enkel) , want er zitten eilandjes tussen. ... en dan wordt het allemaal weer anders. 
Dat zijn van die hersenkrakers. Leer je wel van. 
Het noordelijke vervolg is cycleway:both = lane
Er stonden ooit fietssymbolen op de stroken.... maar die slijten in de loop van de tijd.
OvdLeur (2024-10-23 20:05:59+00:00): Ik heb JOSM gedownload en ben daarin eens aan de gang gegaan met het idee om de weg te splitsen in aparte rijbanen (dat is formeel de beste representatie van de werkelijke inrichting denk ik, maar of het kaart technisch beter is...).
Is het mogelijk om een preview te zien van hoe de changeset gerenderd zou worden zonder hem live te zetten?
Is er een mogelijkheid om jou de set te sturen zodat je eens kunt beoordelen wat ik gedaan heb?
eggie (2024-10-23 20:54:24+00:00): De eerste vraag... Nee. helaas.. 
Uploaden dan staat het in de data. Reverten van je changet kun je overigens zelf. Dat kan met de reverter plugin. 
Kaarttechnisch beter?
Verdubbelen rijbanen.. 
Dat zou hier wel kunnen. Dan even goed splitsen en oneway=yes toevoegen. Er lopen hier geen routerelaties dus verdubbelen is niet moeilijk. 
Wanneer je om een review vraagt kijk ik als ik gelegenheid heb. 
Verder volg ik de eerste tien mappingdagen  van startende mappers.
Daarna kun je gewoon om een review vragen. Hokje aankruisen. Dat kan ook via het forum.
Josm heeft verder een goede ingebouwde validator.

Maar er zijn meer achtergronden.
Komend dagen wat bbhh. Dan even geen OSM.
Maar anderen kijken ook mee en op het forum kun je een hyperlink zetten en even vragen of iemand kijkt. 
Succes
eggie (2024-10-23 21:09:41+00:00): Typo maar er zijn meer achtergrond... sloeg op de pdok die was uitgevallen maar het inmiddels weer doet.
bleedbogema (2024-10-22 21:15:34+00:00): Proper Source is here: 
https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/112280
MikeHDriveway (2024-10-22 21:49:03+00:00): Private residential driveway. Nil use
UnknownCommand (2024-10-27 17:49:20+00:00): Isn't the cantonment area way better than that? Should I edit it to make it enclose the proper boundary? or Did you get this border from a trusted source?
Sal73x (2024-10-27 23:33:26+00:00): Go ahead. I tried but can't find sources and kept it to that. Sal73x
citrula (2024-10-22 23:33:47+00:00): Please use the expanded version of the abbreviation for street names ("Ct" should be "Court). I fixed this case for you
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158229900
Jordi MF (2024-10-22 22:51:30+00:00): Hola Vicente,

¿Qué pretendías añadir en esta edición? Has añadido un barrio que se llama "Las Chimeneas". ¿Este barrio es oficial? Es que además de esto, has añadido las siguientes etiquetas que no tienen sentido:
"Av de Madrid 03610=petroglyph"
"Calle Paco Moya 03610=petroglyph"
"Jardines Juan Carlos I 03610=petroglyph"

¿Puedes resolver la duda?
aTarom (2024-10-23 07:47:38+00:00): Entiendo que no recibe estos mensajes, con este changeset de un par de meses atrás pasó algo muy parecido y no se ha podido contestar
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/155040737
Jordi MF (2024-10-25 22:22:50+00:00): He eliminat el node perquè pareix que l'usuari mai respon. Si respon i demostra que el barri existeix, revertiré la meua edició (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158356952).
Mahdi Nameghi (2024-10-23 07:27:27+00:00): تغییرات شما بازگردانده شد
شما در چند جا جهت بزرگراه رو برعکس کرده اید! این ویرایش به شدت مخرب است. لطفا با دقت بیشتری ویرایش کنید
citrula (2024-10-22 23:32:33+00:00): Welcome to OSM, and thanks for your contribution. This edit looks good to me.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158230374
sanchi (2024-10-23 14:18:34+00:00): Hola.
Las calles de un pueblo no son track por no estás pavimentadas. Eso se indica en el surface. 
He recuperado la información perdida por error.
Un saludo.
Rach_UMK (2025-07-04 10:25:13+00:00): Czy na pewno na drodze wojewódzki 657 Złotoria-Lubicz Górny w miejscowości Nowa Wieś jest nadal ruch wahadłowy?
Jrachi (2024-10-23 09:57:49+00:00): Hai aggiunto dettagli e spezzettata la relazione: 16545965

Ivo
Dardy (2024-10-23 10:02:58+00:00): Ciao Ivo, la relazione è tutta da rivedere, farò un chageset a parte solo per quella
Dardy (2024-10-23 18:19:08+00:00): non avevo visto che ti riferissi al sentiero 118A non alla Francigena. L'ho sistemato
Dodko (2024-10-24 14:53:41+00:00): Treba dať pozor a nakreslenú lesnú cestu nespojiť s elektrickým vedením.
eggie (2024-10-23 06:13:46+00:00): Welkom bij OSM...
Bedankt voor uw bijdrage.
Wellicht even naar de format van de website kijken. Begint met http....
Mvg
eggie
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-10-28 22:12:58+00:00): Reviewed
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158231099
kevinp2 (2025-06-08 19:20:46+00:00): Hi, 

“Wheatgrass Trailhead Road” is not signposted anywhere and no one locally uses such a name for the road.

It looks like you deleted the existing road and created a brand new road to replace it?

Please be cautious when doing these things. Official maps are often inaccurate and often contain wrong information.  OSM must match the reality on the ground, not an outdated or incorrect official map.

Thank you!
kevinp2 (2025-06-09 16:41:15+00:00): FYI, I have corrected the name of the road back to Causey Road.  After checking, no one has heard of Wheatgrass Trailhead Road, it is not signposted anywhere, and does not show up on any official map that I can find.
kevinp2 (2025-06-09 16:42:48+00:00): Please be cautious with online-only mapping if you are not personally familiar with the area.  Many official maps are wrong or out of date.

And I don't agree with this practice of deleting an existing feature or road and creating a brand new one where the road itself has not undergone major construction.  All the version history is lost.
sanchi (2024-10-23 14:27:29+00:00): Hola
Por favor ten cuidado con las posiciones de los edificios. Las imágenes aéreas no son completamente verticales. Por este motivo hay en ocasiones que el tejado no representa la posición exacta del edificio ya que hay proyectarlo sobre el suelo. Cuanto más grande es el edificio mayo puede ser la diferencia.
En la Iglesia de Gallegos de Argañan parece que pasa con las imágenes que estas utilizando. Por favor no vuelvas a moverlo a una posición incorrecta y ten cuidado con el resto de edificios. No es exacto pero en el caso de este pueblo la posición correcta es catastro en casi todos los casos.
Un saludo
ticki_52 (2024-12-19 16:05:08+00:00): Hallo, bitte die existierende Verbindung zwischen Maubacher Straße und Kitzbüheler Straße (Querung B14) wieder einfügen, damit die Buslinien und die Autonavigation wieder funzen.
Mammi71 (2024-12-30 22:32:53+00:00): Hallo Enzyklopädix,
ist mir auch aufgefallen, dass das Busrouting (Linie 361) zwischen Maubach und Backnang unterbrochen ist, augenscheinlich durch Deinen Kreuzungsumbau Emmener Str./Maubacher Str. 
Wird hier tatsächlich schon überhaupt überall gebaut? Ich habs gar nicht so in Erinnerung, eher Viadukt und Backnang West. Für diesen Abschnitt habe ich Baubeginn in 2025 in Erinnerung und zwischen Backnang Süd und Waldrems war noch von Änderungsplanungen und Einsprüchen die Rede. Ich wäre sehr überrascht, wenn es plötzlich schneller ginge ...
Rémi_ (2024-10-22 22:41:08+00:00): Évidemment je suis allé trop vite : c'est https://matkoniecz.codeberg.page/improving_openstreetmap_using_alltheplaces_dataset/ qui m'a fourni les données
RubenKelevra (2024-10-25 10:56:35+00:00): Danke!
RubenKelevra (2024-10-25 10:56:49+00:00): Danke!
dpschep (2024-12-30 15:42:57+00:00): Nice! Has the old trail actually been closed? Last time I rode thru, the new trail was done but the old trail was open too.
Kevin Cianfarini (2024-12-30 16:31:35+00:00): There used to be bollards preventing you from going on the old segment of trail, but a car hit those and took then out (typical). 

Also, the giant traffic cones protecting that portion of the bike lane from traffic have been removed.
dpschep (2024-12-30 19:40:26+00:00): LOL. typical indeed. Thanks for the info!
RubenKelevra (2024-10-25 10:57:02+00:00): Danke!
NorthCrab_upload (2024-10-22 23:21:19+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2710579877
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/237034387

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
RubenKelevra (2024-10-25 10:57:21+00:00): Danke!
rempshaener (2024-10-23 18:10:55+00:00): Hallo,

du hast um einen Review gebeten, diesem Wunsch komme ich gerne nach.
Zu deiner Änderung habe ich folgende Anmerkungen:
1.	Bei emergency=ambulance_station handelt es sich um Rettungswachen, d. h. um Regelrettungsdienst und oftmals 24/7-Betrieb. Falls das hier nicht der Fall sein sollte, könnte es sich um Einheiten des Katastrophenschutzes (SEG, EE usw.) handeln, das wäre dann emergency=disaster_response. Wenn auch das nicht zutreffen sollte, käme je nach Anteil wirtschaftlicher Tätigkeit office=company oder office=association in Frage.
2.	In „Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe Ordsverband Wöllstein“ ist noch ein Rechtschreibfehler (d) enthalten.
3.	An dieser Stelle gibt es eine Note, diese könntest du schließen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4246527

Bei Fragen bitte einfach melden.

Viele Grüße
RubenKelevra (2024-10-25 10:57:45+00:00): Top, danke!
mueschel (2024-10-24 17:58:21+00:00): Hi,
could you check these edits? You added the tag "linea=parco" to many of these lines.
wildmaps (2024-10-24 18:01:09+00:00): Hi, i added the "virtual" tag linea=parco to the lines Ilthat I have to add to the relation. I did that to not forgot to delete theme. I hope to finish this today. Thanks
wildmaps (2024-10-25 02:04:02+00:00): Thanks. Now i finished ;)
Baloo Uriza (2024-10-23 13:37:20+00:00): Hey there!  You might want to take a look at wiki.openstreetmap.org to learn how to correctly use address and phone fields.  Additionally, OSM is not an appropriate venue for advertising, therefore changeset comments are also an inappropriate venue for ad copy.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158232618
woodpeck_repair (2024-10-29 13:50:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 158499392 where the changeset comment is: revert adversiting
papaj (2024-10-25 17:02:41+00:00): Hi Demisee,
Your use of the 'building=roof' is incorrect, I would recommend reading the wiki article here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Droof. Using the 'roof:*' tags would be more appropriate here i think and would be placed on the main building part.
CurlingMan13 (2024-10-24 05:08:54+00:00): Hello.  You have requested a review by checking the box upon changeset submission.

I have reviewed your changeset and have found it to be in good quality.

Keep up the good work!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158233170
5m4u9 (2024-10-30 02:56:34+00:00): Hola, many routes in Bolivia are not continuous and have breaks in continuity when they pass through large cities or capital cities. For example F4 → https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/167835#map=14/-17.39184/-66.14774, F9 (santa cruz de la sierra), F10 (montero), F5 & F6 (sucre)

On this route, the "official route" ends and begins at the roundabouts to the east and south. I think that the route relation should show this discontinuity.
whammo (2024-10-31 10:47:13+00:00): Ok, done in  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158575570
Frans S (2024-10-23 09:52:54+00:00): See my comment on several changesets.
Follow the outlines of a building more precise. You mostly just map a building rectangular!
Best regards
JJIglesias (2024-10-23 06:29:38+00:00): Hi. All "Unnecessary" data that was in Places in Bolivia was NECESSARY for us. There is NOTHING in the wiki that prohibit to use such tags neither "obligation" to remove such data.

Please revert this changeset. and Next time consult the local communities before taking such actions.

Thanks
whammo (2024-10-23 10:28:50+00:00): Hi JJIglesias. What data that I removed was necessary and why?
JJIglesias (2024-10-23 23:57:38+00:00): is_in:state, names including data between brackests.

Removing data (even the one for deprecated tags) is discouraged and NOT REQUIRED by wiki. What you may not used, could be used by us. The local community and the main users of the map here...
JJIglesias (2024-10-24 00:07:20+00:00): Meanwhile any tag is Not Prohibited. Should NOT be deleted, neither removed from the map the existing ones, and the data associated with them.
JJIglesias (2024-10-24 00:08:14+00:00): There is TOO much data NON EXISTENT and required, to be deleting good data.
whammo (2024-10-25 10:25:34+00:00): Hi JJIglesias, I see you've reverted this changeset already. No software or projects use `is_in` because it is deprecated, but that's fine if you want to have it. This change was more to remove `(disperso)` that you have added to the end of the `name` tag of each of these items, which is certainly not a part of these locations' names. It appears to be a census designation from INE that you've imported into the database without documentation. If you think that designation is meaningful and should change the way the `place` is tagged, it should be an additional tag (eg `dispersed/rural=yes`), not in the name.
JJIglesias (2024-10-26 08:12:26+00:00): You removed is_in, you removed description that include the INE IDs and other data, the "disperso" is an official Census designator for settlements that are not consolidated in the same ways than a tradition settlement. I have been working with Census Official data since 2016, so not IMPORT was done without documentation. Indeed I worked in 2012 Census and also in 2024 Census, so your considerations are all guesses of yourself.
whammo (2024-10-29 10:46:47+00:00): Why should `disperso` be included in the `name` field and not another tag, if at all? See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Nombres#Nombre_es_solo_el_nombre
whammo (2024-11-30 22:56:17+00:00): How would you feel about moving "(disperso)" from the `name` tag and adding `dispersed=yes` to the object? That would preserve the information suggesting this is a non-standard community but move that info out of the `name` field.
whammo (2025-01-24 23:25:39+00:00): I plan to carry out my suggestion of using `dispersed=yes` on these objects next week, so please let me know if you have another idea, I'm happy to modify my approach!
789clubcomse (2024-10-23 02:42:27+00:00): https://789club.com.se/
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jTVdzwhkUU1r6Sk1D0mSVlOBA1ocnpHY
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jhJBu3A989tHBFkqAEw77jHVeoHoG2B0ZSA4im3-t2E/edit?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1hziPPomEQ1uYFHxj21BvYfT8FS2anbs3
https://sites.google.com/view/789clubcomse/home
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1XzBKmnbbNWKd7REePif0_lUF7gG8VLE
https://789clubcomse.blogspot.com/2024/10/789club.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFwzKxAHMQ8
https://x.com/789clubcomse/status/1848747841491280364
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/789-club19/episodes/789Club--Tri-Nghim-Game-Bi-Uy-Tn-V-Phn-Thng-Khng-e2q0goh
https://www.scoop.it/topic/789club-by-789-club-14/p/4161908862/2024/10/22/789club-cong-game-bai-oi-thuong-hang-au-cho-nguoi-choi-viet
joost schouppe (2024-11-21 12:52:54+00:00): Esta linea de frontera no tiene relation al que pertenece: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1327416193
CurlingMan13 (2024-10-24 05:08:17+00:00): Hello.  You have requested a review by checking the box upon changeset submission.

I have reviewed your changeset and have found it to be in good quality.

Keep up the good work!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158235020
Frans S (2024-10-25 10:01:59+00:00): Hello, Thanks for mapping here.
What have you mapped here?
Just a rectangular formed road (2) tagged as primary highway and tagged as road.
No traces proof that.
Yes, a primary road is already mapped here.
Please follow the rules how to map !
I remove these traces
Best regards
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-02 07:11:40+00:00): Can you take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4737999 ?
mavl (2024-10-23 04:33:49+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 156282242, 156282394, 156282546, 156282676, 156282717, 156283755, 156283855, 156284077, 156284796, 156285050, 156285092, 156285181, 156285527, 156286137, 156286351, 156286532, 156286943, 156287181, 156288316, 156289789, 156299071, 156299617, 156300037, 156300117, 156300248, 156300343, 156300781, 156303045, 156303515, 156308987, 156309626, 156311337, 156312713, 156314110, 156314200, 156314289, 156314361, 156314495, 156349483.
aharvey (2025-01-16 08:59:34+00:00): These ways have seen been re-added by another user, which is disappointing that this changeset happened and could not have been reverted sooner. The original contribution by @DM9 was lost now.
map per (2024-11-02 13:17:51+00:00): Hello محمد الهلااالي,

when using the editing functionality of Maps.me your changes are uploaded to the public OpenStreetMap database. Please do not use this functionality to add personal notes or nonsense, as this information is not relevant for other users.

Thanks and best regards
map per

PS: Feel free to write back if you have any questions
Khidistavi (2024-10-23 09:17:29+00:00): Reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158243646
GerdP (2024-10-23 08:07:54+00:00): Korrektur Copy+Paste Fehler: Radtour am 20.10.2024
JassKurn (2024-10-28 14:46:20+00:00): Reverted in changeset 158459545
This is one of group of changesets from new account, made over two days, that introduce errors. coastlinebot has failed to respond to requests to explain edits.
JassKurn (2024-10-28 14:48:32+00:00): Reverted in changeset 158459630
This is one of group of changesets from new account, made over two days, that introduce errors. coastlinebot has failed to respond to requests to explain edits.
JassKurn (2024-10-28 14:59:02+00:00): fixed in changeset 158460009
This is one of group of changesets from new account, made over two days, that introduce errors. coastlinebot has failed to respond to requests to explain edits.
JassKurn (2024-10-28 15:01:56+00:00): Reverted in changeset 158460120
This is one of group of changesets from new account, made over two days, that introduce errors. coastlinebot has failed to respond to requests to explain edits.
JassKurn (2024-10-28 15:05:24+00:00): Reverted in changeset 158460232
This is one of group of changesets from new account, made over two days, that introduce errors. coastlinebot has failed to respond to requests to explain edits.
JassKurn (2024-10-28 15:10:54+00:00): Reverted in changeset 158460293
This is one of group of changesets from new account, made over two days, that introduce errors. coastlinebot has failed to respond to requests to explain edits.
JezCrow (2024-10-23 21:42:09+00:00): Hi, I see you've deleted The Shrape breakwater and re-drawn the coastline around it and I'm wondering why you did that? I don't have any local knowledge of this area but looking at OS OpenMap Local, this breakwater has not been included as part of the coastline since the October 2017 release, so I think it should be separate.
JassKurn (2024-10-24 14:55:02+00:00): I agree, it appears this breakwater still exists and therefore should not have been deleted. 

Coastlinebot, you've undertaken several similar editis. Can you explain what you up to?
JassKurn (2024-10-28 15:38:02+00:00): Reverted in changeset 158461444
This is one of group of changesets from new account, made over two days, that introduce errors. coastlinebot has failed to respond to requests to explain edit
SekeRob (2024-10-24 07:01:11+00:00): Hi,

One more proof that ID is inadequate... alarm bells went off and when loading the area into JOSM, the connections, restrictions showed broken, nothing to control, nor is it a motorroad anymore, so I took the axe to these. The other aerts I ignored such as bridge with no way on it. Looks weird though... one cycles past and underneath but nothing on the map. We'll see if the demolition really starts in Jan. Noticeable is that the new smaller work board showed a dropped price for these works. Maybe because they subtracted the cost of the 'new' bypass. 

Have a nice day..
damianeue (2024-10-24 07:08:49+00:00): Hi SekeRob,
this was actually an edit I wasn't so sure creating... You're right, it's strange that you see nothing on the map but it is still there... Also we shouldn't map for the rendering, but I was thinking: maybe I should map the bridge/asphalt area since it is still there?
SekeRob (2024-10-24 08:42:34+00:00): Think that would be an idea, then add disused=yes. Possible the bells go ringing again as there's no way, but remember solving this somewhere near that large chem wastedump near Popoli. Sure looking forward to see what they're going to do with those ramp embankments and how they're going the bridge structure off crossing the road... maybe crane it while closing the road for a few days.

Anyway, my biweekly cycle tour check of vrs constructions there's now a cycleway on an embankment coming in the BI-6 or as they like to sign it in Abruzzo as Ciclovia Adriatica 6. In Marche it's simply signed as 6 with a bike symbol. 

TTYL
osmviborg (2024-10-23 06:56:46+00:00): Tilføj gerne 'surface=*'
渤海西岸 (2024-10-23 11:03:59+00:00): 删label干什么？
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-06 04:31:03+00:00): Cleaned up remaining SEO spam tags for Two Men and a Truck POI in changeset 183721851

https://osm.org/changeset/183721851
osmviborg (2024-10-23 07:50:08+00:00): 👌
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-06 04:30:45+00:00): Cleaned up remaining SEO spam tags for Two Men and a Truck POI in changeset 183721851

https://osm.org/changeset/183721851
richlv (2024-10-25 07:38:39+00:00): Labdien, liels paldies par kartes papildināšanu.
Šīs izmaiņas atcēlu, jo administratīvā robeža bija pārviedota par ceļu.
Būtu ļoti derīgi aprunāties kopienā par to, kā labāk veikt izmaiņas - citādāk kļūdainās nākas atcelt, un tiek zaudēts laiks.
Aicinām pievienoties OSM Latvijas kopienas čatam - https://osmlatvija.zulipchat.com .
Khidistavi (2024-10-23 09:12:10+00:00): Reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158243464
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-10-23 21:42:45+00:00): This changeset reversed a oneway segment. Please read warnings before uploading.
map per (2024-10-24 11:03:13+00:00): Because of review_requested:
The edit looks good, thank you!
Khidistavi (2024-10-23 09:12:11+00:00): Reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158243464