piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Bendita Moreira (2024-05-31 13:05:18+00:00): Hello Julmira according to my observation all your mapping of building looks good you use square for all building, so keep it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151835451
pitfire (2024-05-26 05:09:33+00:00): Hi  Josefr504,
warum die Löschung von "parking=surface & access=permissive" ?
Josefr504 (2024-05-26 05:41:22+00:00): Hallo,
dort war die Filiale der Kreissparkasse Köln. Nach dem Umzug ist der Parkplatz nur noch für Bewohner des Hauses, eine Kette verhindert inzwischen die Zufahrt auf den Parkplatz für alle anderen.
Viele Grüße
Josef
Josefr504 (2024-05-26 05:43:37+00:00): Die neue Filiale ist übrigens schon eingezeichnet, Kölner Str. 60 ist es jetzt
pitfire (2024-05-26 08:10:09+00:00): Danke, dann ändere ich das. Ist denn der GAA noch dort? 
Auf dem Luftbild erkennt man auch Garagen an der Kölner Straße?

VG pitfire
Josefr504 (2024-05-26 09:31:27+00:00): Nein kein Geldautomat oder sonstige Einrichtungen der Kreissparkasse mehr. Alles ist jetzt am neuen Standort Kölner Str. 60. Garagen sind auch nur privat, nicht öffentlich. Diese werden zu den Wohnungen oberhalb der momentan leeren Geschäftsräume gehören.
Viele Grüße
Josef
YomanNH (2024-06-11 08:36:08+00:00): Usunąłem nazwę opisową.
donaldnewlands (2024-05-26 05:56:49+00:00): Summit Mainline no longer crosses the  South Fork of the Neacanicum.
Gregory Peony (2024-11-10 05:30:32+00:00): WAY: 1286728871 appears to be longer in imager and its orientation would be more accurate if it were rotated clockwise a little. Thanks for providing changeset comments by the way.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151836765
Anil Basnet (2024-11-10 14:14:36+00:00): ok
Gregory Peony (2024-11-10 02:53:13+00:00): All of these footprints envelope buildings and have been appropriately squared. The accuracy could be slighty greater. Overall a good changeset. --- I think that WAY: 1286730702 is actually L shaped and that WAY: 1286730704 should actually be represented with two footprints. Check Changeset: 158954385 to see how I mapped it.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151837175
Anil Basnet (2024-11-10 14:12:58+00:00): ok
Bendita Moreira (2024-05-26 07:11:07+00:00): Mr. Kmarkish_lyft your mapping looks good but you need to fix many point on the street that doesn't  have any information.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151837339
kmarkish_lyft (2024-05-27 13:57:30+00:00): Hi,Bendita Moreira! 
My name is Kate, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. 
Many thanks for this feedback. After reviewing my edits I found a disconnected road and I have already fixed it in the changeset - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151885492  

In the changeset, I was primarily fixing the geometry of the roads and cycleways to prevent possible routing issues, and I'm not quite sure what points you're talking about. Are you referring to these points (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3439363105)? 
Currently, it is out of scope of our projects, and we try to avoid such fixes, on objects that do not affect routing and that are not added by our team.
Bendita Moreira (2024-05-26 06:50:50+00:00): Mr.gscholz your need to fix large intersection of building.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151837362
Gregory Peony (2024-11-10 05:10:46+00:00): All footprints outline buildings and are appropriately squared.  some footpritns envelope multiple buildings e.g. WAY: 1286732060 & WAY: 1286732059. Some building footprints could be more accurate e.g. WAY: 1286732031 & WAY: 1286732034 should be L shaped. Hope this helps.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151837635
Anil Basnet (2024-11-10 14:13:51+00:00): ok
Joseph R P (2024-06-04 03:37:16+00:00): Hello, the very short VA 124 designation is actually only from US 29 up to the I 66 overpass rather than up to Lorcum Lane according to VDOT: https://www.virginiaroads.org/datasets/VDOT::lrs-route-master/explore
kmarkish_lyft (2024-06-04 10:44:46+00:00): Hi, Joseph R P! 
Many thanks for sharing the link that you used for your edits. 
I decided to restore the information about the "ref" tag according to the Wiki page describing route SR 124 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_primary_state_highways_in_Virginia_shorter_than_one_mile#SR_124, that says that SR 124 goes between US 29 and Lorcom Lane.
Additionally, I noticed that the value of the "ref" tag for the road segments corresponds to the route relation - https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1540478  
Therefore, based on the above information, it seems appropriate to retain the "ref" tag.
Could you please share your thoughts according to your experience on whether it is common for a road number to end unexpectedly on a random segment rather than logically concluding at an intersection?
Thank you in advance for your insights.

Best regards!
Joseph R P (2024-06-06 05:14:12+00:00): The source that should be trusted in this case is the one directly from VDOT versus Wikipedia. It seems possible that the VA 124 designation extended up to Lorcum Lane at some point but the Wikipedia information wasn't updated, whereas the VDOT LRS data was updated back in February of this year. The relation still extending up to Lorcum Lane is an oversight on my part.

In Virginia, it's very common for state highway designations to end abruptly at county and municipal boundaries or above or below other highways like I 66 in this instance. Throughout much of the US, road numbers simply imply who funds/maintains the roadways, leading to examples like this. I am not 100% sure why VDOT would want to hand over a short section of an already short route over to Arlington County to maintain, though, but my guess is VDOT is slowly trying to decommission VA 124, effectively making it an unsigned county road, and is now down to the section that is below the I 66 right-of-way.

A similar example of this is VA 228, which starts at VA 7 in Dranesville, bypasses Herndon, then is briefly rerouted onto Elden Street before abruptly termination at the boundary between Herndon and unincorporated Fairfax County, where it becomes Secondary Route 657, a county-level highway. For whatever reason, VDOT sought fit not to continue funding the short section from the town boundary to the Dulles Toll Road.
kmarkish_lyft (2024-06-06 12:24:57+00:00): Thank you for the detailed explanation. I agree that VDOT's data should be considered more reliable than Wikipedia, especially since it was updated recently. It's interesting to learn about the common practice in Virginia.
I appreciate the clarification on this matter.
Best regards
dreua (2025-02-25 12:43:09+00:00): Danke, das wurde genauso wie subway=yes (hab ich eben entfernt) in Version #5 hinzugefügt. Die Vorschläge von iD waren dort offenbar inkorrekt und ein Mapper hat sie ungeprüft übernommen. (Hab bzgl. subway=yes schon einen Kommentar hinterlassen.)
silversurfer83 (2024-05-26 20:23:10+00:00): Hallo lieber Apfelmann :)

finde ich gut, dass du diese bisher unerfassten Wege in die Datenbank einträgst. Danke :)

Eine Bitte: Achte bei der Einzeichnung bitte darauf, dass du die (neuen) Wege nur mit Linien verbindest, die auch mit Wegen verbunden werden sollten. Das sind hauptsächlich andere Wege und auch gerne Hindernisse wie Tore, Gatter, Zäune, etc. Was nicht mit Wegen verbunden werden sollte sind Umrisse von Wäldern und Wiesen sowie Grenzen von Verwaltungseinheiten oder Schutzgebieten.
Bitte setze die Punkte der (neuen) Wege nicht auf diese Arte Linie. Danke.

Bei Fragen immer raus damit
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151838247
anti-romantic (2024-05-26 10:42:34+00:00): Вы неверно отрисовали полигон здания. Вы обвели крышу, но так как это многоэтажка, первый этаж на снимке у нее в другом месте - это стоит учитывать при редактировании. Более того, контур здания уже был нарисован до вас, как раз на месте первого этажа. И, пожалуйста, не ставьте layer=1 при пересечении объектов - это не решает проблему, а создает новую
jptolosa (2024-05-26 22:48:22+00:00): Hola,
los tramos de la avenida San Pablo que dividiste son de una sola calzada y 4 carriles. No corresponde dividirla en dos vías si no existe ningún tipo de barrera central.
Intentar que los conjuntos de cambios no abarquen un área tan grande.
Saludos.
mcliquid (2024-05-27 08:21:30+00:00): Hallo und vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag,

bitte beachte jedoch: Changesets sollten lokal sein.

In deinem Fall bitte vor dem Ortswechsel immer alle Änderungen in OsmAnd hochladen!

Um Konflikte zu vermeiden und aus Höflichkeit gegenüber anderen wird empfohlen:
• Änderungen in einem kleinen geografischen Bereich zu kombinieren (innerhalb einer Stadt, eines Bezirks oder einer Provinz)
• Änderungen innerhalb desselben Landes zu halten
• Änderungen hochzuladen/speichern, bevor man in einem anderen Gebiet weiterkartiert

Warum? Schau dir den Abschnitt "Geographische Größe von Changesets" auf dieser Wiki-Seite an:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Danke für die Berücksichtigung, einen schönen Tag noch und fröhliches Mappen!
woodpeck (2024-05-27 11:40:56+00:00):  I have removed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1286748121 again as there was nothing there that would support the intersection layout you mapped.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-29 07:00:15+00:00): would https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:zoo%3Dpetting_zoo work well for object mapped with https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11934509439 ?
Gregory Peony (2024-07-11 04:03:34+00:00): WAY: 1286754650 is oversized. Check the changesets in the task area to see my edits.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151840996
captaininler (2024-07-10 12:12:55+00:00): This change of the value of population to "4" seems to me unwanted as 4 is not realy realisitc population of the whole continent :-) If not further arguments are for this change I'll revert this changeset.
Gregory Peony (2024-07-05 01:55:51+00:00): Building footprints inaccurate, particularly the southern one. It's aspect ratio is off and it appears oversized.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151841518
ivanbranco (2024-06-05 21:51:36+00:00): Hi divaddivag,

why did you add back a link to a non-existing image: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1494437697/history ?

"This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference."
divaddivag (2024-06-06 03:34:22+00:00): Oups, I did not notice it was removed from Wikicommons. I won't happen again! Thanks.

David
pyram (2024-05-26 18:36:18+00:00): Hi,

danke für die schöne Umsetzung von https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151766372

Wenn man nach Norden auch ein-/ausfahren kann, dann sollte der Weg mit der Straße verbunden werden. Ansonsten kann man an den letzten Wegpunkt auch ein "noexit=yes" ergänzen ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:noexit%3Dyes )

Gruß
pyram
Vlachata (2024-05-26 18:49:42+00:00): Hallo, vielen Dank für das Schliessen des Doppelfalles (bin nochAnfänger). Ich drücke noch nicht auf erledigt weil in der Map Tracestrack Topo die Änderungen noch nicht erscheinen, werden die Korrekturen auch dort erscheinen?
Der private Weg ist kurz vor Ende oben rechts durch Pfosten gesperrt. No exit werde ich noch einfügen.
Gruss Vlachata
pyram (2024-05-27 11:36:26+00:00): Ja, das wird auch dort früher oder später dargestellt werden. Ist nur nicht "live":
https://www.tracestrack.com/information/ => 3.
Gregory Peony (2024-07-28 04:39:42+00:00): WAY: 1286759355 includes a little bit of the building's shadow to the south, but is otherwise accurate. Don't include shadows in footprints, becuase building footprints will be over sized. If the shadow were not included, it would be an accurate footprint. Please map like this in future. It is one of the most accurate footprints in this changeset.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151841775
NorthCrab_upload (2024-05-26 09:20:40+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/11934587200
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671582620

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
kaciorx (2024-05-26 09:33:00+00:00): Stara zmiana z błędnym adresem. Poprawione
NorthCrab (2024-05-28 07:44:37+00:00): Dzięki!
RedGreenBlue09 (2024-05-26 18:42:42+00:00): Minh Phụng, Bình Thới, Phú Thọ không xứng làm secondary. Nếu vậy thì người ta thêm tertiary vào làm gì nữa?
phoenixsaigon1698 (2024-05-26 23:23:47+00:00): Thứ nhất, Phú Thọ là đường nối trực tiếp giữa Hồng Bàng và Lạc Long Quân. 1 Primary và 1 Secondary.
Bình Thới mình cũng nâng cấp lên là vì nối giữa 3 đường Secondary Lạc Long Quân, Minh Phụng, Lê Đại Hành.
Nên thực chất nó nên được xem không khác gì Secondary-link. Đây là suy nghĩ của mình.
RedGreenBlue09 (2024-05-27 13:38:30+00:00): Định nghĩa như vậy sai r bạn. Nếu vậy hẻm nhỏ nối 2 đường lớn cũng là đường lớn chăng? Các thể loại link chỉ dành cho các nhánh rẽ phụ ở các nút giao thôi.
phoenixsaigon1698 (2024-05-27 23:08:31+00:00): Chào bạn, mình đã đổi Bình Thới xuống tertiary. Còn Phú Thọ mình giữ nguyên secondary, vì nó là tiếp nối đi thẳng liên tục của Lạc Long Quân (secondary) tới Hồng Bàng (primary).
Gregory Peony (2024-11-01 19:10:04+00:00): The northern footprint is a top quality contribution; valid, accurate in shape and orientation, and appropriately squared. Please map to this standard in future.---The southern footprint is valid, but is oversized and the orientation could be more accurate. See how I modified it in Changeset: 158632833.---Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151841897
Gregory Peony (2024-11-01 19:18:22+00:00): This footprint is, valid accurate in orientation and appropriately squared, but is oversized due to off-nadir distortion. The fact that it is too large can be seen in ESRI imagery which is closer to nadir. See my changes in Changeset: 158633158.---Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151841926
aharvey (2025-08-03 05:10:29+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6635352711/history and some others were just deleted, but I don't know enough about train signalling to know if it should have been...
❤️‍🔥 (2025-08-03 09:32:09+00:00): thanks for the heads up, i've left a comment to ask about this
Gregory Peony (2024-11-01 19:29:58+00:00): All but one of these footprints is valid. The footpritns are sometimes inaccurate in size,shape and orientation. e.g. WAY: 1286761082 & way 1286761100 should be mapped as 'L' shaped buildings.---It's good to move the highway out of the way to prevent overlaps however you should include the fact that you modifed the highway in your changeset comment. I recommend that you modify features like highways first if you suspect that they will cause issuses, becasue they can be quite long and lead to your changesets being large and making it more difficult to find the smaller features you've mapped. Thank you for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151842017
Gregory Peony (2024-11-01 20:21:51+00:00): Well done in avoiding highway/building errors. However some of the building footprints could be more accurate for instance WAY: 1286761664 should be a T shaped building and WAY: 1286761645 an L shaped building.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151842146
Gregory Peony (2024-11-01 20:47:43+00:00): See Changeset: 158636332 for my modification of some of the buildings here.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151842146
gormur (2024-08-04 12:45:13+00:00): Hi!
What do you mean by "natural=Boucherie les 2 Thomas" ? Doesn't seem to fit into the natural tag :D
gileri (2024-08-04 13:00:32+00:00): Hi Gormur, that was a typo (autocomplete did not suggest name, as it was already set). Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154811471
Gregory Peony (2024-11-03 04:05:45+00:00): The gabled roofed buildings in this changeset are inaccurate. Depending on how they're lit gabled roofs may have a light and dark side; both should be used when mapping the footprint. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Look at Changeset: 158684248 to see how I mapped it. Hope this helps.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151842222
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-17 05:24:20+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1286763166/history - jest tu zakaz jazdy rowerem?
mpszczolka (2026-07-21 18:20:34+00:00): Ja daję "bicycle 	no" tylko gdy wyraznie nie jest to droga dla rowera i walka z rowerem mnie wyraznie zirytuje (kompletnie zarosnieta, zalana, pelno pni, inne powody), nie znaczy zakaz, ale żeby nawigacje nie prowadzily przez takie kawalki.
Jesli sie nie zgadzasz lub sie zmienilo - smialo zmieniaj :)
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-22 06:35:14+00:00): bicycle=no jest tylko i wyłączne na zakaz

na "słabo tam rowerem" są inne tagi i proszę, nie używaj bicycle=no na to bo to jest wprost błędne
mpszczolka (2026-07-22 06:51:32+00:00): Jezu, to moze podaj te tagi (bo brzmisz jak bys wiedzial) albo linka do informacji, a nie ja bede teraz w necie szukal.....
mpszczolka (2026-07-22 07:56:37+00:00): Dobra, sam se znalazlem :) https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-an-informal-path-that-is-steep-rocky-and-unsuitable-for-any-form-of-wheeled-access/118040

Bede od tej pory oznaczal takie kawalki jako    smoothness=impassible
Jak widzisz, strakowalem wszystkie nieuzytki w promieniu 10km od Libertowa, dziesiatki km sciezek.
mpszczolka (2026-07-22 07:58:09+00:00): W sumie dzieki za zwrocenie mi uwagi :) choc rzeczony artykul z linka, sugeruje ze bicycle=no rowniez moze byc dla oznaczenia nieprzejezdnosci.
Jordi MF (2024-05-26 19:51:38+00:00): Hola Xavier,

He comprovat que jo no vaig afegir aquesta senda (la va afegir César Mateu), però en algun moment la vaig editar. He vist que en unes planimetries sí que apareix la senda. Aquestes sendes que ja no existeixen, però que en lagun moment sí que hi van ser, jo les etiquete com a "was:highway=path". Si es mapegen així, les aplicacions no mostraran la senda i, per tant, no induiran a error a cap excursionista, però la base de dades tindrà la certesa que en algun moment va existir la senda. Si deixem la línia en blanc, algú podria pensar que és un error de l'editor i podria borrar-la.

Si et pareix bé, afegiré eixa etiqueta.
Salutacions i gràcies per comentar-ho.
goterris (2024-05-27 14:50:14+00:00): Me pareix perfecte perquè jo no sé fer-ho.
De tota manera la senda que apareix a les planimetries és el camí del mas d'Aicart a la Rebollosa (també una senda anomenada "de les Useres" que no està topografiada).
Jordi MF (2024-05-27 23:57:35+00:00): He afegit el nom del 'Camí del Mas d'Aicart a la Rebollosa'. També he afegit l'inici de la Senda de les Useres, a prop del Pou de la Rebollosa, perquè s'intueix en l'ortofoto de 1958 (el vol americà), però la continuació la estava totalment perduda i no m'atrevisc a afegir-la només mirant la planimetria. Tant de bo fora fàcil arribar a eixe punt i buscar el pou...
Salutacions.
aTarom (2024-05-26 12:35:10+00:00): Hola de nuevo, no recibo ninguna respuesta en ninguno de tus changesets anteriores, de nuevo otra, se están revertiendo cambios recientes de trabajo de campo!!! por ejemplo:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4379282262/history
estoy viendo imágenes y realmente el ayuntamiento tiene un rótulo con letras bien grandes, donde se lee perfectamente "Ajuntament"
qué cartelería estás usando y donde se puede ver? compártela en
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/usuarios-editando-en-espana-bajo-sospecha-vandalismo-malas-practicas-y-otros/2510
Ariadne2019 (2024-06-01 10:05:12+00:00): Le centre Human'Art a été remplacé par une nouvelle boulangerie, Au pain Quotidien, qui a ouvert il y 2-3 mois. Comme j'habite à 200 mètres, je peux confirmer ce changement.
Gregory Peony (2024-11-02 04:53:37+00:00): Footprints are valid but some are oversized and those with more complex shapes are represented with quadrilaterals.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151842864
akimapbuilder (2024-05-27 08:23:34+00:00): Hi! I had to revert your changeset since there is no building in sight.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-26 09:47:34+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changeset 151571627.
Jordi MF (2024-05-26 19:09:46+00:00): Los nombres de calle deben de escribirse completos en su parte genérica y propia.
tastrax (2024-05-27 06:26:21+00:00): Hi folks and welcome to OSM. So much to map and so little time! Great to see you editing from Organic Maps. FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features.

Also, unit or shop numbers should be added to addr:unit key rather than combined with the addr:housenumber key. I have just updated a recent edit you made. Cheers
utteringmute (2024-06-20 04:39:53+00:00): Amenity identified with correct tag. Additional tags maybe added in the future.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151843426
utteringmute (2024-06-20 04:39:27+00:00): Amenity identified with correct tag. Additional tags maybe added in the future.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151843478
utteringmute (2024-06-20 04:39:07+00:00): Amenity identified with correct tag. Additional tags maybe added in the future.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151843497
utteringmute (2024-06-20 04:38:49+00:00): Amenity identified with correct tag. Additional tags maybe added in the future.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151843507
utteringmute (2024-06-20 04:35:53+00:00): Amenity identified with correct tag. Additional tags maybe added in the future.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151843528
utteringmute (2024-06-20 04:33:25+00:00): Amenity identified with correct tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151843579
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-27 14:05:47+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great and also the changeset comment. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151843597