piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
goodidea (2024-05-28 12:24:04+00:00): Hallo!
Danke, dass du danach geschaut hast!

Zum Finden kann man seine eigenen Changesets (Änderungssätze) durchschauen, deine findet man hier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MasterShredder/history

Oder auch OverpassTurbo benutzen (http://overpass-turbo.eu).

Dort z.B. beim Wizard eingeben: operator=JCDecaux and user:MasterShredder global

(oder: operator=JCDecaux and user:MasterShredder in Saarbrücken)

OverPassTurbo ist eigentlich DAS nützlichste Tool, um gezielt was zu finden ... man muss sich etwas damit vertraut machen (der Wizard ist aber recht einfach).

Dann auf die Lupe klicken, um Ergebnisse angezeigt zu bekommen (er findet aber nix ... siehe Suchergebnis unten rechts ... wobei es auch nur gefunden wird, wenn seit deiner Bearbeitung kein anderer User das Objekt bearbeitet hat). Ist also sehr wahrscheinlich erledigt ...

Hinweis: um z.B. alle advertising-Objekte mit operator=Wall GmbH in Saarbrücken zu finden, gibt man beim Wizard ein:
advertising=* and operator="Wall GmbH" in Saarbrücken

Oder ob noch irgendwo „JCDecaux“ falsch als operator zugewiesen ist:
operator=JCDecaux in Saarbrücken
(Link: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1M8R)

Da wird noch genau ein Bushäuschen in SB gefunden ... muss ich mal ändern ...

Viele Grüße!
CurlingMan13 (2024-03-18 20:10:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted for the following reasons:
* Partial overlap of landcovers
* Removal of features to redraw them
* Many landcover areas split up to resemble multipoloygons, rather than creating multipolygons

I stongly advise you to read the following wiki section PRIOR to making further edits:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148833244
meznieks (2024-03-23 10:30:20+00:00): Thanks for fixing. I found a map recently that confirmed exactly what you said. Was going to rename it, but you beat me to it.
HellMap (2024-03-23 10:37:43+00:00): Cool!

Here's a custom background imagery you can use that will show aerial photography and cadaster layer plus street names of top of it, if that helps. It's much easier to adjust streets and properties like that (default iD cadaster layer doesn't have street name.) Although one has to be careful because it's rarely accurate and a lot of "streets" aren't actually streets, but more like reserved future lines than may easily change.

https://lvmgeoserver.lvm.lv/geoserver/ows?FORMAT=image/jpeg&VERSION=1.3.0&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=public:Orto_LKS,publicwfs:Kadastra_karte,publicwfs:arisstreet,publicwfs:arisroad,publicwfs:arisbuilding&STYLES=&CRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lv:Source#iD_sl%C4%81%C5%86u_pievieno%C5%A1ana
CurlingMan13 (2024-03-18 20:22:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted for the following reasons:
* Partial overlap of landcovers
* Removal of features to redraw them
* Many landcover areas split up to resemble multipoloygons, rather than creating multipolygons

I stongly advise you to read the following wiki section PRIOR to making further edits:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148833657
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-05-10 08:24:04+00:00): Is it actually name of this drinking water source?

Or have you put description in name field?
mcliquid (2024-05-10 09:30:46+00:00): To be honest, I certainly didn't add any names here. This must have been added automatically by Organic Maps when editing the position due to their preset I would say. I don't speak Italian so I would never add an Italian name on a Portuguese island.
joost schouppe (2025-11-07 10:44:17+00:00): May I assume that 115000 for a minor_line is a typo? It should probably be 15000 like the other ones your touched here?
Ardennen8 (2025-11-07 16:12:54+00:00): Yes.
joost schouppe (2025-11-10 08:45:31+00:00): I fixed it for you
PeachyOne (2024-03-18 20:50:16+00:00): forgot to add comments on this; mainly corrected and added some ways, the university campuses, castle citadel limits, and various POIs
jimkats (2024-08-10 17:56:00+00:00): Με αυτό το changeset όμως δημιούργησες μια λάθος Δημοτική Ενότητα Ιωαννιτών, η οποία όμως πιο πολύ μοιάζει με την Κοινότητα Ιωαννιτών (βάσει των δεδομένων του geodata.gov.gr), κι αυτό πάλι λάθος, διότι π.χ. τα ανατολικά όρια θα έπρεπε να είναι στην λίμνη, μαζί με αυτά της Δ.Ε. Νήσου Ιωαννίνων, κι όχι στην ακτή. Πως το κατάφερες αυτό 😅
PeachyOne (2024-08-11 09:30:10+00:00): Γενικά αν θυμάμαι καλά, τα όρια ήταν πολύ ανάκατα πριν κάνω αυτές τις αλλαγές, το ένα έκανε overlap το άλλο μέσα στη λίμνη, και στη ξηρά τα Γιάννενα έκανα overlap με το Πέραμα. Θα τσεκάρω ιστορικό και θα σου πω.
aixbrick (2024-03-25 16:49:31+00:00): Hello,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1263883046: Why should on this part of the roundabout apply other maxspeed and traffic rules then the other part? Just because it is in Germany? Are there any traffic signs indicating that on location?
Regards
JeroenvanderGun (2024-03-25 20:14:12+00:00): The part of the roundabout within Germany is outside the Dutch built-up area and unlike Avantis there is no German built-up area here. There are no signs for entering/exiting the Dutch built-up area here, but that is irrelevant, because Dutch built-up area signs are invalid under German law (wrong colour). The national border is also in the correct place (verified with government maps); it has no signs here, but signs are irrelevant for national jurisdiction. Hence zone:traffic=NL:urban on the Dutch part and zone:traffic=DE:rural on the German part, both with default speed limits.

Looking at historical maps, it turns out that the road was originally built on the Dutch side of the border, and that the roundabout was inserted later.

Of course this is a theoretical exercise; in practice neither 50 km/h nor 100 km/h is a feasible driving speed on the roundabout.
aixbrick (2024-03-26 10:14:11+00:00): I would agree if there is also a road on German ground connected, but the whole roundabout only connects Dutch roads, so I think it is subject only to Dutch traffic law - even it was built (by permission) partly on German ground.
But I guess that could only be cleared by local authorities.
SomeoneElse2 (2024-03-20 18:08:12+00:00): Hello,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11742283562 seems a bit odd - there's a gate in the middle of a stream and then a bit of a gap until this node?
Cheers,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2024-03-20 18:09:51+00:00): (oops - sorry for commenting from wrong userid)
dudone (2024-03-20 21:12:07+00:00): Hi Andy
This should not be fixed.  I’ve raised the issue of the rights of way with Cumbria Council as I tried walking one of these.  They are on their rights of way map as drawn in OSM.  It will be interesting to see if I get any response.  
Dudley
Aim311_ (2024-04-26 08:49:41+00:00): Cześć kolego. Dokonałeś awansu drogi prowadzącej do lasu i pola na unclassified niestety nie uzupełniłeś brakujących parametrów drogi jak surface, smothness na drodze poza terenem zabudowanym, prowadzącej przez pola i lasy. Generalnie gdyby nawigacja miałaby prowadzić moje auto tego typu drogą, bo utworzyłeś dobrej jakości skrót to bym jej podziękował za wprowadzanie mnie w maliny.

Jak co to już naprawione.
prmtl (2024-04-26 09:01:36+00:00): Dzięki za zwrócenie uwagi.

Wg mnie to jest unclassified i łączy Myszkowo z Witoldzinem, to że jest kiepskiej jakości i prowadzi przez pola i lasy o tracku jako samo w sobie nie świadczy - jak sam zauważyłeś, od jakości służą inne tagi. Ale OK - mógł to być mój błąd w interpretacji zdjęć z Geoportalu, więc jeszcze raz dzięki.

Ale takie pasywno agresywne teksty i złośliwości jak ten o nawigacji, to sobie daruj. Można dyskusje prowadzić przyjemniej.

Pozdrawiam!
Aim311_ (2024-04-26 10:11:28+00:00): Dzięki za odpowiedź i zwrócenie uwagi. Postaram się pisać normalniej. 
Słusznie zauważyłeś, że jakość drogi, (oraz dodam, że natężenie ruchu) nie wpływa na główną kategorię drogi. 
Możliwe, że właściwe dodałeś kategorię, w końcu to oficjalna droga.

Odnośnie nawigacji to miałem na myśli nawigacje samochodowe, z których korzystam. Niektóre nawigacje np. Yanosik z niewiadomego powodu ukrywa drogi typu track (hint zamiast ukrywać powinna wyświetlać je bez opcji nawigowania). W przypadku nawigacji rowerowych czy pieszych to tracki są tam brane pod uwagę.

W stavie https://www.strava.com/maps/global-heatmap?style=dark&terrain=false&sport=All&gColor=hot&gOpacity=100&labels=true&poi=true#14.26/52.55062/16.63346 ta droga cieszy się popularnością turystyki rowerowej (być może m.in. dlatego, że odcinek Myszkowo-Piaskowo jest niebezpieczny i mało atrakcyjny). Odnośnie natężenia ruchu osobowego na odcinku przez las mógłby się wypowiedzieć Yanosik.
prmtl (2024-04-26 10:20:26+00:00): Oczywiście! Może to nie wybrzmiało, ale ja rozumiem twoje argumenty i niech ten "track" pozostanie. Ja się wcale nie upieram przy "unclassified" - chciałem tylko przedstawić mój tok rozumowania i skąd mi się wzięła ta zmiana :)

Pozdrawiam!
maraf24 (2024-04-27 14:12:54+00:00): Btw. droga łączy dwie miejscowości i zasługuje na unclassified gdy rzeczywiście służy za takie połączenia, czyli jest tam zauważalny ruch pojazdów i nadaje się do tranzytu.
W przypadki drogi oficjalnej oczekiwałbym też obecności zielonych tablic kierunkowych z nazwą miejscowości.
Możliwe, że ta właśnie droga to nie jest track i funkcjonuje jako lokalne połączenie (dla mieszkańców). Wówczas można dać jej residential/service.
Aim311_ (2024-04-28 16:03:31+00:00): Dzisiaj przejechałem się tą "drogą" niczego nie łączy, jest to droga dojazdowa do pola - tylko. 
Sam piach, koleiny, wielkie kałuże objeżdżane polem tyle.
eggie (2024-03-19 20:01:12+00:00): Dag Johan,
Lijkt me oke zo. source=3dshapes kun je verwijderen, want dat klopt nu niet meer. 

MVG
eggie
blef (2024-03-19 13:36:58+00:00): Hi.
On way 331921016 l'Echez:
caravan=no + capacity:caravan=14
Surprising, isn't it?
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2024-03-21 01:18:49+00:00): Why is it surprising?
I agree that it is somewhat confusing.
I think that tourism=caravan_site, caravans=no is already confusing.

But that is how is was done and is documented on the wiki.
(capacity:caravans is documented on tourism=camp_site).
blef (2024-03-21 11:35:38+00:00): I agree: tourism=caravan_site + caravans=no sounds a bit strange, but it comes because the value caravan_site is used also for RV sites (tourism=motorhome_site does not exist, perhaps it would be better to create it, but it is another story).
Nevertheless, I stand by my position: you cannot add capacity:caravans if caravans are not allowed on this site!
... and it seems that I'm not the only one to think so.
blef (2024-03-19 20:55:58+00:00): Hi.
It seems that you systematically add the capacity:motorhomes and capacity:caravans tags to all caravan sites. Here and in other places, no access for caravans is indicated by the tag caravans=no, so indicating a capacity for caravans when they don't have access to the site is absurd.
Furthermore, even if the caravans had access, the sum of the capacities for the caravans and motorhomes cannot exceed the total capacity.
In the past, I've left several comments on your changesets to which you've never replied. Will I have better luck today?
hk51 (2024-03-18 22:33:09+00:00): Hi,
wie kann ein Stellplatz der capacity=31 hat denn Platz für 31 Caravans + 31 Motorhomes =62 haben ?
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2024-03-20 17:53:42+00:00): According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site

capacity:caravans is the number of pitches for both caravans and motorhomes.

these 4 sites are 
tourism=caravan_site, caravans=0

So there are no room for caravans (trailers pulled by a car).

But we cannot use capacity:caravans=0 because then data consumers (e.g., opencampingmap)  will interpret this as there is also no capacity for motorhomes.

So a site like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11038816129

has room for 10 motorhomes and 3 caravans.

The only way I can see to confer that information is capacity:caravans=13,capacity:motorhomes=10.
Maybe we could add e.g., capacity:trailer_caravans=3 

It is all a bit of a mess because the name "caravan" is used in a very ambiguous and confusing way in tagging.
VA00 (2024-07-31 18:41:41+00:00): Co było nieprawdziwe?
Sury1964 (2024-08-01 15:29:36+00:00): Proszę wybaczyć, ale nie pamiętam teraz, co zrobiłem 5 miesięcy temu. Wydaje mi się, że poprawiałem nieprawdziwy przebieg ścieżki pieszo-rowerowej nad Sołą od Węgierskiej Górki aż do Ciśca. Po przejechaniu jej na rowerze miałem dokładny ślad w pamięci urządzeń - korzystam z komputera rowerowego Hammerhead 2 oraz z zegarka Suunto, a one z dość dużą dokładnością zapisują ślady. Przypominam sobie, że bardzo niedokładnie był poprowadzony przebieg na wysokości Małego Ciśca, czyli tam, gdzie ścieżka przechodzi na lewy brzeg Soły - tek odcinek jest poza zaznaczonym prostokątem, sporo na południe od niego.
iandees (2024-03-22 02:42:19+00:00): Reverted due to fake edits and/or spam

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148992514
Strubbl (2024-03-19 17:10:26+00:00): Hi Splette, das Gutshaus Oldendorf hat laut Orka.MV die Nr. 16. Warum hast du die entfernt?
trial (2024-03-20 12:07:44+00:00): tu pouvais profiter pour virer oneway=no, fait ;-)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148909097
pitfire (2024-03-19 06:53:30+00:00): Hi PinguDEV,
deine eigenen mapillary Bilder bis zu den Häusern 2 und 4 sagen aber eindeutig, dass " highway=service" das bessere Tagging währe. 
Gruß pitfire :-)
berndw (2024-03-20 16:21:33+00:00): Ich würde das ganze Stück von der Hauptstraße incl zum Parkplatz als hw=service;service=alley einstufen.
berndw (2024-03-20 16:22:35+00:00): vielleicht wäre service=drive sogar besser

m2c
berndw (2024-03-20 16:34:59+00:00): Habe das mal so korrigiert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-03-18 21:58:49+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 146923811, 146923825, 146923830, 147699906, 147700278, 147700744, 147700767.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-03-18 22:06:49+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 148371199, 148371544, 148372525, 148372912.
Xvtn (2024-03-19 14:55:12+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great, no issues! Thanks for your contributions!
Quimby5 (2024-03-19 04:55:39+00:00): Awesome! Does NRCAN publish exact elevations for these peaks, and if so where?  Thanks for this.
DENelson83 (2024-03-19 08:17:05+00:00): https://natural-resources.canada.ca/science-and-data/science-and-research/earth-sciences/geography/topographic-information/web-services/elevation-api/17328
Quimby5 (2024-03-19 14:19:46+00:00): Fantastic, thank you
Viajero Perdido (2024-03-20 05:19:17+00:00): Poor-quality elevations may be better than none at all, but I'm not encouraging it.  My experience has been, the gov't provided elevations, also the peak locations have been quite poor, when GPS readings from the summit have been available.  Also, SRTM data, which provides topo contours, clearly disagrees with the old gov't data in many places.
DENelson83 (2024-03-20 06:05:18+00:00): Well, I cannot exactly provide GPS readings for summits, because it is nowhere near feasible for me to travel to any of them.  And I have found inaccuracies in SRTM data, particularly near coastlines.
Quimby5 (2024-03-20 14:00:46+00:00): There is obviously a potential to go down a huge rabbit hole here with the various sources of introduced error (horizontal accuracy of imported NRCAN peaks, vertical accuracy of queried elevation data).   I would suggest that consumer grade handheld GPS on a mountain summit will probably produce vertical errors within the same order of magnitude as the queried dataset. Don't even get me started on measured peak elevations vs what's written on the signpost or local guidebook!
But DENelson83's work here stands not as an authoritative source, but as a good starting point for otherwise unmapped information. Much like the NRCAN imports in general, which has been discussed at great length.
DENelson83 (2024-03-20 15:46:23+00:00): FWIW, many models of GPS receivers do have built-in atmospheric pressure sensors to improve elevation accuracy.  You simply need to calibrate them at a location where you know for sure how high above sea level you are.
wardmuylaert (2024-03-19 12:43:35+00:00): I have reverted this edit in change 148859132. The name removal was done just to remove these ways from a data consumer (citystrides.com). ID editor shows the usual upgrade tags suggestion on the ways to readd the name. Data consumer should instead adjust their processing pipeline, in this case to filter out amenity=weighbridge from their dataset.
emersonveenstra (2024-03-20 11:18:03+00:00): Hi there,

This changeset broke https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14025814 by connecting https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1050783952#map=14/43.7574/-116.0608 to itself at this node: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9656139467#map=19/43.76182/-116.06872

Could you please fix this? Thanks!
Argent200 (2024-03-20 22:27:26+00:00): Nodes have been disconnected.
CurlingMan13 (2024-03-19 00:08:25+00:00): Couple things:
1) Do not delete and readd.  Just manipulate what is mapped to preserve edit history.
2) Do not "lollipop" landcovers to simulate holes.  Multipolygon relations should be used instead.

I have resolved this for you for this changeset.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148837948
maxlax (2024-03-21 03:38:28+00:00): Иная не отражается на карте, а так выглядит прикольно и при этом ничего страшного из себя не представляет
alexey_zakharenkov (2024-03-21 06:05:42+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Рисование_под_рендер
VLD549 (2024-05-01 06:03:48+00:00): Hi, could you provide a link that shows the name change from Antwerpenplein to Sint-Amandsbergdoorgang? I can't seem to find Sint-Amandsbergdoorgang. 

Thank you in advance!
Maple_ (2024-04-17 20:23:54+00:00): Correction: Source used was Maxar SecureWatch Imagery 2024-04-09
b0ssi (2024-03-20 13:52:41+00:00): The source was mislabeled - Google Maps had not been used to ascertain any information that produced this changeset.
arjunaraoc (2024-03-19 01:06:56+00:00): I noticed that Guntur district boundary wherever it is close to the  Guntur municipal corporation boundary do not align perfectly, as the sources and accuracy could be different. Cleaning up  with better sources may be required at a latter date.
JezCrow (2024-04-04 21:34:16+00:00): Is this definitely a Royal Mail post box? All of the other features added near here by user "Blane Marchant" seem to be features of the care home, not publicly accessible services.
tekim (2024-03-19 14:59:09+00:00): Hello, Thanks for the edit, however, we are not allowed to use Google Maps when editing OpenStreetMap, and that includes "confirmation" of edits.
b0ssi (2024-03-20 10:10:51+00:00): I see, I had that same thought and wondered how far that definition might extend soon after; thanks for the catch.
fūrai-bō (2025-09-06 09:51:18+00:00): 大崎市内、この変更セットで県道158号だった区間が国道347号に変更されていて、「県告示を参照」とあります。
おそらく
https://www.pref.miyagi.jp/soshiki/jyohokokai/kouhou-index.html
の中にはあるのだと思いますが、数が多すぎてその告示を見つけることができませんでした。

数年前までは県道だったことを確認しているのでここ最近の出来事なのだと思いますが、ただ宮城県の道路事業
https://www.pref.miyagi.jp/soshiki/road/gaiyou.html
にある「宮城の道路2025地図面」では、今年分で該当部分は橙色のr158のまま書き換えられていないようです。
本当に国道に昇格したのかが気になっています。
taketaketake (2025-09-08 06:47:41+00:00): 平成30年3月30日宮城県広報にて告示されています
間違いなければ正しいと思うのですが・・・
ヤフーマップ等では国道347号に変更されています。
https://www.pref.miyagi.jp/documents/12591/671600.pdf
b0ssi (2024-03-20 13:48:50+00:00): The source was mislabeled - Google Maps had not been used to ascertain any information that produced this changeset.
Xvtn (2024-03-19 14:52:43+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. There are some issues here - mainly descriptive names. That means we should only use the name tag for the official or common name of a feature. In this case, it looks like you're wanting to prevent people from accessing this area. My suggestion for that would be to use access tags to mark the roads as private. Looks like that's already done!
Let me know if you have any questions!
BCNorwich (2024-03-20 08:18:29+00:00): Hi, You've got a ferry route Way: 1263948817 on top of a highway Way: 1263948814 which cannot be correct. Was the ferry line supposed to be a bridge? Or is it a ferry, not a road? In any case the problem needs to be corrected.

Regards Bernard.
Af420 (2024-03-20 08:56:36+00:00): Hi i don’t know how it works, but there is actually kinda ship that goes from one side to the other side. I don’t know, but if there’s anything u can do or fix, please fix it:)
Best regards 
Af420 (Khan)
pmckay419 (2024-04-24 06:35:59+00:00): Hey, I see you've been changing road access permissions for the Labyrinth Rims travel plan. Thanks for doing that as it needed to be done, but if you do any more please only set them as motor_vehicle=no (and for most of them bicycle=no too), not access=no. Access=no is incorrect as foot travel is still allowed on the roads closed in the travel plan, which were only closed to vehicles (and in most cases also to bikes). The travel plan didn't affect foot travel and the roads still exist on the ground as track roads, so they should still be mapped as tracks with access=yes, motor_vehicle=no. Thanks.
Shawn Michael (2024-04-30 18:20:55+00:00): Yeah I apparently wasn't thinking that that clearly when I did it.  I agree with your assessment around foot traffic.
LockOnGuy (2024-03-19 02:02:19+00:00): Changeset comment: replaced name with alt_name as alt_name is the most used one. also updated the wiki link as the wiki link also got moved to the most used name.
ElliottPlack (2024-05-04 11:02:00+00:00): Again, unacceptable, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15408
tvajha (2024-07-03 19:35:55+00:00): What was the intention of setting toll=yes on this ferry route. If it was to indicate that there is a fare to use this ferry, would it make sense to then use the fee=true property instead.
At the moment, any routing between seattle downtown and bainbridge ferry terminal is leading to alternate routes, and osrm is not routing using the seattle-bainbridge ferry route even with tolls enabled.
tvajha (2024-07-03 19:44:48+00:00): For reference: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-June/046128.html
wislander (2024-07-03 19:51:11+00:00): The intention was to retain the intent of the previous editor, who had tagged several ways around the terminal with access=customers, which would also impact routing. I'm personally content with using the fee key instead, or removing the toll tag without replacement.
tvajha (2024-07-18 19:47:27+00:00): Thanks. My primary concern is that I cannot route using the ferry to bainbridge island even if ferry and toll options are enabled.
I'll proceed with removing the toll tag without replacement for now.
tvajha (2024-07-18 20:04:41+00:00): Could you also point me to where you mentioned the previous editor had tagged several ways around the terminal with access==customers?
wislander (2024-07-23 14:34:55+00:00): It was https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146640842

I also found https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102356624 on the Fauntleroy ferry dock, by the same user.
Xvtn (2024-03-19 14:48:22+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me - no issues. Thanks for your contributions!
emersonveenstra (2024-03-19 11:44:31+00:00): Hi there,

For https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11743041950, please take a minute to understand wikipedia links here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikipedia?uselang=en and then if you wouldn't mind fixing the wikipedia tag, that would be appreciated!
tekim (2024-03-19 14:56:46+00:00): Hello, thanks for the edits.  Unfortunately, when editing OpenStreetMap we are not allowed to use Google Earth.