piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
bicyclett (2024-08-29 19:29:21+00:00): Hey,
bzgl. dem way 1282736233: wäre eigentlich mega cool wenn das ein Radweg wäre. Aber da ist weder Schild (dafür ein explizites Radwege-Ende Schild) noch sieht die Infrastruktur so aus wie ein Radweg.
Ich passe das mal an.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.0841513&lng=11.854921&z=18.19045707919195&pKey=840809430719008&focus=photo&x=0.49933174379754924&y=0.5398553453491108&zoom=0.041620490994640304
ul2739 (2024-05-16 02:02:35+00:00): Without this turn restriction routing algorithms direct you to illegally make a U-turn here.
TheSwavu (2024-05-16 06:23:26+00:00): Which routing engine tells you to do a u-turn here?
ul2739 (2024-05-16 07:22:30+00:00): OSRM and GraphHopper. Valhalla correctly routes via a different street.

See the link below for a demo of OSRM doing it:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=-33.93198%2C151.10990%3B-33.93297%2C151.10766#map=19/-33.93258/151.10887
TheSwavu (2024-05-16 08:13:13+00:00): What's that got to do with this changeset?
TheSwavu (2024-05-16 08:25:33+00:00): If you want to prevent u-turns into the slip road you need to put the turn restriction in the correct place https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17600262 otherwise it won't do anything.
ul2739 (2024-05-16 08:35:25+00:00): Oh cool, thanks! I missed that it was the right-turn I needed to restrict, not the U-turn (which would be Bexley Road onto itself).
watmildon (2024-05-17 22:01:52+00:00): Lovely work!
NorthCrab_upload (2024-05-14 08:30:26+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1979774091

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
RetinaPW (2024-05-14 10:27:20+00:00): A czy ja mogę prosić o zmianę tej lokalizacji w moim imieniu? Chyba mnie to przerasta :(.
RetinaPW (2024-05-14 10:28:19+00:00): Retina od 2019 roku mieści się przy ul. Antoniego Szyllinga 3, 30-433 Kraków
NorthCrab (2024-05-30 09:45:09+00:00): Jasne! Przeniosłem punkt :-)
Taya_S (2024-05-14 08:33:53+00:00): Reverted UwU

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151300640
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-14 08:58:57+00:00): @Thiskal thanks!

Not bad, you were faster than my bot 👍
NeisBot (2024-05-14 08:35:09+00:00): Hi Ahhcjwbekcoa, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/121557051

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
WoodWoseWulf (2024-05-14 20:18:09+00:00): Hello Ahhcjwbekcoa,

We have a specific definition of a beach on OSM, and a pond like this would not be included.

If you are mapping for Pokemon, there is a small beach that was mapped a few years ago and appears to be real just to the North-West of this location though!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-01-03 11:16:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 160943337, 160943407, 160943366, 160943455 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some SC changes where user used Google Street View - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160701601
NeisBot (2024-05-14 08:45:08+00:00): Hi roastedmappr, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1282743553

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
Taya_S (2024-05-14 08:51:57+00:00): This has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151301142 by @clubpenguin
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-15 06:15:07+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/151305550

#mapbuilder
muralito (2024-05-14 13:54:50+00:00): ¿Estas seguro? Podra ser algo peligroso, pero creo que nada lo prohibe. Igual que en el siguiente donde se puede hacer en U o en V hacia Acevedo Diaz.
UYMapper (2024-05-16 00:58:22+00:00): Estaba siguiendo las indicaciones del soft de ruteo que ne quería hacer doblar en U allí y es muy peligroso, ya que ambas calles son de 2 sentidos y uno queda trancando el tránsito mientras espera poder girar en U.
Como había bastante tráfico opté por hacer otro camino y me quedé pensando que debería estar mal la ruta sugerida, pero la verdad no me acuerdo si hay algún cartel en esa esquina o la siguiente (hacia Acevedo Díaz).
Mañana o pasado voy a pasar nuevamente por allí y me fijo si existe alguna indicación.
Shandhivya (2024-05-16 07:15:29+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks great and also the changeset comments. Keep up the mapping - many thanks! #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151302177
MxxCon (2024-05-15 01:35:05+00:00): Hello.
Please note that sidewalks and crosswalks do NOT get street names.
Also it looks like you incorrectly moved 2 nodes around for no reason.
As such this and your following edits will be reverted in full.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151302926
NeisBot (2024-05-14 09:50:09+00:00): Hi Ometrox, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature's:
https://osm.org/node/11903530499
https://osm.org/node/11903530500
https://osm.org/way/194662921

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
NeisBot (2024-05-14 10:34:10+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151305924
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-14 10:34:45+00:00): Please don't add fake beaches to OSM!
user_1566574 (2024-07-17 13:50:29+00:00): Salut,
Info : modification qui sera supprimée car doublon de https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6426488011
Merci.
NeisBot (2024-05-14 09:55:09+00:00): Hi Ometrox, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/194615557

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
NeisBot (2024-05-14 10:32:38+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151305831
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-14 10:33:21+00:00): Please don't add fake beaches to OSM!
lakedistrict (2024-05-14 17:13:53+00:00): Your hard work (and hashtagging) doesn't go completely unnoticed, thanks 👍
gurglypipe (2024-05-14 17:18:33+00:00): 🤣 Thanks 😅
NeisBot (2024-05-14 10:00:09+00:00): Hi Pricy77, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1282769649

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-14 10:31:56+00:00): Thanks for your mapped beaches.
Looks good!

#HappyMapping
osmviborg (2024-05-14 13:39:42+00:00): Beskrivelse og note må ikke bruges som reklamesøjle.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:note
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description
Rettet
motogs (2024-05-27 16:55:50+00:00): Oops! Thanks for correcting.
NeisBot (2024-05-14 10:05:14+00:00): Hi Pricy77, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature's:
https://osm.org/way/1282770069
https://osm.org/way/1282770070

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-14 10:31:13+00:00): Thanks for your mapped beaches.
Looks good!

#HappyMapping
hoserab (2024-05-15 23:09:46+00:00): Hello,

FYI I have deleted the beaches you added here. These are grassy areas, nothing more. They may have appeared to be beaches from satellite imagery, but I can confirm from personal experience they're not.

Unfortunately the addition of beaches to OSM by new users has elicited a lot of scrutiny because of Pokemon Go, as described in a Washington Post article from a few days ago. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/05/11/pokemon-go-fake-beaches-wiglett/ You don't seem to be among that user group that wants to add fake data to OSM, but please note that the addition of beaches to the map will have more eyes on it than usual, and it's nothing personal.

I can definitely confirm the beach on the south side of Hwy 8 exists though. :) Note however that you don't need to, and shouldn't add the tag `name=beach` to a beach area; it's totally superfluous, the `natural=beach` tag is all you need.

Welcome to OSM and happy mapping. :)
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-16 05:11:02+00:00): @hoserab Thanks for also checking and fixing this!

After a quick check of the satellite imagery I thought they were sandy areas ... but that was not correct :-/
NieWnen (2024-06-12 21:01:21+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10079629616

Te ścieżki tak się tu urywają, czy jest zjazd w jezdnie? Bo jeśli to drugie, to należy połączyć z jezdnią dla zapewnienia routingu.
frydzio (2024-06-13 04:44:31+00:00): Powinien być zjazd/wjazd na jezdnię. Mój błąd. Postaram się poprawić
frydzio (2024-06-13 09:35:05+00:00): Poprawione https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152623401 
Przy okazji znalazłem jeszcze kilka 'construction=*' i 'access=no'
NeisBot (2024-05-14 12:41:57+00:00): Hi dmlddu2, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
NeisBot (2024-05-14 12:42:19+00:00): Reverted by

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151311905
pitscheplatsch (2024-05-14 12:42:45+00:00): Please don't add fake beaches to OSM!
Константин Гам (2024-05-15 11:39:19+00:00): Здравствуйте!

Это прям велодорожка со знаками и разметкой?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1282772631
TrickyFoxy (2024-05-15 12:37:54+00:00): Да https://westnordost.de/p/212416.jpg

Фотки прям со знаком нет, он есть в начале и на этой фотке он вдали как размытое пятно. Ну и перед въездом стоит такая штука https://westnordost.de/p/212422.jpg что намекает
Константин Гам (2024-05-15 13:42:16+00:00): Я не увидел на фото велодорожки, это пешка для мягкой ходьбы с тартаном. Знак таки если отсутствует, давайте сделаем footway
TrickyFoxy (2024-05-15 15:32:25+00:00): ага-ага, просто ещё одна дорожка

вот фотка с другой стороны горы с двумя знаками https://i.imgur.com/cBdNaug.jpeg
Константин Гам (2024-05-15 15:47:43+00:00): По нормам велодорожка в ширину не менее 2.5 метров, и асфальт... А тут знак движение на велосипеде разрешено.

Это обозначается обычным bicycle=yes, cycleway так и не обнаружен
TrickyFoxy (2024-05-15 15:57:59+00:00): а это что? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/496586337/history/12
TrickyFoxy (2024-05-15 15:59:00+00:00): Ну и теперь я жду от вас ссылок на вики с нормами
Константин Гам (2024-05-15 17:49:51+00:00): Так вот, вы же сами привели правильно размеченную пешку с разрешением для вела. Это не велодорожка, она там так и обозначена.
footway + bicycle=yes подходит идеально
TrickyFoxy (2024-05-15 18:26:12+00:00): ай, не на ту версию ссылку дал https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/496586337/history/23

В ней вы же исправили её на cycleway с тартаном. И она до сих пор такая
TrickyFoxy (2024-05-15 18:28:28+00:00): Taginfo по миру с условием обязательности асфальта также не согласен. Плитка и щебень не помеха (хоть и гораздо реже) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=cycleway#combinations
GunGoose22 (2024-05-14 10:18:46+00:00): Don't mind the bounding box size, the railroad modifcation inflated it by a l o t
eggie (2024-05-14 12:15:45+00:00): Dag Yorick  Het lijkt me niet correct.
Die slagbomen sluiten niet heel de breedte af. 
Het was allemaal goed getagd hier. Ook heb je automatic verwijderd hier.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=151305374

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-05-14 12:17:12+00:00): Verder...

Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-05-14 12:33:06+00:00): Dag Harm 
forestry ook niet? 
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=151305775

MVG
eggie
HarmH7 (2024-05-14 13:42:37+00:00): Hoi Eggie, ik was erg aan het twijfelen tussen access=no and access=forestry. Ik heb uiteindelijk gekozen for access=no omdat ik zag dat dat resulteert in een andere specifieke rendering. Bovendien lijkt access=forestry bedoelt voor forestry voertuigen en dat lijkt in dit geval zeker ook niet de bedoeling, alhoewel een boswachter zichzelf natuurlijk niet een bekeuring zal geven :). Wat denk je?

Btw, ik heb nog even locked=yes toegevoegd aan de gates.
eggie (2024-05-14 13:51:55+00:00): Denk dat het zo goed is.
Op  de hekken kan evt ook access=no

Groet

eggie
InsertUser (2024-05-14 16:52:25+00:00): oops. 

Thanks.
AntMadeira (2024-05-14 12:06:29+00:00): Olá, Tintazul.
Vi que adicionaste um jardim de infância no Casal do Pardo, mas não existe nenhum jardim de infância registado no sistema do ministério da educação em Casal do Pardo. Confirmaste no terreno se existe mesmo aí um jardim de infância?

Cumprimentos,
António Madeira.
Tintazul (2024-05-16 06:24:51+00:00): Não fui lá. Esta informação é baseada em outro mapa.
topolusitania (2024-05-16 18:18:50+00:00): O Jardim de infancia existe.
Ver por ex:
https://rbca.cm-alcobaca.pt/pt/24643/agrupamento-de-escolas-de-sao-martinho-do-porto.aspx
ou:
http://www.aesmporto.pt/index.php/cur-profissionais/legislacao/60-destaques-3/188-semana-leitura-jicasal-pardo-2018-2019
Cumprimentos
TL
AntMadeira (2024-05-16 20:35:18+00:00): A questão é que essas notícias são antigas ou carecem de confirmação no terreno.
E, como se sabe, copiar de outros mapas é altamente desaconselhável...
topolusitania (2024-05-17 17:36:25+00:00): O Jardim de Infância de Casal do Pardo está a funcionar.  Não sei se no edificio que Tintazul indica.
Cumprimentos
TL
miluethi (2024-05-15 13:17:14+00:00): Hi Gary,

Please square out buildings when adding them to OSM. 
Select the building shape and press the "Q" key in the iD editor.

Thank you for contributing to OSM Nicaragua.
mueschel (2024-05-15 09:49:37+00:00): Hi,
could you check the recycling tags you added here? In OSM only the tags that are described in the Wiki should be used - and they should be in British English and not in French.

The table of recycling tags can be found here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling#Accepted_types_of_waste
gurglypipe (2024-05-14 11:27:28+00:00): Hi again :)  Does the access road around the west side of Bigforth Barn still exist, even as private access only? If so, it should be drawn on the map and tagged as access=private. If not, someone’s going to eventually re-add it (from aerial imagery) but without appropriate access tagging.

There’s some explanation of the reasoning for this policy (albeit applied to private land rather than just private works access) here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
JDerham (2024-05-14 11:41:37+00:00): Hi, physically the road does still exist I guess, but this area is now used as storage for the Grounds Team rather than as a means to get from A to B. The reason I removed it is because the path is showing on Mazemap suggesting it's a through route - there's no option to mark as private/restricted on Mazemap!
Ultimately though, I recognise that  Mazemap's limitations should be of no concern to OSM! So if you feel it should remain then I have no problem with that.
gurglypipe (2024-05-14 12:02:01+00:00): ah, yes, that makes sense. I’ve re-added the line of it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151309993, but marked it as disused and private. This should hopefully mean it doesn’t reappear on mazemap. Let me know if it looks incorrect or if you have more suggestions for improving it. :)

Mazemap does seem to have a problem with paths/roads which are (correctly) tagged as access=private. There’s a footpath in the woods near Infolab21 and Hazelrigg Lane which is marked as private but which shows up as if it were public in Mazemap. Assuming that path still exists and is mapped correctly, I’m not sure what can be done about the problem in mazemap for it. Hopefully it’s less impactful than a path around Bigforth Barn though!

I’ve e-mailed the mazemap company to ask about this issue, as it’s likely to affect many of their customers, and could be causing people to incorrectly delete valid data from OpenStreetMap in an effort to fix things on their mazemap instances.

Anyway, thanks again for your improvements to the map, and for the time you’ve taken to research and explain them, it’s appreciated!
BAGgeraar (2024-07-24 13:46:13+00:00): Zie https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1221600942 Kloppen deze waardes (building / layer)?
Sander H (2024-07-24 15:39:30+00:00): Nee dat klopt idd niet, daar was iets misgegaan.
Dank voor het constateren.
angys (2024-05-14 15:27:25+00:00): this section havent open to public yet
Palary (2024-05-15 12:33:11+00:00): Hi angys
Thank you for your feedback and revising my edits. I find Strava Heatmap is supporting the existence hence created the missing portion. I will be more careful and compare all available sources in future.   Thank you once again and Happy Mapping 🙂
ToniE (2024-05-14 15:20:16+00:00): Servus,

es ist eigentlich nicht notwendig, hier highway=cycleway zu setzten, denn dass ist äquivalent zu highway=path + bicycle=designated.

Ich belasse zumeist =path, wenn foot und bicycle durch die blauen Schilder (*=designated) gleichberechtigt sind

Viele Grüße
Toni
eggie (2024-05-14 12:09:46+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback   De Zuil van Lely staat al op de kaart. Hier staat het twee keer gemapt. Als vlak (monument)  en als punt art_work
Een monument is meestal een gebouw of in ieder geval iets dat heel groot is. De arc de Triomph, Taj Mahal, 
Het zal geen historic=monument zijn hier. 
Denk dat hier de node de juiste tags bevat en niet het vlak. 


MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-05-14 12:21:17+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback  Meestal ontstaan die fouten als iemand gaat schuiven met de kaart. Het is gelukkig opgelost. 
Zie overigens nog wel wat foutmeldingen hierboven. 
Op die parkeerplaats zitten de wegen nu niet meer aan elkaar. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-05-14 12:23:05+00:00): duplicated nodes hersteld
HansWesterback (2024-05-22 20:00:09+00:00): In Stockholm all words in street names are in upper case, so this change was wrong. See this discussion https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/137515825
Adrianod (2024-05-27 06:52:07+00:00): @edthwes Thanks, restored now.
Ewrt1 (2024-05-14 19:39:19+00:00): Hi clubpenguin,
Please do not duplicate the church. There is already a pin for this church, and if you want to add the building outline, copy the tags from the existing pin into a building outline, then delete the pin.

Thanks!
yo_scottie_oh (2024-05-17 02:56:54+00:00): This import tool is adding incorrect opening hours in possibly all cases - the first three that I spot checked were incorrect (see 28039062, 23766605, and 28501171). Specifically, It's importing the closing times as 10:30 instead of 22:30.
yo_scottie_oh (2024-05-17 03:12:08+00:00): Correction to my original comment - the correct closing time shouldn't even be 22:30, it should be 25:00 or 26:00 depending on the day. ([example Wendy's location](https://locations.wendys.com/united-states/nj/watchung/1701-us-highway-22))
whammo (2024-05-17 10:46:00+00:00): Huh, thanks for flagging. It looks like this is pretty widespread and not just simply a 10:30->22:30 change, so I'll probably just remove the `opening_hours` tag from all the Wendy's objects I modified.
yo_scottie_oh (2024-05-17 11:15:22+00:00): I opened an [issue on GH](https://github.com/alltheplaces/alltheplaces/issues/8373) and somebody's already done a PR to address it. I'm not familiar with ATP as this was my first time hearing about it (looks pretty nifty btw), but now that the PR has been done, I wonder if it's now possible to update opening_hours with the correct times instead of removing the tags?
whammo (2024-05-18 16:53:32+00:00): I'll keep an eye on the next release and see if the data is any better. Otherwise I'll strip the bad opening_hours tags off.
whammo (2024-05-22 10:27:06+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151668196. Should all be fixed.
ctrl-alt-k (2024-05-14 12:33:32+00:00): Forgot to add to the changeset, but this is the source: https://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=63134.08

As for the exact location, the outline is still visible in the modern day on the satellite imagery
Vinber-Pro (2024-05-28 13:25:16+00:00): Bonjour,
sans doute quelque chose à travailler autour des RPI, je vais regarder de plus prêt.
Est-ce qu'il y a des niveaux spécifiques selon les RPI ?
à plus
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-05-15 09:50:52+00:00): amenity can't just be used for everything. Check the wiki for appropriate tags
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/151312593
riccardo31020 (2024-05-15 09:57:04+00:00): ok thanks
Allison P (2024-05-22 19:35:08+00:00): No Patrick, Burger King is not a state. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/719066610/history/3

I have fixed a half dozen bad values of addr:state added from ATP data. What's weird is that the website gives the right state. Maybe the web spider has a bug. (Ha.)