piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Entbert (2026-02-05 13:18:59+00:00): Danke für deine Rückmeldung.
Du hast recht, dass auf Rügen und Usedom bisher schon die Grenzen an die Küstenlinie geklebt waren. Das ist aber nach meinem Verständnis falsch und die Lösung zur Vereinheitlichung wäre, sie dort zu lösen, statt sie überall sonst auch zu verkleben.
Es stimmt auch, dass die Grenzen von 2005 nicht perfekt waren, sie sind aber immer noch viel dichter an den Grenzen laut Landesamt (die übrigens für OSM freigegeben sind – ein Update wäre also gut möglich) als der reale Küstenverlauf. Das sieht man gut am Darßer Ort oder der Insel Ruden. (Bei letzterer habe ich gestern die Grenze aus dem ALKIS importiert, bevor ich deine Änderungen bemerkt habe.)

Ich glaube, du hast mit deinen Änderungen leider deutlich mehr kaputtgemacht, als dass sie etwas verbessert hätten. Ich werde mich gleich mal ans Forum wenden (Link folgt), weil ein Revert meiner Meinung nach angebracht wäre und ein solcher, glaube ich, schwieriger wird, je mehr Zeit vergangen ist.
Entbert (2026-02-05 13:44:38+00:00): https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/verwaltungsgrenzen-an-kustenlinie-geklebt-mv/141275
andyblueg (2026-02-05 14:15:02+00:00): Ebenfalls danke für deine Antwort. Ich kenne ALKIS nicht. Ich möchte hier gerne das Geoportal MV ins Spiel bringen. Nach der Grafik dort, verlaufen die Grenzen ziemlich exakt entlang der Küstenlinie (Link siehe unten). Einzig die Bunen bei Zingst und  die Seebrücken sind enthalten, was aber leicht zu fixen wäre. Vielleicht kann hier das Forum in der Tat weiterhelfen. 

https://www.geoportal-mv.de/portal/Geodatenviewer/GAIA-MVprofessional/Start?mapext=335282.59474215715%206030477.196031093%20353747.6399838902%206041980.375147411%20EPSG%3A25833&layersoff=*&layers=de_basemapde_web_raster_farbe%2CAdministration
Entbert (2026-02-05 15:34:24+00:00): Ich nehme an, das sind dieselben Daten wie hier:
https://laiv.geodaten-mv.de/afgvk/Geotopographie/Beschreibung?produkt=DVG
Dort steht: "Auf Grund der reduzierten Punktdichte und eines ausgedünnten Inhalts eignet sich dieser Vektordatenbestand besonders für Übersichtszwecke." Deshalb bin ich davon ausgegangen, dass diese weniger genau sind als die Daten aus dem ALKIS.
So richtig verstehe ich aber auch nicht, wie eine "reduzierte Punktdichte" dazu passen sollte, dass da ganze Inseln enthalten sind, die im ALKIS fehlen.
Aber andererseits scheint mir das ALKIS sehr aktuell zu sein (tägliche Aktualisierung im Geobasisdatenportal) und wegen der rechtlichen Relevanz vermutlich auch ziemlich exakt. Ist meine Annahme falsch, dass das Gemeindegebiet genau die Summe aller Flurstücke ist?
andyblueg (2026-02-06 11:57:37+00:00): Hallo Entbert,
wie ich sehe, ist die Diskussion im Forum sehr aktiv. Das hatte ich so nicht geplant und deshalb wollte ich jetzt auch mehr wissen über ALKIS und DVG. Deshalb hier ein recht hilfreiche Unterhaltung mit Gemini:

https://gemini.google.com/share/860ee7166dd7

Alle Angaben wie immer ohne Gewähr.

Im Endeffekt muss die OSM Community klären, ob es um rechtkonforme oder kartografische Gemeindegrenzen geht. Wie oben bereits erwähnt, findet sich beides auf OSM.
Rainero (2026-03-18 08:08:07+00:00): Revert mit changeset/180044458
(unzulässige Quelle)
CurlingMan13 (2026-01-26 17:08:09+00:00): Refer to:

https://www.alltrails.com/trail/us/washington/country-joe-s-to-nisqually-river-cliffs
SomeoneElse (2026-01-29 12:10:19+00:00): Hello,
Is there really a gap in the Ayrshire Coastal Path at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1756394#map=19/55.432354/-4.713113 (perhaps a rockfall or something)?
Best Regards,
Andy
Chris Ladds Historian (2026-01-29 20:05:19+00:00): This is an oversight that has arisen from the decoupling of the beach points to create two distinct beach areas, one of which bears the name Brackenbrae Bay. This has led to a disconnection of the coastal route, which is unintended. I will rectify this immediately.
VictorIE (2026-03-11 00:53:04+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1471102390/

Is building:part=1 a typo? This: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:partsuggests it might be.
b-unicycling (2026-03-11 09:50:23+00:00): It was, fixed now.
Norbert Dichter (2026-01-26 21:20:06+00:00): Hello, thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. Thank you for your contribution. The buildings you mapped are well done as to their location. But pay attention to the squareness of the corners. Always draw buildings as square and precise as you can. Then add the Building feature type. And last, right click it and click the square icon. Or just hit the Q-key.
Also please keep in mind: many buildings are very close but do not actually touch each other, try to map them close to each other without letting them connect or share nodes with each other, roads, or residential area outlines. In the iD web editor, holding down the "alt" key will keep nodes from "snapping" to each other and accidentally connecting.  Thanks so much for your contribution, Norbert 'Nodi' Dichter, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177730091
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:35:44+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13500909069 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "The Roads Church"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-02-04 06:37:44+00:00): ❌ Text fixed by https://osm.org/changeset/177776341
mcliquid (2026-01-27 07:13:15+00:00): Darf man den Übergang mit dem Fahrrad nicht verwenden?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1471108123
FMC-Henri (2026-01-28 15:27:40+00:00): Good point,
ist geändert zu bicycle=yes.
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:33:25+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 12 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1471109196 v1 | 11 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177730467
NeisReview (2026-02-04 06:37:50+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/178013859
NeisBot (2026-01-27 06:33:27+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 10 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/341694044 v4 | 4 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=177730889
eggie (2026-01-26 18:11:13+00:00): Dag Theo. Hoe kunnen hier twee wandelroutes passeren?
Mvg
eggie
OSMmolen (2026-01-26 18:43:31+00:00): Dag Eggie,
Bedankt voor je snelle reacties en je aanpassingen. Ik ga me verdiepen in correcte formuleringen
Ik zocht met OSM naar een autoroute vanuit een huisje  naar Arnhem. OSM leidde mij via deze achteruitgang van het park. Dat vond ik vreemd en heb de uitgang te voet bezocht. Op het punt waar het pad van het park afgaat staat een hek met slot. Het gaas in het hek was vernield, waardoor een doorgang ontstaat, die feitelijk is verboden. Een paar honderd meter verderop langs de Vleggedijk ligt een legale uitgang voor voetgangers.
Mvg. Theo.
eggie (2026-01-26 18:49:13+00:00): Oke... om een hek niet te laten routeren voor motorvoertuigen kun je het beste accesstags toevoegen.
Of locked werkt in alle routers weet ik niet zeker.
Bv motor_vehicle=no
En evt ook voor tweewielers bicycle mofa en moped=no
Bij hekken heb je wel vaak een 'geitenpaadje' voor wandelaars. Een step_over of een opening.
Groet,
eggie
eggie (2026-01-26 18:57:44+00:00): De wandelroutes lopen nu door dat hek
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=17.0/52.4761/6.629

Maar eigenlijk zouden de routes via dat volgende pad moeten lopen?
eggie (2026-01-26 20:16:55+00:00): Ik heb de twee wandelroutes nu via het volgende pad lopen en access=no toegevoegd aan het hek. 
Gr eggie
OSMmolen (2026-01-28 08:05:38+00:00): Beste Eggie,
Bedankt voor het meedenken.
Lijkt mij een goede actie, maar ik kan geen verantwoordelijkheid nemen voor de juistheid van de nieuwe tracks. Ik kan wel constateren dat de route die OSM nu uitzet naar mijn huis niet meer loopt via de afgesloten achteruitgang maar correct verloopt via de bewaakte entree van het park.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Theo.
rarad74 (2026-01-26 18:53:54+00:00): Hi. Please add at least type of service road and surface tag. Drawing only lines not help too much...
Some of them must have limited/private acces too.
lampronessa (2026-01-26 22:49:14+00:00): Thank you for your feedback and for sharing your local knowledge of the area. Going forward, I’ll ensure that relevant tags are added where appropriate, in accordance with OSM policy. Have a great day.
James_OWORNTE (2026-03-22 22:08:08+00:00): Thank you for your contribution! The task was well mapped. I made some minor changes and simplified some of the nodes.
Once again, thank you for your participation!
gscholz (2026-02-08 07:22:24+00:00): Hi orcella,
this changeset has created errors n the OSM database regarding overlapping ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=11.62375&lat=43.64750&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

As yo may know, this kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps.
Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
jellybeanfish (2026-01-26 19:33:05+00:00): Correction: Source used was Esri World Imagery
James_OWORNTE (2026-03-22 21:33:41+00:00): Thank you for your contribution! 
The task was well mapped. There are still a few objects (highways) to map, for example in the northwest area of the task. 
Once again, thank you for your participation!
James_OWORNTE (2026-03-26 20:26:27+00:00): Thank you for your contribution!
The task was well mapped, and I modified and simplified some nodes. 
Once again, thank you for your participation!
DD1GJ (2026-01-26 21:31:37+00:00): Revert, zerstörtes Haus wieder hergestellt. Bitte Firmen nur als Punkt eintragen!

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Spam#SEO-Spam
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-08 15:10:21+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13502300418/history has roof:type = gabled that was added in this edit
Maybe roof:shape=gabled was intended here?

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:roof:shape
A67-A67 (2026-01-30 23:13:48+00:00): In these changes you delete the route numbers that were tagged according to the actual route signage. Besides the new route relations that combine the A and B-routes are completely broken.

Please don't do that. The former route relations were correct.
A67-A67 (2026-01-30 23:15:01+00:00): I'll restore the correctly mapped routes.
A67-A67 (2026-01-30 23:41:17+00:00): These route relations had been mapped by an experienced mapper, that has added many similar relations. For proper rendering the separate A- and B-relations are needed.
A67-A67 (2026-01-31 00:07:25+00:00): Additional info: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/The_Netherlands_road_network#Aruba
dcskobuffs (2026-02-02 21:26:52+00:00): Hello A67-A67,

These updates were made after having a discussion with The_ABM in this changeset(https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176965094). I inquired on why they were updating refs and we decided it would be good to simplify the whole ref system, as they have made previous updates to refs here and wanted to know why those changes were being made. 
These edits made were proposed by us and they agreed. If other community members and policy here are stating otherwise, I am happy to keep the ref relations to how they were before.
tguen (2026-02-05 23:57:23+00:00): Ive removed the website. It was for another business with the same name in South Carolina.
NorthCrab_upload (2026-01-27 02:05:26+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1471432053

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2026-01-27 01:15:30+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5270967619
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424824613

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2026-01-27 01:35:22+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5270967619
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424824613

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2026-01-27 01:45:07+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5270967619
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424824613

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2026-01-27 01:54:57+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5270967619
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424824613

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2026-01-27 02:05:05+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5270967619
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/424824613

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Maplev (2026-01-29 13:47:38+00:00): The official Ukrainian name is still listed everywhere as "Ельблонг" ("г" instead of "ґ"). Even the linked article Wikipedia is titled that.
eggie (2026-01-26 20:20:16+00:00): Dag Joop,

Dokman mag dan verhuisd zijn, maar dat adres bestaat toch nog wel?
Ik zal het herstellen,
MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-01-26 20:22:32+00:00): Al een ouder account, maar nog geen welkomstmail ontvangen.. bij deze Opnieuw Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
joop (2026-01-27 11:13:43+00:00): Hoi Eggie. Zandstraat 70 is nu helemaal ingenomen door een Expert winkel. Ben er net nog even langs gelopen.
eggie (2026-01-27 11:21:32+00:00): Dag Joop. Daar twijfel ik niet aan, maar het adres bestaat nog steeds in de BAG.
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/?searchQuery=Zandstraat+74&objectId=0216200000012779&theme=BRT+Achtergrond&geometry.x=144105.1955&geometry.y=440611.917&zoomlevel=14.732899336911187
Je zou een terugmelding kunnen doen via de link als je twijfelt of het adres nog bestaat.
Dan past het Kadaster het aan.
Bij periodieke updates komen de bag gegevens anders gewoon weer terug.

Mvg..
eggie
joop (2026-01-27 11:26:44+00:00): Okay werkt dat zo... Ben nog om het pand heen gelopen maar zag alleen een brievenbus met nummer 70 ;-)

In ieder geval, de fietsmaker is vertrokken.

Groetjes, Joop
eggie (2026-01-27 11:33:46+00:00): Gewoon een terugmelding doen..
Huisnr ..... niet aangetroffen.
Antwoord krijg je altijd.. indien nummer niet meer officieel bestaat haal je het weg.
joop (2026-01-27 11:38:29+00:00): okido, heb een BAG melding gedaan
LateNightTone (2026-03-13 15:06:54+00:00): Ah... I think you unwittingly undid some careful work I'd done at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1471435057, mapping the new construction of houses related to note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4989517

The house you restored has been deomlished.
LateNightTone (2026-03-13 15:07:20+00:00): (*demolished)
b-unicycling (2026-03-13 23:25:40+00:00): Sorry about that.
LateNightTone (2026-03-14 07:39:54+00:00): No prob, we've all done it 😊 do please keep an eye on the other sets of imagery if you see a discrepancy though. I think I've restored it to how it was.

Worth displaying the Notes data too, as a pointer for any known issues.
StreetSurveyor (2026-03-16 19:16:58+00:00): Please do not create or assume names for features (e.g., “Boston, Revere Beach & Lynn”). Only add names when they can be verified from a street sign, official trail map, or municipal GIS source. If a road or track does not have a verified name, it’s perfectly acceptable to leave the name tag blank.
Ktr101 (2026-04-01 18:30:55+00:00): No worries, and apologies for the late reply here. Do you want me to go back and remove them, where applicable?
StreetSurveyor (2026-04-01 21:37:46+00:00): Thanks, I appreciate the follow-up. Yes—please remove any names that can’t be verified via street signs, official trail maps, or municipal GIS. If there’s no confirmed name, it’s best to leave it unnamed. Let me know if you have any questions on any specific cases.
Buraddo (2026-02-04 11:03:40+00:00): Hello lampronessa,

I observed that in this changeset that you reclassified a lot of former service roads in Giroc to living_streets. This change sparked a discussion inside the Romanian OSM community Telegram group (https://t.me/OSMRomania/20212) and the common opinion was that living_street is not the correct tag for this situation.

"A living street or residential street is a street designed with the interests of pedestrians and cyclists in mind" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_street https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dliving_street ). We believe that we should only tag streets as living_street only the streets that are designed, marked and enforced as a street with pedestrian priority. This is usually seen by the use of the traffic sign "Zonă rezidențială" which limits the vehicular speeds to 20km/h and enforces priority for pedestrians.

What we see in Giroc new developments are former rural plots that were divided in multiple lots where houses or medium-density apartment buildings were build with a common access road to the main street. On those access roads, even if we see that pedestrians use the main carriageway (as they are often build without proper separation and/or sidewalks), their main purpose is still for vehicular access to the buildings. Thus, we think that the correct tag for them is highway=service (The highway=service tag denotes ways used for vehicle access to a building, parking lot, service station, business estate, beach, campsite, etc. - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice ).

If you agree with our designations, I can help on retagging to mitigating the issue and you can join us on the telegram group for further discussions.

Thanks.
lampronessa (2026-02-05 23:27:50+00:00): Thanks for reaching out! I reclassified these as living streets based on previous user feedback from rarad74 on classification for these types of roads in this changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/17757729). I agree that highway=service makes more sense for these roads. Would you be willing to share this consensus with rarad74 so they’re aware of the current thinking? If the general view of the community is that these should be classified as service, I’m happy to retag them accordingly - I just want to make sure we’re all aligned and avoid any confusion for the other user. I appreciate the feedback from yourself and the rest of the community!
Buraddo (2026-02-07 16:32:16+00:00): We know that rarad74 is enforcing the living_street tagging in the region where he's most active (Bucharest area). As far as we've discussed in the community, the general consensus is to use the more internationally-aligned service road, but also follow local rules if the area is using a different scheme.
lampronessa (2026-02-10 19:51:34+00:00): I understand, thank you for the clarification. I will go ahead and revert the edits I made within this changeset.
Taya_S (2026-01-27 08:21:48+00:00): Hello zamiracardenas,

Please use a more descriptive changeset description than ""#teachosm-project"-1646". Changeset descriptions are intended to inform other users what you did.

Also please take care to accurately map what you see on aerial imagery. These randomly shaped blobs you have added do not accurately represent the buildings visible at all.

Best regards,
Taya Snijder,
On behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group
Taya_S (2026-01-27 09:48:02+00:00): I'm afraid that due to how extreme the quality issues with your edits were, I have decided to revert all of your edits. 

I apologise for doing so, but we have to maintain a reasonable standard of accuracy. Please try bringing this up with whoever was responsible for showing you how to map on OSM.

Best regards,
Taya Snijder,  
On behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group
Taya_S (2026-01-27 08:21:20+00:00): Hello siana3007,

Please use a more descriptive changeset description than ""#teachosm-project"-1646". Changeset descriptions are intended to inform other users what you did.

Also please take care to accurately map what you see on aerial imagery. These randomly shaped blobs you have added do not accurately represent the buildings visible at all.

Best regards,
Taya Snijder,
On behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group
Taya_S (2026-01-27 09:48:19+00:00): I'm afraid that due to how extreme the quality issues with your edits were, I have decided to revert all of your edits. 

I apologise for doing so, but we have to maintain a reasonable standard of accuracy. Please try bringing this up with whoever was responsible for showing you how to map on OSM.

Best regards,
Taya Snijder,  
On behalf of the OSMF Data Working Group
Taya_S (2026-01-27 16:45:57+00:00): Please see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19673

Also please note that I have again removed the buildings you have added.