piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2023-08-22 10:10:03+00:00): A new mapper !  Welcome. We hope you will enjoy mapping.
Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. 

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
and:
F: Buildings partially hidden under trees not drawn correctly. Extrapolate the rooflines.

Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140199758
mueschel (2023-08-27 08:44:31+00:00): Hi,
you introduced a new tag here - capacity:designated. Could you explain what this refers to? 
Thanks!
gscscnd (2023-08-22 06:19:38+00:00): W check_date zachęcam do wpisywania daty w formacie RRRR-MM-DD.

tracktype=grade2 to dość wysoka wartość dla surface=ground. Czy np. surface=compacted lub surface=fine_gravel nie byłoby lepsze, lub niższy tracktype nie byłby lepszy?
canfe (2023-11-16 17:22:36+00:00): No, l'indirizzo non va aggiunto all'edificio, bensì come nodo dove c'è la targhetta del civico.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140200034
str (2023-11-06 14:20:24+00:00): Please don't tag footways with bicycle=yes. Some of them were even marked with D4 Jalkakäytävä traffic signs.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-14 12:26:24+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5907119352/history has building = proposed that was added in this edit
Is this building existing now? Are there at least real plans for building it? If there are no serious plans for it - that should be entirely deleted. If construction started then building=construction is a better tag. If construction is upcoming then source for this claim should be tagged on the geometry itself (source tag, note tag) and different tagging should be used - we are mapping proposed features in OpenStreetMap very sparingly, not every promise or business plan should be mapped here.
Uli Maier (2025-05-14 13:57:40+00:00): Öffentliche Gebäude zu bauen dauert meistens etwas länger. Die Planungen laufen aber einsprüche von Denkmalsamt und Bauamt verzögern die Realisierung.
Alle dargestellten Gebäude sind so vorhanden.
Am Tag soll das neue Gebäude etstehen.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-14 14:50:50+00:00): Is "Gemeindezentrum Sankt Konrad" social facility also planned rather than existing right now?
Uli Maier (2025-05-14 17:59:23+00:00): "Gemeindezentrum Sankt Konrad" social facility: It consist of a Church a Kindergarden an the room for social meetings is planned behind the sacristia.
eggie (2023-08-21 21:07:07+00:00): Hi
I merged your info with the present addressnode

greetz
eggie
Noen (2023-08-23 17:52:16+00:00): Seems like you accidently snapped node 1434875071, which is on a railway bridge, to the road below, in this changeset.
pfhllnts (2023-08-23 20:28:14+00:00): Oops! Thank you for pointing it out and fixing it!
Fizzie-DWG (2023-08-29 05:53:23+00:00): Reverted by DWG as apparent undiscussed import, possibly using unauthorised data sources & also lack of response

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140522765
gscscnd (2023-08-22 06:22:13+00:00): Odnośnie check_date — to co w poprzednim komentarzu.

Przydałoby się jeszcze maxspeed:type (lub source:maxspeed) i lit.
Hanys1871 (2023-10-19 13:52:56+00:00): Bardzo zabawne. A ja mam trzy słowa dla pana zmieniającego.
felipeeugenio (2023-08-21 21:52:18+00:00): Hola
Cual es la fuente de los nombres?

saludos
toshin696 (2023-08-21 22:16:01+00:00): Buenas tardes. En la misma calle. La señaletica y confirmado por los residentes.
Existen varias poblaciones y villas nuevas por esos lados de las cuales he ido conociendo de a poco. Así que al menos intento llenar unas pocas calles con el tiempo que tengo.
felipeeugenio (2023-08-21 22:29:24+00:00): Gracias. Entiendo que vives ahi?
Saludos
toshin696 (2023-08-21 23:26:52+00:00): No. Trabajo en logística. Entrego encomiendas. Así desde Lota hasta Lebu y Cañete he ido completando nombres de calles.
felipeeugenio (2023-08-21 23:31:46+00:00): Buena. Gracias.
En el chat de la comunidad de podemos enseñar a usar los mapas del SII. De ahí se pueden sacar nombres de calles.
Saludos
NorthCrab_upload (2023-08-21 21:20:19+00:00): 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/11135042412

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
eggie (2023-08-21 21:47:20+00:00): Beste Maarten.. Je hebt de Stadionweg verwijderd van de kaart. Bestaat die weg niet meer?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-08-21 21:51:29+00:00): typo Stadionlaan.. Je hebt de regel highway=secondary verwijderd. Die 'moet' weer terug.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=140200894

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-08-21 21:56:42+00:00): highway secondary hersteld
ftcat (2023-08-22 06:47:28+00:00): Did you ever consider that when these roads were first mapped they were under construction but it was never completed. Happens often in Zambia.
Awoobis (2023-08-22 09:39:15+00:00): Sure did. Thanks for checking my work.
archpdx (2023-08-21 23:55:19+00:00): Hi,
It looks like you accidentally changed an administrative boundary to a road:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/540383603/history

I recommend hiding boundaries to prevent this from happening in the future, you can do this by going to the Map Data menu (hotkey 'u') and unchecking 'Boundaries' under 'Map Features'.
Fizzie-DWG (2024-01-08 05:07:44+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146014714
literan (2023-09-08 12:45:00+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11135118860

если это те красные квадраты, где нельзя парковаться (для пожарных машин), то вы мапите их неправильно.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Daccess_point

это совсем о другом.
literan (2023-09-08 12:47:21+00:00): Полагаю, верный тег https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dladder_site
neo-plan (2023-10-17 21:23:15+00:00): Хорошо! Буду использовать этот
literan (2023-10-18 06:22:32+00:00): Если надо, я могу восстановить точки и повесить на них корректный тег
neo-plan (2023-10-19 00:42:55+00:00): Да, исправьте, пожалуйста!
literan (2023-10-19 05:54:22+00:00): готово, вот, например:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11135118860
MShepp (2023-08-21 22:19:53+00:00): There are 2 different ways for the Ganatchio trail to the west of Lesperance Road. They are different enough and belong to different relations. Unifying the ways and relations could be a good project.
mariotomo (2023-08-22 20:27:20+00:00): hola. bienvenido a OSM. quieres apoyo para contribuir al proyecto en la manera más eficaz? 
te comento que se ve raro el nombre de la playa, parece más dos instalaciones comerciales distintas.
también las "cabañas sombra del mar", de qué se trata? así como está no tiene mucho sentido, pues todo el área es área residencial, y aún falta mapearlo.
mariotomo (2023-08-22 20:28:32+00:00): ah, otra cosa: es normal en un proyecto colaborativo como OSM que otros revisen tus contribuciones, y por eso es muy importante describir las intenciones tras un conjunto de cambios:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Jose Carlos E Calvo (2023-08-22 21:03:08+00:00): Hola que tal, Si, quisiera me ayudes a  actualizar esos puntos porque el área o mi terreno de playa cuenta con 2 cabañas para alquiler, el nombre comercial es Cabañas Sombra del Mar, y la calle que no se quien le puso Las Hamacas, le cambie al nombre de José Orlando Calvo ya que el sr, fue el que trazo esa calle en los inicios de Gorgona, no se quien le habrá puesto Las Hamacas. igualmente en el área de la playa, se encuentra una ranchería que toda la vida ha sido del Sr. pablo y su esposa Rosa quien vende pescado. erróneamente también decía Las Hamacas. Esa área de playa habría que delimitarla mejor, ya que no se porque tenían limitado gran parte de la playa publica.
kwiatek_123 (2023-08-23 16:15:09+00:00): Czemu Warszawianka zmieniła się na landuse=commercial?
Rogoyski (2023-08-24 10:04:19+00:00): Nie tyle zmieniła się, co landuse=commercial pojawiło się dodatkowo obok sports_centre. Ale to błąd, zaplątałem się, dziwne tylko, że nie zauważyłem wcześniej. Zaraz poprawię.
surveyor54 (2023-08-22 08:21:32+00:00): Fast perfekt 👍
Beim Umring outer das "natural=wood" löschen, da es schon als Tag bei der Realtion (Multipolygon) eingetragen ist.
Allison P (2023-08-22 15:51:54+00:00): I'm sure we will discover many of my building footprints are very far off. I've been wanting to map for four years at this point. Haven't been to the zoo lately, though.
paul1928 (2023-08-26 10:39:13+00:00): Hi Chris/Parks Victoria,

I assume the trail has been forcibly closed/destroyed prior to removal from the map?
aharvey (2023-09-15 03:57:29+00:00): Hi Chris,

Please also see the current community guidance on closed/unsanctioned trails at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths it's usually better to make it as disused and no access then delete it, especially where there is still some evidence of a trail on on the ground.

The point I keep coming back to is someone undertaking research of unsanctioned trails, ideally if they trail exist it should be in the OSM database for those research projects and tagging as disused and access=no would support that.
Chrissooo (2023-09-15 04:10:28+00:00): Thanks for the feedback. 
This trail has been closed by Parks Victoria with barriers and physical removal to allow rehabilitation. The barriers and closures are continually removed, circumvented or reestablished by the public and so the trail has been deleted off OSM to prevent new users discovering the trail.
aharvey (2023-09-18 03:10:00+00:00): In this case it's still better to leave the way in OSM and tag it as disused:highway=* and access=no. This would still remove the track from most user facing maps, while leaving it in the database to show there is a closed track present in the area.
edvac (2023-10-21 17:00:32+00:00): Dear Chrissooo,

It's more than a month ago that you received the comments of these two users about the non-ideal deletion of tracks inside the Dandenong Ranges National Park, paths that are forbidden and out of limits to visitors.

While we all understand clearly the reasons behind these deletions, user aharvey has also told you that, instead of deleting tracks that do exist on the ground, we have a rich tagging system that allows us to keep those tracks information in the OSM database while having the apps not to show them for visitors.

Instead of following those local Australian community tagging conventions, you have continued to delete tracks until these last days. Just few days ago we have received a complaint from yet another user telling you are deleting tracks from the database.

I kindly invite you to engage in a discussion with the involved users, so that all together we can find the best solution to this matter, that is not a serious nor difficult one to solve.

Best regards,

Rafael Avila Coya, on behalf of the OpenStreetMap Foundation, Data Working Group.

[Ticket#2023102110000175 — Issue #27884]
Chrissooo (2023-10-24 05:01:52+00:00): It's not really negotiable. These are illegal trails damaging the park, they are closed with barriers and disassembled. They should not be continually reinstated by OSM users because they enjoy walking or Mountain Biking on illegal trails.
paul1928 (2023-10-24 05:20:16+00:00): Your rules in the Park may not be negotiable, but the rules here on Openstreetmap are not the same as those in the Park. Many of the tracks you've deleted have not been barriered or disassembled as you claim and clearly still exist on the ground. This is why people keep re-adding them to the map as OSM's good practice guideline is to "map what's on the ground".

As Rafael recommended, it would be more constructive for your to engage in discussion with the mapping community rather than continue your current approach.

As a regular editor and user of the Park, I'm happy to chat at any stage.
aharvey (2023-10-24 05:29:27+00:00): Hi Chris,

I'm not doubting or disagreeing with you that these are illegally constructed and closed to the public. I would just like to see OpenStreetMap data accurately reflect the ground truth and I advocate mapping these in OSM as closed or disassembled tracks in a way that allows downstream applications to omit it from their maps.

It's certainly not because we want to have these tracks showing as open for use, I can't see anyone in the community advocating for that.

I suggest Parks Victoria join in the community channels such as the mailing list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or the community forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/oceania/73 to contribute to how this situation is handled. We have some guidelines at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Legal_Access but there's always scope to improve them.
Frans S (2023-08-24 10:02:17+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator. 
I am sorry to say, but your mappings need to be improved to meet the quality standards of HOTOSM.
Please pay attention to next summarized issues. (see attached document for more info)
A: E: Inaccurate mapped and / or not squared.
* When buildings have L, U shape or protruding elements, they should be included into your mappings.



Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140203306
moje_konto (2023-08-22 13:19:25+00:00): Gdy biznes się zmienia, a lokal zostaje, to lepiej zachować stary węzęł i tylko zmienić jego nazwę, zostaje wtedy łatwo dostępna historia lokalu.

Jeśli coś zasłania, to trzeba użyć fotomap z kilku lat, obniżyłeś dokładność w niektórych takich miejscach. Poprzedni obrys był prawidłowy.

Należy mapować możliwie prosto - skoro cały teren jest otoczony płotem, to wystarczy znacznik płotu na terenie - nie ma żadnego sensu rozdzielać na osobne linie. Nawet jeśli dwa płoty terenów się stykają fragmentem, lub dotykają budynku, to jest to nieistotne - identycznie jak budynków nie rysuje się połowicznie tylko cały prostokąt.

Tym bardziej, że przy tym rozdzielaniu natworzyłeś masę dodatkowych węzłów - zostawiałeś nawet 3 węzły dokładnie na sobie - aktualizacje czegoś takiego są okropne, każdą linie trzeba by przesuwać osobno i na pewno będą nachodzić. Więc ktoś musi to później sprzątać, by usunąć duplikaty węzłów.

Rysując te dodatkowe płoty - za często nie łączyłeś ich, po zbliżeniu przecinały się. Obiekty trzeba łączyć, zostawianie luźnych węzłów utrudnia aktualizacje.

Usunąłeś kilka budynków - ze źródeł nie wynika ich brak. Na fotomapie i ewidencji dalej są, więc powinno się podawać źródło usunięcia. W takiej sytuacji lepiej też zmieniać na demolished:building=yes by ktoś nie dodał ponownie.

Nie można też się za bardzo sugerować granicami działek, np. wcześniej rysując las docinałeś go prosto i wchodził na chodnik, istotny jest stan faktyczny.

Tak samo ogródki za domami obciąłeś z residential, faktycznie wykraczają poza działkę, ale na fotomapie są, więc powinny być objęte terenem domów (chyba że zniszczono je pod sąsiednią budowę, ale wtedy trzeba podać źródło).
marczoutendijk (2026-02-05 15:01:53+00:00): What is the meaning of residential=2_andares?
And térreo?
Best regards  
Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
10992 (2023-08-22 09:59:13+00:00): Note that the image linked from https://osm.org/node/11135114575 (https://westnordost.de/p/161458.jpg) is not stable, now the note is closed, the image will eventually be deleted.
10992 (2023-08-22 09:59:58+00:00): I'll look into uploading it to Wikimedia Commons myself, since I took it.
ThelwallViaduct (2023-08-22 10:16:09+00:00): Thanks for the heads up & for offering to resolve!
10992 (2023-08-22 13:16:58+00:00): In the end, I've uploaded the photos to Geograph at the link below. I think there may be a delay before they're generally available. I'll replace the link on the memorial `node`.

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/7574358
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/7574349
https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/7574344
10992 (2023-08-22 13:17:54+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140229151
literan (2023-08-23 14:30:44+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/880683293

и соседние

это не специальные структуры для успокоения трафика. Это круговое движение, и газоны между проезжими частями. 

Мало того, из вики видно, что этот тег к полигонам неприменим

читайте вики https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:traffic%20calming=island

верну корректные теги
literan (2023-08-23 14:32:14+00:00): и еще. На односторонних дорогах на точках с тегом highway=give_way не требуется проставлять тег direction - и так понятно, куда направлен знак. Удалю как излишнее
adrianojbr (2023-08-22 01:11:33+00:00): Por favor para de alterar o nome de vias sem discutir com os mapeadores locais.

Esses nomes com números são provisórios mas são oficiais.
Raphaelkaart (2023-08-31 18:07:51+00:00): Good afternoon!
in the IBGE 2019 Street names layer, these names were replaced by official names.

many of the SD or unnamed street names no longer exist but in the new layer!
adrianojbr (2023-08-31 22:48:35+00:00): Olá, Raphael!

No comentário inicial do changeset você menciona que era inclusão de nomes, mas na verdade você está apagando nomes.

E apesar de no seu novo comentário você dizer que os nomes foram substituídos por nomes oficiais, não é o que está sendo feito nas suas alterações.

Também reitero que as camadas do IBGE devem ser usadas de forma subsidiária, ou seja, quando não há outros fontes mais confiáveis disponíveis. Há muitas imprecisões nas camadas no IBGE, infelizmente.

Após esse prefácio, segue um exemplo de alteração indevida:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/968502361/history

Inclusive, observe no histórico da linha que o nome foi adicionado pelo Victor 2015, com base numa lei: https://leismunicipais.com.br/a/sc/c/criciuma/lei-ordinaria/2021/799/7983/lei-ordinaria-n-7983-2021-denomina-rua-elias-daros?q=denomina

Aliás, o Victor tem feito um excelente trabalho de buscar mapas oficiais e leis publicadas e atualizar os dados do OSM. Esse trabalho você tem desfeito, infelizmente.

Assim, solicito que tenha bom senso e corrija as alterações indevidas que você fez.

Eu estou sem tempo no momento (inclusive estou gastando tempo aqui, que eu poderia usar para mapear algo), mas quando eu conseguir, se você não tiver feito as correções, vou reverter todas as suas edições recentes em SC, pois não vou conferir uma por uma, dado que tenho uma boa amostra de que várias introduziram erros no mapa.

Sugiro que entre em contato com os mapeadores de SC antes de fazer alterações em série desse tipo. O pessoal se reúne principalmente num grupo do Telegram: https://t.me/osmsc

O Victor não está lá, pois age mais como um lobo solitário, mas responde, às vezes, as mensagens pelo OSM.

Abraço!
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:22:52+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208355
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:22:51+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208353
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:22:46+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208352
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:23:04+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208359
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:22:59+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208358
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:22:52+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208354
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:24:39+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208392
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:26:32+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208434
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:24:57+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208395
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:25:17+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208400
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:24:38+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208389
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:24:23+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208385
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:24:27+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208388
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:28:25+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208474
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:27:38+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208453
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:29:29+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208502
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:27:28+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208452
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:29:28+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208503
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:27:22+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208449
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:28:59+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208493
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:31:09+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208539
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:32:00+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208548
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:32:00+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208547
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:32:00+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208546
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:32:09+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208557
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:34:04+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208613
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:32:02+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208550
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:34:02+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208612
Kovoschiz (2023-08-22 13:33:05+00:00): Please don't use change `bicycle=` from `=no` to `=use_sidepath` when there is no `=cycleway`. Legally, you are not allowed to bike on sidewalks.
DressyPear4 (2023-08-22 04:29:03+00:00): Olá, lotes vazios não são praças
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/140204307
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:32:06+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208553
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:35:19+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208646
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:35:55+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208659
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:35:52+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208644
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:34:53+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208635
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:35:07+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208639
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:38:14+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208706
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:37:21+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208686
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:36:52+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208681
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:37:00+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208684
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:36:44+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208677
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:39:18+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208728
NorthCrab (2023-08-22 04:39:11+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140208726