piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
iandees (2026-03-08 01:36:20+00:00): Hi! It looks like node 1781180291 was accidentally moved in this changeset. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
Farras (2026-03-08 10:44:55+00:00): Ah... My bad. Thanks for the correction, Ian!
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:22:15+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570492
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570470
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:22:05+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570492
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570470
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:21:56+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570492
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570470
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:21:46+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570492
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570470
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:21:38+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570492
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570470
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:21:31+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570492
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570470
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:21:23+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570492
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570470
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:21:05+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570492
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:20:37+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570470
NeisBot (2026-03-08 01:09:49+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 2762 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1486408959 v1 | 35 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1486409017 v1 | 27 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1486409583 v1 | 25 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179515593
mueschel (2026-03-09 09:17:44+00:00): Something went very wrong here - these changesets created a huge amount of nodes and areas with strange tags. Please make sure to always follow the OSM import guidelines!
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines

I reverted these changes for now.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-09 09:22:33+00:00): Thanks @mueschel
os-emmer (2026-03-08 15:34:36+00:00): Hallo StadtLandFluss27,
du hast hier einen fragwürdigen name=* verwendet:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13626061912
Kann es sein, dass inscription=* besser passen würde?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:inscription
StadtLandFluss27 (2026-03-21 00:18:16+00:00): Guten Abend,
ja der Titel ist tatsächlich ungewöhnlich, steht aber so tatsächlich als Überschrift auf der Infotafel. Inscription würde ich intuitiv nicht für richtig halten, da hier ja nichts graviert wurde sondern es sich lediglich um eine Kunststoff-Infotafel handelt. Dem Wiki zufolge könnte man stattdessen board:title=* (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:board:title) als spezifischeres Tag verwenden. Ich habe hier die JOSM-Vorlage genutzt, die nutzt das name-Tag.
MassCartog (2026-03-10 01:18:26+00:00): Hello, welcome back to OSM. Features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas, or being "unsanctioned/illegal" is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
Ampfrog (2026-03-12 19:54:31+00:00): Hi MassCartog, thanks for the information, I was not aware about using "access" flag over deleting. The unsanctioned trails should (ideally) be revegetating and not "exist" eventually, but will use the access flag for now.
Thanks again,
-Ampfrog
Buster452 (2026-06-26 19:14:09+00:00): fyi, access tag helps a lot if another person decides to edit the area and sees a missing trail and just adds it.  At least with the trail being there and access=no stops them from adding a trail.

Thank you for your specialized contributions and making OSM better.
Bienson (2026-03-08 23:04:15+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179554265
SY0649 (2026-06-06 09:46:22+00:00): 为何将abandoned:railway=station改为disused:railway=station？
Glassman (2026-03-09 00:20:35+00:00): Is there a sign posted waring about the tides? If so you could add information=board + board_type=hazard + information="requires low tide to pass"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179516711
limes11 (2026-03-08 11:00:19+00:00): Hallo und willkommen bei osm,

wie du bereits schreibst, haben diese Wege keinen Namen. Daher funktioniert dies in der Form nicht. 

Gibt es hier feste Zeiten zu denen der Zutritt eingeschränkt ist ? 

Was genau steht auf den Schildern vor Ort ?

access=permit ist hier auch nicht korrekt, Frage ist ob man es in access=private umwandeln könnte.

Viele Grüße
Laurin_ (2026-03-09 02:28:14+00:00): Hi,
alles klar, vielen Dank für die Hilfe!
Die Zugangsbeschränkung ist leider nicht wirklich zu festen Zeiten. Während der Flugsaison (Ende März bis Oktober) wird eigentlich an so gut wie jedem Wochenende geflogen, wenn das Wetter mitspielt. Es gibt aber auch unter der Woche oder auch außerhalb der Saison Flugbetrieb.

Die Wege werden im Flugbetrieb mit einer Kette gesperrt, an der ein Schild hängt auf dem, wenn ich mich richtig erinnere "Flugbetrieb Betreten strengstens Verboten Lebensgefahr" steht.

Das mit dem Umwandeln wäre vielleicht keine Schlechte Idee. Wenn man so z.B. mit Komoot eine Tour plant, die über den Flugplatz führt, wird man nur darauf hingewiesen, dass es eine zeitlich beschränkte Zugangsbeschränkung gibt. Am Besten wäre es sicherlich, wenn Apps, die auf osm zugreifen, die Leute nicht mehr da lang schicken würden. Wenn die dann einmal vor dem Schuld stehen, gibt es halt viele, die keine Lust haben einen anderen Weg zu suchen.

Ich weiß jetzt nicht, welche access-werte das machen würden. Wäre es ggf. auch eine Möglichkeit den Weg an der Stelle der Absperrung zu unterbrechen, sodass das bei Routenplanungen nicht mehr berücksichtigt wird?

Viele Grüße
BubbaJuice (2026-03-09 03:50:03+00:00): Hi muvuvia,

Are you sure you are tagging a Motorola Camera? What streetlevel imagery are you using? I don't see anything on Bing Streetside or any other open street imageries. I also don't see anything on Google Maps either... Let me know.

Thanks,
BubbaJuice
muvuvia (2026-04-24 01:05:14+00:00): Yup, I visited the site in person.
BubbaJuice (2026-04-24 03:28:42+00:00): Thanks, I wasn't aware that Tucson deployed Motorola but I saw one just the other day. They've deployed a lot of ALPRs, many still unmapped.
NeisBot (2026-03-08 03:54:49+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/13626121496 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Banquet Hall"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-16 05:33:04+00:00): 🗑️🤖 Element deleted by https://osm.org/changeset/179928509

 If you believe this deletion was incorrect or would like to clarify the intent of the original tags, please reply here.
kingkingHK (2026-03-08 04:34:46+00:00): Please don't do curved turning paths. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178483495

If you disagree, I think it would be better to discuss somewhere else (e.g. on Discord) first, instead of ignoring previous comments and doing things your way anyway.
vectorial8192 (2026-03-08 06:29:46+00:00): I do have a defense for this, but seeing it is not an isolated case (I only recently noticed this dedicated turn road), we can indeed talk about this e.g. at Discord.
iandees (2026-03-08 04:21:22+00:00): Hi! It looks like node 2387232958 was accidentally moved in this changeset. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-08 11:59:27+00:00): Hi, welcome.

This changeset should be reviewed by the local community.

Thanks!
Wildsharky (2026-03-10 06:38:02+00:00):  Reverted in changeset id:179619825
Lê Tuấn Minh (2026-03-08 08:33:18+00:00): Có lỗi trong mô tả chánget của tôi vì lỗi Unikey xung đột với JOSM :"nội th vàị" chính xác là "nội thị và" nhé
MappingMore (2026-03-11 05:53:06+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179674023
CAM-Gerlach (2026-05-01 02:26:51+00:00): Hi,

If you're going to add businesses to OSM for your clients, you have an obligation (to both your client and to us) to at least make every reasonable effort to use correct tags and values. addr:street=* is incorrectly abbreviated and does not match the name=* of the street it is right next to, and the city and address is incorrectly included in the name=* tag (if present, they belong in branch=*). More importantly, the POI you added is missing any top-level tags describing what the business is, meaning it will be useless to most users of the data and defeating the purpose of your efforts here.

It's really not _that_ hard to use iD's beginner-friendly presets to fill in this information correctly, or spend a few minutes reading the wiki on how to format your tags properly. After all, you are being _paid_ to do this properly for your client.

However, since most of the tags were correct, I went ahead and added top-level tags for you as well as fixed the name=* and addr:street=* in changeset 182055731 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182055731

Thanks.
Monolo23 (2026-03-09 00:59:08+00:00): Hi, why did you revert all the changes i've made?
I mapped the place as I was there, the paths, the park, the signs and even the names in spanish
Tomas Straupis (2026-03-09 07:38:39+00:00): Hello, you've broken all polygons around Tibeto skveras and added sidewalks as separate dangling vectors which we have agreement not to do in Lithuania and they are topologically incorrect anyway.
NeisBot (2026-03-08 06:03:41+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 15 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/375847529 v7 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/567577987 v2 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/28047287 v17 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/3791887009 v6
https://osm.org/node/5462999313 v4

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179519389
iandees (2026-03-08 12:32:45+00:00): Hi! It looks like node 5462999313 was accidentally moved in this changeset. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
MappingMore (2026-03-10 01:06:16+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179609663
Fraxi (2026-03-08 12:22:22+00:00): Благодаря!
Wildsharky (2026-03-10 05:05:36+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179559999
pesticides (2026-03-08 07:00:38+00:00): Not totally happy with how this turned out. While the way I mapped it is accurate to what's on the ground, perhaps I included too much detail. In particular, I worry that this representation will result in confusing turn-by-turn directions for people biking.

An alternate way to map this would be to revert to a single way for Greenwood Ave N, then introduce turn restrictions with an exception for bikes (i.e., except=bicycle on the turn restriction relation).
pesticides (2026-03-08 07:31:39+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179520789
pesticides (2026-03-08 07:31:51+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179520789
4004 (2026-03-08 22:17:55+00:00): здравствуйте, тег landuse	recreation_ground не используется у нас, потому что нет таких площадок, которые бы подпадали под этот тег
Marcos Dione (2026-04-07 19:10:41+00:00): Is this a track? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/395752335
pesticides (2026-03-08 07:26:19+00:00): Reverted https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179519979 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179520071. In those changesets, I split Greenwood Ave N into two one-ways at the intersection with N 83rd St, since a median island was added at this location. However, I decided this representation of the intersection was overcomplicated and using turn restrictions (with except=bicycle) would be a simpler way to represent it.
pesticides (2026-03-08 07:31:20+00:00): Added turn restrictions in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179520960
DodoGTA (2026-03-08 07:34:10+00:00): Is it a drinking water fountain?
Thierry1030 (2026-05-21 10:31:30+00:00): Hello olecky,
Can you check the previous changeset made by bxl-forever
"Boulevard Charlemagne/Karel de Grotelaan - southbound cycle track has been decommissionned for several years now (signs have been removed, cycling here is illegal)"
olecky (2026-05-22 09:17:36+00:00): hello. thanks for the quality control. Indeed there is no sign from the roundabout side, but signage in Brussels is generally spotty, so I assumed that it's more of a case of a missing sign than deliberate decomissioning. The 3 pedestrian crossings across the "decomissioned" track have recently been repainted and the part next to the Charlemagne building has been rebuilt with preserved separation of pedestrian and cycling track.
olecky (2026-05-22 09:23:15+00:00): According to the Brussels Mobility dataset, cycle tracks on both sides are still in use: https://opendata.brussels.be/explore/dataset/amenagements-cyclables-par-type-rencenses-par-bruxelles-mobilite/map/?disjunctive.type_fr&disjunctive.nom_commune&disjunctive.status_fr&disjunctive.width&location=19,50.84378,4.38109&basemap=jawg.sunny
bxl-forever (2026-05-22 13:05:13+00:00): Hello,

Yes, it is one more weird situation with contradicting data.

We have contact with BM and this is something we will ask to clarify once and for all.

There is a general rule in Belgian traffic law stating that cycling is not allowed on pavement inside cities, and it can only be overriden by a road sign (or a police officer explicitely ordering you to ride there).  In case of a crash, a cyclist using the former track will have full liability. :-(

Let’s see with BM, then.
olecky (2026-05-25 05:49:58+00:00): hey, thanks for looking into that. If you decide that it's not a cycle track after all, maybe it would be good to add a note tag?
eggie (2026-03-08 10:12:45+00:00): Mooi  .. een nieuwe oversteek. Ik heb deze iets verplaatst en tevens de verkeerslichten toegevoegd en/of verplaatst.
https://viewer.satellietdataportaal.nl/@52.38515,4.818469,20/?datastrip=20260225_SVNEO-04&sensorname=SuperView-NEO

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-08 10:17:56+00:00): Die routerelaties zal ik zo nog even aanpassen zodat je die omweg niet meer krijgt.
foreigner037 (2026-04-11 14:02:00+00:00): Здравей,

добавяне на автобусни линии по този начин е доста грешно. Просто използвай наличните пътища и ги добави към релацията.
VA00 (2026-03-14 14:15:12+00:00): Ścieżka we fragmencie jest duplikatem drogi https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/893397465  Od Stojałowskiego wyglądało to jakby ktoś po prostu przejechał quadem przez ściernisko i zostawił koleiny. Czy to trwała ścieżka?
Tomek Bogusz (2026-03-15 16:54:45+00:00): Stała,
od 25r po zakończeniu pracy przy rurociągu korzystam z niej systematycznie, widać jej po jej stanie, że jest użytkowana przez inne osoby
VA00 (2026-03-16 05:25:20+00:00): Poprawiłem połączenie z wcześniej wrysowaną drogą polną: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8303432678

Nie orientujesz się, a może dasz radę sprawdzić, jak ścieżka i rurociąg przecinają ten  ciek:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/334026839

Zgaduję, że zrobiono jakiś przepust, ale może w przypadku rurociągu uznano, że nie ma to sensu.
Tomek Bogusz (2026-03-16 07:08:19+00:00): 334026839: 
w tym miejscu na wysokości rurociągu nie ma przepustu, jest tam  kilkanaście metrów podmokłego terenu
VA00 (2026-03-16 07:59:22+00:00): Czy to dobrze oddaje sytuację:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1489359822

?
Tomek Bogusz (2026-03-16 14:17:16+00:00): tak
Taksine (2026-03-29 02:59:25+00:00): 我不知道要说什么
Neonf (2026-03-30 08:40:08+00:00): There's nothing to say. I just added some places I saw in person
Taksine (2026-03-30 12:03:33+00:00): In China, the name tag should be in Chinese. Please move English names to the name:en tag to comply with local mapping standards.
フーヴァー　リー (2026-03-08 12:22:14+00:00): 感谢您编辑嘉善。由于中国规划与国情不同，村庄内部路使用highway=residential并不合适，请使用highway=service。
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2026-03-09 03:34:17+00:00): @フーヴァー　リー
其实对某些观点感觉并不赞同，我是认为穿越村庄的大路其实是可以使用residential的，具体意见如图所示

https://imgur.com/a/WbyOWjA
GfCiS (2026-03-11 05:26:08+00:00): Sorry, but a road through a village does meet the definition of Residential Road = {Road in a residential area}. A service road is defined as {Provides access to a building, service station, beach, campsite, industrial estate, business park, etc}.
What I see when being in these areas are typically paved roads with car traffic in residential areas. Clearly meet definition of Residential Road.
Vis_M (2026-03-08 20:10:52+00:00): Why did you sneakily change road classification of MDR without any reason and giving a misleading changeset comment?? Affected roads like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/633169497/history#map=16/9.23357/76.66183
Vis_M (2026-03-08 20:15:53+00:00): Also do not make edits over a large area. Especially controversial edits like these. Split the edits into multiple changesets.
onterof (2026-03-08 12:21:42+00:00): Da ist wohl irgendwas schiefgegangen. Der Weg geht nun einmal quer über den Atlantik.
limes11 (2026-03-08 14:45:12+00:00): way 1486444732 deleted
eggie (2026-03-08 09:36:43+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  Het is niet de bedoeling om name= te gebruiken voor boomsoorten.
Die namen horen niet te renderen op de kaart.
Wel kun je species = en species:nl= gebruiken.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-03-08 09:51:01+00:00): Ik heb een groot deel vervangen door species:nl

Graag nog even checken. 

MVG
eggie
adianand (2026-03-10 10:30:51+00:00): hi harshavardhan, you have classified these roads as tertiary, but as per the OSM classification roads should be service for this university campus. Also, I observed that you had classsified many roads as tertiary but as per the connectivity they should be residential. please confirm the approach you are using for these highway classifications.
zorglubu (2026-03-09 11:33:32+00:00): Bonjour,

On peut mettre des commentaires pour les opening_hours, mais entre guillemets. Ils s'afficheront dans la plupart des outils.

J'ai modifié en :opening_hours=closed "En travaux"

Cordialement.
sikmir (2026-03-15 21:19:05+00:00): Не надо ставить type=waterway на элементы в отношении. Поправил.
eggie (2026-03-08 09:43:56+00:00): boomnamen omgezet naar species:nl
eggie (2026-03-08 09:42:09+00:00): boomnaam verwijderd
eggie (2026-03-08 09:41:33+00:00): name= verwijderd
eggie (2026-03-08 09:39:40+00:00): Beste Heko.. Zou je svp willen stoppen met het toevoegen van boomnamen met de key name= en species:nl willen gebruiken.
Voeg ook commentaar toe aan wat je aanpast bij je uploads zodat andere mappers weten wat je hebt aangepast.

MVG
eggie
A67-A67 (2026-03-09 19:42:57+00:00): In deze wijziging wordt de correcte Nederlandstalige website veranderd in de Engelstalige variant. In Nederland heeft de Nederlandse website de voorkeur.

Ik heb het teruggedraaid en de andere foutieve GVB-pagina's in Amsterdam verbeterd.
eggie (2026-03-08 09:56:08+00:00): Heko   Je hoeft alleen maar name= te vervangen door species:nl

Gr eggie
eggie (2026-03-08 10:45:22+00:00): Een populier die in het water was geplaatst heb ik verwijderd. Misschien per abuis verschoven?
Fraus (2026-03-12 10:12:05+00:00): La cartografia usata è vecchia, hai tolto una intera ZTL senza verificare che è effettivamente ZTL, come riscontrabile in loco e sulla cartografia aggiornata, nonché notizie di stampa sulla ZTL Portone.
Fraus (2026-03-12 10:24:02+00:00): https://trasparenzaealbo.comune.ra.it/web/trasparenza/papca-g?p_p_id=jcitygovalbopubblicazioni_WAR_jcitygovalbiportlet&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=pop_up&p_p_mode=view&p_p_resource_id=downloadAllegato&p_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&_jcitygovalbopubblicazioni_WAR_jcitygovalbiportlet_downloadSigned=true&_jcitygovalbopubblicazioni_WAR_jcitygovalbiportlet_id=388912&_jcitygovalbopubblicazioni_WAR_jcitygovalbiportlet_action=mostraDettaglio&_jcitygovalbopubblicazioni_WAR_jcitygovalbiportlet_fromAction=recuperaDettaglio
ExoMal (2026-03-08 22:00:36+00:00): This viewpoint is accessible sometimes; the gorse gets back every once in a while, albeit not frequently not enough in my experience.
Rostranimin (2026-03-09 09:53:57+00:00): Hi ExoMal - It wasn't the gorse that was the problem here. The bridge has been closed off with a well-built welded-on section of fencing. I think I remember some discussion around this walkway/viewpoint a while ago, but this was very much now inaccessible. My guess was that this is a newer change? You may also be interested in a couple of the other local edits I made yesterday morning where I think you may have been involved in mapping. I'll message you with details all together in one place.
Tris_1220 (2026-03-08 19:35:27+00:00): Ich habe einen Großteil der Änderungen von deinem Changeset zurück geändert, da sie nicht richtig waren. Der cycleway tag dient als baulich von der Straße getrennter Radweg. Die Rinnböckstraße hat so einen aber nicht. Daher ist sie als bicycle_road=yes gemappt, was eine Fahrradstraße widerspiegelt.

Mein Changeset: https://www.osm.org/changeset/179547381
蕉饼电脑 (2026-03-08 23:47:10+00:00): 1. w/1470977343 的外立面只有 “Indian MOTORCYCLE”、“印第安摩托·福州”、“AMERICA'S FIRST MOTORCYCLE COMPNAY” 等标识，并没有类似“船政切割车间”的标识，故此建筑事实上并非“切割车间”。你分隔的POI和建筑事实上为同一事物，先前的单一元素绘制方式更好的反应了“One feature, one OSM element”之原则。此建筑并非单层建筑。此建筑仅有50年历史，不属于历史建筑。
2. “平潭如意湖国际城市赛道”是基于城市道路改造的永久性赛道。你不应根据赛道建成前的过时影像绘制地图，更不得据此删除已经绘制的事实上存在的事物。
3. name:en 之相关问题。 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179253631#c1562878
4. 平潭与马尾两地的细节性编辑不应上传至同一个变更集
涉及到上述1、2点的编辑已回退
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179554878
Dimitar155 (2026-03-08 21:54:00+00:00): Благодаря за промяната! От сателитните снимки (и по памет от дронските видеа), мисля че тротоарите бяха с плочки, а не с асфалт. Сигурен ли сте че са с асфалтова настилка?