piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
intschutschuna (2025-03-27 17:23:00+00:00): Hallo Förster Ralf,

bei OpenStreetMap ist das Löschen von real existierenden Objekten Vandalismus und deshalb zu unterlassen. Für Zugangsbeschränkungen gibt es die access-Werte [1], die auch für die "Besucherlenkung" völlig ausreichend sind.
Bei tatsächlich nicht mehr vorhandenen Objekten empfiehlt sich zudem das disused:-Präfix [2] 

- Die Jagdstände habe ich wiederhergestellt, ergänzt mit access=private
- Die Rückegassen habe ich wiederhergestellt, foot=yes entfernt, ergänzt mit access=private


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:access
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lebenszyklus-Pr%C3%A4fix
Tolhuis (2025-03-12 13:00:13+00:00): Dag Ruben, is deze aanpassing gemaakt op basis van een survey? Hier staan volgens mijn laatste herinnering namelijk geen paaltjes meer (zie mapillary 30 jan 2025), en fietsers mogen er al zeker door aangezien de vroegere paaltjes op de baan stonden maar niet op het fietspad.
Groetjes Jasper
Ruben Van de Velde (2025-03-12 13:29:48+00:00): Ja, zie https://api.panoramax.xyz/#focus=meta&map=17/51.066108/3.723108&pic=dc1fd7d7-e407-4cb5-843c-c089c698a359&speed=250&xyz=97.00/0.00/30

Thv Berouw stond er alleen nog maar een paaltje op het fietspad; volgens signalisatieplan https://apidg.gent.be/supporting/dss-public/v1/sharedfiles/3cd9ec84-da13-41d7-8c27-a798d1888eaa zouden er metalen paaltjes op de rijweg komen
Tolhuis (2025-03-12 14:31:22+00:00): Het paaltje 626137122 ter hoogte van Berouw laat momenteel geen fietsers toe. Dat is volgens mij niet de bedoeling. Kan je dit nog aanpassen?
Ruben Van de Velde (2025-03-12 14:55:29+00:00): Oh, inderdaad niet. Bedankt!
NeisReview (2025-03-07 06:50:07+00:00): #DataImport

Hi, welcome to OSM!

With this changeset, you've added a significant number of features that appear to share similarities in their tags. Could you please let us know more about the source of your mapping activity? Is this a data import?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks!
Andreas Hernandez (2025-03-07 09:48:19+00:00): The towers can be seen on bing imagery. One of the substations can be seen on bing, and the other one that is under construction can be seen on Sentinel 2, and some articles talk about it. I did not import the data. Thanks!
NeisReview (2025-03-07 09:52:29+00:00): 👍 Thank you.

#HappyMapping
habi (2025-04-03 15:26:19+00:00): Ciao HopspoH
Hier in der Gegend hat's nichts das auf den Namen "Murtenstrasse" auf https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12641722766 hinweisen würde.
Ist das evtl. ein Tippfehler?
Gruss,
habi
HopspoH (2025-04-03 16:28:44+00:00): Hallo habi
Diese Saugstelle der Feuerwehr habe ich nach der Strasse gegenüber benannt. falls das zu weit weg ist könnte man sie auch in "Wiesli" nach der Bushaltestelle, oder "Bürgermeisterlinde" nach dem Benachbartem Baum nennen?
Gruss Philipp
habi (2025-04-05 20:18:10+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33537286 hat den Namen Murtenstraße, mit deutschem ß :)
Ich bin wegen https://taginfo.openstreetmap.ch/tags/name=Murtenstrasse hier gelandet, was es sonst nur in der Region Bern gibt :)

Aus meiner Sicht hat die Saugstelle nur dann einen Namen, wenn der Namen auch so 'on the ground' ersichtlich ist,  und muss nicht (willkürlich) nach irgendwas in der Umgebung benannt werden.
d3mol3k (2025-03-07 21:15:18+00:00): Nie zmieniaj bo jest to tor opisany jako nieuzywany disused zmiana do wycofania
d3mol3k (2025-03-07 21:28:28+00:00): A gdzie fragment drogi serwisowej wjazdowej na teren warsztatow tramwajowych? Usunąłes!
d3mol3k (2025-03-09 19:02:18+00:00): wycofuję - ogrodzenia dodajemy w miejscu ich fizycznej obecności a nie w granicy obszaru.
jmarchon (2025-03-07 03:34:25+00:00): Welcome to OSM!
Joe Polastre (2025-04-10 02:31:24+00:00): @ParabolicYeet: can you please make the airport a properly closed feature? Thanks.
Bierphysik (2025-03-10 09:17:59+00:00): Hi. Du hast mit diesem CS in sehr großem Umfang separat gemappte Wege/Bürgersteige gelöscht. Was war der Grund hierfür?
geisthugo123 (2025-03-10 10:42:50+00:00): Hab alle Wege rausgenommen, die wie ganz einfache Bürgersteige direkt an der Straße liegen und aber dann seperat gemappt waren. Das waren auch fast alles Wege im Kreis in einem Straßenblock ohne jegliche Verbindung zum restlichen Wegenetz.
geisthugo123 (2025-03-10 10:44:26+00:00): Wären die alle an Kreuzungsbereichen vernünftig verbunden gewesen hätte ich natürlich die vorherige Mapping Arbeit respektiert.
Teilweise war dann auch altes Doppeltagging an den Straßen mit sidewalk:both dabei.
geisthugo123 (2025-03-10 10:46:35+00:00): Hab die Wege natürlich überall drin gelassen wo sie wirklich seperat sind und natürlcih auch da wo sich Mapper vor mir die Arbeit gemacht haben Verkehrsinseln etc einzutragen
geisthugo123 (2025-03-10 10:47:37+00:00): Habe jetzt stattdessen die entsprechenden Straßen überall mit sidewalk Attributen getaggt
Bierphysik (2025-03-10 11:21:11+00:00): Hmmm. Wäre es dann nicht sinnvoller gewesen die Verbindungen zu den Straßen zu mappen. Zumal andere teile von Dieburg solche separat gemappten Bürgersteige aufzeigen.
Bierphysik (2025-03-10 11:45:02+00:00): Und was mir nach einem Blick auf Hesse DOp20 auffällt, du hast dadurch natürlich auch Übergänge entfernt die existieren, u.a. bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/276453316
Bierphysik (2025-03-10 11:47:14+00:00): Ich korrigiere mich: die =crossing sind noch da
Bierphysik (2025-03-10 11:48:27+00:00): Als eigene nodes auf der Straße, aber jetzt ohne =footway oder =path
redd (2025-03-13 09:41:39+00:00): Hallo geisthugo123,
ich empfinde deine Löschung der Wege eher kontraproduktiv. Zumal hast du im Änderungskommentar "Änderungen in 64807 Dieburg" dies nicht erwähnt, was von einigen in der Community als sehr intransparent wahrgenommen wird.

Was hälst du davon, die Wege wieder herzustellen, so dass die Verbindungsfehler dann auch behoben werden können?

Grüße,

redd
geisthugo123 (2025-03-13 20:00:51+00:00): Ich gebe zu das Löschen ist und war nicht die feinste Sache mit solchen Situationen umzugehen.
Für mich hat beim editieren der allgemeine Konsens das nicht getrennte verlaufende Bürgersteige auch nicht getrennt gemappt werden, dem sehr unvollständigen Mapping von vorher überwogen
geisthugo123 (2025-03-13 20:01:35+00:00): Es wäre zwar nicht unbedingt meine Art zu mappen aber ich kann die Wege auch wieder herstellen, das wäre kein Problem
redd (2025-03-16 13:18:09+00:00): Hi geisthugo123,
danke für deine schnelle Antwort. Ich würde es befürworten, wenn du die Wege wiederherstellst!

Grüße,

redd
geisthugo123 (2025-03-17 23:57:18+00:00): okay kümmere mich die nächsten Tage drum,
vg
geisthugo123 (2025-04-07 20:28:06+00:00): Hi, die Wege sind jetzt alle wieder drinnen mit Verbindungen überall.
Viele Grüße
GerdP (2025-09-13 14:06:25+00:00): Moin!
Du hast hier ohne Nachfrage an diversen highway=* das tag zone:traffic entfernt. Ich frage mich, ob es dafür irgendeinen guten Grund gab? Es ist nämlich viel Arbeit, die alle richtig zu erfassen.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-03-06 23:40:54+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12641847713

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
RedAuburn (2025-03-08 12:49:26+00:00): (also matches existing nums, so not completely sourced from NLS)
PierZen (2025-03-07 15:54:10+00:00): Il semble que vous ne connaissez pas les chemins qui représentent une série d'adrees. Un contribut précédent avait effacé un noeud. Vous avez ensuite effacé le chemin.  > Je corrige.

Et je vous demande encore, svp ajoutez des commentaires lors de l'édiition avant d'envoyer vos modifications.

Ce chemin représente une série d'adresses 1 au 7 Rue Perreault
chemin : 128837753	addr:interpolation	odd
Nœud : 1422673312	1 Rue Perreault
Nœud : 1422675705	7 Rue Perreault
pwbriggs (2025-03-09 07:09:18+00:00): Arrivé apartments already tagged on main building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/360389739.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163388376
pwbriggs (2025-03-09 07:09:31+00:00): Arrivé apartments already tagged on main building at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/360389739. Reverted this changeset, but thanks anyways!
NeisBot (2025-03-07 05:06:44+00:00): Hi MagdalenThot, and thank you for your contribution to the OSM project!

Over the past 7 days, you've made more than 100 changesets without adding any comment.

To help improve collaboration and make your edits easier for others to understand, please consider providing brief descriptions of your changes in the comment field. This will make it easier for the community to follow your adjustments. You can find some helpful tips on good changeset comments here: https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments.

PS: I’ve also sent this message via the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#HelpfulComment
Glassman (2025-03-07 17:19:21+00:00): It is my understanding that there must be some sort of barrier between ways before the way is separated. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway. I just drove over it yesterday and I don't recall seeing any barriers. Can you review this edit?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163306481
Matt Bianconi (2025-03-07 18:24:57+00:00): Ugh, what a limiting policy. There is a low cement barrier at the end towards Pacific place. I will revert and split only at the cement barrier
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-03-07 12:48:34+00:00): i też na podstawie zdjęć lotniczych
Joseph R P (2025-03-10 01:06:18+00:00): Hello, I had to revert this changeset because it appears some of the edits you made in it broke the Desert National Wildlife Refuge and Tule Springs Fossil Beds relations. I will recommend that it may be better to publish any unrelated edits you make in separate changesets so that smaller innocuous edits—such as the ones you make around the city published under this changeset—just so that the good edits you make won't have to be undone just because of one or a few erroneous ones that need to be reverted. For example, if you were to add businesses or edit buildings near the airport, it would be safer to publish those edits before or after you make edits in the vicinity of the DNWR.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-03-23 20:50:31+00:00): Understood, thank you very much. When I was editing around that area, I received a warning that "[this thing] should be a closed area based on its tags."
felipeeugenio (2025-03-07 11:37:29+00:00): Hola. Por favor no desplazar calles según la foto satelital que usa (esri). Existen varios proveedores de fotos, todos con su desplazamiento propio. Además tienen desplazamientos cuando se renuevan e incluso entre sus propias capas. Es un trabajo no muy útil. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Imagery_Offset_Database)

Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163307752
mavl (2025-05-13 15:09:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
mavl (2025-05-13 15:09:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
NeisBot (2025-03-07 04:15:40+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was flagged because your added description contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2025-03-08 08:13:01+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element https://osm.org/changeset/163309231
Montechiaro (2025-03-07 04:35:32+00:00): Ulteriori dettagli: la precedente indicazione del civico 69 induceva in errore, per questo l'ho cancellata. Sia nella realtà, sia concessione edilizia, esiste un unico civico 69 in via Montechiaro, composto da 4 abitazioni, corrisponde al fabbricato a forma di "L". Vorrei sapere chi ha apposto la precedente, forviante, ubicazione del civico "69".
fortera_au (2025-03-07 05:08:32+00:00): Hi, are those sources available under an open license? Having a look at metar-taf.com, there isn't any mention of a license, which means it would be copyrighted and unsuitable for use in OpenStreetMap.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163309358
user_9848150 (2025-03-07 05:22:34+00:00): Thank you for your feedback! I will compare the data with OurAirports, which has a compatible open license, and also contact the support team at metar-taf.com to clarify the licensing of their data before proceeding with the edits.
If there are any other recommended sources that would be acceptable, I’m happy to adjust accordinglyb
fortera_au (2025-03-07 05:26:49+00:00): If you're not sure of the licensing right now, it might be best to consider reverting this changeset, unless you're able to find some source with all of these details.
user_9848150 (2025-03-07 05:56:24+00:00): The aeronautical data used in this update comes from freely available government sources, such as official aviation authorities and open databases. These sources ensure compliance with OSM guidelines, and I have cross-checked them with other open datasets like OurAirports.

Since the data is from public and reliable sources, I believe the changeset remains valid. However, if any specific concerns remain, I’m happy to review or adjust accordingly hihi 😉
fortera_au (2025-03-07 11:22:09+00:00): Freely available doesn't mean compatible with the ODbL, which is required when using external data sources in OpenStreetMap as that's the license OSM itself is released under.
user_9848150 (2025-03-07 12:20:31+00:00): Hi, thanks for the clarification! Given the concerns regarding licensing, I’ve reverted the changeset to ensure compliance with OSM’s ODbL requirements. I’ll review alternative open-license sources like OurAirports before making any further edits. Let me know if you have any other recommendations!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163309358
fortera_au (2025-03-07 23:05:36+00:00): Thanks for that! The Wiki has some good resources in regards to allowable data sources, Australia has a list here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources and a global list is here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potential_datasources

Still need to double check the licensing, you'll see in the AU list that there's some under CC-BY-SA which we normally can't use, but we've received a waiver from the data owner specifically allowing us to use it (we can't meet the attribution requirements as per the license, but often we'll get permission to have it listed elsewhere)
fortera_au (2025-03-07 05:07:06+00:00): Hi, you've set the street address to just "From"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163309884
nkerby (2025-03-07 06:38:32+00:00): I don't do this very often, so not sure what you mean.  "Australian Science Media Centre" has moved from 55 Exchange Place to TechCentral, Lot Fourteen, Frome Road, Adelaide.  What do I need to do to action that change?
fortera_au (2025-03-07 11:21:17+00:00): You've added a tag as part of this changeset, addr:street=From. You'll either want to remove that, or update the address tags in general to reflect the new address.
silversurfer83 (2025-03-07 15:24:25+00:00): Hallo :)

ein kleiner Hinweis zur App "Go Map!!":
Sie bietet kurz vor dem Abspeichern einer Änderung die Möglichkeit einen schicken Änderungskommentar zu hinterlassen. Mach doch bitte Gebrauch davon.
Wie sowas aussehen kann erläutert das Wiki unter
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments

happy mapping
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163310062
NeisBot (2025-03-07 05:19:00+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was flagged because your added description contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2025-03-14 15:38:45+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163584721
大山かなめ (2025-03-07 05:23:00+00:00): ウェイ:1365140037の裏手に建物があるようにBingでは見えますが、これは2024年に解体されていますのでご注意ください
mavl (2025-05-13 15:08:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
SD 99 (2025-03-10 00:43:41+00:00): Gambar jalan ini wajib dihapus secepatnya karena melanggar hukum dan melanggar privasi. Tanah pribadi.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-03-13 00:32:44+00:00): reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163550005
Mashin (2025-03-08 22:59:52+00:00): Hi,
This looks like a quite dramatic reclassification. Would you mind contacting jnighan (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jnighan) so the both of you could sort out if this is in line with the highway classification guideline?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Connecticut/Highway_classification
ZLima12 (2025-03-09 07:25:26+00:00): Hi, thanks for pointing this out. Indeed, I neglected to look at the history on these ways; since they were highway=residential, and the geometry was quite bad in some places, I assumed that they had been neglected since the TIGER import.

Also, I had not made myself familiar with the Connecticut classification guidelines, which I should have done beforehand. I did not realize that it had such a strict stance towards tertiary and especially unclassified roads.

I've just sent a message in the OSMUS Slack about the situation, and tagged both you and jnighan in the thread. I'd appreciate any input on the topic (mainly whether to use highway=unclassified).
vertraut (2025-03-07 06:47:47+00:00): Everything has been checked according to the land allocation documents.
vertraut (2025-03-07 06:48:35+00:00): Management contacts are up to date!
NeisReview (2025-03-07 17:54:09+00:00): #HighwayChanges

Hello, welcome to OSM.

In this changeset, some types of highway are being modified or added by you. 

Could we know the sources that you used? Thank you.

More information about the changeset: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=163311662
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-14 07:28:38+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163354505
Baloo Uriza (2025-03-07 16:19:31+00:00): Names should only be the name, not also the branch.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

There's a seperate branch tag for branch information.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:branch
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163311841
pwbriggs (2026-01-29 20:01:15+00:00): Filing obligatory feedback complaint that you added a duplicate building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1365202834

Thanks for your work on this, happy mapping!
mavl (2025-05-13 15:05:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
eggie (2025-03-07 07:35:18+00:00): Dag  Grasmaa1er,

Wanneer duidelijk staat aangegeven dat de Toegang Verboden is heb je het correct aangepast.
Ook aan het hek kun je dan access=private toevoegen en evt locked=yes of no toevoegen.

Overigens mag je op veel meer plaatsen komen dan je op het eerste gezicht denkt.
Van de voorgaande mapper weet ik dat hij niet overal is gaan kijken en op grond van luchtfoto's paden intekent. 

MVG en mapse,
eggie
eggie (2025-03-07 07:55:17+00:00): Nog een tip:
In het begin worden je bijdragen bekeken door meer ervaren mappers..... Uiteraard om te helpen.  Ze zullen soms commentaar leveren, tips geven. Je krijgt dan automatisch een mail op het mailadres dat je bij aanmelding hebt opgegeven. Controleer dat dus regelmatig. En geef reactie op een commentaar, zodat duidelijk is dat je het hebt gelezen. Je kunt ook specifiek aangeven in editor iD en JOSM of iemand naar je edits wil kijken door het hokje aan te vinken bij: “Ik zou graag hebben dat iemand mijn bewerkingen nakijkt”
habi (2025-03-12 08:45:01+00:00): Ciao Philippe

Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap!
Schön machst du hier mit und hilfst, die Karte und die Kartendaten zu pflegen.

Die Webseite deiner/der Firma kannst du gerne *mit* https:// an Anfang eingeben, und idealerweise kannst du `office=company` noch präzisieren.
Laut https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:office=company gibt's weltweit in OSM 10x `company=robot` :)

Ich hab' das so angepasst.

Bei irgendwelchen Fragen gerne hier in den Kommentaren nachhaken oder bei https://c.osm.org/c/107 eine Diskussion eröffnen, wir versuchen gerne zu helfen.

Ä Gruess usem Liebifäud,
hab
habi (2025-03-12 08:47:52+00:00): Ich hab' das in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163517455 angepasst

Gruss,
habi (mit i :) )
DaveF (2025-03-07 19:07:53+00:00): There already is a train station node.
gerag (2025-03-09 11:37:51+00:00): I can't see it on the map. Can you give coordinates?
DaveF (2025-03-09 11:43:17+00:00): It's visible in your editor.
gerag (2025-03-09 12:33:11+00:00): Well what I see at this location is a Willenhall Station site. i.E. a construction site, but definitely not a railway station node. The construction must be finished by now since there are trains stopping there according to timetables.
DaveF (2025-03-09 13:36:21+00:00): You're using the Id editor. It displays all nodes.

Don't know what you're looking at, but the station is due to open winter 25/26
gerag (2025-03-09 17:14:19+00:00): OK, understood. So it is still under construction.
s777n (2025-03-08 13:04:19+00:00): Здравствуйте. Ваша правка была удалена
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-06 11:36:07+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4745107 - something went wrong here
NeisReview (2025-03-07 17:45:09+00:00): #HighwayChanges

Hello, welcome to OSM.

In this changeset, some types of highway are being modified by you. 

Could we know the sources that you used? Thank you.

More information about the changeset: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=163315013
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-14 07:28:05+00:00): Partly reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163351625
NeisReview (2025-03-07 17:54:40+00:00): #HighwayChanges

Hello, welcome to OSM.

In this changeset, some types of highway are being modified or added by you. 

Could we know the sources that you used? Thank you.

More information about the changeset: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=163315165
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-14 07:29:01+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163354477
mavl (2025-05-13 15:07:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].