piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2025-05-05 21:07:53+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback   De info heb ik samengevoegd met de bestaande adresnode.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Marek-M (2025-05-05 20:08:30+00:00): Do tego istnieje odpowiednie tagowanie w postaci `informal=yes`.

Jeżeli tym przedeptem nie wolno przechodzić, bo są np. znaki zakazu, to można dodać tag 'access=no'

Jak na razie ten przedept istnieje, nic nie zabrania przejścia jego śladem, więc niepotrzebnie zakłamujesz rzeczywistość.

Twoje działania w OSM, chociaż prowadzone zapewne w dobrej wierze i być może w Twoim interesie, niosą cechy wandalizmu i mogą spowodować blokadą Twojego konta. Wydaje mi się, że nie jest to Twoim celem, ale mogę się mylić.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Wandalizm

Po raz kolejny wycofuję Twoją nieprawidłową edycję a kolejną próbę psucia mapy OSM zgłoszę do DWG.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165863172
draxxiu (2025-05-05 20:15:21+00:00): Spokojnie, już sam zgłosiłem twoje uporczywe blokowanie zmian ścieżki przechodzącej przez PRYWATNE miejsce parkingowe. Wyrysuj sobie ścieżkę przez środek swojej posesji :) w tym miejscu masz miejsce parkingowe a nie ciąg pieszy. Nie wiem czego nie rozumiesz, osoba myśląca chyba potrafi rozróżnić miejsce parkingowe od chodnika
grzegorz75jan (2025-05-05 22:24:42+00:00): Tak naprawdę to zgłosiłeś sam siebie. 

Zrobiłem przegląd twoich ostatnich edycji oraz widziałem brak odpowiedzi na komentarze a tam gdzie się udzieliłeś to trochę brzydko zalatuje.

Powodzenia w dalszej karierze.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165862159
woodpeck (2025-06-19 20:23:47+00:00): The DWG has received this complaint but we will not intervene. It is acceptable for the complainant to add "informal=yes" if they want (or even "access=private" if they clearly mark the area as private access); it is not acceptable to delete the footpath altogether if it is visible on the ground.
grzegorz75jan (2025-06-20 17:57:54+00:00): +
eggie (2025-05-05 19:51:14+00:00): Top!
impiaaa (2025-05-06 17:15:13+00:00): Since they're in a golf course, they could be golf cart paths, which iD does have a preset for
ivanbranco (2025-05-06 13:37:32+00:00): Same here, I would have add the Wikidata once to the superroute, instead of adding it to 152 different stages.
user_22486198 (2025-05-06 17:02:26+00:00): I would very much prefer that as well, but it's the only way to render it on wikivoyage. Superroutes don't render unless the individual stages are also tagged with the wikidata id.
Yog Sot (2025-05-05 21:30:18+00:00): ten zjazd rowerówki nie jest jednokierunkowy, bo nie jest oznaczony jako jednokierunkowy. 

choć poniewż jezdnia ma linię ciągła w tym miejscu, to daje sie relacje zakazu skrętu, robiłes kiedyś takie?
db-ak (2025-05-06 06:25:51+00:00): Miałem właśnie wątpliwość bo jestem świadomy właśnie tej kwestii. Standardowo postanowiłem nie zmieniać czegoś wątpliwego co działa xd tylko dodałem nawierzchnie. Najchętniej też bym dał dwukierunkowość z poprawną relacją z każdej strony, choć gdy takie zjazdy są bardzo wąskie juz wolałbym zostawić tak jak sobie ZDM czy MIR wyobraził
Yog Sot (2025-05-06 10:49:45+00:00): ich wyobraźnia mocno kuleje ;d I jednokierunkowośc obok przy przy parku. 
To prawda, ze aby droga rowerowa mogła byc dwukierunkowa musi miec 2 metry, ale jednoczesnie tam ten chodnik w okolicach stadionu jest za wąski na pieszo/rowerową lub ewentualnie może byc pieszo?jednokierunkowo rowerową, ale w takim wypadku jaki kierunek by miała mieć? xD
Podobnie tutaj, skoro kierunek nie jest ustalony znakami, to też takie zgadywanie.
ivanbranco (2025-05-06 13:35:24+00:00): Since the Q-Item is about the entire route, and not about individual stages, wasn't it better do add it to the superroute (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2389235) instead that duplicating the data 61 times?
Langlaeufer (2025-05-06 15:45:02+00:00): Dann ist es ja ein Gehweg- hab es geändert.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165863035
eggie (2025-05-05 20:26:24+00:00): Kleine aanpassing gedaan. bicycle=yes verwijderd.. (default)
foot=yes is ook default in Nederland, maar kwaad kan het niet.
Gr eggie
eggie (2025-05-05 20:22:22+00:00): Hier heb ik moped= en mofa =yes toegevoegd, want die worden in OSM afgehandeld als motorvoertuigen.
MVG
eggie
Udarian (2025-05-05 21:36:31+00:00): please stop splitting the crossings as separate geometry here as it is not, if you look at the bing streetside in the area you will clearly see that the sidewalk continues through the crossing and thus is not separate geometry. Its not even like the sidewalk lowers to the road level, the sidewalk level on either side is the exact same, this is very clearly a single continuous sidewalk, so please stop splitting this way.
VLD157 (2025-05-06 14:52:01+00:00): Hello Udarian, 

I understand your concern regarding the sidewalk continuing straight through the crossings. However, the purpose of the geometry split in this context is to show where vehicle cross-traffic is expected over the footway. To better indicate that the sidewalk is uninterrupted, perhaps in the future we could add the tag crossing:continuous=yes (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:continuous) to the crossing segments. Would you agree with this approach?

-VLD157
Udarian (2025-05-07 00:19:21+00:00): Crossings should only be mapped as separate geometry when there is a distinguishable difference across the section of way being considered to be split into a separate crossing way. In this case, as the sidewalk is completely straight across the section and there is no other (in pattern, surface, or other) significant difference across the section of sidewalk so it should not be split. Normal crossings get split as they differ greatly from the sidewalk sections they connect to. In this case, it is very clear that this is a sidewalk that a road happens to cross, where the road is brought to the same level as the sidewalk. Also, this is a spot where vehicles cross a pedestrian traffic way which, essentially the opposite of normal crossings where pedestrians cross vehicle ways; we don't have a proper way to map that currently.
As I previously pointed out, the sidewalk is very obviously continuous across the whole area, both on aerial and (most importantly) on the latest (in the area) street side imagery, this means that it is a sidewalk that the road intersects, not a separate crossing way. The road does technically cross there, so there is a highway=crossing tag on the vertex where the sidewalk and road meet, and nothing else, as there isn't a tag (something like crossings=vehicle) that clarifies that this is a spot where vehicles cross pedestrians compared to the normal pedestrian crossings vehicles. Again, that sidewalk is very clearly one continuous object along the center line of the sidewalk, so no splits should be done.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-16 07:09:31+00:00): Cleaned up remaining SEO spam and other tagging for POI in changeset 184167137

https://osm.org/changeset/184167137
Udarian (2025-05-05 21:36:22+00:00): please stop splitting the crossings as separate geometry here as it is not, if you look at the bing streetside in the area you will clearly see that the sidewalk continues through the crossing and thus is not separate geometry. Its not even like the sidewalk lowers to the road level, the sidewalk level on either side is the exact same, this is very clearly a single continuous sidewalk, so please stop splitting this way.
VLD157 (2025-05-06 14:52:07+00:00): Hello Udarian, 

I understand your concern regarding the sidewalk continuing straight through the crossings. However, the purpose of the geometry split in this context is to show where vehicle cross-traffic is expected over the footway. To better indicate that the sidewalk is uninterrupted, perhaps in the future we could add the tag crossing:continuous=yes (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:continuous) to the crossing segments. Would you agree with this approach?

-VLD157
fortera_au (2025-06-26 08:59:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
fortera_au (2025-06-26 08:57:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
TheNightRider (2025-05-06 11:47:41+00:00): Why are you setting these roads from service to residential? Clearly this is a commercial area and not a residential area. Is this a mistake or am I missing something?
Matt McCutchen (2025-05-05 20:57:47+00:00): - The newest aerial image I could find in JOSM was from Esri World Imagery.  Trace the building from there, adjust parking to not overlap, and delete the pitches since they're confirmed to be destroyed by the construction.
- Adjacent intersection changes from survey
I'm sure the campus could use a lot more work, but at least this is much better than what we had.
kaleidoscopica (2025-05-05 21:52:39+00:00): Please see my comments on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165825363#map=14/25.96850/-97.16326 - why are you continuing to edit the boundaries on the National Wildlife Refuge area without a source?
Ryan Watern (2025-05-05 23:37:51+00:00): Not sure why you brought this up on a edit that is completely not related to "National Wildlife Refuge". Please look at what was edited on this changeset.
kaleidoscopica (2025-05-05 23:43:14+00:00): Apologies, I was going off the large bounding box along with the same "Fixed landuse" description of the edit.

Really looking forward to hearing your reasoning for the other edits.
Ryan Watern (2025-05-05 23:51:36+00:00): To be genuine, I thought the boundary's were accidently drawn incorrectly I have never seen a zig zag like boundary. I did see one map that did not have that so I figured it was best interest to remove the zig zags. After checking that source I see that I made a mistake. The edit was reverted.
kaleidoscopica (2025-05-06 01:29:08+00:00): Great - thank you. Maybe I should add a note to that polygon with a link to the source map...
silversurfer83 (2025-05-06 15:06:32+00:00): Hi :)

guck mal hier: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:waterway%3Dfish_pass

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165865190
VictorIE (2026-06-18 03:04:55+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12801301785/

Might anthropogenic=yes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:anthropogenic%3Dyes be better than not:natural=* ?

There are some similar tags in KK city: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2rQ4
danieldegroot2 (2026-06-18 14:24:41+00:00): Removed; newer imagery is available.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184274024
danieldegroot2 (2026-06-18 14:51:54+00:00): The remaining not:natural=wood are large multi-crown standalone trees which are easily mistaken for a forest/wood / multiple trees if solely based of aerial imagery. I'll personally keep them for now, though they exist in many places. However, feel free to remove them but with risk that armchair mappers will just add more trees where there are none.
pavvv (2025-05-05 22:01:31+00:00): Na jakiej podstawie? Darłowo to małe miasto.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Pl:Tag:highway%3Dprimary
RafaBoski (2025-05-06 12:21:52+00:00): No dla mnie nie jest małym miastem :P
pavvv (2025-05-06 12:24:54+00:00): Ależ oczywiście że jest. Zauważ że nawet Kętrzyn nie ma drogi primary.
RafaBoski (2025-05-07 13:03:36+00:00): No rzeczywiście, tylko też tutaj nie ma żadnych dróg krajowych - są same wojewódzkie
pavvv (2025-05-07 15:41:28+00:00): To nic. Parametry są wystarczające. Zobacz https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:highway%3Dprimary#Zastosowanie_na_mapie_Polski
RafaBoski (2025-05-07 18:25:40+00:00): Wow, rzeczywiście. Dobra dzięki za pinformowanie mnie o czymś takim. Będę wiedział na przyszłość
bigopenmac (2025-05-08 08:45:35+00:00): Привет! Добро пожаловать в OSM и поздравляю с первой правкой!

Названия улиц должны следовать определенным правилам. Написал тебе письмо в личку.
grzegorz75jan (2025-05-06 00:16:35+00:00): To upiększyliśmy mapę. 
Zabawne bo myślałem, że "konflikt" edycyjny mieliśmy na tym twoim przejściu dla zwierząt a a akcja była tu :)
eggie (2025-05-06 05:37:52+00:00): Dag TTT,

Die smalle stroken die parallel lopen aan het bredere spoor worden vaak als fietspad getagd. 
Soms is het verhard, maar compacted en/of fine_gravel kan ook.
De aanloop en het vervolg is ook als fietspad getagd. 
Het is niet zo dat bij onverhard het geen fietspad kan zijn.
Graag reactie
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-05-06 05:45:05+00:00): Even gespiekt in straatkijk...   Het zal er ooit geweest zijn, maar dat parallelspoor lijkt verdwenen. Klopt dat? In de BGT is het wel ingetekend. 
Er lopen wel routerelaties over.. dus zo maar verwijderen kan ook niet.
dvdhoven (2025-05-07 06:45:45+00:00): Die routerelaties zijn wandelroutes, dus die kunnen zo op de track gelegd worden. Ik teken veel wandelroutes op de track ook als er een fietspad ligt
eggie (2025-05-07 07:00:11+00:00): Hoi Dick,

Ik pas het wel aan naar één track met tracktype=grade4
Wellicht reageert mapper nog. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-05-07 07:18:28+00:00): Dick,
Ik heb nog met Slagboom&Peeters gekeken..  recente foto mrt 2025.. Er is daar geen aparte fietsstrook (meer) aan de westzijde van het knooppunt.
Wandelroutes lopen nu over de track. MTB route vanuit het zuiden via het knooppunt laten lopen.
Verder naar het westen komt het niet overeen met de BGT omtrekgericht. Voor de lokale mapper denk ik. 
Het zal in ieder geval nu niet meer als verharde doorgaande 'route' doorfietsen. 

Groet
eggie
dvdhoven (2025-05-07 09:33:48+00:00): Lijkt me een prima oplossing.

Groet,
Dick
santamariense (2025-05-12 17:10:42+00:00): Olá Editor006,

Procure adicionar no comentário o que você fez ou tentou fazer. É de fundamental importância para que outros entendam e não simplesmente ".".

Existem regras de classificação viária, as quais eu creio que você ainda não conhece. É de fundamental importância segui-la. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brazil/Classifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o_das_rodovias_do_Brasil

Qualquer dúvida, estou a disposição.
pwbriggs (2025-05-06 06:23:53+00:00): OpenStreetMap is a live database. Feel free to experiment with modifying the map in the editor, but please be careful not to upload your experimental (and incorrect) changes to the live map. Thanks! (see also: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing#Experiment_with_editing_the_map)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165875352
b-jazz (2025-05-07 04:25:55+00:00): Hello Chris, 

What's up with the shape of the fairway on Hole 2 near the green? I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but it looks like no other golf course hole and I'm concerned there is a mistake in there somewhere. But I'm not sure your intent, so I wanted to check first.
Xvtn (2025-05-06 18:58:17+00:00): Hi, thanks for going over these! Only potential issue I see is the addr:street tag - it's my understanding that they are generally understood to be concatenated with addr:housenumber, so having the directionals both on street ("East 1400 North") instead of just the second one makes sense.

Eg full address would be "555 East 1400 North" instead of "555 1400 North" if that makes sense.
leftybender (2025-05-09 20:11:33+00:00): Yeh, I know that's a sticky issue. To me, the "East" is part of the housenumber. Like, the street is "1400 North" and the particular building is at "555 East." But other people don't see it that way, and in other states they commonly see the "East" as part of the street name. Martijn told me once it was bad form to put alpha characters in addr:streetnumber, so I avoid putting "500 East" or "500E" in that field.
leftybender (2025-05-09 20:12:52+00:00): When I am being a really good mapper, I do it like
addr:housenumber=555
addr:street=1400 North
addr:street:prefix=East
...but I am not always a good mapper.
Xvtn (2025-05-09 20:30:17+00:00): Honestly, I agree with you that east should be part of the housenumber, logically. But ultimately I think I agree with Martijn that house umber should be just that, a number. Anyway, Utah's grid system is really nice imo but it can really lead to some weird edge cases like this.

Thanks for looking out! Happy mapping!
leftybender (2025-05-10 22:17:28+00:00): Cheers! As an aside I should acknowledge that my approach when I think I'm being really good doesn't conform with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Utah/Naming_Conventions
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-05-18 02:34:03+00:00): Hey. Please don't arbitrarily retag roads like that. There is an at-grade intersection to the east, meaning it's not a motorway. Thank you.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166414047
b-jazz (2025-05-07 04:33:14+00:00): RE: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/791902954

The lines that define fairways, greens, bunkers, water hazards, and tees should never intersect or partially overlap each other and we noticed that they are overlapping in one or more of the feature pairs in this changeset. If there is no obvious fringe around the green, the fairway should butt up against the green and every node between them should be *shared*. If there is a fringe around the green that is similar to the fairway, the fairway should extend around the green and the two objects should be merged together into a multipolygon (See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon for how to create them with your map editor).  Please read the wiki for instructions and examples of how to better map golf courses: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls. If you have any questions, please reply here and I'll gladly help clarify things. Thanks!
fortera_au (2025-06-26 09:00:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168128627 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: spam mapping
BR_pebble (2025-06-16 12:58:58+00:00): Hi hermann106, thank You for your contribution. I restored couple of buildings removed by you while working on Fix Intersecting Building challenge. Additionally, I performed the edits in all the tasks marked by you as Fixed without any edits done. Be careful while further mapping. Thank You!
❤️‍🔥 (2025-05-11 13:27:50+00:00): these roads are still open. it's a useful shortcut for walking/cycling to avoid this insane alternative route https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_bicycle&route=-33.925775%2C151.172084%3B-33.928343%2C151.167423#map=15/-33.92614/151.17595
TheSwavu (2025-05-11 20:30:28+00:00): They were tagged abandoned=yes If that's not correct you should remove them.
TheSwavu (2025-05-11 20:33:21+00:00): It looks like you added the abandoned tags. Are they abandoned or not?
❤️‍🔥 (2025-07-20 11:20:39+00:00): sorry for the confusion, i removed abandoned=yes so it's less confusing. To clarify, it's 'abandoned' in the sense that the 6-lane road is no longer a busy highway, but it's still open to the public and there are spray-painted carpark markings:

https://0x0.st/8dkc.jpg
NorthCrab_upload (2025-05-06 00:21:51+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Klucz addr:place oznacza brak nazwy ulicy. Kombinacja z addr:street (który definiuje nazwę ulicy) jest błędna. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, zamień addr:place na addr:city. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/175451437

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Joseph R P (2025-05-12 02:47:19+00:00): Hello, please use more descriptive changeset comments by briefly explaining what edits you've made so that it is clearer to other users what you have added or modified. Many thanks!
OSM_RogerWilco (2025-05-07 09:00:56+00:00): Hi cyberutilia,

für Poller und andere physische Barrieren bitte maxwidth:physical verwenden. maxwidth ist eine rechtliche Einschränkung.

Siehe: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxwidth:physical

foot/bicycle=yes kann man sich dann sparen. 

Gruß Roger Wilco
user_22857175 (2025-05-08 17:13:39+00:00): Danke für den Tip, das macht absolut Sinn und kann wichtig sein. Hab vorhin etwas ähnliches über barrier=gate gelernt. Es mag ja ein privates Tor sein aber man kann trotzdem spezifisch locked=yes/no angeben weil es in einem Notfall zählt, ob man das Tor aufmachen kann, nicht ob es privat ist. So wie es nicht zählt, ob da eine rechtliche Einschränkung für Fahrzeugweite ist, wenn man physisch noch durchkommt.

Hab es in diesem Fall zu maxwidth:physical aktualisiert.

Beste Grüße
5m4u9 (2025-05-06 04:13:50+00:00): Hola, bienvenid@! gracias por mejorar el mapa.

En Bolivia el nombre de las vías casi siempre lleva el prefijo Calle/Avenida/Pasaje, etc. y así deberíamos añadir al mapa.
silversurfer83 (2025-05-22 20:30:08+00:00): Hi there :)

just two little things that you can do to improve your work:

- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

happy mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165870326
Dokdo (2025-05-31 13:56:26+00:00): ok
Carlos Brys (2025-05-06 10:54:52+00:00): Buen día
Gracias por actualizar la información en OSM
Hice unos pequeños ajustes en las etiquetas de tu edición para ajustarlos a las reglas de OSM
KKS (2025-05-16 20:59:04+00:00): Я бачу ти вмієш користуватись фотоапаратом і викладати знімки в інтернет.... то сфоткай мені знак одностороннього руху, на основі якого ти вже вкотре змінюєш на односторонню дорогу
ZioDragon (2025-05-06 18:44:52+00:00): Một số cây cầu hiện tại không đúng tên trên thực tế, mình đã đi khảo sát tuyến này hôm 25/4 và chưa kịp cập nhật do chưa có thời gian rảnh.
NinoNinata (2025-05-06 18:59:36+00:00): Sau update/add/edit cái gì nhớ kết hợp cả tiếng anh vào nhé. Có thể dùng google dịch để paste vào. Một số bản đồ use nền của OSM chỉ hiển thị English sẽ gặp lỗi phông chữ tiếng việt
Trần Sung (2025-05-07 10:04:08+00:00): Cảm ơn vì đã cho tôi biết được tình hình hiện tại của nó
Và về ngôn ngữ tôi đang cho kiểm tra và thêm lại vào đường đó !
MxxCon (2025-05-06 21:07:42+00:00): Hello.
Please note the way you mapped this building is incorrect. This building outline is already properly mapped in way/264624898
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165870842
galen8183 (2025-05-06 03:16:44+00:00): locations not tagged with wikidata were checked manually with street-level imagery to make sure they were in fact Peavey Mart Q7158483 locations
galen8183 (2025-05-06 03:30:42+00:00): resolves https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4288202
galen8183 (2025-05-06 03:42:26+00:00): resolves https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3854106
galen8183 (2025-05-06 04:13:19+00:00): resolves https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4018276
mavl (2025-05-18 05:33:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 166416092 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, wrong data - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17683].
muralito (2025-05-12 20:53:18+00:00): This is clearly a pedestrian street.
SaltonSea (2025-05-15 06:22:33+00:00): Hello muralito, Upon reviewing Mapillary Imagery in the area, it does in fact look to be a pedestrian way. I will defer to your edits on the highway feature (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166173277). My apologies for the oversight here, I will be more mindful of this in the future. Have a great day!
Supaplex (2025-05-10 03:15:57+00:00): 您好：

我是OpenStreetMap的志工Supaplex，除了自己編輯地圖之外，也會巡邏別人繪製的事務，增沼資訊讓OpenStreetMap更加完整。

您這邊加的點位並非公共設施吧？tourism=apartment一般指廣羡的旅宿設施，而非自家的公寓，因此將被移除。

請參OpenStreetMap的文件站：https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome
來瞭解OpenStreetMap收錄的日常事物的範圍，什麼可以繪製，什麼不能繪製。

Supaplex