piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
YuliyaShustava_lyft (2025-04-02 13:21:42+00:00): Hi, HMC3rd! 
My name is Yuliya, and I am the Quality Control Lead on the OSM team at Lyft.

On all roads leading to the Key Bridge, we retained the access=no tag. However, we removed it from roads that are open to the public. According to the OSM wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno, the access=no tag is a very strict access control, and in our opinion, such a tag should not be applied to publicly accessible roads. I am attaching a screenshot with our telemetry data: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kwWlhgNALIiV5ZR8uHf2PoxaVcVTcQ7H/view?usp=drive_link; https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bw6pFypoe1M2bCqlE3fwmqmz7tE68oys/view?usp=drive_link
 We overlooked the fact that the added access=no tag also included older "bicycle=no / pedestrian=no". What are your thoughts on not reinstating the access=no tag, but instead restoring other access tags based on local site survey?

Best regards, Yuliya
svne (2025-09-07 22:20:14+00:00): Why did you remove the new housing I added? I have been to this location in person and added that based off the situation on the ground in real life, don't go around removing stuff based on out-of-date aerial imagery without good reason. For validation, see Google Maps which has a more up-to-date aerial and street imagery displaying the housing. https://maps.app.goo.gl/WJ33y3T9a6oTqueG6
svne (2025-09-07 22:55:00+00:00): I have restored the dormitory in a new changeset. Please keep in mind that Esri World Imagery can be years out of date, especially the Beta. Not to mention your HOT project instructions specifically says "Please do not delete existing work." https://tasks.hotosm.org/projects/17352/instructions Check changeset sources and use discretion before deleting next time.
Sebastian Rock (2025-09-09 09:00:06+00:00): Thanks for the update, that Google image is from May of 2025, i.e. not available at the time of my edit.
gurglypipe (2024-09-03 13:05:59+00:00): Heya :) With the removal of bicycle=designated from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1312267054, I think this might have broken bicycle routing between the Bay Gateway and Lancaster Road.
Dezza (2024-09-03 13:26:13+00:00): Hi :)
Thanks. I removed it because I saw no evidence of cycling being permitted on Mapillary at https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.0693473446&lng=-2.8013698404&z=11.904412871082933&pKey=2604328053198219&focus=photo&x=0.48816258946850666&y=0.5252273468605346&zoom=0 but missed the connection at the top end.
I think I've fixed it by adding a link from the end of the cycle section to the old Lancaster Road in changeset 156142683
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156139365
gurglypipe (2024-09-03 13:48:27+00:00): Looks good to me, thanks :)
eggie (2024-09-03 15:13:36+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback Wanneer er een bord fietspad vooraan staat is het correct, maar dan kan bicycle en foot= designated er weer af. Dat is default.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-09-04 08:16:17+00:00): Bij mijn weten is hier geen fietspad. Ik heb het aangepast naar highway=service en een paaltje toegevoegd.
Mocht er een bord fietspad zijn toegevoegd G11, G12a en/of G13 laat het dan maar even weten. 
MVG
eggie
LisaVerm (2024-09-04 14:27:07+00:00): Super dankje! Ja deze manier is idd veel beter ja, wat geleerd! 😅
eggie (2024-09-03 15:22:36+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback  Beter geen format.. postcode aanpassen. Dat werkt zo niet meer in OSM.
Ik pas het weer aan.

MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Hufkratzer (2024-09-03 20:59:37+00:00): Hi,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1313018153 does not look like a riding centre, it looks like an outdoor riding arena. In OSM such arenas are usually tagged leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian, like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1159198143, see also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=horse_riding
StefanHRT (2024-09-03 12:28:57+00:00): #deleteInformationonCycleway
eggie (2024-09-03 15:19:19+00:00): Dag Lisa, Wanner iets niet klopt kun je dit doorgeven aan het Kadaster. Iets aanpassen in OSM heeft geen zin, want bij een periodieke update kimt de oude vorm weer terug. 
Op grond van luchtfoto's kun je geen gebouwen uitlijnen. 
Alles is ingemeten import.
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/?searchQuery=hoogstraat+414+eindhoven&objectId=0772200000025446&theme=BRT+Achtergrond&geometry.x=159856.7525&geometry.y=381460.485158363&zoomlevel=15.576

MVG
eggie
LisaVerm (2024-09-04 14:32:23+00:00): Oh dat gaat zo, idd wel handig als t klopt, dat scheelt veel werk! Ik weet niet of ik t bij kadaster door moet geven, is een studentenhuis en weet niet wat dat met de huur doet enzo... Maar dankje voor de reactie en reviews, dan houd ik het bij paaltjes 😅
eggie (2024-09-04 14:37:16+00:00): Nou.. maak maar geen slapende honden wakker 😀
Patchanka (2024-09-21 17:16:40+00:00): bonjour et merci pour la suppression du doublon.
Concernant le nom, ne serait-ce pas la "Bibliothèque Quintaou" qui est temporairement déplacée... mais qui n'a pas changé de nom ? Auquel cas il faut laisser son vrai nom
Protoxenus (2024-10-22 15:12:11+00:00): Hallo, du hast den kombinierten Rad- Gehweg entlang der Hinrichshäger Straße kartiert. Das war dein erster Beitrag zu OSM. Wenn man so etwas das erste Mal tut, ist es sinnvoll, sich mit den Regeln und Gepflogenheiten von OSM bekannt zu machen. Der Weg war schon kartiert, und zwar als Teil der Straße L22. Das ist so üblich, weil der Weg nicht durch einen Grünstreifen oder andere Hindernisse von der Fahrbahn getrennt ist. Die Daten der OSM-Datenbank werden nicht nur zum Rendern von Karten benutzt, sondern auch für Routing-Programme. Das Routing funktioniert nur richtig, wenn sie Software erkennt, dass es keine Hindernisse zwischen Geh-/Radweg und Fahrbahn gibt. Das ist zwar an dieser Stelle nicht sooo wichtig, an vielen anderen Stellen aber schon. Un deswegen wird in diesem Fall kein extra Weg kartiert.
Gruß Protoxenus
eggie (2024-09-04 08:52:22+00:00): Je hoeft iets niet te verwijderen.
Je kunt ook iets aanpassen naar building=proposed
proposed=house  Dan rendert het niet meer op de kaart.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-09-04 08:55:12+00:00): Op de meest recente sat foto staan hier gewoon al woningen
eggie (2024-09-04 08:55:17+00:00): https://viewer.satellietdataportaal.nl/@52.03875,4.283761,18/?datastrip=20240502_PNEO-03
eggie (2024-09-04 08:56:29+00:00): reverted by changeset Wijzigingenset #156175254
eggie (2024-09-04 09:01:11+00:00): Ed,
Ik vraag wel even om een nieuwe update zodat de BAG gegevens wel kloppen.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-09-04 09:06:19+00:00): https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bag-importverzoeken/3394/2500
habi (2024-09-03 12:46:06+00:00): Nein, Notiz https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4417146 erledigt...
literan (2024-09-05 20:56:39+00:00): это не имя собственное, очищу тег name
thetornado76 (2024-09-07 21:13:29+00:00): Debido a los lanes=1 en la RD-7, ahora hay de nuevo grandes desvíos. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=18.42930%2C-69.67151%3B19.30346%2C-69.55076#map=9/18.868/-69.933
Anas masuris (2024-09-17 18:23:02+00:00): Jeśli ustalasz, że tor jest w budowie, to do prawidłowego renderowania należy go jeszcze uzupełnić o:

construction=rail
construction:railway=rail
thetornado76 (2024-09-08 15:40:40+00:00): Hola, después de volver a falsificar los datos en el RD-7, ahora los ingresaste de manera inconsistente en el RD-5. Espero que sepas que se trata de datos para la navegación, por ejemplo, y que tus entradas incorrectas a veces pueden causar desvíos importantes (ver comentarios sobre los otros conjuntos de cambios). 
Al igual que con otros conjuntos de cambios, te pido que eches un vistazo a la Wiki. Lo que desea lograr es posible con lanes:forward y lanes:backward.
Por favor, eche un vistazo a esta calle. ¿Cómo describirías esto con tu opinión? carriles indica el número total de carriles en una carretera. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.752800197688&lng=8.7509098097918&z=17&pKey=1148427532958870&focus=photo&x=0.5129732101544426&y=0.675155773279751 om=0
thetornado76 (2024-09-15 09:13:36+00:00): Hello
have you had a look at the links and pictures from the wiki? Then you would also understand that lanes=1 is nonsensical for a two-lane road. Please correct this to lanes=2 so that the navigation works again.
osmviborg (2024-09-03 13:48:07+00:00): Er bygningerne revet ned?
geozeisig (2024-09-04 07:26:02+00:00): No, the buildings have not been demolished. But the roof is partially covered and the windows are broken.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-09-03 13:20:58+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11416396749
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1313028525

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
martinst (2024-09-03 16:18:30+00:00): Hallo Manuel Schwarzenberger,
mir ist folgendes aufgefallen:
Node 301533470 der Eisenbahn wurde versehentlich verschoben.
area=yes bei Way 994860552 macht denke ich keinen Sinn.
Way 90233919 und 90233957 haben die gleiche Hausnummer 1a.
Die gelöschte Salzlecke Node 9532464605 kann ich im Luftbild erkennen. (OSM-Wiki-Eintrag dazu erstelle ich irgendwann mal.)
martinst (2025-02-17 11:01:23+00:00): OSM ist ein Gemeinschaftsprojekt, das nur funktioniert wenn man miteinander kommuniziert.
Bitte antworte auf Fragen und nimm Stellung zu Kommentaren deiner Changesets !
trigpoint (2024-09-21 15:45:59+00:00): Bore da Rhydian
In this edit you have changed way 1184798599 into a bridge for its entire length. You need to split the way for the section that is a bridge, you have also made the entire length of way 24624348 into a culvert, you again need to split the way at the point it is a culvert although the crossing is either a bridge or a culvert, not both.

Diolch Phil
trigpoint (2024-10-05 11:41:38+00:00): Mapper has still not responded so have fixed
unrest (2024-09-03 13:23:17+00:00): the POI for some reason wasn't showing for me. please just close
pavvv (2024-09-03 13:46:28+00:00): To dlatego miałem konflikty przy wysyłaniu swoich zmian 😁
Tomek | Yanosik (2024-09-04 05:56:57+00:00): I wszystko jasne :) pozdrawiam!
Vas111 (2024-09-03 16:23:24+00:00): Hello,
You split the carriageway away from the junction but now there is an available u-turn path at the junction node, so the restriction is ineffective. Surely the carriageway split can begin at the first junction node instead of slightly away from it? Removes the need for two restriction relations
LateNightTone (2024-09-03 21:04:41+00:00): Hi vas111, thanks for the query.

For intersections between dual and single carriageway I work off the recommendations on the (now archived it seems) Mapbox intersection modelling page (https://web.archive.org/web/20230602212339/https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/modeling-intersections-for-map-navigation/). This dictates that a split in the carriageway should not occur at the point of intersection, as it can confuse routing software and produce unpredictable results. The recommendation in this instance would be to either continue the separate ways of Market Street to the north side of the junction and join them into a single carriageway post- intersection, or alternatively have the intersection occur between a single and a dual carriageway, by combining the Market Street carriageways on the south side. I opted for the latter, as there is a natural space on the south side of the intersection for this to occur, allowing the mapped "theoretical" ways to better represent real life, versus the former.

If a further U-turn relation is required then that's not too big an issue - it is after all just a rule that will block U-turn routing from occuring. But the recommended intersection layout has a big effect on compatibility with different routing software, so I'd argue it's the more important need here. I should add though that the Aberdeen roads are mapped to a high standard, so great work if you've been involved in this 😊
Vas111 (2024-09-03 21:10:19+00:00): No worries, didn't know it causes an issue for routers. Thanks for the compliment
NorthCrab_upload (2024-09-03 14:11:02+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4966949985
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311593549

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2024-09-03 14:21:08+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12153823362

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Gregory Peony (2024-11-06 23:04:45+00:00): I believe that this footprints outlines a vehicle. I deleted it in Changeset: 158836337. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156144917
Gregory Peony (2024-11-06 23:09:30+00:00): This footprint is valid and accurate. It would be nice if you stated what you did (and why when appropriate) in your changeset comment. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156144987
Akkurator (2025-01-08 23:13:43+00:00): Hallo biovernetzerin,

du hast hier den Rößlerhof in Rösslerhof umbenannt.
Wie du der Notiz zum Weiler-Node entnehmen kannst, steht vor Ort auf dem Weilerschild "Rößlerhof". Jedenfalls war das vor kurzem noch so.
Wurde das Schild geändert?

Grüße,
Akkurator

PS: Auf allen amtlichen Karten heißt der Weiler "Rößler". Der Weiher daneben ist der Rößlerweiher. Die Schreibweise mit "ss" findet man nirgendwo.
user_21914705 (2025-01-10 11:14:22+00:00): Hallo Akkurator, danke für den Hinweis. Der Betrieb schreibt sich laut Website mit ss (https://roesslerhof.de/). 
Der Name des Weihers ist vermutlich unverändert. 

Ich glaube ich habe als alternativen Namen Rößlerhof hinterlegt, sodass beide Schreibweisen auffindbar sind. 

Ok?
Akkurator (2025-01-10 18:02:09+00:00): Rößlerhof gibt es ja 3 Mal:

1. place-Node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1369721092

2. Biergarten https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1312210562

3. Farmyard https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/74696218

Wie sich der Biergarten nennt, ist ihm selbst überlassen - Rösslerhof, ok.

Ebenso der Farmyard - wenn die sich Rösslerhof nennen, dann ist das halt so. Persönlich würde ich da gar kein name Tag setzen wenn gleichzeitig ein place-Node da ist.

Der place-Node hingegen sollte so heißen wie es vor Ort ersichtlich ist: Rößlerhof. Als alt_name vielleicht noch Rößler wie in den amtlichen Karten.

Ich ändere jetzt mal den place node und addr:place entsprechend und lasse den Rest. Und frage bei der Gemeinde Schlier, warum in allen amtlichen Karten Rößler steht, aber auf dem Weilerschild Rößlerhof.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161215309

PS: Jede vernünftige Suche sollte "ss" statt "ß" finden können.
bxl-forever (2024-09-03 16:02:01+00:00): Hello,

Bruxelles-Propreté/Net Brussel does not run any cooking oil container.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1626863446

Isn’t it an Oliobox instead?

Reminder: StreetComplete always shows the operator of those facilities; please apply extreme care when retagging them; in cases like this it is better to stop the quest and create a note instead.
M0tty (2024-09-03 16:12:29+00:00): Hi I see there is an Underground tag as well, so there is confusion between multiple recycling boxes at this location. There is 2 glasses recycling underground and one Oliobox indeed, but they are so close that there was confusion.

Thanks for your vigilance.
bxl-forever (2024-09-03 19:06:58+00:00): Thanks for your reply, I fixed the tags.
Jakka (2024-09-03 17:39:16+00:00): Deze toevoeging van de fietsroute is volledig fout, niet volgens de regels.
Ik verwijder deze.
Is deze een officiele bewegwijzerde route neem contact op met de community
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-11 21:09:49+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12153848505/history has shop = smoke_shop that was added in this edit
Is it the same as shop=headshop - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dheadshop ? Or the same as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dsmartshop ?

Or maybe it sells e-cigarettes and is shop=e-cigarette ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3De-cigarette )?

Or maybe shop=tobacco is the best fit ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dtobacco )?

Or is it a separate shop category that should be documented as valid?
ray331 (2025-05-12 06:33:56+00:00): Fixed thanks!
GretaMN (2024-09-07 13:14:18+00:00): Liebe:r heinrichla,
bitte spezifiziere den Tag cycleway=seperate in cycleway:left/right=* und ergänze die Info, dass es hier eine Benutzungspflicht des Radweges gibt mit dem Hinweis bicycle=use_sidepath an der Straße.
Danke und viele Grüße! :)
#lgmaps
soliMM (2024-09-04 11:07:48+00:00): Hi foolyaar,

I have a couple of questions about your edits in this changeset, and it would great if you could provide some insight about those.

First, you have deleted a tertiary road near your campus, here below you can find the links to deleted ways:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28464067
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28464060
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28464059
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/875118831

Now due to your deletion of the way, that caused plenty of issues with other roads that were connecting to it. Was this an accidental deletion, or this road doesn't exist anymore in reality, what is the case here?

Additionally, in vicinity of deleted tertiary road, you have deleted a node that was part of boundary
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12151237013
which resulted in broken boundary relations and created more issues.

I have also seen that in some of your other changesets you deleted a lot more service roads around campus, some landuse and so on. Is this intended and what is the reasoning for deleting those?

Could you please provide additional information about your edits?

Best regards,
soliMM
YomanNH (2024-09-04 07:24:01+00:00): Cześć,
ciągi pieszo-rowerowe to highway=path. Jest to opisane tu: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery#Drogi_dla_pieszych_i_rower%C3%B3w. Poprawiłem.
krak-ken (2024-09-04 15:09:53+00:00): Ale zarazem path są wszelkie byle wydeptane leśne, podczas gdy pieszo-rowerowe są częto jeszcze szersze i bardziej rozbudowane niż footway...
YomanNH (2024-09-04 15:28:35+00:00): Zgadza się, ale tu dodaje się foot=designated i bicycle=designated. Wydeptane ścieżki leśne nie będą miały tych tagów.
kitsee (2024-09-04 17:21:24+00:00): vandalism reverted in changeset: 156197126
Fizzie-DWG (2024-09-04 22:37:52+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16656
os-emmer (2024-09-22 14:39:24+00:00): Hi Seetroll,
ist es absicht, dass dieses Haus eine Schweizer-Adresse hat (addr:country=CH)?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1313052219
Seetroll (2024-09-26 11:39:09+00:00): Hallo os-emmer,
oh nein, das war keine Absicht. Der User misterte hat es bereits korrigiert -:)
Grüße
    Seetroll
Vas111 (2024-09-03 16:32:10+00:00): Do you really need to add traffic signal direction tags on one way roads? I was under the impression that it's redundant
LateNightTone (2024-09-03 21:14:32+00:00): Hi vas111, yes it's technically not required (except in some instances, e.g. where other transport methods do not treat the road as one way), but it doesn't do any harm. I tend to add the forward/backward tags habitually as I'm working on other items nearby, as it means I'm always applying the same standard whether it's on one or two-way roads, and with the more consistent view gat results, I'm able to more easily spot any errors I've made. This changeset wasn't specifically to add directions to traffic lights, but to ensure they were mapped on respective ways rather than on both nodes at the intersection, which results in any routing across the junction on the single carriageway "seeing" two sets of traffic lights instead of one. But I did add the directions as a by-the-by.
LateNightTone (2024-09-03 21:15:34+00:00): *Typo, gat=that
emersonveenstra (2024-09-07 12:08:46+00:00): Hi there,

Thanks for the edits! In OpenStreetMap, we always expand and write the full name of the roads, so would you mind expanding these to "Pheasant Lane" and "North Indiana Avenue"? Thanks!
Metzor (2024-09-03 22:42:02+00:00): Hallo Fabian!

Du hast dich bei der Adresse verschrieben:
Es ist die Wiestorstraße, oder?

Du könntest noch folgende Tags hinzufügen, da es ein Parkhaus ist:
parking=multi-storey


Viele Grüße 
Metzor
Fabian007 (2024-09-14 15:47:35+00:00): Hallo Metzor,

Vielen Dank, für deine Nachricht!

Ich habe gerade eben den Stadtmitte P&R Überlingen zum Parkhaus geändert und die Adresse korrigiert, sodass es stimmen sollte.

Falls das nicht richtig ist, bitte um Rückantwort!

Danke, und ein schönes Restwochenende dir noch!

MFG Fabianbuecheler
Gregory Peony (2024-10-29 05:25:03+00:00): The footprints here are valid, but they could be more accurate.--- Firstly, they are oversized, low resolution imagery can make features appear bigger than they are and squaring can change the size somewhat. I recommend that you give yourself a margin for squaring when drawing.--- Secondly the southern footprint's orientation is inaccurate; it should be rotated clockwise ~ 45 degrees. There's a zoom sweet spot where one pixel of imagery coresponds to one pixel on your screen. This is the zoom at which you will see the most accurate orientation of features. Check against mapbox imagery in this area to confirm this. I modified these footprints and uploaded them in Changeset: 158482028. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156147899
Gorger (2024-10-10 12:20:25+00:00): "Hello Menyhárt Máté
I have added building way 1315259812,way 1315259814,way 1315259813
Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
Happy Mapping!"
Gorger (2025-02-19 03:46:04+00:00): "Hello Menyhárt Máté
 I have added building way 1315259812,way 1315259814,way 1315259813
 Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
 Happy Mapping!"
Gregory Peony (2024-10-31 00:09:21+00:00): In mapbox you can tell that the shape of WAY: 1313058180 is inaccurate, however I can see why you would map it this way looking at ESRI. Thank you for modifying the waterway in the way you did. By moving its nodes to new positions you did not create an unnecessary new version of the river.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156147960
Gregory Peony (2024-10-31 01:24:45+00:00): This footprint is a little oversized, but it is valid and the orientation is accurate. Leave yourself a margin for squaring when tracing features.--- Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/156147985