piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ygcgjp5 (2024-03-12 06:54:28+00:00): DaanLT, ten didžiausia bėda kad vietomis kokį nors kampą kažkas jau bandė taisyti, ir tampa nebeįmanoma tiesiog paimti ir perstumti. Dalis pažymėtų pastatų matosi kad nugriauti, tos tvoros irgi ne visur atrodo dar stovinčios, dalis gal niekada ir nestovėjo, nes kažkaip abejoju, ar čia kažkas realiai ėjo po rajonus ir fiksavo visas tvoras, o ne tiesiog perpiešė iš ortofoto.
Tomas Straupis (2024-03-12 07:04:41+00:00): Žymėjo Tauragiškis. Tauragė nėra didelis miestas, tai praeiti visai įmanoma. Nors esmės tai nekeičia. Kitas dalykas, kad tokios tvoros tarp kiemų sunku pasakyti kam galėtų būti naudojamos...
ygcgjp5 (2024-03-12 07:14:30+00:00): Tomai, duriu į panašius miestelius žemėlapyje ir tikrai pilna vientisų didelių poligonų, neskaidytų gabaliukais. Dėl taisyklių - nemanau kad galima teigti, jog yra sukurtos atitinkamos taisyklės, jeigu sakai, kad tik ateityje bus aišku, kurių kelių negalės jos kirsti.
Man nereikia pasakoti kas yra GIS, kas yra kartografija, tiesiog jeigu vienintelis įvardijamas panaudojimas buvo generalizacija (kažkokie mistiniai kartografiniai projektai niekaip neatsako į klausimą kokiu tikslu yra naudojami mažieji ploteliai ir kaip jie yra pranašesni už didesnius), tai manau nesunku suprasti, kodėl esu skeptiškas dėl tokių plotelių žymėjimo. 
Pripažįstu klaidą, jog tryniau pirmiau, o klausiau paskiau. Reikėjo šitą diskusiją užsukti prieš tai. Buvau susidaręs nuomonę, jog žemėlapyje šitaip nesismulkiname (ypač iš tavo ir Povilo pasišnekėjimų apie landuse žymėjimus), pasirodo nuomonė yra kitokia.
Tomas Straupis (2024-03-12 08:01:33+00:00): Reikės peržiūrėti duomenis, prieš kokius 4-5 metus dar viskas gerai buvo :-( Čia ne tik generalizacijos reikalas, iš principo dideli poligonai yra blogiau nei maži jau vien dėl skaičiavimų sudėtingumų ir pertekliškumų. Dar prieš 10 metų buvo miškų, kurie penktadalį Lietuvos užimdavo, dabar jau visus tokius suskaidėm.
ygcgjp5 (2024-03-12 08:14:33+00:00): Pritariu didelių poligonų skaidymui, nenorėčiau kad visas Vilnius ar Kaunas turėtų vieną didelį multipoligoną, nes tai yra nepatogu. Jeigu vis tiek yra tas noras skaidyti ties keliais, tai galima susitarti ties kuriais - neprieštaraučiau skaidyti ties KK (primary).
Tomas Straupis (2024-03-12 08:24:09+00:00): motorway/trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. GAL unclassified. Čia klases traukiam ne iš lempos, o tas, kurios naudojamos smulkesniuose masteliuose.
ygcgjp5 (2024-03-12 12:40:26+00:00): Nu tikrai daugokai... Čia tik dėl to, kad masteliuose nesigautų namo ant kelio? Belieka palinkėti sėkmės.
Mačiau jau tvarkėt mano pagadinimus, ten specialiai paliktas vienas RK multipoligone dėl kažkokių tai priežasčių, ar netyčia?
Tomas Straupis (2024-03-12 12:46:13+00:00): Ir dėl namų ant kelio, ir šiaip dėl poligonų kaip tokių apdorojimo/naudojimo skaičiavimuose. Keliai ir upės yra dalinančios (segmentavimo) linijos.
Jei liko RK, tai per klaidą, su laiku susitvarkys viskas.
DaanLT (2024-03-13 07:05:57+00:00): Dėl Tauragės, jooo su tom tvorom, tikrai prastai sužymėta. Daug kur tvoros nesijungia viena su kita, arba tiesiog ant viršaus eina. T.t. vietose tvorom nė nekvepia. Vienur išvis lyg pagal bing darytas žymėjimas, kai viskas su offsetu per pusė sklypo...
Tomas Straupis (2024-03-13 09:55:54+00:00): Tauragė žymėta dar tada, kai ORT10LT nebuvo mums (OSM) prieinamas.
ygcgjp5 (2024-03-13 14:42:05+00:00): Aš dalį tų tvorų iš viso esu ištrynęs, jeigu per tuos 2-3 metus niekas nepasigedo, tai matyt nelabai kam ir rūpi. Yra daugiau darbo jas tvarkyti, negu perdaryti iš naujo. Arba neperdaryti, o tiesiog ištrinti.
DaanLT (2024-03-13 15:12:22+00:00): nėra te sunku jas ir patvarkyti, trinu nebent jei matosi, kad neturi būti
Tomas Straupis (2024-03-14 06:44:37+00:00): Aš irgi sakyčiau, kad, jei nėra laiko, geriau palikti. Kažkas su laiku ateis ir sutvarkys. Mane va kai autotestai dėl kokios priežasties ten užneša, tai kokį kvartaliuką aptvarkau. Po truputį po truputį ir susitvarkys :-)
DaanLT (2024-03-19 07:33:10+00:00): Na skaitau, kad Tauragę praėjau, tai kas netingi dar gali pasmulkinti didelius residential multipoligonus.
philippec (2024-03-11 16:48:59+00:00): Het is jammer dat de slagbomen niet op de foto staan.
LennertS (2024-03-11 18:39:34+00:00): Ik heb een foto met een deel van de slagboom maar bij deze kan je sneller inschatten waar de aed hangt
philippec (2024-03-11 19:41:47+00:00): Je kan met Mapcomplete meerdere foto's toevoegen.  Met Mapillary kan je de hele omgeving toevoegen.
danieldegroot2 (2024-03-11 09:34:17+00:00): (Testing some features of MapComplete to check if they work properly. You can ignore this edit.)
empty_child (2024-03-11 10:07:56+00:00): Добрый день
addr:city на грузинском, пожалуйста (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/964390794), чтобы потом проблем с резолвингом адреса не было
flohoff (2024-11-11 09:56:02+00:00): Moin,
der changeset ist schon alt - Ich wollte nur drauf hinweisen das wir Google Streetview nicht verwenden dürfen.

Flo
mueschel (2024-03-26 18:25:45+00:00): Hi,
you added a strange tag "TIPMS" here. Could you check that?
KFCmenomonie (2024-03-26 18:47:13+00:00): Hi! I meant to add some documentation on the wiki, but TIPMS is the Truck Parking Information Management System operated by WisDOT: https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/doing-bus/local-gov/traffic-ops/programs/tpims/default.aspx
If there's a better tag I should use, let me know.
SKald (2024-03-18 08:22:23+00:00): Wärst Du so lieb und zeigst mir wo (Koordinaten reichen) das oder die Schilder stehen, von denen Du die Strassennamen ableitest? Ich seh dort nur Hausnummern und eine Ortstafel.
forstner-m (2024-04-06 18:28:30+00:00): Hier sind die frisch vermessenen Koordinaten:
N48.661932, E13.910673
N48.663298, E13.909293
Solle die Beschilderung für die Benennung nicht ausreichen, bitte ich um Korrektur. Danke...
vorpalblade (2024-03-10 21:40:28+00:00): FTR: Note 4147496
Benoît C MdP (2024-03-12 13:20:11+00:00): Bonjour Britzz

Merci pour ton travail sur le quai de Grenelle. Mais l'orthophoto que tu as utilisé n'est plus du tout à jour. Du coup, tu as ajouté des éléments qui n'existent plus et déplacé des voies qui étaient bien positionnées.

Bonne continuation

Benoît
Britzz (2024-03-12 22:15:05+00:00): bon  raté alors, désolé ; ça m'apprendra à ne me baser que sur la BDortho, ce que je ne fais pas en général ; Si trop de mauvaises contribution, tu peux reverter tout le changeset bien sûr.
SomeoneElse (2024-03-11 19:02:30+00:00): This changeset introduces an "extra bit" of the Dales High Way by the Leeds Liverpool Canal at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7152429#map=18/53.84068/-1.80121 .  The "extra bit" is signed, so it's the section to the east that's likely wrong (or there's contradictory signposting, which wouldn't be unheard of).
Robert Whittaker (2024-03-14 08:11:55+00:00): In this changeset, you added a node at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11712190310 for an AED (defibrillator). However, there is already an AED mapped a few metres away at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5256160703 .

Are there actually two AEDs here, or should there just be one?
alpman (2024-03-14 21:21:53+00:00): There is only one but the location of the one I put on is in the more accurate location. The building on OSM is wrong. It is a
alpman (2024-03-14 21:24:18+00:00): I expect to visit again tomorrow and survey the building and location of the AED
Ewen Hill (2024-03-10 23:21:41+00:00): Hi, thanks for mapping however this needs to be set as access=private if you could please?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148482539
eggie (2024-03-11 06:01:27+00:00): Dag Guppey..
Tio
De naam kun je beter inkorten en de lange naam met die locatie onder description zetten.
Is het wel de naam van het gebouw?
Mvg
eggie
eggie (2024-03-11 08:00:49+00:00): De naam heb ik verplaatst naar adresnode 4, functie en website toegevoegd.
Dat het een woonlocatie is zit nu in de functie. 
Paar keer CTRL-F5 voor het effect.


MVG
eggie
Ewen Hill (2024-03-10 23:21:17+00:00): Hi, thanks for mapping however this needs to be set as access=private if you could please?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148482656
citrula (2024-03-11 01:57:16+00:00): you can press "Q" to square the corners of objects in iD. Welcome to OSM!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148482662
tekim (2024-04-02 14:58:25+00:00): Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap (OSM)!  Thanks for your edit to the map, we appreciate it.  You cited "Apple Maps" as one of your sources.  Unfortunately, we are not allowed to use Apple Maps when editing OpenStreetMap.  Apple Maps' terms of service state in part, "You must not...use the Service to create or enhance another mapping-related service or product..."
tekim (2024-04-02 14:59:12+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149485735
Marek-M (2024-03-11 08:40:25+00:00): Cześć, czy na pewno linie kolejowe posiadają taką nazwę? Ani na https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Railways ani na https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway ani na https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:OpenRailwayMap/Tagging_in_Poland nie widać propozycji użycia klucza name. Nie kojarzę również aby przy torach widniały nazwy linii kolejowych.
Anas masuris (2024-03-11 08:49:51+00:00): Ogólnie to nie ma sprecyzowanego użycia name=* na torach, ale nie dopuszcza się nazw opisowych i takich, które powielają ref=* na torach. Jedynie to, co zrobiłem, to zamieniłem nazwę opisową na poprawniejszą

Jeśli już, to wiem, że w okolicach Łodzi i Poznania kilka osób w ten sposób nazywało linie.
Anas masuris (2024-03-11 08:50:29+00:00): Ale nie jest to reguła i sam też tego nie stosuję (no chyba, że ktoś się upiera przy nazwie na torach)
Marek-M (2024-03-11 09:08:06+00:00): Nie spotkałem się z nazywaniem linii kolejowych do tej pory i zauważyłem to przy edycji Szymsona, który opisał w kluczu name numer linii. Zapytałem go o to samo, co Ciebie ale nie odpowiedział. Teraz po Twojej zmianie temat mi się przypomniał. To, że gdzieś te nazwy błędnie nadali, to tutaj nie trzeba powielać tego błędu. Dałbyś radę wyczyścić name w tej linii kolejowej?
Anas masuris (2024-03-11 09:40:17+00:00): There you go
Frans S (2024-03-19 17:54:28+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please check the width of a trace before you decide how to tag it. You tagged many traces as a highway=unclassified instead of highway = path
traces < 2 mtr should be tagged as path

 How to measure the width of a road in IDeditor:
Zoom in as far as possible and draw a line between the shoulders of a trace and click
ctr +shift+M to shows measurements
click on the line between the nodes, and you get the width.
Best regards
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-04 14:51:09+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1259791280/

Note that adding descriptive name such as "Bâtiment" is not needed - it is already marked as building.

Or do you maybe know that this specific building is specifically named "Bâtiment"?

If yes - how do you know this?

Do not worry too much about this issue - I made way worse mistakes when I was starting. Maybe some tool or explanation is confusing? Why you added this name? And if it was mistake - can you remove it?
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-08 08:47:24+00:00): Thanks for a fix!
silversurfer83 (2024-03-11 10:11:19+00:00): Gude :)

das es die Grenztruppen der DDR nicht mehr gibt ist deine Angabe ja eigentlich nicht korrekt, oder? Entweder du trägst da den aktuellen Betreiber/Besitzer der Anlage ein oder änderst alles, was sich auf die nicht mehr existenten Dinge wie die Truppe bezieht auf "was:..." um es als historisch zu kennzeichnen. OK?

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148484463
Brainus (2024-03-11 22:50:12+00:00): Habe ich entsprechend eingepflegt - auch wenn ich es für kleinlich halte.
Meiner Meinung nach hätten hier die bereits gesetzten Eigenschaften "abandoned" + die entsprechend Beschreibung ausgereicht - aber wenn es Dich glücklich macht...
Camello_AR (2025-09-10 23:48:16+00:00): Hola, revertí el cambio efectuado a la calle Puán de Azul, ya que según señalética y ordenanzas es con acento (tal como figuraba) y no sin, como tu modificación. saludos
tekim (2024-03-11 18:10:29+00:00): Hello,  Thanks for the edits, however, in OpenStreetMap we are not allowed to use Google Maps, Google Street View, Google Earth, or Google imagery due to Google's terms of use.
Konry (2024-03-11 19:18:04+00:00): So If I drive tomorrow there and do it by my own, then it is okay or not.
tekim (2024-03-12 16:20:10+00:00): Yes, in-person visits, or "surveys" as it is sometimes called in OpenStreetMap, is an acceptable method of gathering information. It is the best method.
Xvtn (2024-03-18 03:35:47+00:00): Howdy! Nice job on this switcheroo on the church grounds/buildings. In the past I've typically tried to put most everything on the grounds/landuse, leaving a generic building=church within, but I just had a skim of the wiki for amenity=place_of_worship and it looks like the way you've done it is the more accepted way. I'll try and remember this for when I next touch a church building/grounds. In the past my main goal has just been to avoid amenity appearing on multiple features which is a duplicate afaik.
TL;DR nice job. :)
Shrinks99 (2024-03-14 04:46:42+00:00): Nice!  Thanks for following up on this!
TravelingEditor (2024-03-11 03:24:45+00:00): Thanks for adding this! This does need some tweaking. I've added one visible pylon; I was just there today! The length was reported as ~1500ft as per your source so it /should/ be shorter than it currently is.
Also of note, partially a confirmation, the owners do not have any plans to maintain this lift, nor make it accessible to the general public.
Юрий-Д (2024-03-11 21:10:36+00:00): @TravelingEditor
wow, thanks for the response! Do you happen to live in that area? I have been trying to track down a variety of abandoned ski areas in northern Ontario.
TravelingEditor (2024-03-11 22:45:31+00:00): Yes, I do live in this area. I don't travel often but if any locations are of interest to you for this type of thing I can always keep a lookout for them when I do.
Here's a site I used to live by if it interests you: 46.05636, -79.46236. You can see the hill clearly from the valley below.
Юрий-Д (2024-03-12 20:04:41+00:00): so that used to be another ski hill? It looks very overgrown, must be gone for a long time?
TravelingEditor (2024-03-16 03:06:19+00:00): Long before I was there in the 2000's. Thought it was interesting.
Юрий-Д (2024-03-16 16:15:44+00:00): Wow, I can't find anything on it in the installation surveys. Any idea what it was called? Are the lifts still there or have they been removed?
TravelingEditor (2024-03-16 16:37:47+00:00): Sorry friend, I haven't visited that site directly (was pretty young) and I can't find any information online either. It was always out my back window when I woke up though. I don't recall seeing any equipment but it is overgrown. It's worth taking a trip at some point the next time I'm through.
Юрий-Д (2024-03-16 17:47:42+00:00): All good. I asked someone from some local conservation area, maybe they know more. If so, I shall pass on the information.
emersonveenstra (2024-03-11 11:16:35+00:00): Hi there,

Looks like you added a highway crossing to a parking lot node: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4564500810/history/2

Could you fix that? Thanks!
emersonveenstra (2024-03-11 11:17:33+00:00): Oops, the link is supposed to be https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4564500810#map=19/41.83027/-86.25666 sorry
jandar22 (2024-03-11 13:29:02+00:00): Whoops, thank you for the catch! That sidewalk had been attached to the parking lot so it looks like I missed deleting the crossing node when separating them. Fixed now!
nbuuck (2025-06-08 20:48:29+00:00): I think the v1 name of this node ("Tesla Supercharger") was more succinct and, respectfully, less redundant... is it typical to include the name, state, and street of charging locations in node names?
treestryder (2025-06-10 01:21:56+00:00): There is no sign at the site stating its name.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1386663542539685&focus=photo&lat=41.073082776424&lng=-85.218094362737&z=17&x=0.2733773663891471&y=0.5444617774942103&zoom=0

Giving it a name was a mistake. It must have been added by the template, at the time, when I used Vespucci.

"Tesla Supercharger" is a description, not a name. Done right, the tags will clearly describe it as a Tesla Supercharger. It would be redundant to also make up a name describing it. As the Wiki points out, adding names like that is a form of tagging for the renderer.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

All that said, Tesla's website has since given it an official name.
https://www.tesla.com/findus?location=FortWayneINSupercharger

The Wiki says to append " Supercharger" to the official name.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station/Tesla_Motors

That is what I have done.
nbuuck (2025-06-10 14:34:51+00:00): Thanks for that info. I opened the node in iD and it recommended these changes, which does seem to have significantly changed how the node is illustrated on OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167448052

Would you mind reviewing?
nbuuck (2025-06-10 14:38:19+00:00): Hmm, sorry, that change seems to have closed despite me having requested a review.
treestryder (2025-06-14 02:49:05+00:00): You changed the name after all that information and links I shared?

Despite appending the word "supercharger" to the official name breaking the "Name is the name only" rule, the name "Fort Wayne, IN - Illinois Road Supercharger" was correct according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station/Tesla_Motors

"Tesla Destination Charger" is a generic description of a Tesla branded slow charger. And is incorrect according to the "names are not for descriptions" rule.


As to checking the box in iD requesting review, it adds "review_requested=yes" to the changeset that someone must monitor for. No matter what, an open changeset will be closed after an hour.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Tags_on_changesets
nbuuck (2025-06-14 15:06:41+00:00): "You changed the name after all that information and links I shared?"

As I said, and you later acknowledged, I did request a review. I've tried to be collaborative about this but I'm not going to further engage with this accusatory tone. You're welcome to revert the change, which again was automatically generated by iD once the node was opened in the editor.

Thanks for a very enlightening first personal interaction on OSM.
Vonter (2024-03-11 04:20:40+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Congrats on your first contributions to OpenStreetMap! If you’re interested in connecting with other mappers, do consider joining the regional OSM groups:

OSM Bengaluru

Telegram: https://telegram.me/OSM_BLR

Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/#OSM_BLR:matrix.org

OSM India

Telegram: https://telegram.me/OSMIndia

Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/#osm-in-general:matrix.org

Happy Mapping!
科技骏马 (2024-03-11 18:33:56+00:00): 请问是什么时事，哪家媒体的新闻？
emersonveenstra (2024-03-12 12:29:00+00:00): Hi there,

For https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17331522, it's much easier and less confusing to draw an area around the motel grounds and add tourism=motel and the rest of the tags to that area, then tag the motel buildings as building=motel. That way it's easier for consumers and other editors to understand it.
End0fLine (2024-03-12 14:02:07+00:00): I will keep that in mind! I may be making this up as I’m not next to my computer, but I feel like I tried your way first but the ID editor defaulted to adding a building tag so I felt like I was doing it wrong. 

Thank you for the tip!
emersonveenstra (2024-03-12 14:31:35+00:00): Yeah, iD shouldn't do that, it's a valid way to map according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism=motel#As_an_area
bhousel (2024-03-12 15:14:48+00:00): @emersonveenstra That section of the wiki was just added 2 months ago by a single user who didn't discuss it with anyone.  Please check the history of the page before considering anything on the wiki as "valid" or not.
emersonveenstra (2024-03-12 15:53:43+00:00): i did check the history of the page. That single user is a member of the DWG, so i was inclined to believe it was valid. Also the wiki page for tourism=hotel has had this way of mapping for several years, so it looked like Fizzie was matching that wiki page, which made sense to me.

Also I checked overpass, and found that 16% of tourism=motel ways did not have a building tag, which I thought was a large enough percentage to count as a valid way of mapping.

Also from a pragmatic standpoint, I do stand by my initial comment about a multipolygon being a subpar way to map it (losing the distinction between motel building and motel office, inability to add refining tags like building:levels, building:color, etc). I don't know of another correct way to map this.
Allison P (2024-03-12 18:15:19+00:00): I agree that hotels should be mapped as sites if they consist of more than one building.
EnceladusXS (2024-03-11 05:10:50+00:00): I'm not entirely sure about the status or path of the service road next to 192nd and Meridian. It may not exist because the bridge ends well after it's link with the road.
tordans (2024-03-14 15:54:13+00:00): Hallo!
Einige Themen für dieses Changeset:
- Bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1260475277 steht es gäbe keinen Radweg, vorher war dieser Weg richtig als "separate" an der Straße vermerkt.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/547105783#map=19/52.86411/12.40815 sagt "both" und "separate" aber es gibt keine eigene Geometrie, es müsste also "track" sein und vermutlich nur "left". Oder wir müssen die separate Geometrie verschieben.
- Bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27452475 steht "both" und "separate" aber ich sehe nur "left" eine separate Geometrie.

Viele Grüße und frohes Mappen
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148488687
seav (2024-03-12 14:18:45+00:00): Hi! Is the Strava heatmap more accurate than the DATUM drone imagery? I see that you realigned a few buildings that are now misaligned to the drone imagery.
Rally (2024-03-13 11:28:22+00:00): Strava in Intramuros is not reliable on all streets (with some concentrated on one side, eg. Muralla). Sorry not aware (or forgot existence) of the DATUM drone imagery. Had initial issues with buildings encroaching roads (with rendered width using josm's plugin) trying to visualize approx width of cycling and sidewalks. With ESRI's limitation being too dark/unusable on westside, while Bing being blurry or roofs covering the road; Compromise solution was  to use both imagery on top of each other while doing a best-fit where on the most symmetrical strava heat lines nearest G.Luna Triangle side - to get a common workable centerline, but ended up moving the buildings (so as not to have conflict with road width, until you reminded me about Datum (oops) - which is way way easier to trace and without hassle for the purpose of remapping those new cycle lanes and narrowed/reduced car lanes in Intramuros.
Glassman (2024-03-12 18:37:11+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
michael60634 (2024-03-18 05:13:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted in full in changeset 148798519
josmougn (2025-03-11 19:39:59+00:00): C'est quoi le ptv2 ?
Ce qui est très gênant avec ce genre de modifications en masse c'est de ne donner aucune indice de la qualité de l'information. 
En édition osm "classique", vérifiée sur le terrain, les modifications apportent le plus souvent une amélioration.
En édition de masse rien de sûr, on peut se retrouver avec des points n'existant pas dans la réalité et pourtant créés ou mis à jour dans osm.
Par exemple, j'ai un gros doute sur ce point : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6804963639