piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Herwescheluc (2023-12-09 14:00:40+00:00): Moie!

Bei dieser Relation wurde ein Fehler produziert.

Guckst Du bitte hier:
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=8.20675&lat=50.74258&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.74&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways
und hier:
https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/de/map/#zoom=18&lat=50.742728&lon=8.20754&item=0000%2C0001%2C1010%2C1040%2C1050%2C1060%2C1070%2C1080%2C1090%2C1100%2C1110%2C1120%2C1140%2C1150%2C1160%2C1180%2C1190%2C1210%2C1221%2C1230%2C1240%2C1250%2C1270%2C1280%2C1290%2C1300%2C1310%2C2010%2C2030%2C2040%2C2080%2C2090%2C2100%2C2120%2C2130%2C2150%2C2160%2C3010%2C3020%2C3030%2C3031%2C3033%2C3050%2C3060%2C3080%2C3090%2C3091%2C3093%2C3100%2C3110%2C3120%2C3130%2C3150%2C3190%2C3210%2C3230%2C3360%2C4020%2C4030%2C4040%2C4060%2C4070%2C4080%2C4090%2C4100%2C4110%2C4130%2C5xxx%2C6xxx%2C7010%2C7012%2C7020%2C7050%2C7051%2C7070%2C7080%2C7090%2C7100%2C7110%2C7150%2C7160%2C7170%2C7190%2C7220%2C7240%2C7250%2C8010%2C8011%2C8012%2C8020%2C8021%2C8022%2C8025%2C8026%2C8030%2C8031%2C8032%2C8040%2C8042%2C8050%2C8051%2C8060%2C8070%2C8080%2C8090%2C8091%2C8100%2C8101%2C8110%2C8120%2C8121%2C8122%2C8130%2C8131%2C8132%2C8140%2C8150%2C8160%2C8161%2C8162%2C8170%2C8180%2C8182%2C8190%2C8191%2C8192%2C8200%2C8201%2C8202%2C8210%2C8211%2C8212%2C8221%2C8230%2C8240%2C8250%2C8260%2C8270%2C8280%2C8281%2C8282%2C8290%2C8310%2C8320%2C8330%2C8331%2C8340%2C8341%2C8350%2C8351%2C8360%2C8370%2C8380%2C8381%2C8382%2C8390%2C8391%2C8392%2C8400%2C8401%2C8410%2C8411%2C8412%2C8420%2C8430%2C8431%2C8450%2C8460%2C8470%2C8480%2C8490%2C8500%2C8510%2C8520%2C8530%2C8540%2C9000%2C9002%2C9003%2C9004%2C9005%2C9006%2C9007%2C9009%2C9010%2C9011%2C9014%2C9015%2C9017%2C9018%2C9019%2C9020&level=1%2C2%2C3&fixable=&issue_uuid=05969e91-fd61-0461-ac0d-f0e71819753d

Viel Erfolg beim Ausbessern und LG

Andreas
oildelog (2023-12-09 20:42:15+00:00): Korrigiert. Hoffe, dass es jetzt stimmt.

Eberhard
Herwescheluc (2023-12-10 15:45:04+00:00): Hallo Eberhard!
Danke für Deine Mithilfe: Gute Arbeit, alle Meldungen sind erledigt!
LG
Andreas
Jakka (2023-12-08 08:10:30+00:00): un C3 n'est pas "private" voire code de la route ;)
Jakka (2023-12-08 08:22:07+00:00): les nom des bâtiments pas correcte. Le bâtiment même ne s'appelle pas ainsi. Se sont les habitants ? Ns les mettons pas dans osm. corriger svp
Kentrosal (2023-12-08 09:08:34+00:00): Ok pour le C3, mais c'est mentionné  "passage privé"
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.5636543,4.7060411,3a,17.2y,174.91h,87.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD-6fDfMfeIPUctSOWDyN8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

En ce qui concerne les bâtiments.  C'est le nom  du bâtiment donné par l'organisme en rapport avec un scientifique ayant contribué à la recherche. 

Cfr  B.V  pour  Av Maréchal Juin, 2

Merci pour le retour.
Jakka (2023-12-08 09:17:42+00:00): bâtiments OK le nom Batiment doit etre devant ? 
C3 coder vehicle=no (+ access=destination pour ceux qui doivent etre là?)
Frans S (2023-12-30 11:51:44+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. However, buildings not always squared and inaccurate mapped.

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144882030
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-12-07 22:14:16+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 143552401, 144221297, 144879446, 144879477, 144879565, 144879570, 144879580, 144879619, 144879621, 144879632, 144879677, 144879700, 144879719, 144879746, 144879759, 144879783, 144879824, 144879831, 144879834, 144879905, 144880015, 144880085, 144880311, 144880419.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-12-07 22:14:15+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 143552401, 144221297, 144879446, 144879477, 144879565, 144879570, 144879580, 144879619, 144879621, 144879632, 144879677, 144879700, 144879719, 144879746, 144879759, 144879783, 144879824, 144879831, 144879834, 144879905, 144880015, 144880085, 144880311, 144880419.
TrekClimbing (2023-12-07 22:33:20+00:00): Accidentally pressed enter...
Adding link to Emm Lane and split of Frizinghall Road at junctions with Keighley Road. Some alignment. and crossings
jakecopp (2023-12-07 22:41:34+00:00): (I'm unsure of the legality further west, this would be great to investigate further)
SpinOff (2023-12-07 22:45:58+00:00): Według tej notatki: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1698092 oraz punktów adresowych, teren jednostki ewidencyjnej KOCK P.G.RYB. jest w granicach Kocka, a nie Annopola, jak sugeruje BDOT10k. W PRG granica gospodarstwa rybackiego jest obecna.
Marek-M (2023-12-08 08:02:44+00:00): Drogi Ci się połączyły z ul. Augusta.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1229552242
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1229552241
Marek-M (2023-12-08 08:02:59+00:00): *nie połączyły* :)
Marek-M (2023-12-08 09:37:02+00:00): Poprawiłem te drogi.
alexnder (2023-12-08 08:39:23+00:00): what is the source for way 1229552904 ? Nothing is visible on any aerial which indicates that a railway was there.
Sorain (2025-02-13 19:38:45+00:00): To answer you now after a year. This is section 706 of the CFR, Tandarei - Giurgeni. The evidence goes to the millions of people who traveled on this section for more than 60 years that it operated, to the official maps until 2009 which line stopped being circulated, to history books, infrastructure, CFR maps, pieces of the line visible both on Maps and on street view today. You boy have a problem with getting on other people's work. I remember you from last year as the only person who tried to delete everything we mapped in northern Romania and in your head did not make connections with reality. I repeat, in all the countries west of Romania (and not only), the railways are mapped, regardless of whether they are currently working, closed or abandoned. To give you a quick reference, see the area of ​​Milan and Lake Como where the former railways are mapped and on their route malls and residential areas were built. They do not interfere with the map, moreover, they are not visible on the public map, but only on certain specialized maps, such as OpenRailwayMap. At the next violation, I will make you a suspension report
alexnder (2025-02-14 07:20:37+00:00): You don't seem to understand the question. I asked what's the source, meaning how do you know the exact shape and location? Do you have an old map which you overlaid? Did you went on the ground and did GPS measures? Because sure as hell this thing is not visible on aerial imagery, except maybe "pieces of", which don't justify the having the full feature on the map.

Which leads us to the actual problem: you like to draw things that are not there anymore. You draw non-existing rails through corn fields, through industrial areas, even through shopping malls. 

I distinctly remember when I last reported your changes, the DWG's conclusion was exactly the same: IF IT'S A HISTORICAL FEATURE AND _NO_ TRACE OF IT IS PRESENT ON THE GROUND ANYMORE, IT DOESN'T BELONG ON THE MAP. Not even on OpenRailwayMap. 

And you have the audacity to threathen to report me for my "violations". The guy that periodically gets banned and comes back with alternative accounts. So sure, report me.
Sorain (2025-02-14 14:12:58+00:00): I like the fact that I have provided you with all the necessary sources, and in response you do not come with any arguments, but with lies. I love it! The level of frustration must be at alarming levels.

At the same time, I finished a profile university in cartography, with a bachelor's and master's degree in geography, and with a single click on my name, you can see that my account has been solid since 2008, so your scenarios that I was ever banned are wet dreams that make you feel better, too bad it's not reality :) The level of comparison between my contribution to OSM over the course of 17 years and what you do, is pure comedy. 

The problem is that in Romania there are not many contributors to OSM, because I'm sure you would not have the courage to do this circus a few countries further to the left. What can I say, I'm actually laughing and I feel sorry for you 😊
alexnder (2025-02-14 15:07:32+00:00): You have provided nothing except proof of your gaslighting abilities. You're unable to stick to the actual technical facts, but instead you turn to ad hominem and a narcissistic tirade about your greatness and unvaluable contributions.  You know who else had such a wonderful personality? Another sorein, banned for 99 years. Wonder what he did, oh, but I guess you know ;) So, please, stick to the technical facts or go back to Tiktok, where I'm sure you'll find like-minded people.
serock (2023-12-08 02:59:34+00:00): Hola, ahí estuve viendo la relación con el error:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16792957
Hay 1 from, 4 vía y 1 to,  como ud. conoce el lugar y generó la relación, le pasó la posta para ver sí podemos resolver el problema, saludos.
mweper (2023-12-08 15:42:08+00:00): Hola. No veo que haya error con respecto a los miembros de la relación. Tal como dice en la wiki, los miembros "via" pueden ser tanto 1 o más nodos como 1 o más vías.
Lo único que cambié porque no lo había tenido muy claro era el etiquetado de giro (anterior no_right_turn) porque me confundía si se debía poner la restricción correspondiente al 1er giro o la del 2do giro.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Relation:restriction
pi11 (2024-04-06 18:58:21+00:00): Dag dentonny,
Volgens de verkeersbordendatabank zou https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/63619453 geen fietsstraat zijn. Aangezien de omliggende straten wel correct in de databank staan, vroeg ik me af of je misschien net iets teveel hebt aangeduid? Of is dit stuk van de Hamsbroek wel degelijk een fietsstraat?
Erg bedankt,
Groeten,
Olivier
dentonny (2024-04-06 20:09:27+00:00): Dag Olivier,

Ik heb bij deze changeset mij gebaseerd op https://www.laakdal.be/fietszones-laakdal

Daar kan je zien dat Hamsbroek er tussen staan. En op het kaartje eronder is deze ook volledig ingekleurd.

mvg
pi11 (2024-04-06 23:13:27+00:00): Dag dentonny,
Bedankt voor de moeite om het kaartje door te sturen. Daarop staat het bewuste deel van de Hamsbroek (volgens mij) niet als fietsstraat aangeduid. Ik denk dat het een foutje was, dus ik heb het met  #149674300 aangepast.
Groeten
dentonny (2024-04-07 17:35:26+00:00): Als ik het kaartje bekijk is deze wel degelijk aangeduid :) maar ik ga niet discussiëren, ik zal er eens langsrijden een van de dagen.
Ik heb al wel van een kennis gehoord dat op de gemeente werkt, dat de borden nog niet overal staan

mvg
pi11 (2024-04-07 18:04:01+00:00): Dag dentonny,
Ben je zeker dat je naar het juiste deel kijkt? Het deel waar ik het over heb (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/63619453) ligt tussen Molenstraat en Plein, en is volgens mij echt niet aangeduid op het kaartje. 
Ik wil zeker ook niet discussiëren, ik denk gewoon dat er een klein misverstand is :)
Groeten,
dentonny (2024-04-08 06:23:08+00:00): goeiemorgen,

ow ik had niet gezien dat die straat doorloopt, ik had het idd over het andere deel van de Hamsbroek!

bedankt om te verbeteren!
Filip009 (2023-12-09 17:09:47+00:00): Keď prekryješ mutipolygón lesa, tak les sa prestane na osm.org renderovať. Buď upravuj les cez JOSM, ktorý ťa na to upozorní, alebo ho nepresúvaj tak, aby sa prekrýval https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144941859
Allison P (2023-12-07 23:34:59+00:00): I got a bit sidetracked and added some waterways too, along with TIGER cleanup
MichS (2023-12-08 08:26:08+00:00): Hallo,

den Weg besser nicht vollständig löschen, Sonden einen Prefix verwenden. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namespace
Sie müssen damit rechnen, dass der Weg wieder eingezeichnet wird.

Streng nach Ihrer Begründung müssten wie viele Wege noch gelöscht werden? Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Förster Ralf (2023-12-11 06:50:42+00:00): Hallo MichS,
vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Es sollen auf keinen Fall alle Wege innerhalb des NSG gelöscht werden. Es geht uns um eine naturverträgliche Lenkungswirkung von Waldbesuchenden. Wir legen innerhalb des Waldes z.B. Habitatbaumgruppen oder Stilllegungsflächen an, bei denen gezielt Totholz angereichert wird, was wiederum ein Sicherheitsrisiko für Waldbesucher sein könnte. Und natürlich sollen diese Bereiche auch sensibleren Tierarten als Rückzugsraum dienen. 
Viele Grüße
Ralf Noack (Forstrevier Wildmeisterei, ForstBW Forstbezirk Schönbuch)
Luzandro (2024-04-16 10:40:42+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4200778
Dave Venables (2023-12-08 13:15:16+00:00): You will probably find hundreds or even thousands of examples in the Nottingham/Derby area
Where somewhere is open under a new name (as Courtlands is) then I'm OK with the proposed housekeeping
Where somewhere is still vacant then the old_name is very useful and I would not tidy https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59309823 or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/130642604 as the old name shows on https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#22/52.92318/-1.47900 which does not look at history
JayTurnr (2023-12-08 13:38:18+00:00): Oh, very good point/ feedback.

I need to delete and recreate the challenge anyway as there's a lot of false positives with old_ref and old_name on highways.

I'll update the challenge to mention the name is useful on closed businesses. 

Tools like Street complete clean some of these tags up anyway
SK53 (2023-12-12 20:47:07+00:00): We have a long standing convention around Nottingham to keep old_name, old_shop etc., because it's often very useful. Certain premises change frequently and sometimes open data (& ones own memory) refers to not the last name, but the one before. 

When remapping shops after a couple of years I often refer back to old photographs to ensure I am retagging the right thing.

One other thing, I've noticed that when removing old_* you are failing to remove brand:* tags (which perhaps were not deleted when the original change was made).

Also whatever the wiki says disused:shop is much less precise than shop=vacant. A disused:shop could now be residential as in many former corner shops, a shop=vacant is one which is still a shop (paying the relevant business rates) and is likely to be occupied by a retailer again.

shop=vacant also allowed a simple query to calculate vacancy rates: a key retail parameter.

Jerry
Dave Venables (2023-12-18 12:03:13+00:00): Recent updates by me to old_name 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/211047915/history    consolidating old_name:2 old_name:3 etc. into old_name

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59309823/history    ensuring old_name includes many old names for vacant premises
Dave Venables (2023-12-08 18:00:19+00:00): No objection to deleting old_fhrs:id values (many will have been left by me over the last five years)

In the Amber Valley borough council area where they were allocated 3 character fhrs:id values there is a tendency to re-use old values (rather than jump to new 7 character ones) even if there is a complete change of use of a building; elsewhere new values are issued upon management/ownership change even if the name and use stays exactly the same

Where IDs get reactivated after a short closure then leaving the old_fhrs:id makes editing fractionally easier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/328274893 when they reopen but elsewhere where there are multiple ";" separated old values https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/55082687 then this probably adds no value and your housekeeping and #maproulette task makes total sense.
Dave Venables (2024-12-08 13:13:56+00:00): I've removed all old_fhrs:id values in the Derby City Council, South Derbyshire and Erewash areas and a few others near Derby in Derbyshire Dales and East Staffordshire (Burton-on-Trent)
I've left Amber Valley alone as they tend to reuse numbers and have also left Broxtowe and Nottingham for the Nottinghamshire community to review
JayTurnr (2024-12-08 18:52:55+00:00): Phew! I saw a long comment and was worried I'd have to undo a bunch of work, but I'll keep that in mind as to the age of the old fhrs tags
rhtb0 (2023-12-08 04:14:15+00:00): 이렇게 삭제하면서 새로 만들 필요 없습니다. josm의 도구를 이용해 되돌릴 수 있습니다.
치치나무 (2023-12-08 07:28:36+00:00): 제가 아직 잘 몰라서요. 알려 주셔서 감사합니다.
Kovoschiz (2023-12-08 03:54:58+00:00): Should it not be  `building=service` ?
Hufkratzer (2023-12-08 18:33:32+00:00): Hi,
These small round pens like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1229562954 are no riding centres (leisure=horse_riding); they should better be tagged leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian. See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aleisure%3Dhorse_riding and compare https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1185163885/history

To find the preset for tagging riding arenas in JOSM search for "equestrian" or use the link at the bottom of the horse_riding preset.
zluuzki (2023-12-08 11:07:52+00:00): why are you deleting so many access roads/driveways?
https://osmcha.org/changesets/144885459
user_11609320 (2023-12-11 09:56:41+00:00): some of the roads were routing people through their property. others were going through buildings. found it easier to clean some of the mess while i added the residential polygon. will go back and change quite a bit of them to driveways
user_11609320 (2023-12-11 09:58:25+00:00): that was one of the major complaints of this area in the map notes
user_11609320 (2023-12-11 09:59:50+00:00): pretty much every driveway needs to be marked private so it won't route through private property
bxl-forever (2023-12-08 11:28:12+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue sur OSM.

Nous avons vérifié la modification, les changements ici sont corrects.

Mais attention : important d’écrire des titres utiles pour les changesets, donc pas écrire « diverses modifications » car ça n’apporte aucune info utile.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
ooosssay (2023-12-10 04:51:13+00:00): Thank you again
fortera_au (2023-12-08 02:23:35+00:00): Hey, what you've put in name should really go into a note tag, and then you can set noname=yes to indicate the lack of name.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144885836
fortera_au (2023-12-09 01:21:11+00:00): I've updated the way to reflect what I've mentioned above.
Glassman (2023-12-09 19:58:06+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good. 

You can add the park info to the park polygon insteading of using a node.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144886340
Glassman (2023-12-09 20:02:11+00:00): I just noticed you duplicated the residential road, both in the new development and on the existing Burnett Road. I remove the duplicates.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144886340
impiaaa (2023-12-08 18:11:37+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flag:type says that "regional" is correct to refer to states, "state" is not.
Black_Diamond (2023-12-08 19:19:26+00:00): It's likely that the documentation is out of sync with the editor. The OpenStreetMap iD editor provides state as a valid value.

This issue is typically highlighted as "Similar values national and regional in flag:type=national;regional". This isn't an issue when it's using the less ambiguous "flag:type=national;state".
impiaaa (2023-12-09 23:15:14+00:00): Remember that validator warnings are just that, warnings. They're there to tell you that you might have made a mistake while mapping, not that something is mapped "wrong."
Black_Diamond (2023-12-10 01:49:48+00:00): Yes I’m aware of that.
Minh Nguyen (2023-12-12 18:13:53+00:00): iD is just listing the most common values of flag:type from taginfo. The typical tagging for U.S. state flags is flag:type=regional, not state. flag:type=state is mostly used for the other kind of state flag, as in the flag of a government, as opposed to a civil flag. We don’t generally make that distinction in the U.S.

https://nsi.guide/index.html?t=flags&k=man_made&v=flagpole&tt=california#california-85bb3f
Black_Diamond (2023-12-12 18:46:51+00:00): Actually it does both common values (black) and supported values (blue). Since there is disagreement, I'll revert this change.
Black_Diamond (2023-12-12 18:47:31+00:00): Never mind, it looks like you already reverted it.
Minh Nguyen (2023-12-12 18:51:10+00:00): Someone should probably start a forum discussion eventually about whether flag:type is even necessary on features that already have flag:wikidata, since Wikidata’s flag items convey these distinctions a lot better. It’s not as though a national flag is automatically larger or less worn out than a regional one.
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-09 06:39:15+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The mapping looks fine but please specify about the modification and for the deletion as well. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144886403
rickmastfan67 (2023-12-08 03:09:27+00:00): The following news article mentioned it was nearing completion was posted on Dec 5th, which was the day the day the changeset being reverted marking it opened was done.

https://www.newsbreak.com/union-city-tn/3254157343707-union-city-s-690-roadway-paving-the-path-to-economic-prosperity-and-connectivity
user_11609320 (2023-12-08 03:09:33+00:00): if you drive on the 10 and you get off, there is no longer any rail, it was pulled up years ago
rickmastfan67 (2023-12-08 03:25:20+00:00): See: https://www.newsbreak.com/union-city-tn/3254157343707-union-city-s-690-roadway-paving-the-path-to-economic-prosperity-and-connectivity
archpdx (2023-12-12 08:11:44+00:00): Even though HPU is here, the whole shopping center shouldn't be tagged as a school. Please create a separate point for HPU instead.
Aarogya Pandey (2024-05-09 06:40:51+00:00): Thank you for mapping. The changeset comments looks well. Happy Mapping. #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144886718
BCNorwich (2023-12-19 08:14:34+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Unfortunately you uploaded the route of your trip to the OSM live worldwide database. Thus your personal data was in conflict with existing ground truth data probably disrupting routing. So I've reverted the changes. 

You can use OSM to record personal data but it must not be uploaded to the OSM database. You can save it offline or make a personal map.

Regards Bernard.
jmarchon (2023-12-08 04:13:41+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144887351
jmarchon (2023-12-08 04:13:58+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144887355
jmarchon (2023-12-08 04:14:13+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144887361
jmarchon (2023-12-08 04:14:27+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144887365
jmarchon (2023-12-08 04:14:39+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144887367
jmarchon (2023-12-08 04:15:08+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144887376
MxxCon (2023-12-09 03:55:58+00:00): Hello.
When mapping sidewalks around a block please try to map them as 4 separate ways rather than a single loop. Doing that allows each sidewalk on each street to be independently tagged.
Also please remember to tag crosswalks where appropriate.👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144887253