piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
midget sub (2024-10-15 03:22:56+00:00): Hi -- thanks for adding these sidewalks. However the cyclepaths you've added along South Main Street do not exist as separate ways. Since they are only lines painted on the sides of the road, they should not be mapped separately, per <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway> : "cycle lanes which are part of the road without any physical separation from the other lanes except the painting on the road (don't map them as separate ways)"

Can you please correct this by removing them and adding the appropriate tags to South Main Street? Thanks!
Nizgoon (2024-10-21 04:48:05+00:00): Hello, this has been removed. Thank you.
aduxas (2024-11-25 16:51:56+00:00): Why did you removed the "private" tag here?  This is a private school.
5m4u9 (2024-07-02 18:20:48+00:00): Hola, gracias por editar en el mapa.

Hay algunos pequeños errores (ya lo solucioné) como la clasificación lo cambié a terciario porque no se ve mucho flujo en el camino.

Quebrada Municipal es un término genérico que no deberíamos añadir sino nombres propios como "Jardinera Juana Azurduy" o similares.
emersonveenstra (2024-07-02 11:07:42+00:00): Hi there,

Some of these roads now have turn:lanes values that don't match the number of lanes specified in the lanes tag:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402732241
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402732240
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225624383
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/441612479

Could you please fix this? Thanks!
phoenixsaigon1698 (2024-07-04 01:38:52+00:00): Cái này bạn thiếu restriction:conditional rồi nhé.
restriction không là không đủ cho biển báo cấm theo giờ.
hatul (2024-07-08 10:09:56+00:00): זאת אנדרטת משבר לתקווה, אני אמזג את הנקדות
Yitzchak M (2024-07-08 10:30:17+00:00): לא! אני לא מסכים. הייתי שם לפני שבוע. יש גם אנדרטה וגם נוף יפה מאד. אם תמזג, לא רואים את הסמל של נוף (תצפית). אם אתה יודע איך להציג את שני הסמלים בנקודה אחת, אני אשמח. אחרת, בבקשה לא לגעת.
hatul (2024-07-08 10:34:37+00:00): אתה יכול לתייג את אותה נקודה עם תגית של תצפית ואנדרטה ביחד. אין טעם להוסיף שתי נקודות בשביל אותו מקום.
בנוסף, כדאי למעט בנקודות תצפית שאין במקום תצפית בנויה. אחרת נציף את המפה בסתם מקומות עם נוף יפה.
Yitzchak M (2024-07-08 10:35:18+00:00): אני אחזור למקום הזה בעוד כמה ימים ואני אצלם את הנוף בלי האנדרטה.
hatul (2024-07-08 10:36:58+00:00): זה לא משנה, אם זה אותו מקום אז פשוט תוסיף את התמונה לנקודה של האנדרטה.
Yitzchak M (2024-07-08 10:41:57+00:00): ואתה אומר לשכוח על הסמל של נוף במקום הזה? אם משתמש רק רואה סמל של אנדרטה במפה, הוא לא יבין מהסמל לבד שיש גם נוף מדהים שם.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-10 02:13:16+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164748082
tyfi (2024-07-02 03:22:35+00:00): note #4313494
tyfi (2024-07-02 03:23:18+00:00): Original tiger-imported topology had Shady Hills Lane through from Christopher Drive, but it actually spurs off of Lil Brown Lane which is very close. You can see this in Esri Clarity.
janith (2024-07-02 04:05:10+00:00): Sources:
 https://universalhomes.co.nz/properties/g02-3-tiakina-road/
https://universalhomes.co.nz/properties/102-3-tiakina-road/
https://universalhomes.co.nz/properties/202-3-tiakina-road/
janith (2024-07-02 04:07:37+00:00): NZ address dataset lookup: https://i.imgur.com/ckQv9J8.png
Fizzie-DWG (2024-07-02 04:30:13+00:00): Hello Jefri. You've deleted the protected area relation for Perhutani? Were you intending to, or was it an accident? Thanks, Graeme Fitzpatrick, Moderator,
OSMF Data Working Group
Jefri Andika (2024-07-02 06:44:02+00:00): 
I only update the boundaries of protected forest areas that are in accordance with the 2020 Forest Area Confirmation Development Map that applies to the Indonesian Government for the Situbondo Regency area.
Fizzie-DWG (2024-07-02 06:46:26+00:00): Thanks. So is Perhutani no longer a protected area?
Jefri Andika (2024-07-02 06:46:31+00:00): Saya berharap OSM dapat segera mengupdate data tersebut karena berkaitan dengan data Pertanahan Negara.
karena di batas yang sebelumnya terdapat tahan warga akan tetapi data di OSM termasuk di perhutani.
Jefri Andika (2024-07-02 06:47:03+00:00): I hope that OSM can immediately update this data because it is related to State Land data.
because at the previous boundary there were residents' detention, but the data in OSM included Perhutani.
Jefri Andika (2024-07-02 06:49:54+00:00): No. Perhutani still has protected forest areas, but not as large as in the first data

If you wish, I will attach a map of the forestry area where there is a map of protected forest areas and production forests in the Situbondo area.
I hope OSM can help to update the data
Fizzie-DWG (2024-07-02 07:04:41+00:00): Thanks. The best thing for you to do would be to start a discussion with the Indonesian mapping community at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/id/58 to see the best way of going about this. In the meantime, I'll revert that particular change so we don't lose the data.
Fizzie-DWG (2024-07-02 07:05:50+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153440571
Jefri Andika (2024-07-03 01:37:32+00:00): I apologize because maybe I made a mistake by accidentally deleting of Perhutani
Thanks for reverting it
Allison P (2024-07-02 07:46:50+00:00): The scrub area shouldn't overlap the river area, as much of a pain as it is to separate the two.
Jarrardi (2024-07-02 08:18:52+00:00): Uh oh. Its this also true for the forest areas downstream? I've got a lot of editing to do, don't I? 😅
Chrissgage (2024-07-10 22:32:24+00:00): Thanks for working hard on the OSM.  Many of the features in this changeset are on private property.  And many are simply incorrect.  I have had lots of issues with the general public not only coming through private easements, but also with people wandering off the main private gravel roads and into my yard.  Lost and wandering people have been chronically destroying roads and meadows when they are soft.  Many thousands of $ of destruction have occurred and I have had to construct barricades.  Tow trucks and wreckers have had to come out many times as well.  I would prefer to keep most all of these features on my private property off the OSM.  Is that OK with you?
btwhite92 (2024-07-11 05:30:54+00:00): Hello,
First and foremost, I am sorry about the trespass and vanadlism problems that you are experiencing on your property. I have driven around this area for the better part of a decade now and while I share your frustrations about the inability of some folks to respect posted closures (and otherwise respect common sense courtesies), I don't have a financial consequence for the misbehavior of others, and again I am sorry that you are dealing with these problems. With that being said, it is a foundational principal of OSM to map that which is "on the ground" - the data that I have added was done so using publicly available satellite imagery and was not acquired by any trespass. Here is one article addressing why private roads are not subject to removal from OSM simply because they are on private property: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property. If there are errors in the data please feel free to correct them, but they must correspond to the situation as it exists "on the ground". For example, the short stretch of Russell Valley Rd through the SE corner of the private inholding in this area was marked as private by an edit of yours, but in reality (at least approaching from the east) there are no 'No Trespassing' or equivalent signage - just "right to pass by permission" signage which, by my understanding (https://www.bullivant.com/right-to-pass-by-permission-sign-may/), prevents a future party from claming an adverse easement over the road rather than closing access completely to the public. As I understand it, this is a legal particularity unique to California, where this signage/legal precedent is designed to balance the desire to allow public access to undeveloped land while protecting the private landowner from legal troubles in future development (posting the signage prevents a future party from claiming an easement). Hopefully this is understandable and I am happy to discuss further.

Best,
Bradley
Chrissgage (2024-07-11 08:10:46+00:00): Bradley, Did you create all these Meadows, Marshes, Heaths, Roads, Farmyards, Fences, Lines, Buildings, Residential Areas, Streams, and Natural Wood zones in my yard and my neighbor's yards?
btwhite92 (2024-07-11 15:00:12+00:00): If you wanted to add all that you could - I think that would be overkill personally, but there's nothing stopping you. But the question here isn't what ought to be added, but whether things should be *removed* because they're on private property, and the answer to that is no, barring the sensitive edge cases given in the wiki articles you have been sent. The data added here isn't functionally much of a different 'representation' than the countless satellite images that exist to be viewed freely online. You're right that nothing to the north has been mapped to this level of detail yet, but that's mostly just because nobody has gotten around to it yet. For a close example, the Martis Peak/Juniper Creek Ranch neighborhoods also have extensive private forest roads that are mostly all in OSM. The easement/access issues you describe I assure can be found in numerous other rural areas that are also in OSM. That is the purpose of the 'access' tag. If the roads are physically posted as 'no trespassing'/'private', then they ought to be tagged as such in OSM, which will render them as private roads on the tile map and prevent anyone from being routed over them with the navigational tools. But no map or online tool ever stopped anyone from ignoring posted signage and driving in places they obviously shouldn't, which has been a problem in this area long before OpenStreetMap has even existed and won't be stopped by deleting data.
btwhite92 (2024-07-11 15:09:09+00:00): To be clearer about roads being tagged 'private' here - they should be, and the reason that those changes were reverted was because the data working group reverted the entire change history of your account because of the mass data deletion. I would be happy to retag everything here as 'private', but removing valid landcover (natural/landuse) will simply be reverted again.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2024-07-03 02:00:55+00:00): The cycling paths were already mapped on the road itself as cycleay:left/right = lane with related detailed tag for separation, marking, etc. When there is no permanent physical separation, the concensus is to map the cycling lane on the road itself. Flex posts are not permanent and are often removed in spring, fall and winter. I fixed it already. Thanks!
Nizgoon (2024-07-03 04:52:40+00:00): Sounds good! I wasn't sure about the consensus
user_7130456 (2024-07-04 12:52:33+00:00): 你修改边界的时候，记得把新增加的边界路径加入到行政区划关系中，关系在路径的最下方，不然会破坏行政区划数据
dankarran (2024-09-16 13:03:54+00:00): Why did you replace a harbour outline with a single point here? It seems like a backwards step?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153438335
englu (2024-07-04 07:33:59+00:00): Czy droga https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/291563895#map=19/49.90241/22.48725 w miejscu  49.90241,22.48725 została wyprostowana? Landuse=meadow nie został zmieniony, więc czy droga biegnie na wskroś przez łąkę? Na Zdjęciu satelitarnym widać jeszcze poprzedni przebieg.
janusz_kochanowicz (2024-07-04 16:29:21+00:00): Tak, teraz jest poprawnie, zdjęcia satelitarne są stare, drogi scaleniowe są w trakcie prac, więc sporo sie zmieniło na Pruchniku
englu (2024-07-06 08:18:34+00:00): Dzięki za informację.
AndersAndersson (2024-07-02 22:20:26+00:00): Hej!
Bra tillägg!
Lägg gärna till foot=yes och bicycle=yes på bommarna så att vägvisning för gående och cyklister fungerar.
Förutsatt att det är tillåtet att passera bommen till fots eller cykel.
特蕾西娅 (2024-07-30 13:05:47+00:00): 牛逼，但好像和“台湾岛”还有一座桥相连
astrafromcloud (2024-07-02 06:20:02+00:00): *Полянское
phoenixsaigon1698 (2024-07-02 06:33:08+00:00): https://imgur.com/a/R4PpOGg

Tommy Hoàng Long edit phá hoại các member của tuyến xe bus.
Tommybara (2024-07-02 11:30:02+00:00): À, nay điên tiết quá phải dùng trò hèn hạ là ngậm máu phun người luôn rồi hả? Giờ ý bảo là mình đây xóa cái đoạn từ Phùng Khắc Khoan tới Mạc Đĩnh Chi (tức way id 1268643579) ra khỏi tuyến xe bus Bến xe Chợ Lớn - Bến xe Biên Hòa (relation id 17374910) luôn chứ gì?

Muốn biết cũng dễ mà, vô đây https://www.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/17374910/history banh mắt ra mà xem lần đầu tiên cái way id 1268643579 xuất hiện là ở version số mấy là biết liền mà.

Oh mà ố là la, tới version 23 (hôm nay) nó mới xuất hiện. Còn version 21 của phượng hoàng lửa đây (version="21" changeset="153023386" timestamp="2024-06-22T10:27:47Z" user="phoenixsaigon1698" uid="3323343") có nó không ta? Hình như là không, vậy lập luận như phượng hoàng lửa đây thì chính phượng hoàng lửa cũng được xem là phá hoại member của tuyến bus này đó chứ.
okadatsuneo (2024-09-27 04:58:54+00:00): 2pxさん、こんにちは。
編集ありがとうございます。
1点お願いがあるのですが、natural=peakのnameに標高の値を入れるのは止めてもらえますか。そのような名前ではありませんので。
また、本当の山頂でなければ、man_made=survey_pointを使っていただく方がありがたいです。
dbrgn (2024-07-02 21:22:37+00:00): Danke für das Lösen der Notiz! Ich habe gesehen, dass das Changeset auch auf vielen Wegen "motor_vehicle=agricultural" hinzufügt. Gemäss OSM Wiki bedeutet dies "Verbot für Kraftfahrzeuge, landwirtschaftlicher Verkehr frei". Ist das für diese Wege wirklich gegeben? Teilweise sind das ja Zufahrtsstrassen zu Höfen, wo auch Zubringerdienst möglich sein muss (z.B. für die Post). Dass da überall Fahrverbotsschilder sind, erscheint mir unwahrscheinlich.
mcliquid (2024-07-03 05:51:43+00:00): Die Bildtafel 2.13 (Verbot für Motorwagen und Motorräder) steht jeweils an der Einfahrt der Nebengrabenstrasse und gilt, meines Wissens, für die gesamte Strecke sowie aller Zu- und Abfahrten. Andernfalls würden sich sogenannte "Routing-Islands" bilden.
Unter dem Schild steht "Landwirtschaftlicher Verkehr gestattet / mit Bewilligung gestattet".
Nach meinem Verständnis ist hier, zumindest laut Bildtafel, jeglicher Zubringerdienst verboten. Was denkst du?
dbrgn (2024-07-19 21:58:21+00:00): mcliquid: Ah, wenn das Schild wirklich so da steht (ohne "Zubringerdienst Gestattet" darunter), dann hast du wohl recht. Nimmt mich trotzdem wunder, wie Lieferungen an die Höfe unter solchen Umständen funktionieren sollen 😕
Ilovemap1999 (2024-07-03 02:56:03+00:00): Hello Mr.Hung Tran,
Your edited in "relation: 17793988 and relation: 17793989 which added "no left turn" restrictions by you, have already existed. So that I have to delete your edited in these restrictions. The way you used as "from" was used as "via" for the same no left turn restriction, In other words, your adjustments are contained within a larger edited by older user.
Hung Tran 9x0 (2024-07-03 06:35:15+00:00): How is that possible? When I edited, I saw that there was no left turn restrictions so I created them.
Hung Tran 9x0 (2024-07-03 06:37:04+00:00): Now I click on the roads and there are no left turn restrictions again smh.
Ilovemap1999 (2024-07-03 06:44:06+00:00): 'https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17599922#map=19/21.03353/105.76987'
'https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17599921#map=19/21.03329/105.76981'. Please check
Hung Tran 9x0 (2024-07-03 06:44:27+00:00): Alright, I see them. Thanks.
Ilovemap1999 (2024-07-03 06:49:34+00:00): Next time, if you want to see the restrictions you can click on the roads then scroll down and notice the "Relations" field
arjunaraoc (2024-07-08 07:25:21+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  India page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India) and  join OSM India Telegram channel (https://t.me/OSMIndia). Check my minor edits https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153689604
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153440063
mueschel (2024-07-05 08:04:27+00:00): Hi,
please check the tags you added recently, there are several spelling mistakes, e.g.

date_visite
date_viste
date_vistie

They all should be "check_date" or "survey:date".

You also use "light_source" which should be "lit".
Mammi71 (2024-07-28 21:49:18+00:00): Hallo LEGC,
könntest Du die neue Fußgängerampel noch ein Stück nach Süden verlegen? Der Fußweg und damit der Fußgängerüberweg macht einen kleinen Schlenker nach Süden. GPS-Track ist online. Danke
LEGC (2024-08-04 18:38:44+00:00): Hi Mammi71,
danke für deinen Hinweis.
Das mit der Fußgängerampel stimmt, ich habe sie jetzt mal verlegt.
Wenn sie immer noch nicht perfekt steht, darfst du sie natürlich gerne nochmal verlegen.
Vielen Dank für deinen Hinweis und den GPS-Track.
:D
archpdx (2024-07-02 07:45:34+00:00): I noticed that this changeset seems to be using `hov:lanes=*` to denote how many lanes are HOV lanes, when this tag should be used to denote which lanes are HOV lanes as outlined on the wiki (https://osm.wiki/Key:hov#hov:lanes=*). Instead, `lanes:hov=*` should be used (see https://osm.wiki/Key:lanes#Description).
archpdx (2024-07-02 07:48:16+00:00): For example, (https://osm.org/way/125083408) with `hov:lanes=1` should be `lanes:hov=1`. 

The way you used `hov:lanes=*` for Century Freeway is correct (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882322789)
DimplePatel (2024-07-05 07:51:11+00:00): Thank you for pointing out the correct usage of hov:lanes=* and lanes:hov=*. I appreciate your guidance. I have reviewed the tagging guidelines on the wiki and will correct my edits accordingly.

I have a question regarding the correct tagging for scenarios where there are two lanes and both are designated HOV lanes. Should I use hov:lanes=designated|designated in this case? Any further clarification on this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your assistance.
skyper (2024-07-08 17:17:04+00:00): See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/express-lanes-tagging/115636/7
Pranayraj Vangari (2024-07-02 15:34:42+00:00): thankyou sir.
demon_box (2024-07-02 10:10:28+00:00): Ciao, Benvenuto! Ti segnalo che in Italia il civico indica il punto di accesso all'edificio e NON l'intero edificio. Infatti uno stesso edificio può avere più entrate e quindi più civici.
Di conseguenza è errato mappare i tags addr: sull'intero edificio: se conosci esattamente dove è posizionata la porta che corrisponde al civico puoi aggiungere un nodo sul perimetro dell'edificio nel punto esatto (e metterci i tags del civico) altrimenti devi mappare i tags dell'indirizzo su un nodo adiacente ma staccato dall'edificio stesso.
Ho già applicato la correzione.
Grazie e BuonMapping ;-))
trigpoint (2026-03-11 15:14:06+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/179707075
rblldnk (2024-07-23 07:47:19+00:00): Halo IKYuda, boleh cek DM yaa
mcliquid (2024-07-02 08:47:12+00:00): If it should be possible next time: Please upload your changes in StreetComplete before you get on the plane. Thank you very much!
mcliquid (2024-07-02 08:47:18+00:00): If it should be possible next time: Please upload your changes in StreetComplete before you get on the plane. Thank you very much!
mcliquid (2024-07-02 08:47:23+00:00): If it should be possible next time: Please upload your changes in StreetComplete before you get on the plane. Thank you very much!
mcliquid (2024-07-02 08:47:28+00:00): If it should be possible next time: Please upload your changes in StreetComplete before you get on the plane. Thank you very much!
mcliquid (2024-07-02 08:47:48+00:00): If it should be possible next time: Please upload your changes in StreetComplete before you get on the plane. Thank you very much!
mcliquid (2024-07-02 08:47:53+00:00): If it should be possible next time: Please upload your changes in StreetComplete before you get on the plane. Thank you very much!
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-02 07:50:26+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nieprawidłowa wartość addr:postcode. Kod pocztowy powinien być formatu XX-XXX, gdzie X oznacza cyfrę.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11940631253

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
rskedgell (2024-07-02 10:22:06+00:00): Adding wheelchair=no alone would have achieved this.

If the surface is grass, as it appears to be, adding surface=grass + tracktype=grade5 would be useful.

It's obviously not informal=yes, as that implies a desire line path, not a planned path in a landscaped garden.

For access tagging the defaults of highway=footway + foot=customers were correct. Setting foot=yes implies a public right of way, which is clearly not the case within the grounds of RHS Wisley.

I cannot see any steps on the aerial imagery and a SAC scale of mountain_hiking (terrain is steep in places and may pose fall hazards) seems improbable.

Please only tag what is actually there and resist the temptation to add fiction in order to influence the behaviour of rendering or routing software.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
Taya_S (2024-07-02 07:52:40+00:00): I think you made a mistake here. You didnt add the beach island to the lake relation, but rather you created a new relation that contains just the beach island.
Mapping Dutchman (2024-07-02 16:04:23+00:00): Hi Thiskal,
Thank you for the feedback. I was aware of it and added the relationship via the "Go Map!" app later on. I did "commit" the changes, i.e., upload the changes. They haven't been reflected in OSM just yet. Therefore, I'll wait until 03-Jul-2024 to see if the changes take effect. belatedly. If not, I'll make the relationship tomorrow. Basically, I am looking to prevent from creating 2 conflicting changes.
mmahmud (2024-08-10 05:17:06+00:00): Hello, can you explain why did you remove the 'layer = -1' tag in the following ways:
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59921601/ ; 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59922780 ; 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59932803 ; 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135352074 ; 

Satellite shows that the waterways are below road level and thus 'layer = -1' seems valid. Since the tag removal, it is now conflicting with the roads above. If the tag removal is valid, then further corrections will be needed in the roads themselves. Kindly check and fix.
taketaketake (2024-08-13 04:23:47+00:00): Anything that does not have a tag such as tunnel=yes set is considered to be a ground object, and layer=-1 has been uniformly removed.
taketaketake (2024-08-13 04:52:09+00:00): During the initial data import, the wrong tag layer=-1 was set, and many people who looked at it mistakenly assumed that rivers and other things had the layer=-1 tag.
See below for more details.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Key:layer
mmahmud (2024-08-13 12:57:29+00:00): Hello, thanks for the reference. Since the removal of layer tag, it is creating a lot of conflicts with the highways. What would be the best tag to use in this case? Will you implement those to resolve the conflicts?
taketaketake (2024-08-14 00:12:48+00:00): 日本語にて失礼します。
本来であれば橋梁、トンネルにて重なりを解消しないと駄目です。
それを嫌ってかlayer=-1を設定する人がいますがそれは間違いです。
私がすべてのエラーに対応することは不可能ですので気付き次第直して頂くしかありませんね
ivanbranco (2024-07-02 11:13:31+00:00): Hi Swihail,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1298343961/history

please notice that in OSM we map the building outlines, not the roof shapes. Please read: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roof_modelling

thanks and good mapping
changio (2024-07-03 09:16:25+00:00): Ciao ivanbranco,

Abbiamo fermato immediatamente le nostre attività di editing su questo progetto; gli edit fatti verranno rivisti e, in caso siano sbagliati, saranno corretti da nostri editor più esperti.
Gli editor che hanno fatto edits sbagliati verranno trainizzati nuovamente su queste features, evidentemente qualcosa non era abbastanza chiaro, pertanto staremo più attenti.
Colgo l’occasione anche per chiederti di continuare a monitorare quanto accade e di informarci in caso di edits fatti non in maniera corretta da parte di nostri editor; il nostro scopo è quello di contribuire a migliorare la qualità di OSM. 

GRAZIE!
Chiara