piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
A Hall (2023-01-23 19:35:51+00:00): We had also communicated which areas each of us was working on. So that is doubly frustrating for me. This could have been avoided.
ottwiz (2023-01-23 19:36:04+00:00): Okay, then we should probably leave the changeset as is because then it would create a lot of conflicts then + unnecessary redrawings of what I did, so it would cause more damage. But if your opinion is different, let's go with that but I won't deal with the amount of "merge" conflicts for sure
ottwiz (2023-01-23 19:40:54+00:00): "We had also communicated which areas each of us was working on. So that is doubly frustrating for me. This could have been avoided. " Yes, actually you're right in this case. Sorry, my bad!
ottwiz (2023-01-23 21:19:22+00:00): Alright, as Zeke suggested in #local-vermont in OSM US Slack, I tried to revert the changes, but before uploading, please have a look at it (I pinged you there) and please tell me if there's something wrong with it which should be fixed / still reverted etc.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2023-01-30 20:04:24+00:00): شكرا جزيلا على هذا الجهد الكبير
Kristjan ESPERANTO (2023-01-27 23:27:29+00:00): Good work! Thanks!
eggie (2023-01-22 17:42:42+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 


MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2023-01-23 08:19:19+00:00): School toegevoegd
eggie (2023-01-23 09:05:24+00:00): Sorry... Opmerking kwam op de verkeerde changeset...
Iets te veel schermen open...

MVG
eggie
emersonveenstra (2023-01-23 18:23:32+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for your contribution. Would you mind double-checking https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1134240726 please? It appears to be missing tags
Tilia_J (2023-01-22 16:05:58+00:00): Wellicht is het punt waar je de heuveltop hebt toegevoegd de hoogste op je GPS trace, dit wil niet zeggen dat je daadwerkelijk over het hoogste punt gelopen hebt.

Daarnaast heeft een GPS meting altijd een afwijking

Met Actueel Hoogtebestand Nederland kwam ik op een iets andere plek uit met een hoogte van  slechts 63 meter.

Als zodanig aangepast
abakus_uploader (2023-01-22 23:33:24+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
NorthCrab (2023-01-23 05:37:32+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1134244507
Dodałeś duplikację adresu który jest już dodany obok: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9566339520. Jeśli wiesz że adres znajduje się w tym budynku to proszę usuń punkt aby nie było sprzecznych informacji. Punkt jest używany gdy dokładna lokalizacja nie jest znana lub gdy na obrysie budynku znajduje się kilka adresów.
Harfeur (2023-01-22 16:46:00+00:00): Bonjour ! Merci pour votre inscription à OSM !

Le tag highway=construction est à utiliser uniquement si la route est inaccessible à tout types de transports.

Si la route est en travaux mais reste accessible, merci de remettre l'ancien tag (highway=tertiary).

Je reste à votre disposition pour plus de renseignements.

Harfeur
Harfeur (2023-01-22 21:52:21+00:00): Re-bonjour, après vérification, la route n'est pas fermée donc j'ai annulé votre modification : https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131582973

Harfeur
Diacritic (2023-01-23 07:20:52+00:00): Hi Bubblyharp!

Thanks for your contributions.

Can I ask where you are sourcing the addresses from? The street address for these roads wouldn't generally include "Service Road".

Dian
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131568602
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:04:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:10:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
eggie (2023-01-22 17:44:35+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
maraf24 (2023-01-23 10:30:48+00:00): Proszę prawidłowo opisywać zestawy zmian.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
SekeRob (2023-01-22 14:51:11+00:00): Render restored

\o/
NorthCrab (2023-01-24 06:01:58+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1134252272
To nie jest parking lot tylko street-side parking. Parking lot to duży parking często z uliczkami parkingowymi (przy np. dużych sklepach).
NorthCrab (2023-01-24 06:02:20+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/64220422
^ to jest parking lot np.
gscholz (2023-01-23 09:14:31+00:00): Hallo MRQS0EPGOO,
deine neue Straße überlappte mit der angeschlossenen Wohnstraße:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=29.42870&lat=38.05274&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=131569498

Diese Art von Fehler irritiert Routing-Software und sieht natürlich auf den Karten häßlich aus.
Ich habe das mal repariert, scheint bei dir aber ggf. ein systematischer Fehler zu sein, siehe Changeset 131569538:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131569538#map=18/38.05508/29.42124

Guido
gscholz (2023-01-23 09:13:44+00:00): Hallo MRQS0EPGOO,
deine neue Straße überlappte mit der "20-07":

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=29.40041&lat=38.11861&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=131569538

Diese Art von Fehler irritiert Routing-Software und sieht natürlich auf den Karten häßlich aus.
Ich habe das mal reparietrt, scheint bei dir aber ggf. ein systematischer Fehler zu sein, siehe Changeset 131569498:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131569498#map=18/38.05508/29.42124

Guido
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:03:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:06:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
eggie (2023-01-22 17:48:19+00:00): Beste Lucky   Deze gegevens horen niet op de bushaltes. Die staan al op de routerelatie.

Haal je ze er weer af?

Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=131569942

MVG
eggie
LuckyLucas (2023-01-22 18:10:28+00:00): Ah sorry, had busstation dokkum gecheckt en daar gaf die deze bewerking aan. Zal het ongedaan maken!
eggie (2023-01-22 18:22:49+00:00): Hoi..

Zo deden we dat in het begin allemaal.
Kopieren van wat we denken dat goed is.
Je kunt ook even een berichtje sturen naar een van de OV spcialisten bv Leo en dan even vragen of hij naar je edits kijkt.

Mapse
eggie

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Leo%20Slager
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:04:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:03:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
Aleks-Berlin (2023-01-22 15:29:39+00:00): sorry, wrong comment: should be "fix typo"
abakus_uploader (2023-01-22 23:33:23+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
Harfeur (2023-01-22 16:58:30+00:00): Bonjour, merci pour votre contribution de qualité.

Je tiens juste à vous informer qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de taguer un nœuds "portail" et un chemin "portail" comme vous l'avez fait à trois reprises. Vous pouvez retirer le tag "barrier=gate" des nœuds sans supprimer le nœud. En effet, il permet de faire la connexion entre le chemin "portail" et la route.

Enfin, vous avez rajouté un chemin qui n'est connecté à aucun autre chemin. Si c'est une erreur ou un oubli, vous pouvez le corriger : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1134260498

Merci encore pour vos modifications

~Harfeur
mueschel (2023-01-26 18:50:52+00:00): Hi,
you added "Height limit" tags to several ways. The correct tag for this is "maxheight". Could you have a look and change these?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:02:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
Elian D (2023-10-01 20:46:12+00:00): @GBAB, can you please confirm the role of this `place=village`: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10574578601 

It seems quite close to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/460203951.

Not sure that I can understand the difference between "Kászon" and "Kászonaltíz".
GBAB (2023-10-02 07:28:32+00:00): Dear Elian D,

it seems that there is a village (comuna) with the name Plăieșii de Jos. It has two parts: Plăieșii de Jos and Plăieșii de Sus:

Comuna:
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comuna_Pl%C4%83ie%C8%99ii_de_Jos,_Harghita
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/460203951

Southern part:
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pl%C4%83ie%C8%99ii_de_Jos,_Harghita
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10574578601

Northern part:
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pl%C4%83ie%C8%99ii_de_Sus,_Harghita
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/460203956

Thus, apparently both the comuna itself and its southern part are called Plăieșii de Jos, at least in Romanian.

In Hungarian it seems more straightforward because the comuna is Kászon https://www.kaszon.ro , its Northern part is Kászonfeltíz while the southern part is Kászonaltíz.

So this should be mapped somehow.
Elian D (2023-12-22 20:55:14+00:00): @GBAB, thank you for the detailed information and sorry for the delayed response.

If I understood correctly, we have:

The Commune (contains both villages): Plăieșii de Jos / Kászon
The Sourthern part: Plăieșii de Jos / Kászonaltíz
The Northern part: Plăieșii de Sus / Kászonfeltíz

From your links, I believe there is only one thing to address: the link to the commune should not be https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/460203951 since that refers to the Node corresponding to the Southern part (note place=village).

The commune itself is actually the parent relationship https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14879161#map=11/46.2352/26.1358 (place=municipality). And it has the proper name.

In this case, I believe the node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10574578601 should be deleted since we already have the node for the southern part (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/460203951).

I've removed the node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10574578601 in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145420155 and applied the name change to the village node.

The whole goal of this would be not to have another place node (with only name:hu since I believe we already have the nodes + relationships for all three entities).

Let me know if you agree with this change or if we need to discuss it.
GBAB (2023-12-23 17:17:52+00:00): Dear Elian D.,

it seems OK for me. I have been thinking on a third place=* node: two parts of the village and a third one for the whole but it might be enough these two. In the end anyone can find the village and also their parts this way.

Cheers

Gábor
mcliquid (2023-01-23 11:47:49+00:00): Hallo Yves, da du um eine Überprüfung gebeten hast, gebe ich dir hier gerne ein paar Tipps.
Momentan hast du eine kleine Fläche eingezeichnet, die du als "Wohngebiet" ausgezeichnet hast und diese "Velounterstand" genannt.
Schau dir dazu gerne diese Wiki-Seite an: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dbicycle_parking

Da es sich um einen privaten Veloparkplatz handelt, bitte "access=private" berücksichtigen.

Einen "name" braucht es hier nicht, das der Unterstand keinen eigenen Namen hat. Siehe auch: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen

Viel Spaß!
Hans_Hy (2023-01-22 18:49:55+00:00): Validate why you reverted this additions and returned to 6 non defined transformers?

Additions (deleted)
- 750, 500, 220, 110 & 35kV [switch]yards
- Six 750/500kV 1-Phase XFRs
- Six 500/2200kV 1-Phase XFRs
- Four 750kV Reactive Compensation Units
- Two 220/110kV 3-Phase XFRs
- Two 110/35kV 3-Phase XFRs

Reverted back to 
- Six "Transformers", no details

Here is a catalog from ZTR where you can locate all transformers I added this this site.

http://www.ztr.ua/files/ztr_d77-ztr_product_catalogue_2014.pdf
gogorm (2023-02-08 22:15:28+00:00): Hi Dafo43,
Can you please give an explanation for deleting some shared cycle+foot paths around Adamstown Road?
Dafo43 (2023-02-09 10:16:57+00:00): Yes,
1. The general agreement was that in Ireland we wouldn't map the paths directly beside the road. I have seen no discussion where this was changed.
2. The cycle path is still mapped as part of the road.
3. The map was unreadable by adding multiple bridges, when in reality there is only one bridge.
4. It wasn't an accurate representation since the cycle paths yields to every side road and a petrol station, this was not shown when mapped.
gogorm (2023-02-09 19:23:24+00:00): I'll answer with respect to the section north of Grand Canal heading past the petrol station on Adamstown Road. (It's hard to tell from your changeset where the other deleted sections (if any) are, since osm doesn't plot the location of deleted objects).

I'm not against having on-road cycleway tags in cases like Adamstown Road, but you just deleted the separately mapped cycle paths without replacing them with on-road cycleway tags.
That's why I posted my comment yesterday.

Anyway, to address your points:
1. When I started contributing to OSM, I asked the OpenStreetMap Ireland group on Telegram what the consensus was on which cycle track/lane mapping approach to use in Ireland. I was informed of this agreement, rather to follow the guidelines/examples given by OSM (wiki).
I would like to know more about this general agreement.

2. The cycle path is not still mapped as part of the road. North of the Grand Canal, where you deleted the separately mapped cycle paths, there isn't a cycle path mapped as part of the road.

3. Readability of the map depends on what application you are using to view the map?
If you want to show that there is only one bridge when there are several ways marked as bridge, you can add a bridge area/outline as per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge
This approach is widely used around Dublin for example.

4. The crossing node at intersections with the cycle path  and minor roads showed this need to yield. For example I added crossings where the path intersects the petrol station entrace/exit: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9840063853
Admittedly I didn't tag every single minor road intersection node with a highway=crossing node, but anyone who wishes to add this extra level of detail is free to do so.

It was exactly because of the frequent yielding that I chose to use a separately mapped cycle path here.
With the on-road cycleaway tag there is no way to indicate that cyclists must yield at every junction. How can the on-the-road cycleway tag  convey the need to yield to every minor road/driveway?
gogorm (2023-02-09 19:24:38+00:00): *I meant to say "I wasn't informed of this agreement" in point 1.
Dafo43 (2023-02-09 20:06:49+00:00): 1. I've tried to find it on the wiki but don't see it anymore, so can only assume it was removed at some point. I have seen it mentioned on the mailing list, which seemingly some people use and some people not, which is not a great situation. I would agree that in general people should follow the wiki. In this case it gives the option of 2, but the tagging of roadways precedes the individual tagging of roads, so in my opinion either everything should be changed or the original tagging should be followed. Having a mix of both is the worst outcome.
Dafo43 (2023-02-09 20:14:21+00:00): 2. The tagging can be easily fixed.
3. I'm aware of the bridge area tag and of other map renders, on most it looks worse than the default render. It's unreadable on my Garmin for example.
4. I guess in general I would ask what's the need, there's a cycle lane of some sort on the majority of all roads in Dublin, having it mapped on OSM is not going to change my route plans.
gogorm (2023-02-09 21:59:58+00:00): 1. Yes, not good to have a conflicting approaches. I prefer tagging on the roadway for the most part, but to convince everyone to use one consistent approach, and replace everything that has already been mapped, is just not feasible.

2. Yes of course.

3. That is unfortunate. I haven't seen what it actually looks like on a Garmin, but I find it hard to lay the blame on osm data for a map readability issue.

4. To give some examples,
when I'm going to cycle to somewhere far away that I've never cycled to before, I sometimes find it useful to know which roads have cycle lanes/tracks, e.g. to plan a route that is faster/safer/less hilly/more direct/more enjoyable/[insert preference here].
Someone could also do this to optimise their commute to work/school etc.

I suppose someone could analyse the data using a tool such as overpass turbo to generate statistics about cycle provisions in a given area if they wanted to. This statistical information could then be used for many purposes.
Dafo43 (2023-02-10 12:45:49+00:00): I'll send a mail to the mailing list, at the very least the Ireland wiki page should say one way or another what approach should be used, and not have a mix of both.
gogorm (2023-02-10 13:22:11+00:00): There are merits to each approach. The internationally practiced approaches are compatible with Ireland.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle gives sufficient guidance.
Dafo43 (2023-02-10 16:34:41+00:00): It's being discussed on the mailing list now, so if you want to join then go here - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie .
gogorm (2023-02-13 18:06:42+00:00): Thanks, I joined the list, but I'm waiting for another email to be sent in that thread, so I have something in my inbox which enables me to reply in the thread.
Dafo43 (2023-02-27 21:49:19+00:00): Sorry, was busy for the last while. They took the discussion off thread for some reason, so I'm waiting for an update myself.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:02:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
Omegatherion (2023-03-02 17:58:30+00:00): Warum sollte die Kapazität beschränkt sein?
kakiremora (2023-01-22 21:03:33+00:00): Czy nazwa jest używana przez lokalnych mieszkańców?

Pozdrawiam
NorthCrab (2023-01-23 05:11:48+00:00): Brakuje oznaczenia kategorii tego POI, samo nadanie nazwy nie jest poprawne. Co znajduje się w tym budynku?
Map_HeRo (2023-04-23 19:02:26+00:00): Hallo November2019, Du hast hier in der Gegend zahlreiche historische Flurnamen gemappt. Sind diese Bezeichnungen vor Ort verifizierbar und heute noch gebräuchlich? Falls nicht, gehören Sie nicht in OSM, siehe dazu die Hinweise im Wiki  zu Verifizierbarkeit und historischen Elementen: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_historic_events_and_historic_features
Es gibt zum Thema Flurnamen auch bereits mehrere Diskussionen im deutschen Forum, die in dieselbe Richtung gehen, falls Du daran Interesse hast. Gruß Mikke
flohoff (2023-01-22 20:55:52+00:00): Bist du hier mit dem neuen "Speedlimit" des Blitzers sicher?

An der Kreuzung ist seit 10+ Jahren 50 - Das 70 Schilde steht an der Brücke und dann auf der Hälfte etwa geht das auf 50 runter.


Hier vor der Brücke das erste 70
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1132481297235032

Hier ist dann das 50 Schild:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=340316544107958


Wann haben die denn da die Geschwindigkeitsbeschränkung hochgesetzt. Kommt mir sehr komisch vor. Ich bin die Strecke auch gut 10 Jahre täglich zur Arbeit gefahren. 

Flo
7408647n (2023-01-22 22:38:51+00:00): Hi, 
Ich fahre diese Strecke etwa einmal Wöchentlich und in meiner Erinnerung war ich über die falsch angegebene Geschwindigkeit verwundert.
Meiner Erinnerung nach ist dort zwei mal nach einander ein 70er Schild. Ich fahre diese Strecke aber noch nicht all zu lange, das heißt eine Hochsetzung der Geschwindigkeit habe ich nicht mitbekommen.

Beim ändern habe ich auch nochmal bei Apple-Karten-Streetview nachgeschaut, die Bilder sind auch von 2020, dort ist jedoch auch erst das 70er und dann das 50er Schild.

Ich werde dann noch einmal beim nächsten vorbeifahren besonders drauf achten.

Viele Grüße
7408647n (2023-01-22 23:14:45+00:00): P.S. Ganz rechts ist hier auch noch einmal die  Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung, wie ich sie in Erinnerung habe zu erkennen, die 90 km/h: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=833003117615939
7408647n (2023-01-23 21:10:23+00:00): Hi,
auch diese Strecke bin ich heute entlang gefahren. Ein 50er Schild habe ich nicht gesehen. Es gab nur zwei 70er Schilder nach einander, erst kurz nach der Brücke und dann etwa auf halber Strecke zwischen Brücke und Kreuzung.
Ich bin heute auch mit etwas unter 70 an der Blitzkiste vorbei gefahren und wurde nicht geblitzt : )

Viele Grüße
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:07:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:07:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.