piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
MassCartog (2025-10-31 17:32:33+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. The feature you removed in this changeset is valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Even decommissioned trails should not be removed until they no longer exist. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property
CapnFolie (2025-10-31 17:40:12+00:00): Thank you for the lesson I will change the road attributes as suggested
AndyB_66 (2025-10-31 18:42:31+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
eggie (2025-10-31 18:22:59+00:00): Dag Hans,

Nooit een welkomstmail ontvangen.. bij deze opnieuw Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Szymson (2025-11-01 10:07:14+00:00): Przepraszam bardzo, za źródło podałeś film na YouTube - czy posiadasz zgodę autora na wykorzystanie go do zmian w OpenStreetMap? Za takie coś można zaliczyć bana.
Szymson (2025-11-01 10:08:18+00:00): Poza tym to: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1446567012 nie jest man_made=bridge tylko wildlife_crossing
Hung Tran 9x0 (2025-11-14 05:25:02+00:00): bạn nên đặt tên đầy đủ là Đường Trương Định
Hung Tran 9x0 (2025-11-14 06:25:56+00:00): xin lỗi bạn nhé, tôi chưa xem kỹ nên tưởng bạn đặt tên Trương Định
Vmosnokia31 (2025-11-14 08:51:58+00:00): ok b
eggie (2025-10-31 18:19:18+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
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-12-01 22:24:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 175378570 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some pre war Polish names; these do not belong in OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19062
vasony (2025-11-01 06:32:23+00:00): Szia!

Kérlek ne adj hozzá nem létező dolgokat az adatbázishoz. A módosításaid visszavonásra kerültek.

Tamás
Frans S (2025-11-20 12:01:21+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
When you map highways that cross a hedge, please leave a gap in that hedge,
Best regards
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-12-01 22:24:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 175378570 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some pre war Polish names; these do not belong in OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19062
eggie (2025-10-31 18:40:56+00:00): Dag Herberg,,

Dit soort description wordt gezien als werving en dan helaas behandeld als spam.
Het beste kun je op de adresnode bijtaggen.

MVG
eggie
J T E (2025-11-01 23:14:07+00:00): Kudos to you for mapping these.
CentralOregonDeflocker (2025-11-02 01:54:55+00:00): Thank you, I plan on adding more soon?
A35K (2025-11-08 15:39:56+00:00): Bitte in Zukunft Garagen richtig mappen (nicht mit layer=-1 taggen sondern mit dem Gebäude verbinden) und auch keine Kirchtürme einfach als Garage taggen wenns nicht stimmt.
Michael Spitzenberger (2025-11-09 10:14:45+00:00): alles klar danke für die Info, ich versuche immer die Garagen mit den Gebäuden zu verbinden, das mit dem Kirchtürmen kann ich mir nicht erklären was ich da gemacht habe, wo war das denn? :-(  wenn mir generell was unklar ist kann ich mit dir Kontakt aufnehmen?
A35K (2025-11-09 14:06:56+00:00): Der Kirchturm war bei der St. Korbinians Kirche: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228368222

Falls es irgendwelche Fragen/Unklarheiten gibt gerne kontaktieren (Am Besten hier über OSM oder sonst über Discord wenn du das hast) 

Kleiner Tipp noch: im iD Editor kann man mit "Q" Flächen zu perfekten Rechtecken/Quadraten machen, ist sehr nützlich bei Gebäude/Garagen.
kuhni74 (2025-12-04 18:37:23+00:00): der Laabenbach wurde nun irrtümlich ein einziger langer Rohrdurchlass - was hätte hier gemacht werden sollen?
eggie (2025-10-31 18:51:27+00:00): Nieuwbouw wordt in de regel periodiek geïmporteerd. Je kunt ook zelf een verzoek doen via het forum in het draadhe BAG importverzoeken. Dan komen de juiste afmetingen en gegevens mee.
MVG
eggie
Mister Kanister (2025-11-06 11:35:40+00:00): Hallo misterte,
weshalb hast du hier – und bei den anderen Brücken in Basel offenbar auch – den Strassennamen bzw. das name-Tag entfernt? "Dreirosenbrücke", oder rheinaufwärts "Johanniterbrücke" und "Wettsteinbrücke" etc. sind offizielle Strassennamen dieser Brücken. Mit der Entfernung von bridge:name=* kann ich leben, da die Brückenfläche als Objekt ja ebenfalls erfasst ist. Aber die Brücken in Basel sind jeweils tatsächlich so benannt. Siehe zum Beispiel hier der Open Data-Katalog des Kantons Basel-Stadt für die Dreirosenbrücke: https://data.bs.ch/explore/dataset/100189/table/?flg=de-ch&q=Dreirosenbr%C3%BCcke&location=18,47.55643,7.59468&basemap=9fffa5

Hat es einen bestimmten Grund, warum du systematisch name-Tags von Strassen, bzw. Brücken entfernst? Habe kurz deine sonstigen Changesets durchgeschaut und Namen von Brücken bzw. den Strassen auf diesen Brücken scheinen ja ein Thema für dich zu sein.

In Basel jedenfalls sind die Namen wie erwähnt tatsächliche Strassennamen der Brücken – die Strassen am Ende der Brücken haben dann andere Namen – und sollten m.E. auch dann einen name-Tag bekommen.

Anstatt einfach zurückzutaggen, frage ich aber lieber noch mal nach, was der Grund für diese "Anpassungen" sind. Diese scheinen mir ohnehin keine grosse Halbwertszeit zu haben, da es ja die bekannten Apps gibt, die gerne mal nach Benennungen etc. fragen, und daher der Name eh schneller als gedacht zurück sein kann (vgl. Johanniterbrücke: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13251973/history)
eggie (2025-10-31 18:59:49+00:00): Tip  Let op... Dor schuiven met de kaart voeg je per abuis adresnodes samen. Dat zal niet de bedoeling zijn.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=174034483
Szpic (2025-11-03 20:51:36+00:00): To nie może być "Kocia Górka", ponieważ w tym dokładnie oznaczonym miejscu, nie ma żadnej górki. Wcześniejsza nazwa "Kocia"/"Kocie", miało więcej sensu, ponieważ był to nazwany nizinny teren, na którego obszarze znajdowała się miejscowość o tej samej nazwie.
Senihtu (2026-01-29 16:17:13+00:00): Hi!
Mit diesem Changeset hast Du bei w180721732 und w1428354207 den Namen Hindenburgallee entfernt.
Es gibt dort etwa ein Dutzend Addressen mit addr:street=Hindenburgallee und in ALKIS taucht der Name auch auf.
Bist Du auch der Meinung, daß der Name da wieder hingehört?
mappende Grüße
Senihtu
Gino-52 (2026-01-29 17:05:00+00:00): Da hab ich wohl nicht richtig hingesehen. Ich dachte wohl, dass da ein Pfad neben der Straße auch einen Namen hat ist ungewöhnlich. Das der quasi Bürgersteig Hindenburgallee und die Straße Gelnhäuser Straße heißt ist mit dabei nicht aufgefallen.
Hab Hindenburgallee wieder eingetragen.
Gruß
Gino-52
eggie (2025-10-31 19:32:34+00:00): Tip. Je wegen liggen los..
Zie foutmeldingen.
warnings:almost_junction:highway-highway	1
warnings:crossing_ways:highway-highway	2
warnings:disconnected_way:highway	1
NeisBot (2025-10-31 19:33:46+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisBot (2025-10-31 19:33:46+00:00): For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Beauty salon in Westville"
NeisReview (2025-11-01 18:51:23+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted due to lack of response from the original contributor by https://osm.org/changeset/174076193
Frans S (2025-11-07 11:18:00+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. 
Please map a hedge only when the imagery shows a proof. 
Hedges, as mentioned in the description, are important for navigation purposes. Please add all hedges within view of highways/paths.
Best regards and keep mapping
NeisBot (2025-10-31 19:39:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisBot (2025-10-31 19:39:42+00:00): For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Bar with live music on Wednesdays Fridays and Saturdays"
NeisBot (2025-10-31 19:39:46+00:00): Örneğin, açıklamanın daha tarafsız ve gerçek bir versiyonu şöyle olabilir: "Çarşambaları, Cuma günleri ve Cumartesileri canlı müzik olan bar"
---
(Auto-translation)
NeisReview (2025-11-01 18:50:46+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element https://osm.org/changeset/174037233
eggie (2025-10-31 19:57:45+00:00): Kijk svp even hier..

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:description

No advertising

The description should only include neutral and factual information about the object. It should not include subjective evaluations, e.g. "the best restaurant in town", "modern, comfortable hotel, in the heart of the city". Do not use description=* for advertising messages. They will be removed as spam and may also have further consequences for your OSM account. 

Graag aanpassen. 
MVG
eggie
FajrAl (2025-11-02 15:20:12+00:00): These are not asphalt!
FajrAl (2025-11-02 15:23:47+00:00): I'm doubting your survey now
Mj McD (2025-11-03 07:45:20+00:00): Road there is asphalt and good condition but broken on few parts of it.
FajrAl (2025-11-03 08:37:14+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/569784334
This one is not, it is still unpaved.
Yang satu ini tidak, masih belum ada perkerasan.
Mj McD (2025-11-03 11:08:43+00:00): Ok sorry I missed that one and fixed it and change it to Unpaved.

Semoga jalan tersebut diperbaiki.
Nekoatthegates (2025-11-04 19:24:32+00:00): Correction: Source used was Bing aerial imagery.
Pete Owens (2025-11-02 20:35:48+00:00): foot=no should only be used in situations where walking is prohibited (ie with a circular sign with a red outline and a black pedestrian). While these sections are designed for cycle use, it is still perfectly legal to walk there.
VLD319 (2025-11-03 17:26:21+00:00): Hello Pete, 

The foot=no tags that I added here were were meant to support pedestrian safety; All of the cycleway sections I added the tag to were in the roadway where it would be unsafe and unsuitable for foot traffic to walk (especially as there are designated crossings for pedestrians already at this intersection), so I thought that foot=no would be applicable.  I do understand your point regarding the absence of explicit signage, so you are welcome update these features as you see fit.

Thanks, VLD319
AndyB_66 (2025-10-31 21:33:48+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
Pete Owens (2025-11-02 20:40:14+00:00): Unlike walking on cycleways, cycling on the pavement is illegal - so these should most definitely be tagged bicycle=no.
VLD319 (2025-11-03 17:19:25+00:00): Hello Pete,

Thank you for the information. My purpose here was only to fill in missing pedestrian ways, so the bicycle access was not my main focus. If you wish to include details regarding bicycle access to the sidewalks, please feel free to do so.

Thanks, VLD319
Dawid2849 (2025-12-04 22:23:28+00:00): Paczkomat to przecież nie jest budynek
voltairovicz (2025-10-31 23:39:24+00:00): Droga krajowa przebiegająca przez centrum wiosek, gdzie niektórzy mają domy tuż przy ulicy ma być trunkiem? Co to za pomysły? Trunkami nie miały byc przypadkiem bezkolizyjne drogi? Były kłótnie że trunkiem nie może być jakaś droga bo jest zjazd do lasu czy przejście dla pieszych a nagle mamy trunk Tutaj???
Yog Sot (2025-10-31 23:46:23+00:00): zgadzam się, masz racje.
voltairovicz (2025-10-31 23:49:54+00:00): No ludzie błagam. Zobaczcie sobie jak wygląda zabudowa Gielniowa czy Skrzynna. Tiry jeżdżą 2 metry od okien. Nie ma tam ścieżek rowerowych, jeżdżę rowerem po tej trasie i to ma być teraz trunkiem? Brałem udział w tym głosowaniu. Ale wprowadzenie tego na zwykle krajowi, tylko dlatego, że mają oznaczenia tras europejskich to jest błąd. Zbudują S12 to będzie można podnieść kategorię nowej trasy
voltairovicz (2025-10-31 23:53:29+00:00): Ostatnia uwaga - dk 12 nawet nie ma w tej tabelce dla województwa mazowieckiego
Yog Sot (2025-10-31 23:55:35+00:00): Ja się z tobą zgadzam i dobrze że to piszesz, bo theDM niestety nie liczy się z ustaleniami. 
Ta zmiana to niejesdyna, która przeczy zasadom OSM, oby nie robił wojen edycyjnych
theDM (2025-11-01 00:01:59+00:00): Kryterium jakości przegrało, a DK 12 jest na liście dróg idących przez min. 2 województwa.
Co do teorii Yog Sot, to zostawię je bez komentarza i polecam czasem zacząć od siebie.
voltairovicz (2025-11-01 00:16:16+00:00): Może I przegrało, ale kto kurde wymyślił, żeby akurat to d12 było podnoszone. No kto nagle wpadł na ten pomysł i ustalił że to będzie świetne rozwiązanie? A dlaczego nie DK9? Ohh czyżby nie da się dojechać do Lwowa, Pragi albo Wiednia? Bo ta argumentacja dotycząca stolic innych państw jest śmieszna. Świetnie te sytuację w swoich komentarzu opisał Szydzio. Ważność może zostać, okey, tak chciała większość, ale żądam ponownego review niektórych Dróg Które się pojawiły w tabelce, a dlaczego inne nie. Może jeszcze podnoszenie dk12/17 w lubelskim ma większy sens. Ale w mazowieckim? BŁAGAM!
Pete Owens (2025-11-01 11:03:26+00:00): There is no prohibition of walking on cycleways or indeed carriageways unless explicitly signed  (eg on motorways). 

In The UK prohibitions apply to bigger more dangerous vehicles - so motor vehicles are not allowed to use cycleways - and it is illegal to cycle on pavements (which should be tagged "bicycle=no" on OSM)
VLD319 (2025-11-03 17:36:58+00:00): Hi Pete, 

I added foot=no tags here because foot traffic seemed meant to stay on the designated sidewalks next to this cycleway; the cycleway portion itself did not appear intended for pedestrians. I understand your concern regarding the absence of clear signage. Feel free to update the relevant ways as needed.

Thanks, VLD319
SomeoneElse (2025-11-03 21:53:28+00:00): @VLD319 when I was last in this bit of Manchester I crossed the M60 not at this interchange but at the one to the east.  I can assure you that there the cycleways are all multi-use.
"foot" access in OSM should reflect legal access, and what Pete Owens says above is correct.  If there is on-the-ground signage that says that a cycleway is cycle only then foot=no is correct, but if there isn't, it isn't.
Pete Owens (2025-11-04 00:59:30+00:00): Even in cases like this, where there are three separate ways intended for cycle, motor & pedestrian traffic, pedestrians are legally permitted to walk on all three. Cyclists may use the cycleway or the general carriageway, but not the footway. Motors must use the carriageway.
VLD319 (2025-11-04 18:54:42+00:00): Thank you for the clarification. I understand and will not add foot=no tags going forward unless there is specific signage present prohibiting foot access.
AndyB_66 (2025-10-31 21:33:33+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
Hufkratzer (2025-11-01 22:59:24+00:00): Hi,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1446601593 is not a riding centre, it is a riding arena and should be tagged with leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian. In JOSM you can use the preset for sport=equestrian to do this. See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_to_map_a#Riding_centre_(equestrian)
Ut Fietsmenneke (2025-11-03 15:22:17+00:00): Bedankt voor de melding. Opgelost
SomeoneElse (2025-10-31 22:05:49+00:00): Hello,
Earlier (on https://osm.org/changeset/173023412 , which will have been emailed to you and you can see at https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=23159893 ) I mentioned the discussion going on the the UK forum about this.  You seem to be ignoring it - as you're still mapping here please do drop in and say hello.
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2025-10-31 22:09:27+00:00): Separately to that you seem to have made a rather poor job of mapping Brownley Road.  Looking at the imagery I can see lots of driveways.  In order to do a good job of "separate sidewalk" mapping you must map places where people can cross between the pavement and the road.  Failure to do that leaves the situation _worse_ than the situation before.
VLD318 (2025-11-03 18:59:49+00:00): Hello SomeoneElse, 

Regarding the discussion in the thread, a lead representative from our team, RVR015, responded on my behalf. I apologize if it appeared I was ignoring it. We are monitoring the ongoing discussion. 

Concerning Brownley Road, I acknowledge that there are several residential driveways in this area that I did not include as crossings, however omitting them was intentional and I believe it does not negatively impact the data quality. My understanding was that private driveways like these typically should not be tagged as crossings, based on a general consensus within the OpenStreetMap community that such minor features usually do not pose significant safety concerns to warrant explicit tagging, and would detract from "true" crosswalk data. 

For your reference, here are links to relevant information from the OSM wiki:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:continuous#:~:text=When%20the%20road%20that%20crosses%20a%20continuous%20sidewalk%20is%20a%20minor%20service%20road%2C%20such%20as%20a%20driveway%20or%20a%20car%20park%20entrance%2C%20there%20is%20community%20consensus%20that%20this%20is%20not%20worth%20tagging%20explicitly%3B%20instead%20the%20node%20should%20simply%20be%20left%20without%20any%20tags

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:crossing:continuous

 I hope this clarifies why I chose not to include these. If others wish to add the driveways and crossings here, they are welcome to do so.

Thanks, 
VLD318
SomeoneElse (2025-11-03 19:42:13+00:00): Picking these up one at a time

> Regarding the discussion in the thread, a lead representative from our team, RVR015, responded on my behalf. 

When was that?  We got an email that _might_ have been in response to https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/18907 (but it's difficult to be sure, because they didn't actually do what that message asked - I'll pick that up with them).  That was only received 4 hours ago, not 3 days ago when the comment above was written.
SomeoneElse (2025-11-03 20:00:52+00:00): > For your reference, here are links to relevant information from the OSM wiki:
> osm.wiki/Key:crossing:continuous#:~:text=When%20the%20road%20that%20crosses%20a%20continuous%20sidewalk%20is%20a%20minor%20service%20road%2C%20such%20as%20a%20driveway%20or%20a%20car%20park%20entrance%2C%20there%20is%20community%20consensus%20that%20this%20is%20not%20worth%20tagging%20explicitly%3B%20instead%20the%20node%20should%20simply%20be%20left%20without%20any%20tags
> osm.wiki/Talk:Key:crossing:continuous
> I hope this clarifies why I chose not to include these. 

No?  Those are pages referring to continuous crossings, which these aren't.

Imagine I was walking from one of the houses on the east side of the street here to the tram stop.  Would I follow this route: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_foot&route=53.386936%2C-2.256103%3B53.386806%2C-2.255834 ?  I'm not familiar with Wythenshawe, but almost certainly not - I'd just cross the road.
What if I was pushing a wheelchair (something I spent about 5 years doing, so do have experience of)?  Again, almost certainly not.  If there's a high kerb on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746745866/history I'd have to use the "official" crossing at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746745864/history , if there isn't I would again "just cross the road", using the lowered kerb in front of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/726134898/history .

I don't believe that I can effectively map the sidewalks here as separate sidewalks _without actually going there_, and I don't believe that you can, either.  If the imagery was clearer and everything was more perpendicular and just _larger_, then maybe it might be possible.  I've previously suggested https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.382552/-121.925734 on the forum as the sort of place where you absolutely could have a go at mapping things remotely, but I don't think this bit of Wythenshawe is.
SomeoneElse (2025-11-03 20:16:56+00:00): Finally, the most important part.  The thing that persuaded me to wake up the DWG ticket for all this yesterday was the comment on the forum here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/separate-sidewalks-or-not-near-ealing/132613/239 that says "so I’ve gone back to Google Maps".

Just so that it is absolutely clear, the suggestion is that Facebook's mapping is so bad that it makes urban pedestrian routing impossible.

Facebook as an organisation needs to engage with that point of view, understand why people are saying it, and change what they do so that people no longer make that complaint.

The first part of "engaging" involves actually talking to other OSMers and understanding why they're saying what they're saying. To do this you need to actually need to talk and listen to the communities that you are performing your mapping upon.

In your case I first suggested it about a month ago on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173023412 - you have been ignoring this request every since.

Please post to the UK area of the forum saying what you're doing, who you're doing it for and how you're doing it (either in one of the existing threads or a new one), and then listen to suggestions about how you can map things better.  If you are unable to do this and continuing contributing in a way that forces people to say "so I’ve gone back to Google Maps" then we'll have to stop you contributing to OSM at all.
Best Regards,
Andy (from OSM's Data Working Group)
osmuser63783 (2025-11-04 06:29:16+00:00): Sorry to barge in here, but I think you're talking past each other on the topic of mapping driveways as (continuous) crossings and I can help clarify.

What Andy is saying is that if you are drawing the sidewalk separately, then you should also draw the driveways, this is so that pedestrian routers know about dropped kerbs and can make use of the little segment of driveway between the sidewalk and road.

What that Wiki page says is that if you are drawing the driveway, then you should not tag the node shared by the driveway and sidewalk as a highway=crossing: the point where the sidewalk crosses over the driveway doesn't qualify as a crosswalk.

So the Wiki page and Andy don't contradict each other. In short: draw the driveways, make sure they share a node with the sidewalks, but don't tag that node as a crossing, just leave it untagged. If the imagery isn't of a quality that you can map the dropped kerbs, then don't map the sidewalks separately.

(I'm the author of the Wiki page on continuous crossings)
SomeoneElse (2025-11-04 09:43:50+00:00): osmuser63783 is correct - this is not about crossings (continuous or otherwise). There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding by Facebook of how roads work in the UK.
jandar22 (2025-11-18 23:50:43+00:00): The old MLK Center building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1446608190 was demolished in 2023. It's since been replaced by a new building - corrected in changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174837785