piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
philipcullen (2026-06-07 23:58:45+00:00): Hello,

I generally use cadastral parcels for "boundaries" between parts of buildings, and UPRNs as (typically) centres of buildings. I would generally only re-align buildings based on the cadastral parcels - so apologies if my comment wasn't clear about this.

I do try and blend the alignment between cadastral-parcels and existing where I can, to avoid any discontinuities along the way. As you know, there is a balance to be stuck between accurate on an absolute vs relative scale, and I try to balance both - but not always perfectly.

I always prefer to fix anything I've broken myself, if possible, so I'll look over this in the next few weeks. On that note, I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. (I feel that I should point out that I genuinely mean this, not based on your messages, but on general correspondence).

It sounds like our our approaches are very much aligned, but might have queries about edge cases,

I had previously tried to group related changesets into a larger changeset, but based on feedback, these might be better broken down to smaller geographic areas. I try and do this for any new changesets.

As always, I'm happy to receive advice and recommendations on any changes.

Phil
no details provided here (2026-01-11 10:08:09+00:00): It would be worth contacting Lancashire Wildlife Trust to clarify the names here, as this changeset conflates two distinct areas with different wetland characteristics.  They are both peat bogs and this tag should be reinstated. Cadishead Moss was purchased and restored at a later point than Little Woolden, which was saved from extraction in 2012 according to the website.
Joske1020 (2026-01-18 00:02:33+00:00): i understand what you mean, but peat bog isn't a wetland tag, and a bog only expands in layers in peat, so idk what you mean by reinstating peat bog tag.
no details provided here (2026-01-18 08:55:07+00:00): Thanks for the discussion. I'm not as directly involved in those mosslands as I was 40 years ago, but it is clearly a peat site, at risk of extraction and damage. The wiki defines a wetland as saturated and typically by rivers, lakes or along the coastline with types like mangrove. Cadishead has some transient pools but is essentially not marshy, reedy or a swamp. I was more concerned about the correct site name(s) as I'd was clear of the land use tag. Happy to meet on site to see what fits best - as long as we record it is there it has some identity and perhaps protection.
Joske1020 (2026-01-19 22:16:57+00:00): i understand what you mean, i unfortunately can't go on site, but i do have a summary explanation of the location done by a nature restoration project initiated by the EU
https://vb.nweurope.eu/projects/project-search/care-peat-carbon-loss-reduction-from-peatlands-an-integrated-approach/news/pilot-site-winmarleigh-carbon-farm-plus-little-woolden-moss/
infeeeee (2026-03-26 15:43:51+00:00): Szia!

highway=platform csak buszmegállókra kell, ezek meg villamosmegállók.

Ezek a címkék elegek ezekre:
public_transform=platform railway=platform tram=yes

További jó térképezést!
infeeeee (2026-03-26 15:44:42+00:00): Vagyis public_transport=platform akart lenni a public...
i2004 (2026-01-10 23:32:42+00:00): la ebus se extendio de parque lezama a la terminal de colonia express
InsertUser (2026-01-12 00:02:33+00:00): Ah, so this is why JOSM complains about a "Non-Way in Multipolygon" now.

This seems to go against the current wiki docs for relations of type=multipolygon.
quincylvania (2026-01-12 00:32:39+00:00): Hmm the docs must be out of date. There's nothing wrong with adding label nodes to type=multipolygon relations. Archipelagos need these since most apps force the label to be within the geometry of the feature but for these you'd typically you'd want the label outside.
AgusQui (2026-01-10 23:59:59+00:00): cual es la fuente de este cambio
i2004 (2026-01-11 00:01:57+00:00): https://buenosaires.gob.ar/infraestructura/colectivos/recorrido-del-bus-electrico
i2004 (2026-01-11 00:04:07+00:00): y aparte porque tiene una parada en brasil y dellepiane
AgusQui (2026-01-11 01:14:16+00:00): En la página del eBus no menciona paradas en su terminal, la última parada es Brasil y Azopardo, la primera Parque Lezama, yo estuve ahí y no de podía tomar el eBus allí, el mapa oficial siempre dibujó el recorrido hasta la terminal 
Cuál es la fuente de que ahora hay una parada en Brasil y Dellepiane?
i2004 (2026-01-11 01:16:46+00:00): https://buenosaires.gob.ar/noticias/el-e-bus-ya-conecta-parque-lezama-el-centro-y-san-telmo-con-las-estaciones-de-trenes-de
AgusQui (2026-01-11 01:23:43+00:00): Ahí no se menciona nada respecto a un cambio en las paradas antes de Parque Lezama
i2004 (2026-01-11 01:25:34+00:00): te lo digo con toda verdad yo me cuesta entender si la extendieron a la terminal de colonia express o no y te lo digo por tener tea me genera confusion
EneaSuper (2026-01-11 07:58:08+00:00): Ciao, ho visto che, nel modificare la mappa, hai erroneamente spostato un nodo in un altra posizione, saresti così cortese da correggere per favore? 🙂
Luca Venzano (2026-01-11 17:34:05+00:00): Ciao
mi scuso se ho spostato un nodo in un'altra posizione, non era mia intenzione. Sono nuovo a OpenStreetMap, volevo solo provare a inserire un nodo, e in realtà lo ho messo prima in un posto e poi spostato in un altro piu preciso (almeno, questa era la mia intenzione...). Riesci per favore tu a correggere il mio errore e ripristinare il nodo cancellato? grazie
SekeRob (2026-01-11 08:18:10+00:00): This route makes no sense to me. As large sections are routed as were it a roundtrip route, yet there's sections making use of larger oneway roads WITHOUT a return way. such as at the west end Caserta bus station. Also bus stops are related both sides of the road and one stop is not at the route.
i2004 (2026-01-11 00:38:17+00:00): porque solo?
AgusQui (2026-01-11 01:15:20+00:00): Que?
i2004 (2026-01-11 01:17:46+00:00): porque dice en el 136 a navarro solo navarro y liniers no te lo digo en joda
AgusQui (2026-01-11 20:05:29+00:00): Ah yo no hice ése cambio.
Así se llama el ramal "Solo estaciones" porque desde Marcos Paz hasta Liniers sólo para en las estaciones de tren.
eggie (2026-01-11 09:20:15+00:00): reverted by changeset #177088397

Je hebt hier alle highway=pedestrian.. (lijnelementen) Dus de routes in de vlakken verwijderd. Ik heb de changset teruggedraaid.
Waarom zou je de routemogelijkheden verwijderen? Dan routeert de kaart toch niet meer.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-01-11 09:22:08+00:00): Wanneer je ook p de vlakken emergency=yes wilt hebben dan deze opnieuw toevoegen.
De routes svp intact laten.
OSM routeert niet via de vlakken 

MVG
eggie
Dennis Knollenburg RAV Flevoland (2026-01-11 16:44:23+00:00): Nadat ik de voetgangersstraat heb verwijderd en het voetgangersgebied op 'emergengy=yes'  navigeert Liveop netjes door het voetgangersgebied. 
Die voetgangersstraat heb ik vorige keer zelf toegevoegd als experiment,  maar nooit werkend gekregen in Liveop. Dus vandaar dat ik deze verwijderd heb.

Als voorbeeld: de diagonaal 113, appartementen boven de Hema. Hierbij zette Liveop je in de tunnel neer van de busbaan.
eggie (2026-01-11 16:50:06+00:00): Vreemd.. want er zijn geen routers die ik ken in osm die over vlakken routeren.
Het kan wel langs de randen routeren.. maar dar zijn onlogische routes.
Het is gewoon gebruikelijk om in voetgangersgebieden ook de highway=pedestrian in te tekenen om een logische route te verkrijgen.
Voor zover ik weet kan LiveNav ook niet zonder die routes.
eggie (2026-01-11 16:56:12+00:00): De routes die je aanvankelijk had toevoegd dat waren highway=service met service=emergency_access  Dat is oneigenlijk gebruik van die tag.

Hier een stukje voetgangersgebied in Dordrecht waar tbv de routering ook die routes geregeld worden door highway=pedestrian.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.813450/4.668634&layers=N

Leg anders even het probleem voor bij het forum van OSM. 

Wanneer je verkeerd uit komt in de routering dat zit er iets fout. Ik heb ook al eerder een pedesgtrian losgemaakt van dat ondergrondse gedeelte. Die mogen geen verbinding hebben.
Dat eerst checken.
eggie (2026-01-11 17:00:16+00:00): Dat stukje pedestrian (lijnelement)  zal toch een verbinding met de buitenwereld moeten hebben.
eggie (2026-01-11 17:05:27+00:00): Er liggen meer losse stukje pedestrian.
Donion bv bij de HEMA en twee stukken Diagonaaltrap. Die eindigen op het vlak maar horen een verbinding te krijgen met de rest van het netwerk van de routelijnen.
Rodrigo306 (2026-01-11 17:57:26+00:00): Olá. Você pode conferir os limites corretos dos municípios de Franco da Rocha e Caieiras com a sobreposição "IBGE BC250 - Municípios" disponível no Open Street Map. Este traçado por fora do aterro sanitário está incorreto pois a divisa dos municípios passa pelo local. Caso não acredite na contribuição deste morador desta cidade, pode conferir no site do IBGE com os mapas municipais das localidades.
Fidelis Assis (2026-01-12 19:37:57+00:00): Boa tarde Rodrigo. Tudo bem? Vamos por partes:

1- O motivo iinicial da minha edição foi corrigir o limite quebrado do distrito de Franco da Rocha. Alguns caminhos que fazem parte do limite ficaram sem função/papel (role) na relação após sua edição de 2026-01-10T23:27:00Z, o que deixou o limite aberto. Você pode verificar isso acessando a versão anterior (24) da relação no link abaixo:

https://api.openstreetmap.org/api/0.6/relation/5684885/24

2- Alteração no limite na região do Aterro Sanitário. Ao fechar o limite, notei uma diferença maior no traçado ali na região do Aterro Sanitário e ajustei conforme a linha mais recente da Malha Municipal Digital (MMD) do IBGE, publicada em 2024. Então, creio que houve diferença nas fontes que usamos. Você se referiu à camada BC-250 do IBGE disponível no OSM, entretanto essa camada nem semtre está atualizada. Sugiro consultar a versão mais recente, no link abaixo, para conferir a diferença do traçado mais atual para o anterior naquele trecho.

https://www.ibge.gov.br/geociencias/organizacao-do-territorio/malhas-territoriais/15774-malhas.html

Por praticidadade, converti os limites mais recentes publicados pelo IBGE do formato shp para o geojson que pode ser usado diretamente como camada de fundo tanto no iD como no JOSM para atualizações de limites. 
Você pode baixá-los neste link:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AmqbiGYSOeSqbb8mQzWX99Gk408gzmiw?usp=sharing

No JOSM, você pode abrir os arquivos sem descomprimir. Para usar no iD, é necessário descomprimir e arrastar para a área do mapa em modo de edição.
𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙯𝙯𝙚𝙧 ദ്ദി ᗜˬᗜ✧ (2026-01-11 12:08:06+00:00): Dużo tego.
YomanNH (2026-01-11 21:05:53+00:00): note=istniejący? Co to za bzdura?
𝙢𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙯𝙯𝙚𝙧 ദ്ദി ᗜˬᗜ✧ (2026-01-12 14:48:31+00:00): Hm, nie dodałeś natural=tree do niektórych punktów.
Yog Sot (2026-01-12 15:32:45+00:00): fakt, uzupełnione, łatwo się zagapić
Bartek444 (2026-02-16 16:37:25+00:00): od kiedy to projektowane drzew nanosi się w OSM?
ivanbranco (2026-03-14 21:31:58+00:00): Hi Yog Sot,

I noticed some tree have multiple values.
e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13447296282
this tree has 6 different circumference values. what's it's meaning?

it's a multi stemmed tree, and these are the values of the six trunks
or
in the original source date, there are six different trees in the same coordinates
or 
something else?

thanks and good mapping

p.s. is this import documented somewhere?
mueschel (2026-01-13 14:52:14+00:00): Hi,
what is 'communication:tnt'? This tag isn't used on other antennas.
aTarom (2026-01-11 10:15:13+00:00): Hola, gracias por editar, puedes revisar las etiquetas de inscription y memorial:text? Han quedado recortadas y memorial:text está en desuso, aconsejan usar inscription:1
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/memorial%3Atext
en
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13447327908/history
No lo puedo corregir por que me falta información en los textos, me dices, saludos
Satyajit Ray (2026-01-11 11:15:32+00:00): ¡Hola! He incluido parte del texto de la estela en inscription pero supera los 255 caracteres y me lo corta. He metido la lista de nombres en inscription:1 e inscription:2
aTarom (2026-01-11 11:53:14+00:00): Perfecto!!! muchas gracias por la ayuda y la rapidez :D
NeisBot (2026-01-17 15:18:59+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13444464991 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Marketing agency in Brisbane"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-25 07:25:55+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177670892
(Cleaned up leftovers from previous edits)
Taya_S (2026-01-27 07:49:47+00:00): Why did you add the email of your shopping centre to this place of worship?
NagaBazar (2026-05-07 10:28:36+00:00): Thank you for your comment.
It was added by mistake while editing nearby places. I will correct/remove the email information from the temple entry. Sorry for the confusion.
marcmarti (2026-01-11 13:46:32+00:00): Hello, your changeset broke the subway validator, check here:
https://cdn.organicmaps.app/subway/china.html

Remember that members in a route relation must be ordered, with stops and platforms going first and then the ways.
Happy mapping!
MxxCon (2026-01-12 19:29:18+00:00): Hello.
Please note that phone numbers must not contain ( ), or any other symbols beyond + and -.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177083570
bxl-forever (2026-02-06 19:36:29+00:00): Hello.

Northridge Mall was demolished several years ago.

The "shop=mall" tag had been removed back then, e.g. in this version
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/658897841/history/20

You should *not* introduce shop=mall again, this will make mislead OSM users into thinking they can go shopping there.  Abandoned places may be tagged with a lifecycle prefix instead.
jleedev (2026-03-22 00:56:05+00:00): Reverted in changeset/180231262
rivermont (2026-02-27 22:42:39+00:00): Please stop spamming highway=unclassified everywhere. There is no reason for way 18940244 to be anything other than residential. It literally only has houses on it.
NeisBot (2026-01-17 15:19:03+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13447415933 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "LymphFlow รังสิต คลินิกกายภาพบำบัด"
---
ตัวอย่างเช่น รูปแบบที่เป็นกลางและเป็นข้อเท็จจริงมากกว่าของข้อความของคุณอาจเป็น "LymphFlow รังสิต คลินิกกายภาพบำบัด"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-25 07:25:55+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177670893
(No visible changes after review)
infeeeee (2026-01-11 13:19:35+00:00): Szia!

Az iskola külső kontúrjára nem kell a building=yes címke, csak azokra a vonalakra, amik tényleg épületek az iskola területén belül:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1148925327

Egyházi iskola ez? Honlapja alapján nekem államinak tűnik. Vagy miért vitted fel a 
religion=christian címkét a Németh Lászlóra?

Amúgy a különböző Magyarországon előforduló felekezetek címkézését itt szedtük össze: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hungary/Jelölési_példák#Gyakoribb_vallások A religion=*  egyedül általában kevés, kell mellé egy denomination=* is.

Ha kérdésed merülne fel, a magyar szerkesztő közösség elérhetőségeit megtalálod ezen az oldalon: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hungary/Közösség#Elérhetőségek

További jó térképezést!
Csabi532 (2026-01-11 17:32:10+00:00): Szia!
Bocsánat a hibákért! Kezdő vagyok. Igen, ez egy állami iskola. Mégegyszer bocsánat a hibás leírásokért!
infeeeee (2026-01-11 19:22:41+00:00): Semmi baj, csak az nem hibázik aki nem csinál semmit. Majd kijavítod?
Csabi532 (2026-01-17 06:05:16+00:00): A building=yes címkét kijavítottam, de a felekezetet nem láttam bejelölve.
infeeeee (2026-01-17 11:48:08+00:00): Javítottam itt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177331912

"Vallás"-nak van az iD szerkesztőben fordítva. Valamiért ez a címke megjelenik minden iskolánál alapértelmezetten, nem kell kitölteni, ha nem egyházi iskoláról van szó. Ugyanez igaz az "Épület" címkére.

Nyugodtan szabad, sőt kell is mezőket üresen hagyni, nem kel mindenáron kitölteni mindent. Ami nem releváns az maradjon üres.

Alul a konkrét címkéket is láthatod amiket megad a szerkesztő, ott könnyű ellenőrizni mi történik a motorháztető alatt.

További jó térképezést!
MxxCon (2026-01-12 19:32:54+00:00): There's no camera in the middle of the traffic lane. street_lamp is invalid tag value.  operator="New York City Police Department" is invalid tag value.
You know all of this wrong, yet you continue to make the same vandalism.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177085172
MxxCon (2026-01-12 19:33:49+00:00): Vandalism reverted in full.
InsertUser (2026-01-12 01:08:15+00:00): Could you please focus your changesets on a single continent in future?
saraswathi89 (2026-01-12 09:38:57+00:00): Apologies for the mistake I committed. Thank you for the valuable feedback. I look forward to your suggestion/feedback in the future as well. Thank you
ieguy3 (2026-01-11 07:23:48+00:00): the line ran on top or next to the county line.
literan (2026-01-11 10:26:19+00:00): Тур Юнайт не является маршрутом, маркированным на местности. По вики, тег route=bicycle присваивается маршрутам, маркированным или иным образом обозначенным на местности. Соответственно, с этого маршрута я этот тег снимаю.
eggie (2026-01-11 09:00:48+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 (2026-01-11 09:01:56+00:00): format phone heb ik aangepast naar +31..
SJ30Y (2026-01-11 10:56:13+00:00): Bedankt, ik zal er op letten!
ika-chan! (2026-01-17 22:00:41+00:00): You are requested not to add filter roads that do not exist, such as:

- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1466158469
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1466158474
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1466158476
rarad74 (2026-01-11 13:23:47+00:00): Salut. Nu mai utiliza imaginile BING!!!
Sunt vechi si prost pozitionate. Utilizeaza ESRI standard.
Si te rog pune explicatii mai detaliate.
Egi Pratama (2026-02-23 04:04:12+00:00): The recent edits by Naufal Farras are incorrect. As a local resident who travels this route daily, I can confirm it is a two-way street. I have reverted the 'oneway=yes' tag to 'oneway=no' to reflect the actual ground truth.
@Naufal Farras, could you clarify the reason for your change? If this was done to suit a specific project, please avoid altering the community database. You should use a custom PBF file for project-specific requirements instead. Thank you.
NaufalFarras (2026-02-23 14:36:15+00:00): It's not part of any project. It was a pure mistake from me. Thanks for your correction.
NaufalFarras (2026-02-23 14:56:37+00:00): For clarification: I edited that segment by selecting multiple ways and adding tag values (notably ref=* and highway*) at once. By doing so, I accidentally copied oneway=yes to that two way road. There was no PBF or whatever it's called. That's too complex for this task. Once again, thank you for spotting my mistake.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-01-13 23:03:43+00:00): highway = tertiary_LINK?! *quadruple facepalm*
Fizzelz (2026-01-11 08:13:09+00:00): *Gehsteig getaggt
rarad74 (2026-01-11 13:27:13+00:00): Salut. De ce stergi cladirile de pe harta?
Zrop (2026-01-11 11:49:09+00:00): Hallo Der Troisdorfer,
wieso hast Du hier die Gebäude zu "building=yes" zurück geändert ?

Gruß
Zrop
Herman Lee (2026-01-27 07:12:14+00:00): 您好，在公交线路编辑的时候，更改站点和线路请注意以下站点以及道路在关系中的顺序，谢谢。如果对公共交通编辑感兴趣，也可以通过tg群或者Q群810826702讨论。
eggie (2026-01-11 09:06:58+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Volgens het Kadaster heeft dit pand een huisnummer. Je zou een terugmelding kunnen doen naar het kadaster.
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/?searchQuery=Leimuiderdijk+33&objectId=0394100000257213&theme=BRT+Achtergrond&geometry.x=108880.5265&geometry.y=474463.7825&zoomlevel=15&bijbehorendeAdressen=Pand
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-01-11 09:41:33+00:00): Typo .een huisnummer>geen huisnummer
eggie (2026-01-11 09:13:02+00:00): Je had hier de hghwaytag verwijderd. Die heb ik teruggezet. Verder access=permissive toegevoegd. Het gebouw hersteld. EigenWeg is geen straatnaam. Volgens het Kadaster is dit de Leimuiderdijk.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=177087709

MVG
eggie
NeisBot (2026-01-17 15:19:07+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13447641842 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Computer store with accessories"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-25 07:25:56+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177670894
(No visible changes after review)
NeisBot (2026-01-17 15:19:10+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13447601643 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Art gallery and framing service"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-25 07:25:56+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177670895
(No visible changes after review)
Takeshi K (2026-01-11 09:18:46+00:00): https://www.samngam.go.th/history-rev2
nick1993 (2026-03-08 21:36:46+00:00): Ernesto, se metti layer=-1 senza mettere tunnel=culvert crei un po' di problemi ai vari strati, se riesci, datti un occhiata ai vari errori che commetti su https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/it/ , io te ne ho sistemati un bel po' negli anni, ma se riesci a non commettere piu' l'errore, forse e' meglio
ernestoandolfi (2026-03-11 20:08:46+00:00): Ciao. Scusa il ritardo. E' uno strumento che non conoscevo e che appena ho un po' di tempo cercherò di approfondire. Mi fa piacere che mi correggi da tempo, anche se capisco che per te possa essere un impegno. Ti saluto cordialmente e ancora ti ringrazio.
ManuelB701 (2026-01-11 10:59:30+00:00): Please make sure your changes are localised (since you added buildings in both England and Shandong at the same time) so it doesn't span almost the entirety of Eurasia.
Anonymous36863 (2026-01-11 15:23:47+00:00): And please keep the descriptions more detailed, especially if the changeset area is large.