piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2024-02-21 07:10:18+00:00): Dag Simholz,

Alle gebouwen zijn directe import vanuit de BAG (Kadaster)  Beter dus niet naar de daken (dakranden)  kijken en dan de vorm aanpassen. Dat is niet de juiste vorm van het gebouw.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-02-21 07:18:25+00:00): All buidings are import from the Dutch Registry. Please don't change. Never look to the buildingshape. It's an obliquely aerial imagery. 
Greetz,
eggie
yawfle (2024-02-20 22:55:20+00:00): Hey, nice weather for historical research, huh? I noticed that there are now two identical relations for the Verdugo Mountains - the old one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13772828
and the one you created in this changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17245430

Should these be merged back to the original (to preserve history), or did you have plans to differentiate them somehow?
HeyRayReh (2024-02-20 23:23:17+00:00): Whoa I.......don't know why that happened!  I think the issue is that one section of the Verdugo Mountains Landuse=Scrub area was flimsily connected to the rest of it over a road, and I separated them when I created my new area which is adjacent to the sketchy one. 
 Once I saw that the sketchy area still became highlighted when I selected the Verdugo Mountains area, I was going to make the sketchy one into its own area...but then I said "nah better not mess with it in case you screw something up".  Guess that'll teach me to always mess with everything!  Haha.  I'm gonna take a quick swing at fixing it but if it doesn't work and you can merge them that would be fantastic.  I'll report back!
HeyRayReh (2024-02-20 23:34:00+00:00): Ok I think I've fixed it!  I deleted the little separate area from the relation with the Verdugo Mountains information tagged to it, and deleted the main area from the relation with no information tagged to it besides "scrub".  Still have no idea why what I did made a second relation appear, but hopefully this is an elegant solution?
HeyRayReh (2024-02-21 00:02:16+00:00): Aaaand now I've tweaked it once again!  Hopefully this makes the most sense.
yawfle (2024-02-21 00:36:01+00:00): In the process of trying to figure out why that larger area was a multipolygon in the first place, I was getting ominous timeout errors trying to view the history on this site, so I looked it up on PeWu... and instantly regretted it: https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/227263491

Seems nobody's really sure if it's supposed to describe the foliage (forest or scrub?!) or some topo region or what... might need to come back to this one with a fresh brain. In any case, since I'm not sure even the first relation was actually needed, we can probably nuke the new one from orbit before it adds to the can of worms (unless you need it for what you're doing down there).

My thought would be to eventually expand the old one to include the area north of La Tuna canyon, to compose "Verdugo Mountains"? It's just kind of painful (if not impossible) to work with big relations in iD; I don't even like dealing with building-sized multipolygons if I can help it. :/
eteb3 (2026-07-19 17:26:22+00:00): Hi conifermapper,

Can you clarify your source for the natural=cliff you added on this changeset? Was it only from aerial imagery?

I climbed Nant Yr Ychen to Bwlch Gwyllt Meirch recently and didn't come across any cliffs on that route. I'm not aware of any at all in the Black Mountains, except the odd short length of outcrop at Rhos Dirion.

Thank you and happy mapping.

eteb3
conifermapper (2026-07-19 19:41:48+00:00): Hi eteb3, the lines tagged as cliffs arent really cliffs but they were added as a continuation of another mappers addition of 'cliff' lines along what is really just steep rocky slopes and banks. 

Ideally it probably needs a better tag perhaps embankment might work but thats not intended for natural features…
Either way they could be removed or scaled down to the bits that are actual cliffs or genuine rocky areas if you have surveys to back that up 

conifermapper
gscholz (2024-02-25 08:07:25+00:00): Hi hayduke1275,
your recent activities around Tegucigalpa have left behind several errors regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-87.16127&lat=14.08978&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=147710400

As you may know, this kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps.
Can you please fix this?

Kind regards
Guido
(Inactive) hayduke1275 (2024-02-26 16:33:21+00:00): Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The data has been updated.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-09-25 05:52:32+00:00): it seems that some maxspeed:type=FR:urban were left - I removed some in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172422071
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-24 08:08:06+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17245719/history ma rolę sign której brak w https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation:enforcement

zastanawiam się czy lepiej rozszerzyć definicję (pewnie po dyskusji na forum) czy wywalić tą rolę z relacji

(znalazłem bo walidator JOSMa narzeka)
d3mol3k (2026-07-27 19:01:14+00:00): Marku ja bym rozszerzył - w relacjach fotoradarów staram się by początek relacji był w linii drogi na wysokości znaku informującego D-51. Tu w relacjach #opp zacząłem tak dodawać bo chciałem też by był widoczny znak w josm i jego położenie (niestety w presecie znaków drogowych nikt nie uaktualnił - ja nie mogłem - znaków dorgowych w Polsce); w przypadku fotoradarów znak jest widoczny podczas edycji w josm i jego położenie jednak przy znakach informacyjnych D-51a/D-51b nie są ale ujmowałem ich położenie w relacji - co prawda można by chyba wykorzystać tag FORCE ale sign byłoby bardziej realne jak i w relacji dla fotoradarów kiedy wiemy gdzie takie znaki stoją bo ... bo znaki stoją przynajmniej w Polsce w obu kierunkach przed fotoradarem czyli oznacza to ze fotoradar może (choc nie koniecznie być odwrócony i rejestrowac wykroczenia w kierunku przeciwnym i kilka razy się spotkałem ze fotoradar był skierowany w kierunku przeciwnym po drugiej stronie drogi - o tym też zapominają mapujący takie obiekty - mapują tylko fotoradar i kierunek tylko w jedną stronę. ten sam tag SIGN dodałbym w relacji fotoradaru stacjonarnego.
Dzięki za zauważenie problemu - bo mi ciągle wywalał info o tym błędzie ale uparcie ;) dodawałem ów obiekt w relacji
d3mol3k (2026-07-27 19:03:48+00:00): a propos znaku dla #opp jest ustawiany po obu stronach jezdni więc  w relacji wypadało by użyć może obu znaków? wiem że na pewno fajni eby było gdyby rola sign trafiła do relacji dla fotoradarów stacjonarnych bo stoją w obu kierunkach; tu przy #opp stoją metr? przed bramownicą a czasami na niej
SomeoneElse (2024-02-21 00:44:43+00:00): Also 11 bus to Bishopthorpe
dannmer (2025-08-10 01:02:34+00:00): You added a height of 1000 meters for a communication tower about a year ago. Was this supposed to be 1000 feet? https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?note=4901568#map=21/41.8177940/-87.9892294
scarapella (2024-03-02 11:38:06+00:00): Hi htmoore,

Thank you for you contribution to openstreetmap.  I see as part of this change set you added this waterway=river way from saint john to digby.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1253095085

it seems like you're trying to represent the Digby-Saint John Ferry route which is already well marked by this route=ferry way
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/243730355

cheers,
scarapella
SomeoneElse (2024-02-21 01:46:33+00:00): and some others
uMatt-5 (2024-03-26 18:06:35+00:00): Hello,
Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap recently.

While reviewing the changes, I noticed some similarities with edits made by another user. To ensure accuracy and avoid redundancy, could you kindly provide clarification on these changes?

For example: [https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11647418489](11647418489)

Strangely resembles this point: [https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11364547715](11364547715)

Can you tell me if this is a mistake?
uMatt-5 (2024-03-26 18:06:58+00:00): 

Hello,
Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap recently.

While reviewing the changes, I noticed some similarities with edits made by another user. To ensure accuracy and avoid redundancy, could you kindly provide clarification on these changes?

For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11647418489

Strangely resembles this point: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11364547715

Can you tell me if this is a mistake?
Harshitha2684 (2024-03-28 12:06:28+00:00): Thank you for giving valuable suggestion/feedback. I had reverted the changes.
Regards,
Harshitha
user_14538650 (2024-02-21 02:09:50+00:00): ngon
user_14538650 (2024-02-21 02:09:13+00:00): nice :)
Xvtn (2024-03-01 16:36:58+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great, thanks for your contributions!
Rostaman521 (2024-02-21 02:32:02+00:00): za naziv svog MO kao lokalac često prvi put čuješ tek kad izađeš na izbore. za "Miramare" kao ime kvarta/MO nisam čuo dok ga nisam vidio na OSM-u. ne znam kako ga lokalci zovu, jedini naziv poznat meni je "iza NSB-a" što mi nije nešto kaj bi napisao na kartu.

cesta nije mogla dobiti naziv po MO/MZ koje su izmišljene tek u Jugoslaviji, pa mi je razumnije staviti "Miramarska" ako već mora nekaj tu ići
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2024-02-21 05:00:39+00:00): 南昌地主，您好

看起来您对您在梧桐山上的绘图非常自豪——至少我感觉到的是这样

首先，您在添加山路的时候，是否考虑过这条山路的可通行行？香港深圳等地已经非常具有热带气候的特点，我也咨询过菲律宾等其他热带气候的登山者兼mapper，他们都表示在这种气候下植物的生长是非常快的，半年不经过维护就会有很大的路径变化，我看您的数据来源是完全依靠esri/bing等卫星影像来绘制的，您是否能保证通过卫星影像就能确信这里存在道路？就我这五六年的OSM经验来看，不能。这是其一。
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2024-02-21 05:04:43+00:00): 其二，已经有其他登山者指出您的路名山名等数据信息的来源问题，在 t.me/osmchina （中国社区的主要线上聊天室）中也有其他深圳和全国各地的mapper群友查县志、查政府公开资料、查其他各种来源的地图，都没找到您这些名字的来源

除非您能证明这是在登山群体里常用的名字，那至少能沾一点common used的边。

我们一直都在期待您做出正面回应，正面举证，但您全都无视了，我们没在公开场合看到您的任何态度。我觉得这不是一个好的社区合作的态度，社区合作一定是需要听取其他人的意见的。
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2024-02-21 05:10:11+00:00): OSM不是什么法庭，但我们有必要令数据尽可能按照相同的原则来绘制和处理，这才能保证它可以被很多人所用。比如我看您在这么陡峭的山上绘制了这么多highway=service，这显然并不符合常理。我不知道您是如何定义服务性道路（highway=service）的，但是显然和 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice 所描述的情况完全不相符

您要是就坚持认为自己英语不好看不懂，也有中文译本可供参考 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hans:Tag:highway%3Dservice

我觉得您需要停下来给我们一个解释。所有的评论都会以邮件形式发送到您的邮箱。
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2024-02-21 05:11:02+00:00): 这是最后的警告。如果我没有收到您就此的回复，我将于今晚开始使用自动化工具回退您的**所有**编辑，因为这些数据完全不合理。
DENelson83 (2024-10-17 08:20:56+00:00): Um... Are you sure "Wilderness" is supposed to be spelled with an extra N?
michael60634 (2024-10-17 08:33:22+00:00): The issue has been resolved. Your sarcasm wasn't necessary or welcome. You could have just notified me politely that I made a mistake, or even fixed it yourself.
Xvtn (2024-03-01 16:19:51+00:00): Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great to me! The only very minor suggestion I have is that area=yes is unnecessary for the outer way. (I went ahead and removed it.)
Parking lots with voids were my first foray into multipolygon relations too, haha. Nice job, and thanks for your contributions!
Funkyhamster (2024-03-01 20:44:06+00:00): Thanks for the review and the tip!

I used iD to edit this feature. Would `area=yes` show up in the "Tags" dropdown there? I don't recall adding that tag explicitly, but I'll keep an eye out for it in the future.
Xvtn (2024-03-01 22:21:51+00:00): Ohh, you're right that it area=yes won't show up in a specific iD dropdown (but it will show up in the tag editor section at the bottom). If you create a feature using the "area" tool it'll be added automatically - that's probably what happened. For that reason when I know I'm about to add a multipolygon, I use the line tool.
Xvtn (2024-03-01 22:23:53+00:00): Just as a side note, there is no difference between an "area" and "line" in OSM - they are both technically "ways". The iD editor just uses those buttons to filter on different feature presets during the editing process.
cs09736 (2024-03-05 04:28:18+00:00): The changes made to the St Kilda Junction intersection appear to be based off old imagery. The intersection has been updated with protected bike lanes since the last Bing imagery release. I will revert the changes affecting the new parts of the intersection.
Cheers
cs09736 (2024-03-05 05:07:26+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148233317
i2004 (2024-02-21 15:16:42+00:00): no entiendo los cambios de la 118
AgusQui (2024-02-21 18:13:01+00:00): Corrección de recorrido en barrio est BsAs y agregado de paradas
i2004 (2024-02-21 22:52:32+00:00): por otro lado te deje la linea 98 ramal villa españa para que me ordenes
Kovoschiz (2024-02-26 07:43:50+00:00): Reverted /changeset/147717225,147717299 Shatin mountains. Needs further discussion.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147919633
julcnx (2024-04-24 09:16:37+00:00): Hey, thank you for your contributions! I noticed you've marked some narrow roads as 'service=alley' giving access to the main entrances of residences. One tip for future edits: you should tag these as 'highway=residential' instead. This is because roads should be on their primary function, and 'service-alley' is reserved in Thailand for service roads providing access to utilities such as back gardens, rear entrances, fire exits, and storage areas. You can read more about this on the Thailand wiki. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Thailand#Urban_and_Local_Road_wide_enough_for_motor_cars
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147717237
ElliottPlack (2025-03-02 18:05:41+00:00): Your edits have been reverted as they contained fictional Pokémon content, which is not allowed in OpenStreetMap. Please ensure that all contributions reflect real-world data.  

For more details, see the block notice: [User Block #17348](https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17348).
ElliottPlack (2025-03-02 18:05:28+00:00): Your edits have been reverted as they contained fictional Pokémon content, which is not allowed in OpenStreetMap. Please ensure that all contributions reflect real-world data.  

For more details, see the block notice: [User Block #17348](https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17348).
arjunaraoc (2024-03-04 09:16:16+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).
user_17222985 (2024-02-21 06:30:25+00:00): https://www.istpravda.com.ua/short/2023/11/25/163387/
Louis Amiot (2024-04-17 07:28:13+00:00): La rue Rousseau n'est pas en sens unique sur ce tronçon : le panneau C12 d'entrée de sens unique est au niveau du numéro 108, le feu du croisement avec la rue Hélène est prévu pour que des véhicules arrivent du nord et le marquage au sol du stationnement payant en rive ouest est dans le sens nord -> sud.
mat (2024-04-17 08:24:50+00:00): Ah, le feu n'est pas visible sur les photos aériennes. Plusieurs indices m'ont fait supposer que cette section était à sens unique :
- sur toutes les photos aériennes, les places de parking des deux côtés de la route ne sont occupées que par des véhicules orientés vers le nord.
- absence de marquage au sol séparant les sens de circulation, qui était présent en 2010 et absent en 2014.
- à partir du croisement avec la rue Lefèvreville les deux rues sont à sens unique, ce qui fait qu'on ne peut pas "arriver" au nord de ce tronçon.
Louis Amiot (2024-04-17 09:02:19+00:00): C'est effectivement un cas bizarre, la seule façon de circuler vers le sud est de faire demi-tour ou de venir d'un accès riverain.
Mais il y a l'entrée d'un parking privé assez fréquenté au no 63, donc ça n'est pas un cas si marginal.
Je pense que la ligne médiane a été supprimée lors de la mise en sens unique du tronçon entre les rues Lefèvreville et Joffre, puisqu'on s'attendait à une diminution de trafic.
Et bien sûr, comme la majorité du trafic va vers le nord, la majorité des gens se garent dans ce sens là… mais théoriquement, ceux qui le sont en rive ouest au sud de la rue Lefèvreville sont en infraction.
mat (2024-04-17 09:09:39+00:00): J'ai passé le tronçon en oneway=no.
Fedurli (2024-02-22 19:02:53+00:00): Hai di nuovo modificato il nome da "Baima" a "Borgata Baima" ignorando deliberatamente le regole OSM, i dati ufficiali e anche la cartellonistica locale, che indicato "Borgata" come nome comune. Inoltre non mi risulta alcuna discussione sul forum che "approvi" questo strappo alla regola (di utilizzare solo i nomi propri)
canfe (2024-02-23 12:03:56+00:00): Ti ha scritto su questo changeset il DWG Andy Townsend nickname SomeoneElse chiedendoti di discutere sul forum la tua posizione. Almeno il DWG ascoltalo.
Io invece ho verificato a piedi il posto, ho trovato un terzo cartello che riporta la stessa dicitura e chiesto conferma a chi abita lì che si chiami davvero così.
Fedurli (2024-02-24 01:22:19+00:00): I cartelli indicano "Borgata" in piccolo e "Baima" in grosso, sono molto chiari su quale sia il nome proprio, utilizzando due stili grafici diversi anziché uno solo.
Il comune, poi, elenca "Baima" tra le frazioni e il termine "Borgata" nemmeno lo concepisce.
Che l'indirizzo sia "Borgata Baima XX" è corretto, che il luogo si chiami così, no.

Vale anche per te l'invito ad aprire una discussione sul forum, sei tu che vuoi andare contro le regole già postate circa i nomi da usare su OSM
hatul (2024-11-17 19:45:55+00:00): תודה על התיקונים.
מדרום לנחל עמוס מסומנים דרך ושביל חופפים. תוכל לתקן כך שרק אחד יופיע?
hatul (2024-11-17 19:53:46+00:00): ואם כבר, אני מבין שהדרך האדומה ממשיכה עד מעלה עמוס אז כדאי לסמן
Sanniu (2024-11-18 07:08:33+00:00): not sure about the right path there - aeral did not have good picture and lonely GPX shows different way at all.
woodpeck_repair (2025-01-16 17:48:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161428098 where the changeset comment is: revert von Löschungen durch die Stadt Niesky nach Beschwerde, s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17106
dypa (2024-02-21 09:37:24+00:00): скажите откуда вы взяли информацию о существовании дома с номером 7с1? дома с таким номером не существует.

откатите пожалуйста свои правки сделанные в 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147720145 и https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147687913
woodpeck_repair (2025-01-16 17:48:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161428098 where the changeset comment is: revert von Löschungen durch die Stadt Niesky nach Beschwerde, s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17106
Jonáš Hubáček (2025-03-27 19:16:30+00:00): Hello, I'm wondering why it cant be trunk while there is pretty big traffic and the road is important?
FerganaValley (2025-03-31 15:23:24+00:00): Hello Jonáš Hubáček, trunk classification is assigned to main roads with a motorway-like layout in Kenya. The Kitale-Cherangani Road, part of the C51 route, appears to branch out to towns and villages. And when compared to the overall road network, trunk would make the roads stand out relative to similar ones that a) extend across the country or b) connect between major cities and towns. Hopefully that answers your question.
gallseife (2024-11-25 18:46:23+00:00): Hallo Wiesel-01,
welche Quellen hast du für diese Bearbeitung?
Auch bei anderen Ohrdruf-Änderung hältst du dich mit Quellenangaben leider sehr zurück.
archie (2024-02-21 09:33:40+00:00): Hej, var har du fått namnet "Arendals Strandpromenad" ifrån? Hittar det själv inte.
volvo_b4 (2024-02-21 11:08:49+00:00): https://www.google.com/maps/@57.6950137,11.8130457,17.5z?authuser=0&entry=ttu
volvo_b4 (2024-02-21 11:10:25+00:00): Hela det området med promenadslingan heter det
archie (2024-02-21 11:19:58+00:00): Du får inte kopiera från andra kartor. De är upphovsrättsskyddade.
volvo_b4 (2024-02-21 11:48:07+00:00): Ett vägnamn är INTE upphovsrättsskyddat
volvo_b4 (2024-02-21 11:54:16+00:00): Visst det finns ingen gatuskylt som bevis.namnet är allmänt vedertaget bland dom som besöker området
archie (2024-02-21 12:12:39+00:00): Jag vet att det inte finns en vägskylt, det är därför jag själv och andra som har karterat där inte har satt vägnamnet eftersom detta endast framgår av Google maps och vi inte velat bryta mot upphovsrätten. 
Bortsett från detta så används "strandpromenad" om väg intill stranden och inte "inomlands". Kollar du Google maps street view så finner du detta bekräftat. Du har även satt detta namn på slingan bortom stranden. 
Vi får nog ta bort namnet här.
volvo_b4 (2024-02-21 13:12:21+00:00): Bara så du vet så har inte Google upphovsrätten till vägnamn heller utan jag visade en korsreferens för att visa att namnet existerar. Och tittar du ordentligt så leder slingan till en parkering där man ställer bilen för att exempelvis gå till den långa rakan som går längs vattnet"stranden". Och denna gångväg delar sej på flera ställen. Och ja jag har lokalkännedom om detta då jag går denna slingan flera ggr i veckan samt arbetar i området. Vilket jag tror du inte gör. Så vad säger att du vet detta bättre och har vetorätt om nämnda väg??
archie (2024-02-21 14:10:28+00:00): Vi får inte kopiera från upphovsskyddade kartor! Du kan bli avstängt för sånt. Det har varit en uppsjö av folk (vid ett tillfälle var det många mappare från TomTom som endast taggade gatunamn) som har taggat vägar med namn etc. Det hade varit lika lätt för alla dessa att kopiera det här namnet från Google maps.
Du som newbie måste veta att de vägar som inte har något namn vid det här laget högst antagligen inte har något officiellt namn. Möjlightvis ett inofficiellt. Jag håller det för troligt att strandvägen har det inofficiella namn som du anger. Men hittar ingen källa för detta. I så fall bör taggningen vara noname=yes och loc_name=NN.
Och en icke-strandväg har inte namnet "strandpromenaden".
archie (2024-02-22 12:59:39+00:00): Hej igen, det finns en mappare här i Göteborg som brukar bevaka stadens namnnämnd och tagga vägar med namn när Götebors Stad har fattat beslut därom. Jag skall försöka att kontakta denna mappare för att höra om "Arendals Strandpromenad" är ett officiellt vägnamn. Kommer kanske dröja ett tag. Om ej officiellt namn så måste det taggas om enl ovan.
Stadtigel (2024-04-05 14:46:28+00:00): Warum hattest du die Daten der Teilfläche 4 des Flora-Fauna-Habitats Wiesen um Halbmeil und Breitenbrunn gelöscht (siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1250406332/history)? Ich gehe davon aus, dass das ein Versehen war.
watmildon (2026-02-01 01:12:52+00:00): Really nice work!
woodpeck_repair (2025-01-16 17:48:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 161428098 where the changeset comment is: revert von Löschungen durch die Stadt Niesky nach Beschwerde, s. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17106
arjunaraoc (2024-03-04 09:17:24+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).
Xvtn (2024-03-21 15:03:30+00:00): Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Everything seems great to me, no complaints! Thanks for your contributions.
mavl (2024-02-23 18:51:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 147818131, 147828921 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: nonexistent objects].
simo_explorer (2024-02-22 16:26:03+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM  
before starting it is important to read the documentation:  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tags
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop
tekim (2024-04-23 20:15:39+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150414378
VLD515 (2024-04-29 02:21:28+00:00): This is acknowledged that the utility of Waze as a source of truth is not allowed for any editing purpose in OSM.
tekim (2024-04-23 20:15:18+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150414370
VLD515 (2024-04-29 02:21:33+00:00): This is acknowledged that the utility of Waze as a source of truth is not allowed for any editing purpose in OSM.