piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mm_m_mm (2026-02-04 13:33:41+00:00):  Habe natural=peak gewählt, obwohl der Berg nicht natürlich ist. Ist aber bei ähnlichen Bergen ebenso z.B. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/35715769 und https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/156850034 . Höhe über NN ist mir leider nicht bekannt
NeisBot (2026-02-05 06:14:04+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/13524233402 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "fitness studio"
---
Na przykład, bardziej neutralna i obiektywna wersja Twojego tekstu mogłaby brzmieć: "studio fitness"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NorthCrab_upload (2026-02-06 02:22:53+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13524233402

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
dottir34 (2026-03-16 15:10:38+00:00): Heya!
The road is completely closed for construction?
If its being reconstructed / upgraded but is passable still, then it should be tagged as construction=minor https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:construction%3Dminor

highway=construction tagging is used only for cases when the road is completely impassable

Thanks!
AlexSpritze (2026-05-04 07:15:32+00:00): Hi SafetyIng,

der Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1474171473 ist weder Teil einer Relation noch hat er Tags.
Vermutlich fehlt hier irgendwas Richtung landuse, oder?

Grüße
309_308_307 (2026-02-04 17:58:50+00:00): revertiert: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178105890
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-04-06 09:41:56+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305926990/history

how you know that this building is under construction right now?
Taya_S (2026-02-12 12:42:49+00:00): Reverted data imported from Google

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178456174
Udarian (2026-02-04 17:56:19+00:00): two issues with this changeset, first and foremost, you created a dragged node, next time, before you upload a changeset please make sure that there aren't any vertexes that have been dragged beyond their alignments, doing so in iD tends to give you errors.
The second issues is that you added the business to the building part while removing that tag, building:part was there because the basic 3D shape of Brickell city center has been mapped on OSM and that way is part of that. You also added the tags for the business to that way which seems incorrect as there are already several businesses within the area of building part, when there are multiple like that add a business as a single point as tagging on the building part implies it takes up the whole area (and thus volume as that building part was tagged with levels).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings

I have gone ahead and fixed both of these issues.

Happy Mapping,
Udar.
Senihtu (2026-02-16 08:14:25+00:00): Hi!
Wenn Du Dich in der Gegend auskennst, dann kannst Du vielleicht helfen:
Bus 170: Eschwege => Eisenach (Relation 8912002) fährt laut osm in Eisenach durch die 
Bahnhofstraße (way 1124385523) zum Bahnhof.
Die Bahnhofstraße ist aber als Einbahnstraße vom Bahnhof weg getaggt.
Ist nun die Einbahnstraßenrichtung falsch - oder die Fahrstrecke der Buslinie?
mappende Grüße
Senihtu
eggie (2026-02-04 15:08:08+00:00): short_name toegevoegd OBS Wijdekijker.. Dan is die combinatie eruit.
MVG
eggie
Rainero (2026-03-16 20:35:01+00:00): Revert mit changeset/179970530
(unzulässige Quelle)
eggie (2026-02-04 16:53:27+00:00): Dag afdeling..
Een klein stukje groen valt niet onder de definitie van een park. (Functie)
Een leisure=park is een grote transparant die over bos, gras en water heen ligt.
Beter de landuse taggen.
Bv landuse=grass of wat het in werkelijk ook maar mag zijn.

Mvg
eggie
eggie (2026-02-04 16:54:04+00:00): Het stukje groen heeft meestal ook geen straatnaam.
eggie (2026-02-04 17:18:11+00:00): Park omgezet naar landuse.. naam verwijderd.

MVG
eggie
VLD277 (2026-02-13 18:11:11+00:00): Hello Tejas Gandviya,

We have observed that you added a name to an intersection node. Based on your changeset comment, it appears the name corresponds to a shop. Typically, nodes containing shop information should be positioned at the actual physical location of the shop, as seen in imagery, rather than on the intersection of roadways. When adding a shop node, including the shop=* tag would be helpful. Here is a link to the wiki page for the shop=* tag for your reference. We have removed the name from the intersection node accordingly.

Happy Mapping,
VLD277

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop
eggie (2026-02-04 14:55:38+00:00): Dag Ciedev,

Al die parkings staan al op de kaart als vlak. Waarom nog een keer?
Het  universiteitsgebouw staat er nu 3x op?

Een park wordt niet als node toegevoegd wel als vlak met een naam en dat is hier al het geval.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-02-04 14:56:56+00:00): Removed duplicated mapping
eggie (2026-02-04 15:14:18+00:00): Hi, Your contribution was duplicated mapping.
Please don't add info on the map that is already there, I will delete your contribution.
Greetz,
eggie
Langlaeufer (2026-02-05 09:41:32+00:00): Hi, 
Hallo Jodevin,

ich habe das Baustellen-Tagging angepasst.
Wenn du einen Weg auf Baustelle setzen willst dann
highway=construction und den alten highway-Wert in dann construction, hier also construction=path.
access=no ist o.k. aber foot und bicycle überschreiben denn allgemeinen Zugang (access) von daher auch foot und bicycle mit einem lifecycle prefix (was:/planed:/construction:/ etc)  "ausblenden" z.B. construction:bicycle / construction:foot

Schau mal bitte noch einmal rüber ob ich deine Änderungen richtig verstanden hatte.
Grüße Langläufer
Conrad_Longmore (2026-02-10 16:28:20+00:00): It is listed on the LDWA site which would typically confer some notability - https://ldwa.org.uk/ldp/members/show_path.php?path_name=St+Bernard%27s+Way - but you are correct to say that it is not trailmarked and follows public footpaths and other named routes.
felipeeugenio (2026-02-04 15:26:37+00:00): Hola. interpreté lo que quiso hacer. Por favor verificar (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance).

Pero los tags estaban todos mal. Por favor revisar si acaso quedó lo que quería expresar.

Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178098801
Colbertson (2026-02-06 14:15:12+00:00): Useful changeset comments please

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1474187805/
Also the blablabla leaked into this path
NorthCrab_upload (2026-02-06 02:34:00+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2190166464
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1474196451

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Szymson (2026-02-04 15:52:34+00:00): A co to za tajemniczy zestaw zmian?
stasiu512 (2026-02-04 16:13:34+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
HellMap (2026-02-05 11:13:43+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for your edits.

I fixed some minor issues.

One note I wanted to mentioned: it's not really desired or strictly correct to specify horse (or other) legal access values on random paths unless they differ from country defaults or have additional signage or rules. In Latvia, there are almost no locations with special horse-related restrictions. This is true for foot and bicycle too - few locations are signed as "no pedestrians" or "bicycles only" or similar. Unless a path or footway has special restrictions or it's not obvious that the access is public, there shouldn't be additional values. Especially since "unknown" implies that there may actually be restrictions, just not yet surveyed.
Mapikids (2026-04-25 23:08:00+00:00): Je ne comprends pas l'intérêt de cet ajout alors qu'il y a déjà une relation avec l'ensemble des modules présents dans ce parc.
NorthCrab_upload (2026-02-06 02:34:05+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13524479370

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
d_berger (2026-02-05 09:07:08+00:00): Wäre nett du würdest es unterlassen Wartebereiche/platform aus den Busrouten einfach herauszulöschen, oder falsche Wartebereiche hinzuzufügen. Die Routen wurden anhand der GTFS-Daten vor rund einem Monat auf den neuesten Stand gebracht.

N.B.: du solltest dringend an deinem Mapping arbeiten, das Trottoirmapping mit einem Knoten alle 12 bis 15 Meter, selbst bei völlig geraden Wegen ist eigentlich ein Muster dafür, wie man nicht mappen sollte. Siehe dazu: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Gerade_Wege_bleiben_gerade

HTH
rbircher (2026-02-06 13:23:28+00:00): Hallo d_berger
Das ich da einen Fehler gemacht habe bemerkte ich erst am darauf folgenden Tag. Da habe ich begriffen, dass bei den Relationen erst den Ausgangspunkt und erst dann der Zielort angegeben wird. Auf Vespucci sieht man das auch nur wenn man das Handy quer nimmt. Sorry für die Umtriebe 

Das mit weniger Punkte machen  werde ich beherzigen. 

Danke für die Hinweise. 

Gruss Raphael
rskedgell (2026-02-04 20:21:45+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for adding information to the hotel.

The hotel had already been mapped with tags on the building ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1360663960 ), so I've merged the tags from the POI which you added.
Leo Slager (2026-02-05 11:18:15+00:00): Prima,
maar let wel op dat de stop_position wordt vastgemaakt aan de highway.
rempshaener (2026-02-04 18:06:45+00:00): Hallo,
auch diese Löschung habe ich revertiert.
Magst du im Kontext von "behebung von problemen" kurz erläutern, was genau du dir von diesen Löschungen versprichst?
Viele Grüße
NeisBot (2026-02-04 16:26:11+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your changesets and noticed that the cumulative count of your recent edits (5 changesets) shows that 396 of your last 397 changes were deletions. This is quite an unusual proportion, so I wanted to check with you.

Could you please confirm whether these deletions were intentional or if they may have occurred by mistake?

#DeletionsCheck #Cumulative
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious?uid=23240706
NeisBot (2026-02-05 06:12:25+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 25 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1474202759 v1 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1383779687 v2 | 11 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1383779685 v2 | 7 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178102142
EP_Repair (2026-05-25 16:20:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 183166530 where the changeset comment is: Revert changesets adding vegetation traced from water and boundary ways, causing disruption to both features. User block issued.
rempshaener (2026-02-04 17:39:56+00:00): Hallo,

wieso hast du die area:highway gelöscht?
Und das Rückhaltebecken?
Ich habe den gesamten Änderungssatz rückgängig machen müssen.
Das kann doch kein Versehen gewesen sein?

Viele Grüße
Michi_10 (2026-02-04 19:08:48+00:00): Oh, mir ist ein Versehen unterlaufen, entschuldige dies bitte.
Liebe Grüße und einen schönen Abend noch
Michi_10 (2026-02-04 19:09:25+00:00): Dies galt auch für die anderen 2 Änderungssätze
rempshaener (2026-02-04 19:57:24+00:00): Hallo,
danke für deine Rückmeldung :-)
Viele Grüße
rempshaener (2026-02-04 18:09:15+00:00): Auch diese Löschungen haben ich vollständig wiederhergestellt
totera (2026-02-04 17:01:15+00:00): Per favore non mappare la ciclovia Adriatica da bicitalia. Il percorso segnalato su quel sito non è stato completato, anzi in alcuni tratti (per esempio ad Ancona) la realizzazione della ciclovia Adriatica ha seguito un percorso completamente diverso.
Aggiungi i tratti alla ciclovia Adriatica soltanto se sono segnalati come tali (numero 6) sul posto
f_gonella (2026-02-05 06:18:28+00:00): Grazie dell'indicazione. Ripristinato con changeset #: 178122930
Fraxi (2026-02-04 16:51:56+00:00): Ползвах и Mapillary за едната рампа.
agilenewt21 (2026-02-04 16:50:47+00:00): Photo album on flickr: https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjCJvj4
I haven't put in all details from all the photos.  GPS on photos might be a bit inaccurate.
agilenewt21 (2026-02-04 16:56:08+00:00): GPS trace used: https://www.openstreetmap.org/traces/12186849/data
I cycled around the new streets repeatedly to hopefully get reasonable accuracy.
Some service roads are also on the GPS track but not mapped yet.
Futur3r (2026-02-04 16:53:54+00:00): J'ai mis à jour uniquement le tracé cycle car la circulation automobile n'est pas encore clair.
En tout cas, l'aménagement cyclable est pratiquement retiré. Il faut préféré utiliser la chronovélo 1.
eggie (2026-02-04 17:09:30+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  In OSM werken we met adresnodes. Er hoeven dus geen adresgegevens op de gebouwomtrek. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
bbqman (2026-02-04 17:05:43+00:00): Correction: added tags to service road
norgis (2026-05-05 06:07:14+00:00): Hvor kommer navnet Støggskogen fra, som du har lagt til i utløpet ved Gaulosen? Det er vel ikke et offisielt navn ut fra det jeg kan finne?
innvoll (2026-05-06 12:46:47+00:00): Hei! nei det er jeg ikke helt sikker på selv, det lå inn som navn på et polygon fra tidligere av. Tror jeg slettet det og la det inn på nytt, ettersom historikken ikke vises... Hadde nettopp begynt med OSM da. Vet ikke helt hvor det kommer fra, eller om det er best å slette det. Hva synes du?
norgis (2026-05-07 05:35:22+00:00): Skjønner! I og med at objektet ble slettet og erstattet med et nytt så det ut fra historikken som navnet ble lagt til nå, men da har jeg funnet historikken der det ser ut som navnet ble lagt inn: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286176739/history/3 
Kilde på hvor navnet kommer fra er ikke oppgitt, så jeg har lagt inn en kommentar på changesetet hvor det ser ut som navnet ble lagt til. Så tenker vi kan la navnet stå som det er inntil ev. avklaring er på plass. Takk ellers for bidrag til OSM, og velkommen (på etterskudd) :)
innvoll (2026-05-09 13:18:23+00:00): Ja, høres bra ut. Hjertelig takk for velkomst :) ps. hvordan fant du historikken?
norgis (2026-05-11 06:13:54+00:00): Jeg brukte overpass-turbo med et skript for å hente data for området på en gitt dato (i dette tilfellet før datoen på dette changesetet): https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2pzq
norgis (2026-05-11 06:16:55+00:00): Navnet er visst brukt lokalt, og finnes bl.a. gjengitt her: https://www.nb.no/items/2f3f8fb7eddf51b13005c507b21b35af?page=105
Så da tenker jeg vi kan la det stå som det gjør :)
eggie (2026-02-04 17:46:28+00:00): Jaap .. Probeer aan te geven wat je hebt gedaan in je upload. Buurtbewoner zegt helemaal niets.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-02-04 17:47:03+00:00): colour zwart is geen UK English  Gebruik dan black

MVG
eggie
mueschel (2026-02-05 19:25:35+00:00): Hi,
please don't dump data from some other source into the OSM database - the tagging must be corrected before uploading, and any imports must follow our import guidelines:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
yzuio (2026-02-06 04:12:09+00:00): ok, i will corrected the data and fix it soon
mueschel (2026-02-07 08:26:25+00:00): I propose to revert these edits for now - than it's much easier to start over with a clean import.
eggie (2026-02-04 18:34:02+00:00): Dag von_.. Voor paintball is een aparte tag.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dpaintball

Mvg
eggie
eggie (2026-02-04 18:34:55+00:00): Je kunt het beste de adresnode gebruiken.
Mvg
eggie (2026-02-05 08:46:36+00:00): Dag von Wolkenstein,

De info heb ik verplaatst naar de adresnode.
Je zou evt nog naar de description kunnen kijken. Die is wat lang.
MVG
eggie
qstep (2026-02-04 18:30:27+00:00): Üdv az OpenStreetMap-en! Magánutakat nem szoktunk törölni csak azért, mert nem hozzáférhető, hiszen attól az még ott van a valóságban. Erre van az access=private címke. Lásd a témakörről bővebben: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

A törlést visszavontam és ráraktam a címkét: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178106933

További jó térképezést!
Gyetka (2026-02-04 19:10:51+00:00): Thanks the help, but what good is that road if no one can use it?
qstep (2026-02-04 19:43:36+00:00): While I see your point, think of OSM as more of a geographic database rather than a map application or navigation software. The goal of the project is to map what's on the ground, what is actually there. 

It is up to the data consumers (like mobile apps, GPS, routing tools, etc) to determine where navigation is possible. Most software will recognize access=private routes as inaccessible and will not navigate the user that way. But in this case the path itself exists, and your contribution of noticing it being private is still valuable.

More information on this matter: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can't_I_delete_this_trail
qstep (2026-02-04 19:47:37+00:00): Sorry, broken link: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
pwbriggs (2026-02-19 05:20:59+00:00): Thanks. Just out of curiosity, could you link me to the Sound Transit document you referenced, or otherwise explain how to access it?
jcarlson (2026-02-09 16:12:21+00:00): thanks for adding so many points of interest to the map! great level of detail!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178106168
NeisBot (2026-02-05 06:12:41+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 38 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/51885975 v8 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/31889228 v11 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/31889227 v12 | 5 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178106400
NorthCrab_upload (2026-02-06 02:34:08+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1474231486

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
woodpeck_repair (2026-02-12 23:21:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 178479265 where the changeset comment is: revert changes that pretend to be made with vespucci but aren't
MassCartog (2026-02-04 19:10:39+00:00): Hi welcome to OSM. Looks like this track was added 11 years ago, it was also correctly marked private at that time.

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. 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.

Normally 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. But in this case that has already been done.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property
clay_c (2026-03-02 13:14:54+00:00): Hi Zol87! Thanks for your detailed work in the West Loop here.

How come the multipolygon for Skinner West was changed to two separate areas? This makes it seem as if there are two schools with the same name, rather than one school with two campuses.
Zol87 (2026-03-02 21:39:29+00:00): Thanks, I think I was trying to remove it from a multipolygon since it was one area. I accidentally did that one with the greater sidewalk fix for the area.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-03-14 00:05:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 179832897 where the changeset comment is: Reverting numerous undiscussed road category changes.  See https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=2261940 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19961
Tomas Straupis (2026-02-04 19:31:05+00:00): O tie medžiai tikrai turi oficialius pavadinimus? Nes jei tai tiesiog medžio rūšis, tai jos nereikia į name žymą rašyti.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-03-14 00:05:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 179832897 where the changeset comment is: Reverting numerous undiscussed road category changes.  See https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=2261940 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19961
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-03-14 00:05:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 179832897 where the changeset comment is: Reverting numerous undiscussed road category changes.  See https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=2261940 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19961
Frank Peng (2026-02-04 21:54:32+00:00): Could you please proide the source(s) for the residential roads you deleted in this changeset ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20600788/history, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20597006/history, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20597068/history)? Those do appear to be driveways and I can clearly see those in aerial imagery.

If those roads still exist on the ground, then please note that we do not delete roads or other map elements on private property. It is considered vandalism and a violation of OSM's Terms of Use. A couple of the residential roads you deleted in this changeset had the access=private tag. Instead, we can usually add the access=private tag to roads or other map elements on private property. Any map data that can be verified exists on the ground is valid regardless of whether it's on public or private property.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178108149