piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 22:00:13+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119462
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 22:00:07+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119460
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 22:00:01+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119456
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:59:56+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119454
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:59:51+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119452
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:59:45+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119451
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:59:40+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119449
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:59:35+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119448
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:59:30+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119446
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:59:26+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119442
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:59:21+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119440
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:59:15+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119438
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:59:09+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119435
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:59:04+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119433
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:58:58+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119431
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:58:52+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119429
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:58:45+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119427
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:58:41+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119422
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:58:37+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119420
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:58:33+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119418
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:58:28+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119416
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:58:23+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119412
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:58:19+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119410
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:58:14+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119402
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:58:08+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119400
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:58:02+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119396
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:57:57+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119393
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:57:50+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119388
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:57:43+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119386
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:57:39+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119380
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:57:35+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119378
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:57:28+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119376
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:57:22+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119370
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:57:18+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119368
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:57:14+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119367
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:57:09+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119366
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:57:05+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119364
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:57:01+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119363
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:56:57+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119362
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:56:52+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119361
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:56:46+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119360
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:56:40+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119359
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:56:35+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119357
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-03 21:56:29+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142119354
maraf24 (2023-10-06 08:01:04+00:00): Dokładnie to oznacza. Brak budowy w terenie to jest brak budowy w ogóle.
mueschel (2023-10-10 09:35:44+00:00): Hi,
could you explain the 'external_uri' tag you added on several objects? What does it mean?
kekser (2023-10-12 16:57:10+00:00): Hi, I have no idear what this is. I assume it is something from Organic Maps. But I can't find anything within their git repository.
arjunaraoc (2024-01-03 01:09:47+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).

Check my updates to fix minor issue: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145819486

Happy mapping!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142117265
lonvia (2024-01-27 11:16:58+00:00): Hi, you've added a number of villages in this changeset and added place tags as well as boundary=administrative tags to their nodes. This is unusual tagging and has Nominatim confused (https://github.com/osm-search/Nominatim/discussions/3306). The boundary=administrative and admin_level should only go on areas. If I see it right, you already have the areas (for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1212880550), so a removal of the boundary and admin_level tags on the nodes won't loose you any information. I'd also get rid of the 'area=no' on the nodes. It doesn't do harm but also doesn't carry any additional information.

I've not edited anything myself because I suspect there might be other changesets as well that are affected. Happy to help, if necessary.
apm-wa (2024-01-28 01:16:32+00:00): Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Boundaries, which includes this statement: 

"area The original accepted usage was to only apply this tag to areas.

relation+way However there now seems to be a consensus of using the boundary key also on linear ways, with relations used to aggregate these ways if needed."

Boundaries are by definition not areas, they are linear and can be demarcated by points (nodes). See the Merriam-Webster definition here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boundary, which includes this text as an example:

"The river forms the country's western boundary."  In short, defining a boundary=administrative as a line is perfectly normal and appears to be acceptable to the OSM community as well as in accord with the generally understood definition of the term "boundary".
apm-wa (2024-01-28 01:34:38+00:00): I have double-checked the nodes for the villages in this changeset; none of the nodes includes the boundary=* key. That key has been applied only to the linear boundaries encircling the villages. If Nominatim has a problem with linear boundaries that is fodder for a pull request.
lonvia (2024-01-29 08:52:05+00:00): First node in this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11237047754 has boundary=administrative, area=no, admin_level=9
lonvia (2024-01-29 10:23:33+00:00): Oh well, now you have inspired me to look closer at the boundary ways. The tagging there is slightly odd as well. There is an 'area=no' tag, so I guess you mean to only map the linear boundaries (as you also say above). But the way also has a place=village tag. That is a contradiction to area=no because a place tag can only appear on nodes or areas. It is not allowed on linear ways.

If I understand the situation right, then the usual tagging for your situation would be as follows:
* remove all tags from the way except boundary_administrative and admin_level=9
* create a relation with a tag type=boundary and all the other tags that are currently on the way except for area=no.
* add the way to the relation

The result is a way with the boundary line and a relation with the village/administrative area.
apm-wa (2024-01-29 16:56:47+00:00): Ah, the errant node has been corrected. That was a mistake.
apm-wa (2024-01-29 16:59:53+00:00): Odd that key:place cannot be used with lines, since the definition on the wiki page includes this: "Defines the center or outline of a named place". An outline is a line.
RCRalph (2023-10-04 21:26:43+00:00): Na przyszłość: standard PTv2 nakazuje także dodanie kierunkowych relacji do relacji type=route_master
limes11 (2023-10-03 21:01:31+00:00): Hi, 

kurzer Hinweis: Bei foot/bicycle=designated an den Wegen, ist access irrelevant. Ob private oder permissive, designated überschreibt dies. De-facto kann der access-Wert dann auch ganz weg. 

(Okay...er wirkt weiterhin auf Reiter, aber viel geritten wird hier wohl kaum :-) )

VG Limes
user_5359 (2023-10-04 04:43:54+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/937926744. What ist the mean of yes=residential? Did you mean buiding=residential?
PaulaVD (2023-10-06 17:04:43+00:00): Yes, it was a mistake, it was meant to have the building=residential tag
Thank you for letting me know
SomeoneElse (2023-10-03 21:11:34+00:00): Thanks
woodpeck_repair (2023-11-06 11:01:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 143688019, 143688024, 143688006 where the changeset comment is: Entfernung von Edits eines selbst-gelöschten Users
Metzor (2023-10-04 06:08:48+00:00): Hallo ULuser,

Willkommen bei OSM - schön, dass du mitmachst! Hier in der Diskussion werden üblicherweise Fragen, Hinweise etc. Zum Änderungssatz gestellt, um die Qualität der Daten hoch zu halten.

Du hast wohl ausversehen auch einen Fluss verschoben, siehe diese beiden Knoten hier:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1013287598
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10839673302

Würdest du das bitte wieder korrigieren?

Was bezweckst du mit access=yes? 
Schau dazu auch mal das hier an: 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/access-permissive-auf-highway-footway/86320/22

Wenn du hilfe brauchst oder Fragen hast einfach melden!

Viele Grüße 
Metzor
ULuser (2023-10-04 07:12:59+00:00): Das Verschieben des Fluss war ein Versehen und wurde bereits von silversurver83 korrigiert. Ich habe das mit GoMap!! Versehentlich gemacht. Da scheint das leicht zu passieren, wenn man den Kartenausschnitt verschieben will. Da muss ich mehr aufpassen!  

Eigentlich geht es um einen fehlenden Teilabschnitt des Wanderweg 12A in Prissian, der mich zum Mitarbeiten in OSM gebracht hat. Den habe ich nach Rücksprache mit dem Tourist-Büro nachgetragen und als „Ich will meine Bearbeitung von anderen prüfen lassen“  hochgeladen. Der Pfad erscheint jetzt nur in manchen Zoom-Stufen in OSM. Woran liegt das? Deswegen hatte ich Access auf „yes“ gesetzt, um klar zu machen, dass der Weg öffentlich zugänglich ist.  Das Tourist-Office hat an den Weg auch diese Frage als Hinweis 3920703 an den Weg geschrieben. Wer kann das erklären?
Metzor (2023-10-04 10:21:33+00:00): Ah, danke. Verstanden. Meist hilft da nur etwas Geduld: Es dauert einfach manchmal etwas länger bis die Kacheln in allen Zoom-Stufen neu gerendert werden. Ein paar Infos gibt's hier in dem Faden:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/11179/wie-haufig-wird-die-standard-karte-auf-osmorg-aktualisiert

Hier gibt es eine Liste der verschiedenen Kachelanbieter mit einer Latency-Spalte:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Raster_tile_providers

Viele Grüße
Metzor
ULuser (2023-10-04 11:26:17+00:00): Danke Metzor! Ich habe den Link zum Hilfe-Artikel in den Hinweis kommentiert.
gscholz (2023-10-05 06:13:38+00:00): Hi Inda19,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-115.00710&lat=30.85814&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=142118245

I have removed way 1212887020
 to fix those issues.
Guido
citrula (2023-10-04 02:48:31+00:00): Hi kevinajames95, I'm not sure if this makes sense to be the primary name of I-35. It might be more fitting to be a route relation instead, since it's part of a much larger network of "Purple Heart Trails" and this is not the name that people use to refer to the highway
Filip009 (2023-10-04 09:53:57+00:00): Na benzínke sa namiesto do mena dá pridať aj "typ paliva" https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11237134947
Filip009 (2023-10-04 09:55:48+00:00): A prosím používaj lepšie komentáre svojich zmien. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Pretože ako komentár si napísal "friuniza" ale FRI UNIZA si neupravoval.
t_ja (2023-10-04 18:48:24+00:00): Ahoj,
prečo bezdôvodne mažeš budovy, vrátane ich adries? Ak je budova zakreslená z kapor-a, alebo zo Zbgis, tak daný obrys sa týka jej obvodových múrov. Ak je zakreslená z Ortofotomozaiky SR, vtedy býva zakreslená podľa viditeľnej časti strechy. Obidva prístupy mapovania sú akceptovateľné, čo ale akceptovateľné nie je, je ničenie práce iných mapperov.

Doplníš opätovne tebou odmazané adresy, alebo mám spraviť revert tvojich zmien? (nakoľko prínos tvojich zmien nevyváži zápory v podobe chýbajúcich adries).

T.
Filip009 (2023-10-04 18:55:17+00:00): Myslím, že to môžeš revertnúť, pretože na mapathone im určite nespomenuli funkciu "replace geometry", ktorá mala byť použitá. Vieš revertnúť len budovy?
Filip009 (2023-10-04 19:06:47+00:00): Okej, podarilo sa mi to, môžeš skontrolovať https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142159841
t_ja (2023-10-04 19:10:56+00:00): Stačilo revertnúť len tých cca 10 budov, ktoré mali pôvodne adresy na sebe a boli odmazané. Ale aj takto je to stále lepšie, ako predtým, a tých pár nových budov sa doplní časom.

Vďaka za rýchlu nápravu.
user_16965345 (2023-10-04 14:15:46+00:00): Hey. "ist abgebrannt" sollte nicht Teil des Namens sein, sondern mit anderen Tags ausgedrückt werden.
Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen#name_ist_nur_der_Name

Ich habe die Beschreibung aus dem Name entfernt und das "hostel" als destroyed markiert. Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45983710
Bei Einwänden gerne auf mich zurückkommen.
Tomas_J (2023-10-05 21:03:43+00:00): Ahoj,

pozadoval si skontrolovat tvoju sadu zmien. 

Za mna: skvela praca. Mam jedinu malu pripomienku: vedla tebou zmapovaneho ihriska sa nachadza dalsie ihrisko. Ak je to ten isty areal, bolo by mozno rozumne tieto ihriska na mape spojit, aby sa zbytocne neduplikovali. 

Dakujem, ze sa podielas na zlepseni mapy Openstreetmap. Pokracuj v mapovani a ak by si mal akekolvek otazky, mozes napisat do diskusnej skupiny https://groups.google.com/g/osm_sk.

Tomas
Dawid2849 (2023-10-05 09:07:32+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11237168849

W tym miejscu nie ma przejścia dla pieszych
Dawid2849 (2023-10-05 09:10:33+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11237168841/
tutaj też nie
Dawid2849 (2023-10-05 09:11:36+00:00): i tu
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11237168842
NorthCrab (2023-10-05 09:19:13+00:00): Wypuściłem szybką aktualizację, która zwiększa minimalną pewność dodanych przejść. Dzięki!
woodpeck_repair (2023-11-06 11:01:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 143688019, 143688024, 143688006 where the changeset comment is: Entfernung von Edits eines selbst-gelöschten Users
JeroenHoek (2023-10-04 07:24:24+00:00): Waarom alleen bicycle=no? Als je de toegangsbeperkingen van de weg overneemt, dan zit daar veel meer tussen (mofa/moped/agricultural/foot=no etc.).
harahu (2023-10-03 23:26:00+00:00): I've requested that you contact the Norwegian OSM community to mediate in this dispute before unilaterally deleting my work. As far as I can tell you have yet to do so.

Hence, I'm reverting this changeset for now.
Juliusz Tarnowski (2023-10-03 23:38:04+00:00): Wschodnia granica którą umieściłem na ulicy 11 Listopada jest czysto umowna. Pokrywa się z linią historycznej zabudowy (ulica Kamiennogórska) i mapami z AFO i Google Maps. 
Portale informacyjne pisząc o powstającym Szpitalu Onkologicznym wymieniają zarówno Złotniki jak i Nowe Żerniki.
CurlingMan13 (2023-10-03 22:58:39+00:00): 'This changeset has been reverted.  Access tags should be used instead of deleting the ways, even if they are private property.  You can read more about why "private" features should not be deleted here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142120498
aliensuperstar (2023-10-03 23:09:28+00:00): "Heróico" is a misspelling that had already been corrected.
JAAS (2023-10-03 23:22:35+00:00): Thank you @fitojb. 

Are you referring to this segment?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/73133868 

- it was missing the accent mark, so I added it again.

Regards, JAAS
aliensuperstar (2023-10-04 16:18:54+00:00): Yep, that is a Portuguese spelling, not a Spanish one :)
I will report the error to INEGI through their "Cartografía Participativa" platform.
JAAS (2023-10-05 02:11:37+00:00): OMG!

I apologize for the misconception. I am a fluent Spanish speaking person, usually with good writing skills (very obviously not perfect!), but this time you have taught me a grammar lesson I will not forget.

I even looked it up, and you are correct: “ Heroico, estoico: en estas palabras la secuencia oi es un diptongo, son por tanto palabras llanas, de tres sílabas y terminadas en vocal que no deben llevar tilde”.

I will fix these tomorrow. Thank you for catching that. I would have not ever had caught it myself!

Regards, 
JAAS
mrpulley (2024-06-14 11:04:11+00:00): This road was missing maxspeed signs at recent survey, so I can't confirm the maxspeed here
maraf24 (2023-10-03 22:57:29+00:00): To chyba nie jest dobry pomysł umieszczać centrum na terenie kościoła.
Sam Wilson (2023-10-26 03:34:16+00:00): Oops, I've just recreated a Wray Avenue relation (16562551), didn't realise you'd deleted one (11500168).

Although I'm not quite sure what your comment means: do you mean that it was not the right type? Or that there shouldn't be a relation?
Warin61 (2023-10-26 08:17:29+00:00): What is the purpose of the relation? To group things together that carry the same street name?... but his relation only has streets .. not addresses in it. It also contains parts of a roundabout .. 
The addresses along the street already contain the street information ..

The relation looks to me to be redundant as all the information, and more, is already in the data base.
Sam Wilson (2023-10-26 08:52:11+00:00): The addresses can be added to the street relation (many places do that), but there's also info that's not redundant, i.e. the wikidata ID can be kept in the relation and need not be added to every road segment.
小智智 (2025-05-16 10:59:35+00:00): This changeset has two problems:
1. you have blocked off platform 3
2. access=no is not right here, since this bridge is accessible when trains do call at platforms 1&2. This has resulted in my journey planner not able to produce the correct route when a train calls at platform 2.
CurlingMan13 (2023-10-03 22:58:40+00:00): 'This changeset has been reverted.  Access tags should be used instead of deleting the ways, even if they are private property.  You can read more about why "private" features should not be deleted here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142120498
george1201 (2023-10-04 20:40:54+00:00): Auch auf der gegenüberliegenden Straßenseite ist ein Stoppschild. Das ist der Knoten 8897648438.
george1201 (2023-10-06 21:30:19+00:00): Habe es heute nochmal geprüft und eingetragen.
Xvtn (2023-10-04 14:29:21+00:00): Thanks for doing this. Since they changed the recommended tags, I've wondered - Aren't crossing=unmarked and crossing:markings=no redundant? Anyway, I hope at some point the iD presets get updated to include this. Thanks again!
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-20 12:58:57+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11237222413/history has S=Geoportal 2: Ortofotomapa wysokiej rozdzielczości (zdjęcia lotnicze) (WMS) key that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What you intended to express by using this unusual key? Is this tag needed? Or maybe can it be expressed in a more typical way that would be easier to understand?
WlaDeQ (2024-02-23 22:42:41+00:00): Witam!
To się nazywa wolne podstawienie klucza przez przeglądarkę. Dziękuję z uwagę. Poprawiłem.
user_5359 (2023-10-04 04:35:19+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I revert your booth change sets because your business isn't the street.
user_5359 (2023-10-04 04:35:12+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I revert your booth change sets because your business isn't the street.
fortera_au (2024-01-20 07:57:41+00:00): Hi, can you please confirm your source for this and other edits, I believe this has possibly been taken from a source we cannot use.
archpdx (2023-10-06 03:53:15+00:00): Hi there,

Please note that Esri Clarity is quite outdated in this area (~2014). This changeset seems to remove some trees and other features I added a week ago and added trees and paths that no longer exist.

In the future, I'd use Bing imagery which appears to have been captured January/February of this year
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142121588
archpdx (2023-10-06 04:25:53+00:00): I've gone ahead and moved the trees back and removed a path that for sure doesn't exist anymore in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142213878
Clarke22 (2023-10-06 16:46:42+00:00): Sorry about that, hadn't seen how recent your changes were.  Thanks for the fix.
Clarke22 (2023-10-06 16:47:41+00:00): Not sure why I was using one of the older imagery sets.
Warin61 (2023-10-04 23:42:25+00:00): Reverted. 

The park boundary is from government data .. not bing  imagery.... 

The change caused clark island to be entered twice into the park relation.
Matt_ (2023-10-04 02:15:10+00:00): And MS00999
ThatOtherGuy (2023-10-08 22:39:18+00:00): I have now reverted this edit. The sound is somewhat directional and can be drowned out by passing traffic; Indeed it makes separate noises 1) to assist location of the button; 2) to indicate it is currently unsafe to cross; and 3) to indicate it is currently safe to cross
Allison P (2023-10-13 20:07:45+00:00): Inner polygons of the water area don't actually need any tags. They were tagged that way by inexperienced mappers such as myself in the past.

You would probably not describe a wetland as a forest no matter how many trees it had, so I would not tag it as a forest.
Jarrardi (2023-10-18 17:56:50+00:00): Correcting my over-zealous tagging right now! Thank you so much for your guidance and dedication! You're the best!
HubMiner (2023-11-29 07:05:33+00:00): Hi, this changeset added a lot fo orphaned nodes, could you check if they could be deleted?

Example: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11237387271#map=18/43.26988/-70.59286&layers=D
ivanbranco (2023-10-12 15:55:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 142479184
JSbrasileiro (2023-10-13 04:19:36+00:00): what did I do wrong ?
ivanbranco (2023-10-13 06:24:44+00:00): I don't know, I just reported it to you since the user who reverted it didn't.
csomerville (2023-10-24 08:31:41+00:00): Hello Minh Nguyen. I noticed you tagged barrier=kerb + kerb=rolled. This has caused OSRM to no longer route on these roads. It seems to be a bug. Would you be willing to follow up with OSRM team?
Minh Nguyen (2023-10-24 17:24:38+00:00): I used the iD preset for rolled curbs. The bug in OSRM is being tracked in https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/6582 .
csomerville (2023-10-28 08:57:27+00:00): Just stumbled upon 6582 myself and came to share but you've already beat me to the punch. Kudos.

Now, based on a review of street side imagery, aerial imagery, and USGS 3DEPElevation multidirectional hill shade visualization, I don't believe there is a rolled curb here. I believe it is a a painted red line. :-) Or am I misunderstanding what you're intending to tag here?