piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Vandeuren Stephane (2024-06-20 15:51:24+00:00): Je vie dans ce domaine depuis 7 ans, les noms de rue interne au domaine ne sont pas repris. suite à plusieurs commande faites par internet, certains société de livraison (GLS par exemple) ne livre pas car il mentionne adresse inexistantes. ce qui pose évident problème, car retour du colis à l'envoyeur. Certes "Le Parc Résidentiel Le Cul de Cheval" est bien repris mais pas les numéros. Donc vue la grandeur du domaine (+/- 430 propriétés) quand ils arrivent dans le domaine il font demi tour, car leurs GPS ne sait pas les guider. ma modification et ajout des rue est un complément d'adresse car au niveau communal elle ne sont pas repris. donc petit à petit, je compte y ajouter chaque numéro approprié à son terrain.
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 16:04:07+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152948214
Frans S (2024-06-24 09:18:25+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Inaccurate mapped.

Buildings not squared.

Connected nodes of buildings to other buildings.

Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152948310
Frans S (2024-06-24 09:15:27+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Buildings not squared.
Connected nodes of buildings to each other
Clustered building

Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152948338
SomeoneElse (2024-09-21 23:14:51+00:00): Hello,
I don't think that there is anything that suggests that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/812960030/history is part of the public road network, is there? OS OpenData suggests not (just look at that layer in an editor) and the rights of way data suggests that the whole thing is actually bridleway: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#16/50.9962/-0.1375/H/P .
See also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945 .
Misa_zumba (2024-09-23 07:15:59+00:00): Hi SomeoneElse,
I changed the road classification from 'track' to 'service' because the road passes by two houses, and it has been suggested that the 'track' tag should not be used for access to permanent human settlements or structures, as mentioned here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack. I didn’t have GT to confirm the exact type of access, so I didn’t add it. As you can see, it wasn’t there before my change either. In fact, the road was previously marked as 'service'. If you disagree, I can revert it to how it was before, no problem at all.
SomeoneElse (2024-09-23 10:43:41+00:00): Someone at Microsoft has said (see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/problematic-access-changes-by-microsoft-mappers-in-the-uk/117945/4 ) that they'll review these edits for errors - I hope they are doing that.
With a DWG hat on I don't think I'm going to be reviewing all 2714 or so remaining ones - in the event of no action by Microsoft all that I can see that I could usefully do is to block accounts to force a review - but obviously it makes sense to try and help people understand some of the issues first.
SomeoneElse (2024-09-23 10:52:12+00:00): The wiki statement "Roads used for access to permanent human settlements or facilities should generally not use this tag" is on one level utter rubbish (because, as here, there's very often a mix of access to both fields _and_ the people who live in or near them) and also understandable as a pushback against (I think) a previous version of the iD editor's suggestion that "highway=track" be used for more than just agricultural access: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Controversial_Decisions#Calling_a_highway=track_an_%22unmaintained_track_road%22 .
Whenever changing highway tags ideally you should do an actual survey, but if you can't do that you absolutely should look at the available sources, and here OS OpenData suggests that your "residential" road is probably functionally someone's driveway, as well as being the start of the track going west.
SomeoneElse (2024-09-23 10:55:33+00:00): Also, the whole public bridleway is also definitely bicycle=yes (there's a legal right to cycle along bridleways in England and Wales) - but I appreciate that you didn't add that tag here.
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 16:03:36+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152948370
trigpoint (2026-03-11 15:14:30+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/179707075
silversurfer83 (2024-06-20 14:27:53+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152948845
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152948655
literan (2024-06-21 17:27:12+00:00): не надо ставить дубли, адрес уже стоит на здании
Andrea Musuruane (2024-07-16 17:47:53+00:00): Ciao Ivo. Come mai è stato modificato in questo modo il percorso della via francigena? Sul sito ufficiale, il percorso è differente: https://www.viefrancigene.org/it/resource/statictrack/tappa-09-da-santhia-vercelli/ Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152948819
ivanbranco (2024-07-16 19:14:00+00:00): Il percorso della via Francigena lo avevo aggiornato io il febbraio 2023 (il tracciato ufficiale é stato modificato nel 2021 circa): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132461055
dopo averlo percorso anche a piedi qualche volta, es.: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ivanbranco/traces/6268251

tra l'altro quando crearono quella traccia sul sito ufficiale utilizzarono il routing OSM se non ricordo male, e all'epoca un collegamento non era ancora stato mappato, quindi la versione aggiornata su OSM dopo sopralluogo era perfino piú precisa di quella ufficiale. io ripristinerei quella versione se non ci sono stati sopralluoghi successivi al mio
Jrachi (2024-07-17 06:32:52+00:00): Cosa intendi con "in questo modo"?
Ho fatto qualcosa di incomprensibile?
Sono partito con una relazione piena di buchi, con alcuni doppi passaggi (in parte tolti per mancanza di segnaletica).
I gpx ufficiali sono da prendere con le molle, e in alcuni tratti ho faticato parecchio a districarmi tra tracce a volte sovrapposte a volte anche chiaramente errate. Guarda ad esempio sulla Sacra.

Ivo
Andrea Musuruane (2024-07-17 07:56:52+00:00): Quello che c'è ora è sicuramente sbagliato oltre che pericoloso da fare a piedi. Io ripristinerei secondo il percorso che ha indicato Ivan, che oltretutto combacia al 95% con quello che si trova sul sito viefrancigene.org.
Jrachi (2024-07-17 16:25:00+00:00): Scusa, ma non riesco a ragionare.
Mi dici quale way sarebbe da ripristinare?

Ivo
ivanbranco (2024-07-17 16:36:42+00:00): La relazione della via francigena tra San Germano Vercellese e Vercelli.

questa é la relazione ora: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1OlQ
questa era la relazione dopo la mia modifica (passa per Montonero): https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1OlS
questa la relazione prima di questo changeset (passava per la strada chiusa nel 2021, che mi aveva portato a fare il sopralluogo, quindi era sbagliata anche questa): https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1OlV
Jrachi (2024-07-18 09:53:21+00:00): Per qualche arcano motivo quelle query forniscono un risultato nella Valle Susa.
 
Se può aiutarti a capire la situazione attuale ti aggiungo una nota mandata da un rilevatore relativo a questa tratta:
"Ciao Ivo

spero che in Kosovo ci sia Internet e che tu riesca in qualche modo a leggermi.

Oggi sono stato a Vercelli per rilevare le ultime due semitappe del percorso principale.

Non so perché ma ho iniziato dall'uscita di Vercelli, termine del EVFC0904, per andare verso Ovest e raggiungere la cascina CASTELLONE dove inizia EVFC0903.

Già nella partenza ho trovato due transenne del comune di Vercelli, ma si poteva passare e ho proseguito. Non ho trovato nessuna segnaletica fino a che, prima di cascina Regina, ho trovato un cancello che a piedi si può aggirare, ma non con le joelette. Più avanti ho invece trovato due pannelli a griglia che ostruivano completamente il passaggio. Mi sono fermato, sono tornato all'auto e sono andato alla cascina Castellone, dove ho trovato segnaletica abbondante.

Ho seguito il tuo tracciato e la segnaletica fino ad un nuovo cancello dove a piedi si può passare ma non con la joelette. Ma ho proseguito fino ad una chiesetta prima di Cascine Stra. Sul fianco della chiesetta ho trovato un cartello che indica dove passare. Dice chiaramente di evitare il "percorso originale" il EVFC0904 perché interrotto.

Ho seguito le indicazioni fino ad arrivare alla Sp11, molto trafficata, e i segnavia dicono di continuare sulla strada asfaltata. A questo punto sono rientrato a Castellone. Lungo il ritorno, in bici sulla Sp11, ho incrociato 2 "pellegrini francesi", mi sono fermato e ho chiesto se stavano percorrendo la Via Francigena. Mi hanno risposto positivamente e mi hanno anche detto che hanno fatto un percorso ad anello abbastanza lungo di cui avrebbero fatto a meno. Probabilmente la segnaletica non è il massimo. Li ho poi incrociati prima di Vercelli, io in auto, loro a piedi.

Le due tappe finali non sono da proporre alle joelette per i cancelli e la strada asfaltata.
"
Andrea Musuruane (2024-07-18 10:00:03+00:00): Ivo, le query funzionano bene. Riprova.
woodpeck_repair (2024-06-20 14:29:41+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changeset 152948655.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-20 14:40:26+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/node/11994626611

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:59:15+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152948987
Ashim Paudel (2024-06-20 14:49:24+00:00): Hello Abhigyans
Your edits look awesome. But the buildings are not properly squared. Please squared them before uploading the edits. Happy mapping :)
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152949038
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-06-26 14:44:31+00:00): Hi, even a shed can have an address. Don't delete unless you're sure.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-06-26 14:44:33+00:00): https://xgis.maaamet.ee/adsavalik/ads?ads_oid=ME03064246
2RUT (2024-06-26 16:46:41+00:00): This isn't that kind of village.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-06-26 19:04:11+00:00): I don't understand what are you trying to say by that. I also speak Estonian and Russian if that can help.
dgmapping (2024-06-27 15:14:00+00:00): FYI - automated address update script already restored the address for this building: https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/727992529
LudovicG (2024-08-14 11:09:50+00:00): Bonjour,
J'en reviens, Le Caméléon est toujours là, au 53 de la rue. Est-ce une erreur ?
Par ailleurs, le téléphone ajouté ensuite est bien celui du Super 9 mais d'où proviennent les horaires (pas ceux du FB du Caméléon et pas ceux sur la vitrine du Super 9) ?
J'attend votre retour, j'avais déjà prévu de (j'aurais déjà dû) modifier le Taste en Super 9 :)
Roue-doudou (2024-08-16 11:54:23+00:00): Mince, merci pour la veille effectivement je me suis trombé de POI pour le Super 9, je corrige ça !
POur les horaire il me semblait avoir pris ceux affiché sur le commerce mais j'ai pu me tromper !
Roue-doudou (2024-08-16 12:03:47+00:00): J'ai corrigé et j'ai retoruvé la source des horaires, c'est leur page facebook que j'ai ajouté au POI
JaffaKetchup (2024-06-20 17:29:23+00:00): Thanks for the language fix. Have local knowledge but language not great :D
gscholz (2024-06-23 07:46:04+00:00): Hi Tom Fowler OSM,
this changeset has created several errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=0.24034&lat=47.92650&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=152949672

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

Yo may also like to educate yourself about how to edit hiking routes properly:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes

Kind regards
Guido
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-20 14:50:25+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/way/1210725717

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:43:01+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152949993
mcliquid (2024-06-25 06:46:31+00:00): Hier wurde "name=Deutsche Telekom AG" in Bayern entfernt.
MichaelFS (2024-06-25 16:42:18+00:00): Ja, gemäß der Diskussion und Anleitung: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/osmi-fehler-fur-telecom-exchange/113101/7
mcliquid (2024-06-25 17:13:13+00:00): Gerne diese Information auch in deinem Änderungssatz-Kommentar hervorheben.
mcliquid (2024-06-25 17:18:29+00:00): Ergänzend mich bitte nicht falsch verstehen. Deine Änderungen sind korrekt. Wenn jedoch zahlreiche Changeset Kommentare immer gleich heißen, könnte man sie auch einfach weglassen :)
MichaelFS (2024-06-26 09:05:41+00:00): OK, ich werde versuchen, die Anzahl der in JOSM gespeicherten Kommentare zu erhöhen und dann die Texte sinnvoller zu strukturieren.
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:42:49+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152950027
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:42:22+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152950089
silversurfer83 (2024-06-20 14:59:02+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152950317
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:42:05+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152950115
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:41:51+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152950134
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:41:37+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152950156
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:41:18+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152950205
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:41:08+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152950239
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:40:52+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152950268
opendcc (2024-06-21 03:19:51+00:00): Ist Jonas wirr halt?
silversurfer83 (2024-06-21 05:02:01+00:00): Nein. Für Details komm ins Forum
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:39:29+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152950350
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:39:04+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152950357
Leo Slager (2024-06-20 22:46:29+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
Strubbl (2024-06-20 15:30:41+00:00): Hi Michael, warum hast du die Adresse gelöscht? Ich meine die da letztens am Gebäude gesehen zu haben.
Strubbl (2024-06-20 15:32:17+00:00): Also so richtig mit offiziellem blauen Schildchen. Das wäre dann schon der addr:*-Tag
Strubbl (2024-06-20 15:35:51+00:00): Im GeoPortal der Stadt München wird diese Adresse auch aufgeführt

$ grep "Adelholzener" adressen_aktuell.txt 
27,Adelholzener Str.,2
27,Adelholzener Str.,4
27,Adelholzener Str.,9
27,Adelholzener Str.,6
27,Adelholzener Str.,7
27,Adelholzener Str.,8
27,Adelholzener Str.,1
27,Adelholzener Str.,5

Die Datei gibt es hier: https://opendata.muenchen.de/dataset/adressen_opendata
Strubbl (2024-06-20 15:38:52+00:00): Da das hier ein richtiges Gebäude ist und nicht nur ein Schränkchen, ist meiner Meinung nach die object:* durch addr:*-Tags zu ersetzen. Vor allem wenn ich https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:object:* so lese. Was denkst du?
MichaelFS (2024-06-20 15:56:45+00:00): Hmm, ich bin davon ausgegangen, dass dieses Schema https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/113101/6 für alle telecom=exchange gültig ist. Ich würde grundsätzlich bevorzugen, das Gebäude und den POI getrennt zu erfassen, das Gebäude dann mit addr* und den POI mit object*. Wäre das ein Kompromiss?
Strubbl (2024-06-20 16:05:45+00:00): Ja, von mir aus auch dies. Oder wir könnten die Adresse dort als Node an der nördl. Seite des Gebäudes erfassen, wo das Adressschild angebracht ist.
MichaelFS (2024-06-21 06:44:50+00:00): Habe jetzt meinen Vorschlag umgesetzt.
Strubbl (2024-06-21 12:18:25+00:00): Das sieht gut aus. Vielen Dank!
mcliquid (2024-06-25 06:46:03+00:00): Hier wurde operator:wikipedia in Bayern gesetzt.
MichaelFS (2024-06-25 16:40:45+00:00): Ja, das halte ich für für richtig; spricht etwas dagegen?
mcliquid (2024-06-25 17:12:09+00:00): Nein, die Information ging mir nur nicht aus deinem Änderungssatz-Kommentar hervor.
mcliquid (2024-06-25 06:45:35+00:00): Hier wurde operator:wikidata in Bayern ergänzt.
MichaelFS (2024-06-25 16:41:07+00:00): Ja, das halte ich für für richtig; spricht etwas dagegen?
mcliquid (2024-06-25 17:12:19+00:00): Nein, die Information ging mir nur nicht aus deinem Änderungssatz-Kommentar hervor.
dp7 (2024-11-12 13:19:31+00:00): Ciao. Per favore, non inserire nomi di fantasia sui sentieri. Se si tratta di nomi di percorsi ciclistici ufficialmente riconosciuti, usa il tag mtb:name , oppure loc_name se locali. Grazie
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 16:08:49+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152951348
Martin Constantino–Bodin (2024-06-20 15:24:43+00:00): Ces changements sont la suite de ceux-ci : https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152936039
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:38:37+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152951479
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:38:17+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152951547
Taya_S (2024-06-20 15:27:49+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152951707
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:36:54+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152951571
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:46:02+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152951623
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:44:30+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152951723
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:44:42+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152951761
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:45:01+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152951831
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:45:15+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152951891
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:45:27+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152951923
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:45:39+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152952016
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:58:40+00:00): Thanks for update contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152952103
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 15:58:16+00:00): Thanks for update contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152952105
Taya_S (2024-06-20 15:38:27+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152952300
olo81 (2024-06-22 22:00:40+00:00): to nie jest dobry tag dla terenu przykościelnego 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:natural=wood?uselang=pl
Metzor (2024-06-21 03:51:54+00:00): Hallo gnlpfth,

BrouterSuspects meint da sei etwas schief gegangen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17744304#map=19/49.16756/9.24444&layers=N

Es sollte wohl ein "kein Linksabbiegen" sein.

Viele Grüße
Metzor
gnlpfth (2024-06-21 05:47:59+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, da hat sich ein Dreher eingeschlichen. Ist korrigiert
Metzor (2024-06-21 05:54:18+00:00): Danke!
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 16:07:18+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152953029
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 16:07:08+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152953077
somix (2024-06-23 12:44:05+00:00): дублируете уже нанесенный адрес
НинаКостылева (2024-06-23 19:13:21+00:00): спасибо буду внимательней
MyoKyawKyaw (2024-06-20 16:06:09+00:00): Thanks for your contribution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152953167
Taya_S (2024-06-20 16:10:53+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152953887
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-06-20 17:33:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 152958383 where the changeset comment is: Revert vandalism by repeat offender.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16269
gscscnd (2024-06-22 09:22:16+00:00): Zamiast railway=abandoned:blockpost mogłoby być abandoned:railway=blockpost.