Well I understood they were cleaning up their database (which, strangely enough, seems to be kept (at least partially) in GitHub issues - but I’m not judging people DB choices - hey, some people even do it in Excel! shudder), e.g. this post mentions 59 cleanups. There were also talks of “Galoy dataset” and “legacy dataset” which they are seemingly validating/cleaning up (and/or preparing to).
But maybe I’m misunderstanding? 
I’ve inquired for clarifications about that legacy dataset(s?) here.
Hi @Matija_Nalis,
It think is would be better to try keep all questions on this thread so we can address them once and centrally. I will point your GH discussion comment back here.
Some clarifications for you:
As explained on our organised editing wiki page, the GH Issues are created from our web form by non-OSM users. These can either be new submissions or verification updates. These are then verified by our community.
These weren’t clean-ups per se; they were rejected submissions that failed verification. In the case of these, they were labelled as services with no physical location.
The ‘legacy dataset’ is the now circa. 6000 locations that were largely entered into OSM in 2014. The main goal of our community is to clean-up this dataset. To be clear - we did not create this legacy dataset, but we are putting the effort in to clean it up. I will update our organised editing page to make this clearer.
The ‘Galoy’ dataset is circa 500 verified locations that were added without following the proper procedure for automated editing. We are working with Galoy on this and will keep you posted on our proposed steps.
Give us time @o_andras and please try to stay positive. Why wouldn’t we update the discussion?
To summarise, we have:
Updated the GH thread started by @ivanbranco.
Created and modified our organised edit page.
Added an organised team / organisation page.
Updated our tagging instructions.
Briefed our community on the updated guidance.
We believe we are addressing all the legitimate concerns on this thread, but it’s entirely possible we have missed something along the way.
We’ll continue to monitor the situation going forward and will tread lightly.
I’m a realist tending to pessimist. Just act like you say you mean to instead of mocking us on our backs and it will be great for everyone involved.
And please don’t tell me to stay positive, I had enough positive toxicity for a lifetime at my previous job.
No problem updating the GH discussion. Just letting you know that you should communicate here too, not instead of (see Organised Editing Guidelines - OpenStreetMap Foundation):
All related communications should use channels that are open (no non-OpenStreetMap registration required), (…)
Thanks for the update.
PS: may not look like it, but I think that what you’re doing is good – IF done right. You just lost me with what happened earlier in the thread.
One thing that still doesn’t sit well with me about this whole thing is how you portray what people will get out of this whole thing by “cleaning up the legacy dataset.” To give a few examples,
on your “communities” page it says “Take ownership of your local bitcoin mapping data.” Then again on your Wiki page, Organised Editing/Activities/BTCMap, it says “The task will be be split-up on a per country basis with local taggers encouraged to take ownership of their data.” Also, In Athe Notes on Verification section of that same article it says “as we onboard more communities and create more tools to help the existing communities to maintain their data-sets.” The “Aims” section also says " *Recruit a team of new OSM users from within the wider bitcoin community to help verify locations in-person and maintain the dataset.
The point is that throughout your website and the documentation it gives the impression that people who do verification or add information to OpenStreetMap “own the dataset.” It should go without saying that you and your contributors do not “own the dataset” once they have entered the data into OpenStreetMap. Obviously your users don’t get to dictate how stores that accept Bitcoin are mapped or tagged going forward just because they did a little tag fiddling or whatever. And of course they don’t “own the dataset.” That might make good marketing add copy, but it’s just not how OSM works. You need to make it clear to your users that it isn’t and that they don’t own anything and aren’t the Maintainers of the dataset" by contributing to the project.
Of course they don’t literally own the dataset; it’s open data.
We mean they should take some ownership of the responsibility to maintain it. Like good citizens should probably pick litter up on our own street - communal responsibility. We don’t own the street of course.
We can tighten some of the language to make that clearer.
Obviously no one thinks they own the street because they didn’t make it and no one is saying they do. I don’t think it would be that out of the ordinary that if you tell people who aren’t OpenStreetmap contributors that they own the data that they will then have the impression that they “own” the data though. Or at least “own” it in a general sense, that would potentially lead to them edit waring people who modify “their data.” Kind of like how Kaartjesman edit wared me on the currency tags Wiki page because he supposedly “created and maintained it.” Things like that are bound to happen if you repeatedly present what your users are doing as “owning and maintaining” the information they are contributing.
(As a side to that, the “communal responsibility” should be to OpenStreetMap, not your website. But that’s another discussion.)
BTW, I noticed one of your users BSN21M is getting their information about what places are using Lighting from Wallet of Satoshi, which according to their website is copyrighted and also appears to be extremely inaccurate to boot. It would be good if you told them and anyone else who is using it not to. Not using copyrighted apps to import data to OSM is a day one, basic no-no that really shouldn’t be occurring. Again, it seems like mostly a failing on your part to not make that clear from beginning. It also puts in question every edit BSN21M has made where they edited the Lighting tags. Not that I’m going to be the mass delete their edits due to copyright infringement, at least not at this point, but it shouldn’t happen again.
We do have agreement from Wallet of Satoshi to use their data. Indeed, they are now switching to using the OSM dataset themselves as they believe, like us, that this is a more sustainable way forward.
Some of the entries from the WoS dataset were not properly verified and we have already provided a warning to our community to treat that dataset with extreme care. We will re-verify any entries that were created from that dataset.
Can you link to the terms under which that was made available?
I have a thread of private emails.
Let me ask them if I can release those, or perhaps it’s better to get a succinct statement from them that I can share.
Ugh, why didn’t you just say that’s where your users where getting the information about Lighting Network from when I first brought it up? 
Sorry, I don’t follow.
The WoS dataset is a small portion of the wider “Lightning” dataset, which is largely sourced from user and merchant reports from our website.
Even if they decline the publishing of private communications, you should still clearly publicly state any and all entities that have given you permissions to use their datasets on your activity wiki page.