piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mfuji (2015-10-28 15:12:33+00:00): Please don't break our data!

You have deleted the SECONDARY roads #335726311 and #313944874 by merging into a different TERTIARY road #376538841.
But they are roads in different class and they are unknown from imagery. Then we have lost many informations tagged in these roads, including informations we surveyed.

You can edit geometries of roads from imagery, but don't merge, delete or repleace ways if you don't actually know about there.
PlaneMad (2015-11-13 12:08:15+00:00): Thank you mfufi was detecting this. abel, can you explain why these roads were merged?
PlaneMad (2015-11-13 12:09:21+00:00): Also thanks for fixing the issues mfuji, please report if you found any other incorrect merging, will have the changeset reverted.
abel801 (2015-11-16 15:12:54+00:00): Thanks mfuji for fixing my errors and I will take into account your suggestions.
SomeoneElse (2015-10-26 21:48:16+00:00): Something's gone seriously wrong with http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/144938464/history#map=17/53.05310/-1.97739 I think.  You've changed it from "unclassified" to "track", but how much of it is a duplicate of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39822084 ?  How much of it is signed as "Charles Bank"?

Rather than trying to "fix" the data it's probably better here to add an OSM note so that someone local can survey it.  I've done bits around Foxt, Froghall, Cheddleton and Kingsley Holt but alas not this bit :(
SomeoneElse (2015-10-26 21:58:17+00:00): Also, you've removed a "restaurant" tag from http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/365192544/history#map=18/53.25831/-2.31093 .  Presumably you've been there and determined that it's more pub that restaurant?  Wouldn't it have been sensible at the very least to add a "food=yes" tag?
vramirez122000 (2015-10-27 13:56:44+00:00): ¡Tremendo! ¡Gracias!
Endres Pelka (2015-10-24 11:22:02+00:00): Please be careful when joining road segments, they may be parts of boundary relation! You damaged relation 3460706 (boundary of Cerro Signorelli). I'm fixing it now.
streckenkundler (2015-10-23 16:41:10+00:00): Hallo,

prüfe bei den Funkmasten bitte immer, ob an dem Standort schon einer ist, wie hier. Nur ganz selten sind 2 Masten an einer Stelle. amenity=bts ist nicht dokumentiert. Ich denke tower:type=communication sagt weitestgegend das selbe aus. JOSM  hat auch eine Vorlage dazu.

Sven
MiSpi (2015-10-23 16:51:35+00:00): Kein Problem, habe mich schon vorher informiert, finde in den Vorlagen wiederum keinen man_made:mast, komischerweise wird Mast ordentlich angezeigt, Tower wiederum nicht :-( amenity:bts ist aber auch gegeben
MiSpi (2015-10-23 16:53:12+00:00): so recht?
streckenkundler (2015-10-23 17:13:08+00:00): Ja... in Ordnung... Gemäß http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecommunications_tower wird "bts" durch "communication:mobile_phone=yes" abgedeckt. 

Das Preset heißt Communiction Towers: https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Presets

Der eine ist übrigens ein aktiver Feuerwachturm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3799518177, die Nutzung als "Handymast" ist eine Sekundärnutzung. 

Sven
Hjart (2016-04-05 16:22:14+00:00): Har du set http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=18&error=80467400 ? Der er endda nogen stykker af dem ;-)
Endres Pelka (2015-10-24 11:09:33+00:00): Guten Tag, können Sie bitte sagen, was Sie gerade editieren? In Ihren (mehreren) Änderungen am 23 Oktober haben Sie die Grenzrelation von Bolama fast völlig geleert. Jetzt enthält sie nur drei Wegesegmente:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1761592
Um diese Relation zurückzusetzen, müsste man alle Ihre Änderunden revertieren. Oder können Sie selber reparieren, was Sie kaputt gemacht haben?
Auch weitere Grenzen in Guiné-Bissau sind beschädigt, nach Wambachers Auswertung:
https://osm.wno-edv-service.de/index.php/10-osm-reports/356-countries-compare-2015-10-2
rickmastfan67 (2015-10-24 01:26:57+00:00): Just so you know, when a road has 'two' names for a segment like this, you should use 'name:right' & 'name:left' depending on which direction the way itself in OSM is going.  See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name
rickmastfan67 (2015-10-24 01:31:44+00:00): So, I would in this case per your changeset comment, leave just 'Washington Road' in the 'name' tag, and add 'West Liberty Avenue' to the 'name:left' tag, and also add Washington Road to the 'name:right' tag (just for clarity) on Way 376546213.
rickmastfan67 (2015-10-24 01:32:15+00:00): If you would like me to do this, please let me know here in the comments and I'll get to it as soon as I hear back from ya. :)
jleedev (2015-10-24 17:17:22+00:00): Done.
abdeldjalil (2015-10-23 18:28:08+00:00): Hi ,  please don't use "landuse=reservoir" tag because it's deprecated according to : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=reservoir?uselang=fr , use "natural=water" + "water=reservoir" instead
robert (2015-10-24 17:38:21+00:00): You recreated the road in the place of "Bridgers Close" with "fixme=missing name". Are you sure this isn't the name? It's broken a match against Ordnance Survey: http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=112395
doug_sfba (2015-10-24 18:54:05+00:00): You are correct. The road is "Bridgers Close", and the unnecessary recreation and the temporary "fixme" was a bit of editing clumsiness on my part. I have corrected the road name.
lutz (2015-10-24 06:44:21+00:00): die straße ist mit footway=both gemappt, es muß nicht jeder fußweg extra gemappt werden.....

grüße von lutz
R0bst3r (2015-10-29 09:48:55+00:00): Can you check tag <;auer=1> on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/376548184? Thanks.
GerdP (2015-10-27 10:21:12+00:00): please review 
the way was tagged 
highway=secondary;tertiary
I've changed it to
highway=secondary
Maybe it should be 
highway=tertiary?
robert (2015-10-24 17:31:18+00:00): Did you mean to delete the way "Canal Street" in this changeset? It has broken a match against Ordnance Survey: http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=850785

If really feel you need to delete & re-create ways, remember you've got to re-add back the tags the original ways had (e.g. name).
carciofo (2015-11-29 18:41:09+00:00): Cordial saludo y gracias por su contribución. Por favor recuerde que los nombres deben ser entrados sin abreviaciones (Calle 102A y no Cll 102a).
Shepot (2015-10-24 19:07:20+00:00): Улицу открыли полностью! Блок убрали! Проезд свободный!
GerdP (2015-10-28 07:15:44+00:00): please review way 38278761:
I've changed the invalid tag
highway=tertiary;residential
to 
highway=residential
5m4u9 (2015-10-27 14:46:49+00:00): Genial. Es bueno añadir horarios de servicio así aplicaciones como OSMand podrán indicarte si está abierto o no.
solenoid jam (2022-09-14 15:30:40+00:00): Здравствуйте. Тут заметочку поставили в которой выражено сомнение в существовании церкви, поскольку с улицы это место выглядит как обычный дом. Никаких вывесок и атрибутики.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204394205

Заметка:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3231838

Скажите, откуда у вас информация, и на сколько она достоверна? Стоит ли снять тэги церкви, или оставить как есть?
Антон-1983 (2022-09-16 11:20:55+00:00): Проверить можете здесь:
https://osipovichi.gov.by/ru/relig-ru/

и здесь:
https://chinovniki.info/%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F/i1qvre.html

Я там не был. Но исходя из тех, что видел не всегда есть таблички на домовых церквях. Очень мало прихожан. Тэги надо оставить.
solenoid jam (2022-09-22 04:16:35+00:00): А у нас есть явное согласие на использование данных этих сайтов в osm?
Thomas8122 (2015-10-24 13:16:21+00:00): dann tu doch bitte auch die Adresse ändern (knowledge)
PT-53 (2020-04-17 05:23:28+00:00): Hallo baindter,
ist es richtig, daß die Straßen Borsigweg und Bucherweg in Baienfurt nicht miteinander verbunden sind?
Falls ja, sollte jeweils am letzten Straßenknoten noch das Merkmal
noexit=yes
ergänzt werden, damit OS-Tools wie z.B. OSM-Inspector keine Hinweise anzeigen:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=9.62256&lat=47.82941&zoom=18&opacity=0.91&overlays=snap_points

Auf dem Luftbild im Geoportal-BW sieht es allerdings aus, wie wenn dort eine Unterführung unter der stillgelegten Bahnlinie wäre und die Straßen doch verbunden wären.

Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?
Fragende Grüße
PT-53 (2020-04-28 05:54:00+00:00): erledigt
Jose Riha (2015-10-24 06:40:27+00:00): aky ma vyznam opatovne davat na budovu tu istu adresu? takisto chyba addr:streetnumber
peto2006 (2015-10-24 14:10:13+00:00): Nevšimol som si to, vrátim to naspäť.
Jose Riha (2015-10-24 14:19:16+00:00): vdaka. entrance=yes tam kludne ale nechaj.
peto2006 (2015-10-24 14:26:22+00:00): Neviem presne ako, takže už to asi meniť nejdem.
Jose Riha (2015-10-24 15:09:40+00:00): nevadi, spravil som to
flohoff (2015-10-24 12:06:34+00:00): Hi,.
in diesem Changeset hast du die verbindung von der verlängerung vom Saturnweg und dem Elmersweg entfernt. Das ist falsch. 

Da ist/war in den OSM Daten ein Pömpel und der steht da genau so. D.h. man kann da sowohl zu Fuß wie auch mit dem Fahrrad durch.

Hier ist ein Bild:

http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/5DI5PUVDbiEHuC1N61v5dw/photo

Und genau so war das in den Daten.

Flo
Heiko_E (2015-10-27 21:53:03+00:00): Sorry, aber das Navi wollte mich da durch leiten. Das ist auch falsch. Evtl. kann das gelöschte Stück ein nicht befahrbare Straßentyp sein. 
Heiko
flohoff (2015-10-28 07:11:40+00:00): Das ist definitiv ein Bug in deinem Navi. Zum einen ist der Schnipsel von der Ecke Saturnweg bis zum Elmersweg eine "service" road d.h. sollte eh nicht für Durchgangsverkehr benutzt werden. Zum anderen ist in den Daten ein Pömpel verzeichnet der nur Fußgänger und Fahrräder durchlässt. 

D.h. das ist ein Bug in dem Navi das da die Daten falsch aufgearbeitet werden.

Deshalb fragte ich so neugierig was du denn das verwendest. Von Mapfactor Navigator weiß ich das der Probleme mit Pömpeln hat. Für kurze Strecken verwende ich deshalb osmand mit den offline karten.

Flo
GerdP (2015-11-04 18:38:17+00:00): please note that the tag highway=crossing
is for nodes
review my changes,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35085410
and 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing
bergaufsee (2015-10-23 22:07:19+00:00): Änderungen betreffen eigentlich Adreßanpassungen zur korrekten Nominatimabfrage... :-)
DVLS (2015-10-23 21:06:13+00:00): Changelog translation (sort of) from Spanish to English:

Updated name (removed "under construction") because the construction is finished.
Address added: street name, number and postal code.
streinger (2015-10-24 07:05:44+00:00): неплохо было бы написать в комментарии что случилось с недавно сделанным проездом; почему он вдруг полностью исчез, может все-таки перегородили чем-то?
Shepot (2015-10-24 19:12:07+00:00): Давно ли этот проезд появился? И постоянно ли он был открыт? Весь народ просто бы здесь ездил, а не разворачивался бы возле Радуги!
streinger (2015-10-25 19:38:13+00:00): появился он недавно и на 22 октября там можно было проехать, там 2-х полосная асфальтированная дорога с тротуаром, поэтому и написал куда исчез? если там заграждение какое поставили, то нужно было барьер нарисовать, а не удалять полностью.
Nadjita (2023-02-07 15:43:47+00:00): Ich finde keinerlei Informationen zu einem Wohnviertel „Uferpromenade“. Wo bekomme ich nähere Infos dazu, z.B. wann es gebaut wurde, wer der Architekt war, usw. ?
mike_bzh (2023-02-10 16:58:15+00:00): Das Baugebiet wurde 2005 erschlossen. Bis aus den Zahnarzt und die Nummer 63 & 65, wurden die Häuser von die Firma Weber-Masssivhaus gebaut. Im Netz finde ich nichts mehr dazu. Daher am besten beim Bauträger nachfragen.
Nadjita (2023-02-10 17:00:43+00:00): Werde ich machen, danke!
muralito (2015-10-24 02:21:16+00:00): Are you fixing the coastline only or also the boundaries?
There are some outer into outer in Bolama relation...
SomeoneElse (2015-11-07 10:39:06+00:00): Hi, Could you explain the changes to http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/349329544/history please?  I mapped it (based on what seemed to be correct at the time) 5 months ago - has the wiki's idea of "power plant mapping" changed yet again since then, or did I miss something?

On a more general point, it's always helpful to explain to people what the problem is rather "than just changing" it.  I happened to spot this change to something I'd mapped previously; most people wouldn't.  It would definitely help to explain changes such as this in changeset comments (like this one).
Cheers,
Andy
luschi (2015-10-23 23:13:09+00:00): Hi jorvime,
some of the buildings added in this changeset overlapping other buildings from changeset/34831727. please cancel double buildings. same at the path and parking
bdiscoe (2015-10-24 15:52:53+00:00): Testing ability to put emojis in chageset comments: 👍🏻👍🏼👍🏽👍🏾👍🏿😊😄😊
bdiscoe (2015-10-24 15:54:42+00:00): 👍
DUGA (2021-04-04 01:05:15+00:00): PLEASE, NEVER EVER ADD BUILDINGS LIKE THESE IN THE FUTURE REGARDLESS OF YOU ARE ACTIVE OR NOT.
Harry Wood (2015-10-25 01:52:11+00:00): oopse. You made a little bit of highway=motorway here. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/376618327/history   I'll change it to highway=unclassified
escada (2016-03-21 04:48:10+00:00): Hallo,

ook hier lijkt de nummering van de knopen en de route niet overeen te stemmen 72-74 vs. 67-74.

Als u even onderaan http://osma.vmarc.be/en/network/2172380 kijkt, zal u zien dat er nog een paar routes zijn die niet overeenstemmen met de nummers op de knopen.

Zou u in uw notities kunnen kijken en deze corrigeren ? Alvast bedankt
flohoff (2015-10-24 12:10:02+00:00): Nodes: 491 created, 82 modified, 58 deleted
Ways: 106 created, 40 modified, 5 deleted
Relations: 0 created, 0 modified, 0 deleted

Sind jetzt keine "minor changes" ...
lubosb (2015-11-01 13:50:34+00:00): Hi Johan,

in this changeset you have created an area with name test1. I don't think we should use Openstreetmap for testing. Can you please improve tags for this area to something meaningful or remove it?

Thank you.
OSt (2015-11-20 18:20:06+00:00): Cesta https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/376647626, ktera jde pres domy a garaze vypada jako omyl.
GerdP (2015-10-26 10:54:35+00:00): please review way 276419945:
it was tagged highway=track;tertiary
I've changed that to highway=tertiary
kartler175 (2015-10-25 16:33:37+00:00): Bei Änderungen bitte auch die beteiligten Abbiegerelationen beachten!
http://map.comlu.com/?zoom=18&lat=49.480543&lon=10.981838&layer=Mapquest%20Open&overlays=FFT
Mike409 (2015-10-29 05:00:13+00:00): Hi Kartler,
auf deinen Hinweis bzgl. [http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34838109] hin, hab ich versucht es zu fixen (see #34941116, #34941097), aber versteh die Logik von Abbiegerelationen wohl zu wenig. Es scheinen die gleichen Fehler trotzdem noch drin zu sein.
Gruß
 Mike
GerdP (2015-10-26 21:27:42+00:00): please review:
1) invalid tag oneway=no;yes 
on way 176322507
2)invalid tag highway=residential;unclassified
on way 8054818
GerdP (2015-11-11 15:10:33+00:00): please review also 
oneway=no;-1 on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61402565
ViriatoLusitano (2016-05-24 16:28:16+00:00): Olá Tiordelo, onde é que encontras-te estes dados?
ViriatoLusitano (2016-05-24 16:28:32+00:00): Em especial a linha de aterragem do Aeroporto do Porto.
Bruno_Remy (2015-10-26 01:40:45+00:00): Hi, Are-you sure that this polygone is a "Chute" (waterfall)? Where did you get this name from?
uboot (2015-10-26 08:38:49+00:00): I've got the name from a node south of the changed bridge. I undeletet it and changed the natural=water on it to waterway=waterfall. Sorry for my error. I don't speek french.
Endres Pelka (2015-10-25 12:10:31+00:00): Hello, why deleting the suburb "Infanta Isabel" (relation 2114731)? If this is not an error and this administrative entity really ceased to exist, please don't forget to mention it in changeset comment.
miguel_cc (2015-10-25 12:40:08+00:00): Because I'm changing the administrative entities of Cáceres, acording to the official Geographic Information System (SIG) of Cáceres.
Govanus (2016-01-28 19:54:37+00:00): I'm minded to reverse this change as the wiki suggests that your new tag is a painted line in the middle of the road the line is a indication of a traffic island that turns this into a dual carrageway and the line is the central resevation (like the bit in the middle of an Autobahn!) This site was only finished its latest remodel last year so not a lot of sources are up to date.
 I sourced the tag from a stretch of the A4074:-
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/107118868
where I'd done some earlier work.  The spelling of not useing central instead of Centre seemed a bit odd but it seems to be something people have been ok with for the last 5 years so I jst tryed to be consitant.
I was thinking about adding a area for it but I was haveing a lot of tree overhang a loss of the redesign plan ment I couldn't be acurate so I chose the way it was done 5 years ago for the time being but I'll add the island when it is well fillmed for bing maybe if no one else goes and measures it first...
GerdP (2016-01-28 20:06:36+00:00): If you change it to barrer=* I see no problem.
Govanus (2016-01-28 20:19:33+00:00): oh ok how about:-

highway=central_reservation
barrier=traffic_island

?
Govanus (2016-01-28 20:20:34+00:00): yes I did just recheck and spell it the original way with central
Govanus (2016-01-28 20:22:21+00:00): ok that how I've left it witht the barrier tag too.
GerdP (2016-01-28 20:28:01+00:00): I meant 
barrier=central_reservation
as in the example that you referred to. That way has no highway tag, why do you think that it needs one?
Govanus (2016-01-28 21:45:18+00:00): oh yes I must have done without a recheck from a dogey memory I thought it was a highway feature...
zarl (2015-11-20 07:24:11+00:00): Hi Marco,

das war super vorbereitet, nach Artikel im Merkur http://www.merkur.de/lokales/starnberg/landkreis/waldkreisel-rekordtempo-5881613.html ist der Kreisel jetzt offiziell eröffnet, habe alles hoffentlich sorgsam genug auf die neue Streckenführung umgearbeitet. Inkl. Relationen.

Gruss,
Carl
marcoSt (2015-11-20 18:27:50+00:00): Servus Carl,
erst mal Danke für das für das Lob. Ich hab nochmal die Relationen und den Streckenverlauf nochmal kontrolliert siehe hier z.B.: http://stadtsite.de/link/1/nachrichten/10081724/26617_2013-12-04_Waldkreuzung+Ausbau+liegt+vorerst+auf+Eis.html. Ich würde sagen passt alles. Haben wir gut gemacht  :-)
aceman444 (2015-10-25 00:40:35+00:00): Dobry den, ak bola duplicita v tom, ze to iste adresne cislo je uz aj na budove, tak to je dobre, ze ste odstranili. Ale cele body ste asi nemuseli, zrejme su tam vchody do budovy a mohli ste tam dat aspon entrance=yes.
peto2006 (2015-10-25 15:01:45+00:00): Pôvodne som tie body pridal ja v changeset 34827531, lebo som si nevšimol že budovy sú už označené. Áno, označovali zároveň aj vchody. Už ich ale niekto pridal naspäť ako entrance, takže už by to malo byť v poriadku.
andrewsh (2015-10-28 11:10:42+00:00): Hello,

Thanks for your contribution, but there's no need to add extra duplicate data: the addresses of these places are already on the buildings there in, so adding them to the places themselves increases duplication and adds some confusion if the address information is not exactly the same (as is in your case).

If you want to improve addresses, it's better to unify them and remove from POIs where appropriate, moving them to the buildings instead.
RobJN (2015-10-28 18:05:04+00:00): Actually as a tourist it is more important to have the address data in the POI so that when you search for the POI you get all the detail you need. My preference would be to move all the POI data on to the building in cases where the POI occupies the building. 

Something for you to think about: Does opening hours apply to the building (yes) or the POI (yes).
andrewsh (2015-10-28 18:07:40+00:00): No, it usualy does not apply to the building, as normally there are multiple POIs in the building except when it's a building specifically built for some purpose (in that case it's okay to have POI tags on the whole building).
RobJN (2015-10-28 18:11:42+00:00): It's cute that things are so clear cut in Bratislava. Shame you're not thinking about the benefit to the end data user but that's one for you to figure out with the local community.
andrewsh (2015-10-28 18:12:51+00:00): How does the end user benefit from excessive or wrong data?
RobJN (2015-10-28 18:17:59+00:00): Because when they search for Moods bakery they get results that include an address - something that most people would expect. Ultimately it comes down to what you think an "address" is. One could argue that the address is a delivery point and therefore the address should be tagged to the delivery point (letterbox). This would work well for buildings that have multiple addresses. You could also argue that the address is related to the person or business at that location (in which case mapping to a POI is a good idea). Finally you could argue that an address is a reference for a building (which is your preferred approach). All have their flaws.
andrewsh (2015-10-28 18:19:19+00:00): If some software can't figure the address from the building the POI is in, it's defective software and it needs to be fixed.
RobJN (2015-10-28 18:22:54+00:00): So please offer to fix all the software that doesn't currently work in your desired way. 

Also what to do with a large building that includes multiple addresses (say 1 to 20) and one of these is a cafe at address 18 in that building?
andrewsh (2015-10-28 18:27:11+00:00): Multiple addresses is one of the use cases for having addresses on POIs, I never argued that.
RobJN (2015-10-28 18:30:10+00:00): Well no worries. I'll leave it to your community to work out. I just wanted to highlight that it is not as clear cut as you think it is and the "so fix your software" argument is not particularly helpful when the matter isn't so clear cut and the software developers are usually working unpaid and with lots of other areas to prioritise.
arvdk (2017-10-07 19:18:32+00:00): Hi Quinten Dengerink,
I saw your edit here in Groningen. Few remarks:
1. Your description cannot be accurate because it is not (even near) Gaza Strip. Please mind your description. If you accidentally mess up, you can always comment your own changeset.
2. I noted you added a terrace. (as in where people eat and drink outside of a restaurant). You've tagged it with 'building=terrace', which is not the right tagging. (It's the outline of a linear row of residential dwellings). See way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/376685485/history and see wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dterrace 
How it should be, I'm not sure. Check how others do it. I've searched for it but couldn't find an appropriate tag for it (yet) on wiki. Thanks, arvdk
GerdP (2015-11-02 18:46:01+00:00): please note:
I've changed the tag highway=speed_bump
to traffic_calming=bump
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35040509
sabas88 (2015-11-02 18:47:29+00:00): Thanks!
rene78 (2015-10-30 21:04:21+00:00): Warum hast Du die Adressdaten von den POI's gelöscht?
MichaH (2015-10-31 17:36:59+00:00): Weil ich alle separaten Hausnummern, die ich vor Jahren mal als einzelne Nodes gemappt habe, nun auf die entsprechenden Gebäude übertragen habe.
Ich halte nichts davon eine Adresse mehrfach einzutragen.
Bei einem Gebäude -eine Hausnummer- mit z.B. Laden im Erdgeschoss und mehreren Ärzten in den Obergeschossen würde, wenn jeder POI mit Adresse versehen ist, diese Hausnummer n-mal vorhanden in OSM sein. 
Ausserdem kann eine (gute) Geo-Datenbank eine Eigenschaft bzw Information einer Fläche, mit einem einfachen Befehl, auf alle in der Fläche liegenden Objekte anwenden, ohne dass diese selbst diese Information tragen müssen.
LaniusCollurio (2022-07-15 07:59:18+00:00): Ciao , toglierei il percorso 374425959 non è solo horrible, non esiste proprio più
Jaszczur89 (2015-10-27 16:52:46+00:00): Bez sensu śmiecić mapę czymś czego nie ma.
R0bst3r (2015-11-15 18:47:48+00:00): Hi FRichard44,
can you review tag craft=craft on node http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3790279727?
Thanks!