piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse (2021-06-02 09:13:39+00:00): Hello hongngan,
The changeset comment that you've used here "hotosm-project-8287#tm-project #MissingMaps #Malawi #NLRC #redcross #rodekruis #gomicron21sg #gomicron21sgfacn" doesn't contain any description of what you're actually doing, just a string of gibberish letters.  Please use real words to describe what you're doing.  See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments for more information.
Best Regards,
Andy
gaedho (2022-08-29 00:20:54+00:00): I challenge that Path 949075817 is private.
fgerin (2022-08-29 20:07:53+00:00): This path was used for long, then a private sign appeared. I checked with chemins.be and it appeared the wood owner is known to be annoyed. The private sign appeared at the same time there and on the parallel path east side.

If the private sign disappeared, it's probably that someone has removed it, but certainly no the wood owner. You may suggest a correction on this path (preferred compared to changeset comment, since accurately target the problem).

I will check for the private sign again on next visit.

PS: chemins.be cannot claim any public path there, nothing at "Atlas 1841" and nothing at the "Cadastre". And since it was not referenced, we can't get witnesses for a free passing there for the required 30 years.
Keima (2021-05-31 16:30:49+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue,

Merci d'avoir contribué à OpenStreetMap.
Je vous invite à lire cette page où vous pourrez trouver de nombreuses informations utiles https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:France/bienvenue

Est-ce le compte d'une classe dans le cadre d'un cours de SNT?

Concernant vos modifications vous avez modifié la géométrie du chemin, de la partie rocheuse et du lac de manière très étrange au vu des photographies aériennes. Est-ce normal?

Bonne continuation,
Marek-M (2022-06-10 20:47:10+00:00): Cześć! Proszę Ciebie o niesklejanie obszarów z drogami. Takie sklejenie utrudnia późniejsze edycje mapy. Dzięki :)
Lee Carré (2021-12-06 16:52:21+00:00): http://www.osm.org/note/2569645
Lee Carré (2022-03-15 17:50:49+00:00): Possible retagging:
male=only

Use (deleted) PoI node to mark entrance.
habi (2023-06-05 10:32:57+00:00): Ciao aeskimo
Ich würde den Tierpark der Klinik Wyss nicht als `zoo=safari_park` erfassen, da hier a) keine Grosstiere sind und b) nicht in "eigenen Fahrzeugen" die Tiere angeschaut werden können.
Ich frage mich sowieso wie die paar wenigen Tiergehege korrekt getaggt werden könnten, ein wirklicher Zoo ist das ja nicht...
Gruss,
habi
Boyan Alexiev (2021-07-12 13:42:33+00:00): Mapped area does not align with the satellite data available.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105627742
OmranNAJJAR (2021-07-12 14:00:58+00:00): I used Bing imagery!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105627742
ma-rt-in (2021-05-31 20:07:08+00:00): Hallo,

du hast bei Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/215262887#map=16/50.1902/6.6365&layers=N bicycle/horse=no gesetzt, ist das den vor Ort so beschildert?

Zudem weiß ich nicht, was du mit width=0 an diesen Wegem meinst: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/949080386 und https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/949080385

vg
eifelrider (2021-06-01 08:46:54+00:00): Hallo ma-rt-in, 
bicycle/horse=no habe ich gesetzt, da dieses Stück Weg definitiv nicht für Fahrräder (egal welcher Art) und Pferde geeignet ist, das ist eher ein "Klettersteig". Ich habe mein Rad die ganze Strecke getragen. Ausgeschildert ist dort nichts, ich war mir nicht sicher, wie ich das sonst darstellen kann.
Bei width=0 habe ich 0,3 (also 30 cm) eingegeben, es blieb aber immer nur die 0 stehen. Ich würde das als "SingleTrail" oder auch Trampelpfad bezeichnen, da der Weg halt so schmal ist. Oder gibt es dafür einen eigenen Typ?
Das sind meine ersten Gehversuche, daher auch meine Bitte um Prüfung. Vielen Dank und Grüße aus Gerolstein.
ma-rt-in (2021-06-01 19:25:57+00:00): also bicycle/horse=no gehört zu access und sind Zugangsbeschränkungen, welche wir nur erfassen, wenn es sie auch tatsächlicht gibt. Nur weil du der Meinung bist, das man den Weg nicht befahren kann, muss das nicht gleich einem Verbot sein.
Für die Beschreibung des Zustandes des Weges haben wir verschiedene tags, schau mal hier: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath

Zu width: Verwende statt einem Komma, den Punkt.

vg

Bei Fragen, frag einfach mich, das Forum, das WIki, Telegram, etc.
eifelrider (2021-06-03 11:19:48+00:00): Vielen Dank, habe meine Änderungen korrigiert. Dabei ist mir aufgefallen, daß ich beim Beginn von Weg 215262887 in einen Weg gefahen bin, der nach ein paar Metern im Wald endete. Soll sowas auch erfasst werden? Diese Frage richte ich an dich, weil du es so angeboten hast, wäre es nicht besser auf einer allgemeineren Seite, wo auch andere die Antwort lesen können?
ma-rt-in (2021-06-03 17:02:28+00:00): ZU diesem "Stumpf", da kannst du am Ende einfach noexit=yes setzen.
Die Frage wird immer wieder gestellt. Und hier kann auch keder mit lesen.
ElliottPlack (2021-09-09 01:35:55+00:00): saw these path ways today in my (similar) travels :)  Nice work adding! When adding footways like this (or any "highway" feature, be sure to connect them to an adjacent highway.

In this case the level1 abstraction level would be to simply connect them to the roads, but since there is a sidewalk there, and a curb blocking wheeled access, you could go deeper if you want and add the sidewalk--or you could add a curb object to indicate there is an obstruction there. Either way, at least connect it to something nearby. That lets routing tools work. Cheers! Elliott
pw33 (2021-05-31 16:56:24+00:00): Tour Unite - это не частный трек, а веломаршрут, поддерживаемый энтузиастами.
Константин Гам (2021-06-01 08:24:07+00:00): С точки зрения осм это частная фантазия. Давайте маршруты пинмиксов еще грузить на карту...
pw33 (2021-06-01 09:44:15+00:00): Это с вашей тотчки зрения ТЮ - фантазия. Да, маршрут не официальный, но объективно существует и пользуется популярностью. 

Даже если вы считаете, что его по каким-то причинам не стоит рендерить, то замените state=proposed на proposed:route=mtb, как это сделано для российских частей европейских веломаршрутов.
Константин Гам (2021-06-01 14:50:18+00:00): На сайте турюнайт написано что проект все.
На местности я бывал, никаких следов сие *маршрутов нет*, посему всё это не более чем чей то трек.
Давайте я свой любимый маршрут по даче внесу тогда, по нему ездит десяток человек, о турюнайт не знает никто из знакомых мне путешественников россии, а оных я знаю не мало.
Можно еще страва хитмап обрисовывать)))))


Ну без шуток, маршрут может и полезен кому то, но это не данные карты, объективно. Есть полно сайтов где люди делятся туристическими треками, их и стоит использовать
xronos (2021-06-03 04:30:55+00:00): ну так сделайте одолжение - разместите ваш любимый маршрут, правильно дркументируйте и поддерживайте сайт с его описанием. Это так работает
xronos (2021-06-03 05:04:28+00:00): к остальным участникам: Почему вы не пишите жалобы на вандализм? Вы имеете столько же прав держать эту информацию в осм, сколько другой имеет право её удалять. Такие конфликты должна разбирать DWG
az09 (2021-06-04 17:40:04+00:00): @xronos: ознакомился, остаюсь на стороне ГаМ-а, он достаточно точно разъяснил, что для подобных вещей есть места получше. да я даже до сих пор сомневаюсь, что маршрутам ОТ место в ОСМ... хотя ведь уже кучей инструментария обросло!

@GaM: не "проект всё", а ездоки выходят на маршрут без поддержки и сопровождения. такие же велосипедисты как и ты, только другие. а размахивать своими знакомствами как минимум нескромно=)
xronos (2021-06-09 17:46:46+00:00): восстановил, согласно с договорённостью и разрешением здесь: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105779147

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106109640
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106109561

так что, пожалуйста, будьте внимательны, не делайте его готовым маршрутом, а то у людей сразу много вопросов.
Lee Carré (2022-03-15 18:29:23+00:00): Possible retagging:
(fe)male=only
Allison P (2024-09-05 05:26:07+00:00): Somehow addr:state=VT got added to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8785888084
Jakka (2021-05-31 14:40:02+00:00): mis agence sur node.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105629277
Level (2021-06-04 02:09:29+00:00): The bowling alley is still open.
aweech (2021-06-04 18:13:10+00:00): Thanks for catching that; I was just cleaning up after changeset 105579228 which deleted the bowling alley but forgot to remove the sport tag. Do you know where the Japanese restaurant goes? I'll comment on 105579228 too to ask the person who originally deleted the bowling alley.
Lachgast (2021-05-31 15:51:00+00:00): Hi pcmill!

Nice to see someone active in my (future) neighbourhood! Nice additions. Are you also from around Utrecht? 

There is still a lot left to be done in the area, so if you want we can join forces or keep in touch. Would be cool!

Keep up the good work!
pcmill (2021-06-01 06:27:59+00:00): Hey,

Yes I live in the neighbourhood :)
Do you see specific things that need to be done?

Thanks for the message!
Arminus (2021-07-22 07:13:01+00:00): Why is way 938557189 still in? way 949091849 seems to be the actual ferrata, so I think 938557189 could be deleted?
DAVIDE POZZO (2021-07-26 07:41:08+00:00): I think so too .
fabiotofy (2021-06-01 07:49:45+00:00): grazie per la correzione. Solitamente su OSM, se vi sono due interni che però fanno riferimento allo stesso interno, il doppione lo si può cancellare.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105629725
gileri (2021-06-01 20:51:06+00:00): Bonjour, merci pour ces contributions !

Pour info, c'est pas nécessaire sur OpenStreetMap de préciser qu'un chemin piéton est empruntable par les piétons, c'est implicite ici :

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/282477868
hlfan (2023-08-11 13:36:03+00:00): Du hast hier die B50 als primary gemappt. Allerdings ist die B50 hier eine Autostraße, und trunk in Österreich äquivalent mit Autostraßen vorgesehen (siehe https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:highway=trunk#International_equivalence). Daher hast du auf dem von dir bearbeiteten Straßenabschnitt auch die Zugangsbeschränkungen geändert (siehe https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Austria), und zwar aufgrund unzureichender Datenbasis. Sollte sich die Situation vor Ort tatsächlich geändert haben, bitte ich um Belege, sonst folgt eine Korrektur dieses Änderungssatzes.
hlfan (2023-08-18 22:15:08+00:00): hab die Umfahrung Schützen auch gleich korrigiert in CS 140075805
blackboxlogic (2021-06-08 22:28:31+00:00): A reminder that removed paths have a tendency to be re-added. Marking a path as private would be a better solution.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105629988
StefanHRT (2021-05-31 16:08:20+00:00): bicycle=yes ist bei path sowieso impliziert, braucht also nicht separat gesetzt werden ;) Und mit MTB/Fully kommt man fast überall langt (Ich spreche da aus fast täglicher Erfahrung) ;)
Jakka (2021-05-31 14:59:01+00:00): motor_vehicle=permit vehicle that has paper permission always allowed. With access no nothing can pas example speed_pedelec ? mofa ? moped tourisbus ect ...
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105630233
cserpell (2021-05-31 18:18:20+00:00): Hola Martín, bienvenido a OpenStreetMap.

Me llama la atención el lugar donde agregaste un paradero de buses. ¿Está ahí realmente o debería ir en algún lugar cercano?

Muchas gracias.
Jakka (2021-05-31 15:10:39+00:00): I updated the intersection.
Problem with bicycle route 15-63
https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=12278578
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105630613
dreua (2021-12-05 18:56:47+00:00): Aufgepasst: Die unterirdische Straße ist vermutlich nicht gepflastert ;) (Ich entferne den Tag mal wieder.)
aweech (2021-05-31 20:18:57+00:00): Please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed#Driving_direction for how to tag speed limits that are different in each direction. I've been mapping the speed limit signs to help you out in these cases, but you don't seem to be getting it. And, of course, please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface#Values once again. And, since I found at least one street that you tagged with access=private that didn't have any sign saying such, please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate.
pokey (2021-05-31 21:00:55+00:00): "speed limits that are different in each direction" - Thanks for that. there are a couple of spots that I am aware of where this is the case, and I was not sure how to tag these

"surface#Values" - OK. I read it again. I'm not sure why you asked me to, but I did.

"I found at least one street that you tagged with access=private" Was it at least one street, or at most one street? I believe you are being hyperbolic again. Either way, which street or streets was it? I very recently did a survey of this area specifically to identify private roads, so I would like to identify the error.
aweech (2021-06-05 17:19:10+00:00): I finally had the time to give this the full review you requested. I had initially just checked Colcord Road and assumed that you were confusing ownership for access, but now I have checked all the ones you added access=private to in this edit. I found that Caverly Court, Colcord Road, Harty Way, Estate Drive, Kessler Way, Flower Drive, Harlan Drive, Nippo Drive, Misty Lane, Donigan Lane, Small Road, and Crossley Road had no markings indicating access=private but did have markings indicating ownership=private. I could find no markings for access=private or ownership=private for Yearling Drive, Neal Lane, and Jacob's Way. I could find no way that you tagged with access=private that had any signage stating that. So I believe that you were confusing ownership for access.

As for surfaces, in your recent edits you continue to tag unpaved Class V roads with surface=dirt, even though that combination is extremely rare. The vast majority of unpaved public highways have been improved and should have surface=compacted or surface=fine_gravel. In this edit particularly, you tagged an asphalt driveway off of Caverly Court as surface=dirt, though that is likely due to making a bad assumption than the more fundamental issue of treating surface=dirt as a synonym for surface=unpaved.
pokey (2021-06-05 18:22:27+00:00): Private roads:
So, you are trying to tell me that in the state of New Hampshire access to a private road is not implicitly restricted, and furthermore that signage indicating the road is privately owned does not expressly restrict assess? I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Lawyers have been debating the definition and circumstances surrounding private roads in NH since long before you or I were born, but one thing is sure: Private roads are private property to which access is limited. In short, you may use a private road only if you own it, by express permission, or if it is an easement to your own property. Thus in the state of NH Ownership=private most definitely means Access=private. If you think I'm wrong, go try parking on one overnight and see what happens.
pokey (2021-06-05 19:42:37+00:00): Surfaces:
I disagree with your conclusion. Surface=dirt is more descriptive than surface=unpaved. The wiki clearly states that "unpaved" could mean any number of possible surfaces, and is not limited to different types of dirt.

Also surface=dirt is indisputably more descriptive and more useful than no data at all. 

I do agree that gravel, compact, etc... is more descriptive than just "dirt," but I freely admit that it is also outside of my area of interest. I don't see any value in stopping to evaluate the dirt, because I don't think anyone using the map really cares. However, for a great number of people there is value in knowing whether a road is dirt so that they can route around it. I would argue that a great many more people want to rout around the dirt than care what kind of dirt it is.

As I told you before, when I drive past a road I look. If I see dirt, I log dirt, and I make an edit, because from my perspective dirt is dirt.

If you have a different perspective, please go and analyze the dirt, and make your own determination as to what kind of dirt it is. Go do your own survey. I'm not going to do that for you. Feel free to record whether the dirt is made of gravel or compact gravel or crushed seashells or gold flake. Get as granular as you like (pun intended). I promise I won't try to stop you.
pokey (2023-01-29 21:16:13+00:00): What is the specific location in this changeset that has a diferent speed limit in each direction? Have you fixed it? If not, I would appreciate it if you fixed it, and pointed it out to me so that I can see an example done correctly.

You also said that you have been mapping speed limit signs. You are correct that I'm not getting it. I haven't seen any point labeled as a speed limit sign. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
aweech (2023-02-01 00:44:44+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8722807655 is an example of a speed limit sign here. The matching one that I added a few years ago is by the cemetery just to the north, and the stretch between them is an area where the speed limit is different in each direction. For other examples nearby, see the stretch around the junction of Dover and King Roads near https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8622299365 and going up Center Hill Road near https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8622318991.
pokey (2023-09-13 01:13:01+00:00): Thanks for that example. I get it now.
ToniE (2021-05-31 15:22:27+00:00): ...MVV Bus 512: Lückenschluss
user_11418917 (2021-05-31 15:31:31+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 105625818, 105626112, 105625925.
gpserror (2021-05-31 16:48:26+00:00): oh shoot, this might have been slightly premature...
neilbert (2021-06-09 15:08:09+00:00): These interchanges have not yet been renumbered. Is there an easy way to revert them?
gpserror (2021-06-11 19:11:18+00:00): Ugh... wish I knew.  Plus the fact they need to be changed back when they do renumber.
literan (2021-05-31 16:19:04+00:00): если что, "Шаурма 24" это не название, описано в вики.
Один раз исправил, и потом снова исправлю
flexagoon (2021-05-31 16:24:13+00:00): А если вообще никаких табличек кроме этой нет, даже с названием юрлица?
literan (2021-05-31 18:43:00+00:00): noname=yes ставить тогда
pio2_122 (2021-05-31 16:04:53+00:00): A travel agency is not a hotel. 
So why did you remove tourism=hotel and add shop=travel_agency instead?
rocamadur (2021-05-31 17:07:41+00:00): I'm sorry. This changes created by mistake. I'm teach new platform for me.
pio2_122 (2021-06-02 12:53:09+00:00): I understand. I've restored the previous version.
iWowik (2021-06-01 10:47:19+00:00): Это не адреса, а абы что набито.
Это легче откатить, чем исправлять.
❤️‍🔥 (2021-06-10 23:34:22+00:00): Manukau station is already mapped, why have you added the train station 3 times?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105633117
BCNorwich (2021-06-03 07:07:53+00:00): Fiction removed Way: 949120743 and several other duplicated highways.

Regards Bernard.
Lee Carré (2021-05-31 23:31:03+00:00): What makes for http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments 🙂.

Thanks, but it was only the north-west corner which needed an extra node to blunt the point.

Since removing nodes is easier than adding, I'll have a go at tweaking this, next time I'm passing.
Lee Carré (2021-05-31 23:32:44+00:00): Re note #2687882
literan (2021-05-31 16:18:03+00:00): не, не исправил. layer=0 по умолчанию везде, где он не стоит, это первое.

И второе, на рендер он не влияет. Тоннели по-любому будут рендериться
flexagoon (2021-05-31 16:22:53+00:00): А почему тогда тоннель показан под другими дорогами, но над травой? 🤔
literan (2021-05-31 18:42:29+00:00): так настроен рендер. 
Полагаю, логика была такова: дороги и тоннели - критичные объекты, важно показать, что из них под чем проходит. 

А трава - фигня, которую рисуют в последнюю очередь, для красоты. Потому и вообще не важно, как она будет с тоннелями сочетаться
flexagoon (2021-05-31 18:43:50+00:00): Окей, спасибо
AkuAnakTimur (2021-06-01 02:23:59+00:00): Another instance https://kartaview.org/details/2392106/1523/track-info
MerlinPendragon (2021-05-31 16:54:23+00:00): You are continuing to duplicate existing bus route relations.

MM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9520315

ACK: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9520313

JPS: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12017389

ER: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9518781
noelbov (2021-05-31 21:33:04+00:00): Volgens Geopunt Vlaanderen bestaat die oversteek wél. Ik zal daar indien mogelijk deze week nog gaan fietsen om route 15-63 in realiteit eens te bekijken.
noelbov (2021-06-07 15:53:39+00:00): Na een tochtje van 61 km (heen+terug) van ergens uit het Leuvense kan ik bevestigen dat die oversteek inderdaad niet (meer) bestaat.
Heb enkele foto's genomen: zie 
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq-EoC8NoWK29QOtGy2Si8ZamJrT?e=NoURuY
foto1 en foto2 zijn genomen vanop het fietspad naast de Robert Schumanlaan net voor de afslag naar de Broekstraat. Op foto1 zie je dat je onmiddellijk moet afslaan naar het deel van de Broekstraat parallel aan de Schumanlaan en dan de tunnel nemen naar de Broekvoetweg. Foto3 is net voor de tunnelingang, foto4 is de tunnel zelf en foto5 is de uitgang naar de Broekvoetweg.
Ik heb de aanpassing in JOSM al gedaan.
mvg
Jakka (2021-06-07 16:34:50+00:00): Top.
gscholz (2021-06-01 04:39:45+00:00): Hi @ndyve,
this changeset messed up some streets in La Rioja:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-66.80041&lat=-29.40429&zoom=14&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=105633967

Can you please fix this?

Can you please also adjust your changeset commentng style, as 
this MUNIDIGITAL does not tell any thing you changed here?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Guido
gscholz (2021-06-03 07:26:50+00:00): Hi @ndyve, 
these errors still exit. Can you please respond here?
Guido
G_P_J (2021-06-01 19:49:29+00:00): Czy możesz mi podać powód usunięcia nazwy ulicy Zagóra w miejscowości Susiec? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/279450409/history
Leszek999 (2021-06-02 10:40:02+00:00): Poprawione. Ta ulica rzeczywiście istnieje w rejestrze TERYT.
G_P_J (2021-06-02 10:52:57+00:00): Nie tylko w Teryt. Istnieją też punkty adresowe z nazwą tej ulicy. Dzięki za poprawę :)
habi (2021-06-15 08:28:28+00:00): I would be great if you could write better changeset comments, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
maraf24 (2021-05-31 16:42:38+00:00): revert fikcyjnych i błędnych edycji Tomasza Bracki
maraf24 (2021-05-31 16:44:39+00:00): revert fikcyjnych i błędnych edycji Tomasza Bracki
rthik007 (2021-06-01 07:42:07+00:00): Hi florescaacserolf,
Align the roads as which are overlapping with buildngs
way 91875604
way 91875592
way 91875559
way 91875560
way 90967350
way 869092884
way 869092883
way 869092886
and i have removed the unnecessary layer tag to the residential road 
way 869092886.
kindly check with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105661977
Thank you.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105635874
florescaacserolf (2021-06-01 12:02:16+00:00): Hi rthik007, thanks for reviewing the changes I made. Most roadways are overlapping with buildings since most buildings are not marked properly. I'll update buildings and residential blocks next time I have extra time.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105635874
Max-Kritic (2021-06-25 09:39:23+00:00): https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=2.76791&lat=50.28928&zoom=9&opacity=0.89