piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Bernhard W (2021-04-25 21:41:01+00:00): Klar, das ist kein Problem.
Die Maxar-Bilder sind recht aktuell, dafür sind Auflösung und Position nicht gut.
Erfahrungsgemäß haben "Maps4BW" und "Esri World Luftbilder (Clarity) Beta" die genaueste Positionierung. Nach denen richte ich "Maxar Premium Imagery (Beta)" aus (Hintergrund > Bildversatz), bevor ich damit editiere.
MrMoehritz (2021-04-26 07:15:27+00:00): super Tipp! Danke dir!
Glassman (2021-04-27 23:32:09+00:00): #TIP: each business should have a tag. Since this isn't very common, I went ahead an updated you edit to use amenity=tool_library. I remember the Phinney Ridge tool lending library.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103589663
Delikt (2021-04-25 21:33:54+00:00): Richtig geschrieben: Hans-Czettel-Platz
Nakaner (2021-04-26 14:52:57+00:00): Hallo,
Delikt (2021-04-25 21:35:08+00:00): Richtig geschrieben: Hans-Czettel-Platz
Bierphysik (2022-06-22 20:20:21+00:00): Hi. Kannst Du bitte mal way 935132643 checken? das sieht für moich nach einem Artefakt aus. Der Weg ist mit keinem anderen Weg verbunden.
Bierphysik (2022-06-22 20:21:04+00:00): Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/935132643
jengelh (2022-06-22 22:11:50+00:00): Da war halt vor einem Jahr wirklich eine 'Linie' wo die Vegetation spürbar abgenommen hat, und beide Enden dann doch wieder mehr vegetativ waren.
Muss man halt noch mal vor Ort neu evaluieren, ist jetzt schon ein Jahr her.
habi (2021-04-27 09:53:57+00:00): Ciao tffmh

Du hast in diesem Changeset `name:ethymology:*` hinzugefügt.
Ich hab' das auf `name:etymology:*` korrigiert (ohne Tippfehler-H).

Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103695414

Gruss aus der Schweiz,
habi
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-25 20:45:58+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 102645835, 102646048, 102646254, 102646507, 102646739, 102647149, 102648048, 102648513, 102649425, 102650307, 102651618, 102652057, 102653187, 102654200, 102654932, 102655625, 102656384, 102657044, 102657541, 102657829, 102657994, 102658386, 102658613, 102666197, 103084455, 103084503, 103084544, 85959611, 85959899, 85959991, 85960102, 85960134, 85960158, 85960202, 85960236, 85960257, 85960325, 85960387, 85960422, 85960511, 85960538, 85960711, 85960983, 85961023, 85961116, 85961640, 85961783, 85962232, 85962404, 85962728, 85963015, 85963244, 85963502, 85963662.
SomeoneElse (2021-04-25 21:02:35+00:00): 3 ways failed update
All improvements by later mappers.
frydzio (2021-04-26 14:09:48+00:00): https://bit.ly/2QwAXJe
frydzio (2021-04-26 14:11:15+00:00): Zgodnie z miejskim serwisem mapowym budynek ma adres Dywizjonu AK Jelen 2.
frydzio (2021-04-26 14:13:12+00:00): Czy w terenie zostal zmieniony numer budynku? Wczesniej adres Ananasowa 27A mial budynek na rogu Marii Cetysowny/lacznik do Ananasowej (obecnie Marii Cetysowny 2) 
(problem z wstawieniem komentarza, dlatego w 3 czesciach)
eggie (2021-04-26 05:27:29+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 
namens de OSM Community
abakus_uploader (2021-04-25 22:31:10+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
vorpalblade (2021-04-26 02:08:38+00:00): I'm not seeing https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/935144662 as a residential road in the most recent aerial imagery from the county (2020). Did you intend to mark it as residential, or was it supposed to be a track?

Also, just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. You can see it by clicking on the "Background Settings" button in iD (keyboard shortcut "b") and select "Mesa County GIS Valleywide 2018". You may also want to take a look at "Mapbox Satellite".

JOSM also has access to the 2019 and 2020 aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS".

Thanks for your contributions,
vorpalblade
DaveF (2021-04-27 16:35:18+00:00): Hi
Please don't add refs as names or change designated to yes.
mike wain (2021-04-27 18:50:56+00:00): There appears to be no field for road number, but all PROWs and UCRs have one.  This seems to be a major omission as it's there for A, B and M roads but nothing below.  Can this be addressed?  Or can we add this critical info to the Description field?
DaveF (2021-04-27 19:30:21+00:00): I'm a bit confused by your comment as my point was you placed the ref in the name tag.

As minor roads (C,D,E) aren't usually signed it was decided to assign them a separate key to give renderers the choice whether or not to display them. 
Plough through this discussion:  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2018-August/021690.html
mike wain (2021-04-27 20:44:16+00:00): ~OK, have done another one and found someone else had managed to get the ref numbers and that it's a BOAT into that one.  See what you think and if I've got it right on Middle Wood Lane I'll come back to this one!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-25 21:58:05+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 102602659, 102603376, 102603691, 102620577, 102620853, 102621325, 102624112, 102624812, 102625618, 102627437, 102627609, 102627899, 102629086, 102631036.
SomeoneElse (2021-04-25 22:11:42+00:00): 4 ways failed to revert, all were improvements by subsequent mappers.
goedegazelle (2021-04-26 08:48:04+00:00): Osmose is niet alwetend, meerdere noexits zijn onterecht toegevoegd.
Tilia_J (2021-04-26 12:14:49+00:00): Wat zijn voorbeelden van onterechte toevoegingen?
goedegazelle (2021-04-27 07:49:34+00:00): Bij het van der Valkhotel aan de Landgoedlaan, langs de Mheenlaan en bij de Waterlei. Vergelijk a.u.b. de Waterlei met de Zonnewende. Ik ben niet alles nagelopen.
DaveF (2021-04-27 17:12:59+00:00): Hi
The classification of bridleway excludes motor vehicles. access=no excludes all modes.
mike wain (2021-04-27 18:29:38+00:00): I can sort of see where you're going with this Dave, but I'm not sure you're right.  I feel that you've said that anyone could drive a tractor down there, but that's clearly not the case.  Perhaps the correct response is private for motor vehicles?
DaveF (2021-04-27 19:06:23+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motor%20vehicle?uselang=en

I see agricultural as a subset of private.
OddlyAngled (2021-04-29 13:43:36+00:00): it was previously slightly off too, I've fixed it up in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103849283
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103593979
Warin61 (2021-05-01 07:40:03+00:00): Hi,

I have changed a 'unclassified road' to track and another one to path. Could you please check here - I am far from local but another person has made some changes too - I am checking on them. I have also added some buildings. 

See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103945148
Cristoffs (2021-04-26 10:05:29+00:00): Dlaczego usunąłeś ten budynek?
GregGorek (2021-04-26 10:30:18+00:00): Tego blaszanego "budynku" już tam nie ma.
Dodatkowo została rozebrana "biała" hala która stała powyżej tego blaszaka (na google maps jest widoczna).
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-25 22:51:27+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 101971246, 102511624, 102513914, 102517428, 102533113, 102537523, 102538730, 102546794, 102598015, 102599228, 102607336, 102607504, 102762784, 102762832, 102767231, 102833005, 102842297, 102846476.
SomeoneElse (2021-04-25 22:55:54+00:00): 1 way failed to revert; that had been deleted by a subsequent mapper.
VictorIE (2021-04-28 08:14:03+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/935167502 

The little square is mapped with duplicate ways, one each for Blackwood Manor
and Blackwood Green.
RyanMcA (2021-04-28 08:34:37+00:00): Hi,

I see what you mean, I'm not sure how to fix duplicate ways (or even how they occur). The correct name for the little square is "Blackwood Green".

Thanks
VictorIE (2021-04-28 14:14:58+00:00): Essentially the little square was drawn twice, using the same nodes. I've noticed it happen if there is a problem when trying to save and it is saved again.

I've just noticed there are two Blackwood Manors. I don't know if this is an error.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/470155737
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/936369380
eggie (2021-04-26 05:28:50+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 
namens de OSM Community
user_2066394 (2021-05-10 11:09:58+00:00): Wo gehört die Hausnummer hin?
ossiach (2021-05-10 11:52:23+00:00): Die Hausnummer gehörte zum alten Hotel Fünfhaus. Das Hotel wurde die letzten Jahre abgerissen und an dessen Stelle wurde ein neuer Apartmentkomplex errichtet. Es kann sein das die alte Hausnummer ersatzlos gestrichen wurde, da im KAGIS Kataster nur mehr die Hausnummern 41, 41a und 41b and dieser Stelle aufgeführt werden, genaueres kann ich aber erst sagen wenn es eine aktuelleres Orthofoto gibt.
user_2066394 (2021-05-10 20:07:53+00:00): Einwandfrei, die restlichen Nummer stimmen, weil sehr hoch und gerade?
maraf24 (2021-11-01 02:05:04+00:00): To powinien być multipolygon, a nie site.
O ile w ogóle te części nie powinny zostać połączone ze sobą w jedną...
user_5359 (2021-04-26 04:37:21+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please be careful when editing the map data. You moved the node https://www.osm.org/node/137720168/history over 100 meters, so there were problems with the corresponding way. I have moved the point back to its original position.
Jean Carlos Assis Oliveira (2021-05-12 14:07:01+00:00): que que é isso, sem nexo, como tira isso po
seawolff (2021-04-26 12:37:40+00:00): You damaged the Norwegenterminal in Kiel. Maybe you moved the whole ferry route. Please check for other problems.
I think, JOSM has generated a lot of errors and warnings.
archie (2021-04-26 13:12:18+00:00): Not at all, just moved the way along the coast of Langeland between the seamarks. No cutting or anything else, just moving.
archie (2021-04-26 13:14:34+00:00): Havn't been near the Norwegenterminal!
seawolff (2021-04-26 13:20:33+00:00): You moved the whole route >100m.
Look at the terminal in Oslo:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2620283580/history
archie (2021-04-26 13:27:18+00:00): Well, havn't been in Oslo either. Just moved way along eastern coast of danish island of Langeland. Please improve your abillity of ananlazis. Has nothing to do w JOSM or anything else. Have look again.
archie (2021-04-26 13:29:39+00:00): sorry for typo, should have been analysis
seawolff (2021-04-26 13:39:09+00:00): If you move the way near Langeland, other parts move as well.
The bounding box of your changeset includes Kiel an Oslo.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103596249
archie (2021-04-26 13:44:31+00:00): Well of course it does. But you wrote something about fiddling with terminal at Kiel and then at Oslo. This wasn't the case, was it. Please take care of what you accuse others of.
seawolff (2021-04-26 13:56:53+00:00): I repaired the terminal at Kiel but Oslo terminal is still broken.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/59.90884/10.71075
archie (2021-04-26 13:58:58+00:00): Not any more: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103642153
archie (2021-04-26 14:01:53+00:00): ... it wan't broken. It was offset a bit.
archie (2021-04-26 14:04:12+00:00): ... as you might see here: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=103596249#9/55.0964/11.1305
seawolff (2021-04-26 14:10:41+00:00): It would be better to revert the changeset and redo desired changes near Langeland. This can remove the undesired offset on other parts.
archie (2021-04-26 14:19:03+00:00): I was about to do that, but discovered that you already had done som change in Kiel and conflicts would arise. That's why I chose to do it this way. The way is off course in relation to the gps-traces that exist anyway and should be adjusted.
Warin61 (2021-05-01 07:35:23+00:00): No GPS traces found in this area. 

No meaningful changeset comment. 

Unclassified Rd looks the same as track.
tastrax (2021-05-07 08:25:33+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
tguen (2021-05-09 22:38:37+00:00): Please use more descriptive comments for your changesets.
tastrax (2021-05-07 08:13:29+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
tastrax (2021-05-07 07:51:39+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
compdude (2021-05-15 02:29:23+00:00): In case you're not already aware, you shouldn't tag a road as motorway unless it has at least two consecutive interchanges and is at least 2-3 miles long. The Clifton Boulevard bridge across the Rocky river does not meet those qualifications. This is based on the consensus of the US OSM community. 

I would really appreciate it if you change this back to how it was before. Thanks!!
Arma IRM-ED (2021-06-11 00:14:10+00:00): Hi, Victor 2015

Relation ID: 12079555 is marked as turn restriction, but it is not well-formed: Missing a from and/or to member. There are incomplete members in the relation (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/relation/12629910)

Please have a look. Thank you
Kovoschiz (2021-04-26 10:45:53+00:00): Should this not be `entrance=home`?
opendcc (2021-04-26 12:37:47+00:00): Agreed. entrance=home is better.
nevw (2021-04-26 11:35:19+00:00): Hi
I don't believe that the OpenStreetMap is a suitable site to add aircraft flight paths.
The tag highway=path is certainly unsuitable as it refers to surface paths.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
I think you should make an enquiry on the OSM forum 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/index.php 
or the OSM help site 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/
 regarding suitability for mapping on the osm.org or if their are other sites suited to such information.
nevw (2021-05-07 23:42:29+00:00): no response, removed.
OddlyAngled (2021-04-26 13:53:25+00:00): this is already part of the Stanford Lakes group relation, it doesn't look like this individual lake is named on the topo. I'm also wondering if salt/tidal tags are useful here? they're typically not set.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103599842
Stoaty Marmot (2021-04-26 14:01:34+00:00): Feel free to revert changes.  I am new to openstreetmap and open to learning.
OddlyAngled (2021-04-26 14:59:36+00:00): thanks for fixing up some of these, this area was neglected for some time.

in general it's best to follow whatever tagging scheme is being used in the area. most of the lakes around here are tagged with `salt=yes` if they are salt lakes, other lakes are assumed to be freshwater without `salt=no`. same for `tidal`. it doesn't hurt anything but it's redundant.

as for the group relation... it appears to be slowly growing in popularity (see type=group and type=cluster). the idea is to capture related lakes into a named relation and to name individuals only if they have a name (whether or not it's present on the topo). I try to add group relations when I can but there are plenty remaining to fix.
aharvey (2021-04-26 12:03:51+00:00): You might want to check out the NSW Floods imagery which is probably the most recent for this area. Should be coming into editors soon.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103600984
Elyana IRM-ED (2022-12-14 02:49:31+00:00): Hi, manne_1.
Your edit looks awesome. I would like to inform you that I have to delete the road segment (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/935211668) because it doesn't exist in the latest Maxar and Bing Aerial imagery.
Please let me know if you have any other suggestion.

Kind regards,
Elyana
trigpoint (2021-04-27 13:58:16+00:00): Hi, when mapping please ensure that you merge your mapping with existing mapping. In this changeset you have duplicated a way and given the impression that the right of way is a separate way, which it is clearly not.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/173303585 should have been, realigned and extended, with a split where the footpath leaves and the gap in the hedge for a stile/gate can be seen.

The existing mapping is slightly offset but that is to be expected of mapping from 8 years ago but it is important that these objects are improved for the benefit of all map users.

Cheers Phil
amanura (2021-05-13 10:30:22+00:00): Hi Trigpoint, 
Sorry for the delay in response as i was in long leave.
Thanks for looking into my edits. As the history dated 2012. I misjudged it to be an outdated edit. However, as I was unaware I have digitized a new service road as per Bing aerial imagery. Apologies for the genuine miss. I agree that aligning the segment as per the latest imagery would be more apt in this scenario. Please find the changeset (104628953) with suggested modifications.
Thanks for the constructive feedback.
Good Day!
amanura
ravali_78 (2021-05-03 08:07:20+00:00): Hi chanceVVI,
I have fixed multiple invalid turn restriction.Kindly check with way 936219332,https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/104036528.
Thank you
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103602681
DD1GJ (2021-04-26 06:16:02+00:00): Hallo ImmerLacht,

abgesehen von dem teilweise falschen Tagging liegt der Pfad im Naturschutzgebiet Koppelstein-Helmestal.Nach der Rechtsverordnung ist es dort verboten, die befestigten Wege zu verlassen. Hast Du Nachweise, dass dieser Pfad benutzt werden darf?

Viele Grüße, Joachim
ImmerLacht (2021-04-26 06:19:30+00:00): Hallo Joachim,
Nein ich habe keine nachweise und es war mir nicht bewusst. 
Gruß Simon
DD1GJ (2021-04-26 06:54:13+00:00): Hallo Simon,

danke für die schnelle Antwort. Ich habe Deine Änderungen komplett zurückgesetzt. Weitere Informationen zu OSM findest Du unter https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf

Viele Grüße, Joachim
Johnny Mapperseed (2021-04-26 05:05:54+00:00): Accidentally reused old changeset comment. Meant to note that I marked buildings with RapiD, using OSIP imagery as a reference.
NKA (2021-04-26 12:20:35+00:00): I am planning an update of the Norwegian seamarks (just waiting for a data release from Kystverket).  However, I will need to keep one set of ref's to the seamarks during that update.

After your recent edits, there are now 180 "kystverket:reference" and 20,505 "seamark:kystverket:reference".

May I propose that you either roll back your recent ref edits, or that you rename all  20,685 seamarks to "ref:kystverket"?

The tag itself is not important for me. I just used your tagging proposal back in 2018.
skquinn (2021-04-26 05:16:33+00:00): Hi,

Please use meaningful changeset comments in the future. "Add buildings" would be sufficient for changesets like this.

--

Привет,

Пожалуйста, используйте в будущем содержательные комментарии к набору изменений. Для подобных наборов изменений достаточно «Добавить здания».
frbg (2021-09-24 20:54:49+00:00): Anstatt jeden Meter von Karten ungeprüft abzumalen, lieber erstmal kontrollieren. Ich habe die vergangenen Wochen bereits mehrere angebliche Wege vom User abgelaufen und auch der Weg aus diesem Changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/743445486#map=17/51.06763/14.03317 ist gerade einmal vom Osten auf maximal 200m noch geradeso zu erkennen/erahnen. Von Bäumen verwachsen, die sicher schon alle gute 50 Jahre dort stehen (Stand 24.09.2021).
frozenrabi (2021-04-27 04:53:59+00:00): Please don't map landuse like this.
frozenrabi (2021-04-27 05:30:09+00:00): Please dont map landuse like this.
Ashok Thakulla (2023-12-06 18:41:09+00:00): Ok, I will take care next time. I was a beginner mapper at that time
Supaplex (2021-04-26 07:29:28+00:00): 不好意思，你的公園佔到道路的部分，應該沒有你畫到的範圍那麼大
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103609441
DD1GJ (2021-04-27 08:08:20+00:00): Revert !!!

Hallo radioFlo, OSM ist ein freies Projekt, welches die Situation vor Ort abbildet. Dazu gehört auch, dass aus Naturschutzgründen aufgegebene Wege zwar nicht gelöscht, aber entsprechend gekennzeichnet werden. Die Community hat sich auf den Lebenszyklus-Präfix geeinigt, so dass diese Wege auf den normalen Karten nicht mehr sichtbar sind.

Der von Dir reaktivierte Weg ist seit Jahrzehnten aufgegeben und führt inzwischen durch ein Trümmerfeld umgestürzter Bäume. Nach der Nationalverordnung darf man die befestigten aund ausgeschilderten Wege nicht verlassen.

Du wirst nun zum dritten Mal darauf hingewiesen, dass Deine Reaktivierungen stillgelegter Wege im Projekt unerwünscht sind. Ein erneutes Ändern wird als Vandalismus betrachtet und wird die entsprechenden Maßnahmen nach sich ziehen.

Viele Grüße, Joachim
Dawid2849 (2021-04-26 06:59:25+00:00): Dziękuję! Właśnie miałem usunąć :D
Dawid2849 (2021-08-11 14:06:09+00:00): Cześć. Jestem rowerem w lasach w Woli i przejeżdzając obok jednego z przejazdów (https://openstreetmap.org/node/2925061638)
zastałem taki widok: https://postimg.cc/mPSrYfMx

Mam obawy, że zamknąłeś zły przejazd.

Pozdrawiam,
Dawid
Dawid2849 (2021-08-11 15:40:58+00:00): Sprawdziłem drugi przejazd. Ten znacznie lepiej zachowany, ale są rogatki

https://postimg.cc/FdP1GVzR/60587032
user_2066394 (2021-05-12 19:29:09+00:00): Damit 3 POIs, an sich ja nur 1 POI.
martament (2021-05-14 10:21:40+00:00): OK. Ich habe zwar die Vorgaben für das Setzen der POIs gefunden. Aber leider kein Möglichkeit das in der Oberfläche zu ändern. Wo kann ich das anpassen?
user_2066394 (2021-05-14 14:33:03+00:00): Man könnte den Umriss des Geländes zeichnen  und den POI darauflegen.
tux67 (2021-05-27 07:21:53+00:00): Hi, dein Kommentar gehört nicht in den Namen, es gibt das Note feld:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Verwende_das_Name-Tag_nicht.2C_um_Dinge_zu_beschreiben
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/103611323
tux67 (2021-05-27 07:36:02+00:00): P.S. hab's in Deskription gepackt, damit es auch für Nutzer sichtbar ist.
Kartensilber (2021-05-27 08:01:17+00:00): Okay, danke für den Hinweis.
NiLaKol (2021-12-31 21:19:26+00:00): Hi 8hjsC7K,
you've written "source=Google Earth" in your Changeset. Is this meant as a synonym for any kind of aerial or satellite image? Or is it to describe the service from Google Company?
Herwescheluc (2023-11-27 08:02:46+00:00): Hallo Lokalfuerst,
habe Dein fixme am Kreisel Hörbach endlich "erledigen" können - neue Bilder sind da! Schaust Du bitte ob das so ok ist? Abbiegeregeln sind mir aber auch (noch) zu hoch...
Gruß
Andreas