piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse (2015-10-19 13:29:27+00:00): @GerdP - in what way is "highway=consultation" not machine readable?  OSM doesn't have a fixed series of tags that people are "allowed" to use.  Anyone consuming tags needs to take this on board - there will always be things that you don't understand.  Also, the question for tag consumers* is always "what did the mapper mean by this tag" not "what does the wiki say".

* speaking from the perspective of someone who is a data consumer, and also has spent more than a few years in the past in $dayjob dealing with large and therefore dirty data-sets.
GerdP (2015-10-19 13:52:50+00:00): @SomeoneElse - I referred to my proposal of using the tag highway=proposed in combination with a note. The note would not be machine readable.
SomeoneElse (2015-10-19 13:53:34+00:00): Ah, OK - understand now :)
GerdP (2015-10-30 14:33:29+00:00): @Tom: It was discussed in the tagging list,
I think it would be best to remove the highway tag and add a note for those ways which don't yet have one.
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/how-to-tag-a-highway-that-doesn-t-exist-tp5857111.html
naomap (2015-11-03 14:31:12+00:00): Bonjour.
Il me semble que le way 301103227 est erroné. Le pont Léopold Sédar-Senghor est déjà représenté par le way 263350937 qui me semble complet : il décrit bien une bande cyclable de chaque côté du pont.
Etes-vous ok pour supprimer ce way ?
Cordialement,
Antoine.
Tomas_J (2023-08-26 04:52:27+00:00): Je tu zakaz vjazdu motorových vozidiel? Dopravnu značku som po ceste nevidel ...
Tomas_J (2023-08-26 04:53:40+00:00): ...ide mi o tuto cestu: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/301283792
Sanderd17 (2015-01-11 16:19:18+00:00): Could you please watch out with deleting important information? I did my best collecting information and I do NOT APPRECIATE it being deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174891110/history

This is an issue I discovered because it's hardly a few kms from my front door. I dare not to imagine what else you have destroyed.
Zbigniew_Cz (2014-12-18 13:12:59+00:00): http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=472175#p472175
Eckhart Wörner (2014-12-22 20:47:29+00:00): Sicher, dass man Osten kommend von der Probstheidaer Straße nicht links auf die Zwickauer Straße abbiegen kann? Auf den Bing-Bildern sieht man deutlich eine Linksabbiegerspur.
anderfo (2014-11-20 14:53:00+00:00): Consider reversing the whole changeset, as it contains huge offsets (due to the Bing satelite photos). Please use N50 and/or Strava heatmap instead!
ke9tv (2020-05-10 16:18:38+00:00): I see a 'landuse=building_site' (way 301407348) included here. The site appears to be in NYCDEP-owned protected watershed, and so nobody is allowed to build there. Was this entered just because it appears to be a vacant lot?
brianegge (2020-05-10 22:38:24+00:00): No, it’s because they built some large building there. May be related to the reservoir.
ke9tv (2020-05-10 22:48:40+00:00): Ahhh. I see it now.  It's a water treatment plant. https://patch.com/new-york/bedford/bedfords-new-water-plant-dedicated Which would explain why it's built on protected watershed land. :)  Sorry to bother you!
lorandr_telenav (2017-10-30 08:51:00+00:00): Hi.
Sorry to bother! I have a question about speed limits. I saw you set the speed limit of 90 km/h to 70km/h. I did not see any sign about this change. (-0.0922059, -78.3949892) 
Can you help me with some information on how to change the speed limits in Ecuador? thank you very much!
Commodoortje (2017-05-01 14:46:10+00:00): Je hebt de camping 2x aangebracht.
1x bestond reeds.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1366688060
1x breng je dubbel aan.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/301425854
[one feature one element] (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:One_feature,_one_OSM_element)
de vries (2017-12-02 09:56:49+00:00): Hi, I've partly reverted this changeset. I've only reverted building nodes that had you as last editor. 
The reason for this revert is that you apparently aligned all buildings with Bing imagery, which has a huge offset. 
After reverting I checked the data with the official data source (BAG) and a more recent and better aligned imagery (PDOK)
Here is my changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54264694
Mateusz Konieczny (2019-04-21 07:32:33+00:00): Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1752172 ?
sdoerr (2014-11-09 15:18:10+00:00): Is there really a pedestrian street called HMA Belfast running from Tower Bridge to St Olaf Stairs by London Bridge Station?
sdoerr (2014-11-09 15:18:33+00:00): HMS Belfast, I mean
ivanbranco (2022-05-05 16:06:34+00:00): Hi moszkva ter :)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172908459

in version 6 you changed the name from ლერმონტოვის ქუჩა to გ. ლორდყიფანიძის ქუჩა. 

But as you can see the old name has been restored with version #11. Do you know what's the correct one?

POI addresses suggest that your name is right (https://www.facebook.com/MusselsPlace or https://www.facebook.com/blacktomatotbilisi/), Google Maps also uses this name for part of the road (even if is not a source that can be used, I think it was worth it mentioning it). Do you have a better understanding of the situation maybe?

Thanks :)
PmaiIkeey (2015-04-10 00:30:51+00:00): Just querying the footpath that's been named Whip-ma-whop-ma-gate - what evidence is there that it has that name ?
Yorvik Prestigitator (2015-04-12 02:26:01+00:00): I didn't give it that name - it was already labelled such before I edited it. The road adjoining the footpath has a street sign Whip-ma-whop-ma-gate, but 1A Whip-ma-whop-ma-gate (where the estate agent is) is situated down this footpath.
PmaiIkeey (2015-04-12 13:44:46+00:00): As I have my suspicions, is this something you can investigate ? I'm aware 1½ is down there but this is akin to a private drive off a named road. I know it's not private but I have my doubts about it having that name. It may even have some other funky name!
dee_ksha (2019-07-18 15:53:20+00:00): "Hi Bernhard Hiller,

Trust you are well, while working on Langkawi we came across "way 301518027
way 301518085", which are marked as unclassified wherein it needs to be changed to residential as there is a classification gap.Please look into this and share your thoughts.

Thanks in advance."
Владимир К (2016-05-31 20:58:40+00:00): bicycle=yes означает, что тут есть настоящая велодорожка, а не то, что можно проехать.
Constable (2018-02-01 11:17:56+00:00): Hi there, I know this changeset is pretty hold but I'd like to let you know that the guideposts need the tourism=information tag as well, and it looks like most of the guideposts added with this changeset are missing that tag
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information=guidepost
bdiscoe (2017-09-08 21:29:22+00:00): Diego, you seem to have added "natural=wood" polygons which are fairly arbitrary; they mostly contains forest but are more frequently contained inside larger continuous sections of forest, which makes them cartographically confusing (they do no correspond well).  Do you mind if I replace them where possible with actual forest extent?
Zibior2 (2015-08-23 18:27:31+00:00): Dlaczego numerów typu 31/1 i 31/2 nie ma w oficjalnej ewidencji gminy?
pakman (2015-08-24 10:22:13+00:00): Ja te dane wziąłem z geoportalu. Bynajmniej tak kiedyś tam było oznaczone na mapie topograficznej.
Polyglot (2014-11-07 13:06:34+00:00): Hallo Collectiam,

Bedankt voor je vele werk bij het in detail mappen van Leuven. Ik had al eerder gezien dat je daarmee bezig was, maar ik had het nogal druk met het toevoegen van bushaltes...
Nu dat ik het toevoegen van adressen uit CRAB aan het uittesten ben, zie ik wel de noodzaak om het een en ander bij te sturen.
Als je bijvoorbeeld een toegangsdeur toevoegt, dan mag die op de buildingcontour staan ipv erbinnenin. Als deel van die way dus.
addr:city en addr:postcode hoeven niet steeds herhaald te worden. Ofwel kunne die worden afgeleid uit grenzen, ofwel uit associatedStreetrelaties, al worden die door velen verguisd.
Er gaat binnenkort een mappingparty door in Antwerpen. Wellicht kunnen we daar samen naartoe gaan. Of we kunnen 's afspreken in het wereldcafé op Den Tempst. Ik denk dat ik je nog wel wat tips kan geven over het werken met JOSM en ivm die adresgegevens die we kunnen gebruiken uit CRAB/AGIV.
Liefst op een zaterdag-, zondag- of maandagavond. Je mapt met extreem veel detail. Was je misschien landmeter in een vorig leven? :-)
Groeten, Jo
GerdP (2015-10-19 17:35:17+00:00): please review the tags on the 
power=tower  node 310178067.
You probably wanted to change another object?
letihu (2017-07-13 10:47:54+00:00): Das südliche Ende von
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174097228/history#map=11/54.3097/13.9389
ist nirgends angeschlossen und endet im Meer.
Eine andere Pipeline
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/177862161/history#map=8/54.534/14.337
beginnt am Land, endet dafür bei Bornholm im Meer.
Vielleicht gehören die zusammen.
skquinn (2017-04-24 08:14:33+00:00): Please omit ad copy from future additions to OSM.
CloCkWeRX (2017-12-23 09:19:01+00:00): Mead street trail seemed quite different on the ground - is this from survey?
de vries (2017-12-02 09:57:23+00:00): Hi, I've partly reverted this changeset. I've only reverted building nodes that had you as last editor. 
The reason for this revert is that you apparently aligned all buildings with Bing imagery, which has a huge offset. 
After reverting I checked the data with the official data source (BAG) and a more recent and better aligned imagery (PDOK)
Here is my changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54264694
de vries (2017-12-02 09:57:11+00:00): Hi, I've partly reverted this changeset. I've only reverted building nodes that had you as last editor. 
The reason for this revert is that you apparently aligned all buildings with Bing imagery, which has a huge offset. 
After reverting I checked the data with the official data source (BAG) and a more recent and better aligned imagery (PDOK)
Here is my changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54264694
de vries (2017-12-02 09:57:36+00:00): Hi, I've partly reverted this changeset. I've only reverted building nodes that had you as last editor. 
The reason for this revert is that you apparently aligned all buildings with Bing imagery, which has a huge offset. 
After reverting I checked the data with the official data source (BAG) and a more recent and better aligned imagery (PDOK)
Here is my changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54264694
de vries (2017-12-02 09:57:41+00:00): Hi, I've partly reverted this changeset. I've only reverted building nodes that had you as last editor. 
The reason for this revert is that you apparently aligned all buildings with Bing imagery, which has a huge offset. 
After reverting I checked the data with the official data source (BAG) and a more recent and better aligned imagery (PDOK)
Here is my changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54264694
de vries (2017-12-02 09:57:53+00:00): Hi, I've partly reverted this changeset. I've only reverted building nodes that had you as last editor. 
The reason for this revert is that you apparently aligned all buildings with Bing imagery, which has a huge offset. 
After reverting I checked the data with the official data source (BAG) and a more recent and better aligned imagery (PDOK)
Here is my changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54264694
free_as_a_bird (2014-11-09 12:38:49+00:00): Hallo! Amenity=place_of_worship ist zwar richtig, allerdings gab es bereits einen entsprechenden Eintrag am Gebäude mit allen Detailinformationen (= daher Duplette).

Hab den doppelten Knoten jetzt gelöscht..
lanmaster32 (2019-08-22 09:25:51+00:00): Добрый день
Урочище Ишмик
admin_level=3 используется для федеральных округов, судя по источнику
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative

Может быть здесь ошибка?
de vries (2017-12-02 09:57:43+00:00): Hi, I've partly reverted this changeset. I've only reverted building nodes that had you as last editor. 
The reason for this revert is that you apparently aligned all buildings with Bing imagery, which has a huge offset. 
After reverting I checked the data with the official data source (BAG) and a more recent and better aligned imagery (PDOK)
Here is my changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54264694
de vries (2017-12-02 09:56:00+00:00): Hi, I've partly reverted this changeset. I've only reverted building nodes that had you as last editor. 
The reason for this revert is that you apparently aligned all buildings with Bing imagery, which has a huge offset. 
After reverting I checked the data with the official data source (BAG) and a more recent and better aligned imagery (PDOK)
Here is my changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54264694
Allison P (2022-10-20 20:14:42+00:00): Looks more like roads that were planned for subdivisions that never got platted
fkv (2015-06-11 03:43:38+00:00): Die barrier=retaining_wall sehen mir am Luftbild nicht nach Stützmauern aus. In diesem Gebiet zeigt sich auch, dass die Gebäudeumrisse von basemap.at nicht stimmen.
waldviertlerkartograph (2015-06-12 11:38:08+00:00): Wenn du anderer Meinung bist, kannst du es ruhig ausbessern, aber danke für den Hinweis! Ich glaub (oder hoffe), dass ich in diesem Gebiet eh auch geoimage zu Hilfe genommen hab!
Владимир К (2016-09-08 06:29:18+00:00): А вот это https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93640746 действительно возделываемые поля? и называется поляна?:)
sergeybe (2016-09-08 07:02:46+00:00): Все туристы ее называют именно как поляна Узун-Алан. Насчет возделываемая или нет - сложно сказать. Там раньше лаванду садили, теперь все это заброшено, но она все еще относится к возделываемым угодья. По идее таким полянам нужно natural=grassland ставить.
Есть еще в Крыму Картофельная поляна. На ней картошку местные сажают :)
Владимир К (2016-09-08 07:37:12+00:00): ну вот и я думал, что наверно лучше будет grassland. А на картофельной если сажают, то это как раз farmland :D
de vries (2017-12-02 09:57:50+00:00): Hi, I've partly reverted this changeset. I've only reverted building nodes that had you as last editor. 
The reason for this revert is that you apparently aligned all buildings with Bing imagery, which has a huge offset. 
After reverting I checked the data with the official data source (BAG) and a more recent and better aligned imagery (PDOK)
Here is my changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54264694
don-vip (2014-11-02 11:22:20+00:00): Test
szali (2014-11-30 21:07:38+00:00): A környéken a Bing elég pontatlan, erre figyelj, ha műhold alapján rajzolsz/igazítasz!
dee_ksha (2019-07-17 18:11:09+00:00): Hi Bernhard Hiller,

Trust you are well, while working on Langkawi we came across "way 301665332", which are marked as unclassified wherein it needs to be changed to residential.Please look into this share your thoughts.

Thanks in advance.
Nakaner (2015-06-18 16:36:11+00:00): Ich habe gerade eben von allen Weichen in Nassau(Lahn) railway:local_operated=yes entfernt, da es falsch ist. Dieses Tag zeigt an, dass die Weiche NICHT vom Stellwerk aus, sondern vor Ort am Hebelgewicht oder einem Stelltableau (in Rangieranlagen von Werksbahnen) gestellt wird. Wenn die Weiche über Seilzüge bedient wird, dann taggt man railway:switch:electric=no.
literan (2016-05-20 10:37:16+00:00): Большое фи вам за поставленное в этой точке https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/813972303/history access=private. Полтора года навигаторы людей мимо Тверского бульвара водили!
user_5359 (2022-05-09 10:30:50+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/301723617/history. What is the meaning von the keys 
AREA
FINALLAND
FINALLAND1
LAND_DUN
PERIMETER	
?
treestryder (2023-01-15 19:42:45+00:00): Letting you know, after seeing your long agon use of the "whitewater" tag. Whereas, I once recommended its use, now "canoe" is the generic key for all human powered boats in OpenStreetMap. Have a look at the Michigan Wiki for an overview of how to map paddling infrastructure.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Michigan#Common_Tagging_Schemes

These can be seen at
https://openstreetbrowser.org/#map=18/42.74232/-84.54760&categories=paddling_routes,paddling_hazards,paddling_amenities

Also, many Michigan mappers have been meeting together each month. Meeting information can be found in the Community section. Hope to see you around.
santamariense (2016-12-07 00:58:52+00:00): É correto nomear matos como "Mata Atlântica"? E, é correto adicionar a tag "wikipedia=pt:Mata Atlântica" a todos estes matos?
A tag da Wikipédia, serve também para ilustrar artigos da Wikipédia. E atualmente só estes matos da metrópole paulistana constam como tal em todo o Brasil, vide imagem: http://i.imgur.com/cdoDqDu.png
 Não sei se seria interessante usar a tag da wikipédia nestes casos para mapear algo tão abstrato.
AjBelnuovo (2016-12-07 16:15:22+00:00): Começaria por contestar o termo que você usou " mato " . Pra mim mato é uma folhagem que tem no máximo 80 cm de altura , o que não é caso da mata em questão , que contém árvores diversas e é área de preservação ambiental . Se a mata em questão , que está na Serra do Mar , não faz parte do restou da Mata Atlântica , não sei onde ela estaria , mas se você contesta o uso da tag , deveria dirigir a pergunta a ONG SOS Mata Atlântica e remover o nome caso eles afirmem que não pertença . Atualmente eu não dou nome a mata nativa , mas não uso Floresta Manejada , onde vejo que ela não foi tratada desta forma .
santamariense (2016-12-07 17:19:22+00:00): Desculpa, primeiramente porque não compreendo muito dessas coisas, e segundo porque aqui no sul a gente chama de mato mesmo, independente do tamanho para generalizar. Talvez eu me fiz entender mal. Eu não discordei que fosse mata atlântica, mas se seria correto adicionar "Mata Atlântica" no nome. Seria como adicionar name=Casa à todas as casas (building=house) que estão no mapa. Ou adicionar o nome açude à todas os landuse=reservoir. Ou coisa parecida.

A questão é que mata atlântica é um bioma (relembrei meus tempos de colégio agora). Existem sim outras tags que classificam os tipos de árvores (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest) mas não sei se exatamente bioma.

Acho que deve haver tags mais apropriadas para definir o tipo de mata em questão. Eu desconheço porque nunca me ative a mapear este detalhamento aqui no OSM.

Eu te perguntei porque cheguei a pensar que você tivesse falado com a comunidade OSM sobre este assunto.

Eu vim para essa conversa ao ver o artigo Mata Atlântica da Wikipédia. Eu tinha a intenção de iniciar um debate se é correto adicionar a tag "wikipedia=pt:Mata Atântica" a todos os milhares de retalhos de Mata Atlântica que existem no Brasil. Atualmente dá a entender que estas áreas de matas são as únicas que restaram em todo o território nacional, como pode ser visto nesta imagem que eu reitero (http://i.imgur.com/cdoDqDu.png). Dá uma olhadinha no mapa OSM da wikipédia conforme a imagem e diga a sua opinião.
AjBelnuovo (2016-12-08 00:22:17+00:00): Me desculpe pelo jeito grosseiro da minha resposta . Vendo no artigo da Wikipédia sobre a Mata Atlântica a foto que mostra a delimitação criada pela WWF sobre ela vejo que contempla exatamente a área que você marcou na foto http://i.imgur.com/cdoDqDu.png . Acho que seria um bom tópico para discussão e que dela talvez fosse gerado uma forma de se nomear a toda essa floresta .
Papibaquígrafo (2016-12-22 09:07:29+00:00): santamariense: você mesmo já respondeu sua pergunta: não vai nenhuma tag além de natural=wood nessas áreas. Esta relação "wikipedia=Mata Atlântica" faz tanto sentido quanto colocar "wikipedia=Escola" em cada escola. Até poderiam existir tags para explicitar o tipo de "mato/mata" em questão, mas não acho que existam (e se existissem, seria preciso um especialista fazendo um survey no local para termos um resultado correto...)

A área de um "bioma" é um conceito muito amplo/vago para ser mapeado. Por outro lado, o que efetivamente deve ser mapeado são as Unidades de Conservação oficiais (ver https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Brazil/Unidades_de_conserva%C3%A7%C3%A3o para mais detalhes)
santamariense (2016-12-22 16:33:57+00:00): @Papibaquígrafo, inclusive a tag da wikipédia que ilustra artigos?
santamariense (2016-12-22 16:34:56+00:00): @Papibaquígrafo, e também a tag "name"="Mata Atlântica"?
Papibaquígrafo (2016-12-22 18:05:00+00:00): Sim, ambas. Pra fins de ilustração da wikipedia, é preciso um mapa feito à mão indicando em linhas gerais onde é/era a mata atlantica, não cada retalho remanscente.
gzin (2015-05-19 04:09:19+00:00): Hallo!

Hat es einen speziellen Grund, warum z.B. beim Rathaus Traun die Tags in einen einzelnen Node ausgelagert worden sind, anstatt sie beim Gebäude-Umriss zu belassen?

Beste Grüße
Günther
erwin6330 (2015-05-20 10:22:02+00:00): Hallo,
hatte in OÖ den Fall, dass sich 2 Gemeinden das Gebäude teilten, unterschiedliche Tel, E-Mail, usw. Die Frage stelllt sich, wie das erfassen? Geht nur in seperaten Nodes.
Und da die Erfassung eigentlich immer gleich sein sollte, denke ich, die Eigenschaften eines Gemeindeamtes haben einmal nichts mit dem Gebäude zu tun, das wären Höhe, Stockwerke, Farbe usw.,  und sollten daher an seperate Nodes. So wie bei Geschäften in Einkaufszentren auch, da geht es nicht anders.
Außerdem waren die tags der Kontaktdaten nicht richtig und bei der Gelegenheit habe ich sie an einen seperaten Node gehängt.
gzin (2015-05-20 13:15:38+00:00): Hallo,
den Fall mit den 2 Gemeinden in einem Gebäude sehe ich als Sonderfall, die Regel ist das ganz bestimmt nicht, auch nicht in Traun. Für den erwähnten Fall hat das sicher gepasst. Von einem Einzelfall auf die große Menge zu schließen halte ich für ungünstig.
Wie denkst du dann über Häuser, die ausschließlich z.B. als Gasthäuser dienen? Sollte man es da genauso machen? Und bei Kinos, Geschäften usw.??
Ich bin nach wie vor der Meinung, dass die Daten am Umriss besser aufgehoben sind als in einem unabhängigen freischwebenden Node. (Adresse fix mit Gebäude vereint, Adresse bei Suche nach Gemeindeamt ersichtlich (ohne komplizierte is-in-Auswertung))
erwin6330 (2015-05-21 06:07:32+00:00): Hallo,
Zu diesem Thema gab es bereits im Forum zahlreiche Diskussionen und wie so oft ist man nicht zu einem einheitlichen Schema gekommen, leider.
Gasthäuser haben oft auch noch Zimmer zu vermieten, ein weiterer POI.
In Kinos sind heute oft noch Lokale oder kleine Kneipen untergebraucht, wieder mehrere POIs in einem Gebäude.
Sicher, wenn wirklich nur ein POI in einem Gebäude ist, dann könnte man diesen auch auf das Gebäude setzen. Um jedoch einheitlich zu mappen, egal ob ein oder mehrere POIs, setze ich diese als seperaten Punkt.
Was, wenn die Anschrift wegen einem Postfach eine andere PLZ hat, so in D? Dann stimmen PLZ des Gebäude und des POI nicht überein, dann also doch wieder seperat? Das halte ich eben für inkonsequent und deshalb immer an seperate Nodes.
Wie gesagt, man ist sich nicht einig, kein falsch und kein richtig in dem Sinne.
Grüße
Erwin
flaimo (2015-05-22 16:55:43+00:00): Wenn es eine 1:1-Beziehung zwischen POI (völlig egal welcher Art) und Gebäude gibt kann man das direkt aufs Gebäude mappen. Sobald es unter einer Adresse (auf dem Gebäude) mehrere POIs gibt setzt man diese als Nodes in das Gebäude oder auf den Gebäuderand, wenn die Eingänge bekannt sind. Software die OSM-Daten verwendet müssen das meiner Meinung nach generisch auswerten können und auch eine Beziehung zwischen Adresse am Gebäude und den POIs herstellen können können.
de vries (2017-12-02 09:57:14+00:00): Hi, I've partly reverted this changeset. I've only reverted building nodes that had you as last editor. 
The reason for this revert is that you apparently aligned all buildings with Bing imagery, which has a huge offset. 
After reverting I checked the data with the official data source (BAG) and a more recent and better aligned imagery (PDOK)
Here is my changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54264694