piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
timmito (2021-04-07 14:27:19+00:00): Hallo CNelke, ist die Toilette wirklich öffentlich zugänglich access=yes oder nur für Gäste zugänglich access=customers?

Siehe auch: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2612254
CNelke (2021-04-07 14:52:25+00:00): Als ich das letzte mal auf dem Platz war, gab es keinen entsprechenden Hinweis dazu.
Frans S (2021-01-05 16:11:15+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings. Please check this task (105) again as some buildings are not outlined according to their boundary. Please take a look and improve the building outlines. Most of the buildings here are rectangular, so you can make use of the Q-key to make their corners 90° angles.
This document might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sSghBZ1xSoo0JKAWUJH8VYood6VSL5eUI4ICnO_jg0/edit?usp=sharing

Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96986325
Patchanka (2021-01-05 15:53:12+00:00): bonjour
ça me parait bizarre qu'il y ai un château d'eau à cet endroit ... ??
ou alors c'est un réservoir souterrain ?
erickdeoliveiraleal (2021-01-05 18:32:40+00:00): por que voce tirou a categoria de cidade do ponto Aguas Claras?
estevaomarques (2021-01-05 18:36:06+00:00): Desculpe-me, Erick.

Não tenho muito conhecimento nessa ferramenta. 

Minha intenção era só que minha empresa aparecesse no check-in e localidade. 

Tem semanas que estou tentando, porém sem sucesso.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2021-01-05 18:38:41+00:00): Check in de q? se for instagram acho que voce tem que criar o ponto lá no facebook
estevaomarques (2021-01-05 18:41:21+00:00): Não aparece a opção para criar a localidade. 
Nem no iOS, Android ou notebook. 
Já tentei de tudo que você possa imaginar.
E vi em vários tutoriais, que o correto seria inserir no OpenStreetMap.
Cristoffs (2021-01-05 15:18:13+00:00): Hej! Super że dodałeś. Planowane trochę inaczej powinno się oznaczać. Dasz radę poprawić?
Cristoffs (2021-01-06 17:29:19+00:00): Zmieniłem tagowanie na poprawne, natomiast musisz podać żródło w przypadku planowanej inwestycji inaczej trzeba to będzie usunąć.
MrCzyzu (2021-01-18 18:27:59+00:00): wykonawcą jest TBC Development. Gmina, która powinna już odnotować istnienie tej drogi bazuje na OpenStreetMap, a tutaj jeszcze jej oficjalnie nie ma
Cristoffs (2021-01-19 10:40:33+00:00): No i git. Następnym razem w opisie podawaj info w opisie i zwróć uwagę jak dodawać planowane obiekty. Daj znać kiedy droga będzie gotowa ;-)
Cartographer10 (2021-01-05 17:23:24+00:00): Hey Walter,

Het klopt inderdaad niet helemaal. met access=no zeg je, niemand mag hier gebruik van maken en OSM renderd de weg ook als gesloten. Eigenlijk dus nooit een weg beginnen met access=no en vervolgens uit zonderingen taggen. 

Ik heb even naar de OSMose melding gekeken. Wat die melding aangaf is dat er access=yes op stond. Dit betekent dat alle vervoersmiddelen zijn toegestaan en dat het geen zin heeft om anders access tags toe te voegen (mofa en moped in het geval van de waarschuwing). 

Daarnaast heb je bicycle=designated aan een fietspad toegevoegd. Nu zeg je dus expliciet het is een fietspad waar fietsers gebruik van mogen maken. Beetje dubbelop. 

Als laatste, moter_vehicle=permit. Staat er iets van een bord dat aangeeft dat bepaalde voertuigen van dit fietspad gebruik mogen maken?

Conclusie, de tags access=no en bicycle=designated kunnen weg, de rest kan blijven (ook de horse die je hebt toegevoegd mag blijven al weet ik even niet zeker over het overbodig is om horse=no op een fietspad te zetten).
Cartographer10 (2021-01-05 17:26:12+00:00): Als toevoeging. Je zou wel access=yes kunnen gebruiken er vervolgens 1 of 2 groepen kunnen uitsluiten met bijv foot=no. Dan zeg, alle verkeer mag er gebruik van een weg behalve voetgangers (als voorbeeld).
Walter-NL (2021-01-05 22:20:15+00:00): Ik begrijp je redenering maar heb me uiteindelijk gebaseerd op de beschrijving in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno
Het weggedeelte is aan twee zijden voorzien van bord NL:G12a. Het wordt aan beide zijden afgesloten door bollards (de bekende enkelvoudige  rode verwijderbare paal, dus geen defnitieve afsluiting). Dat betekent m.i dat andere voertuigen er gebruik van kunnen maken als de bevoegde beheerder de bollards wegneemt. Dat heb ik vertaald naar "permit" omdat de beheerder de bollards alleen weg zal nemen met als expliciet doel specifiek gemotoriseerd verkeer toegang te geven. Ik heb in eerdere changes van alles geprobeerd maar osmose blijft met die melding komen, ook als ik tag volgens de NL access rules voor Cycleway. Ik ga er komende dagen nog eens naar kijken. Desnoods haal ik borden en bollards fysiek weg ;-)
Dank voor je commmentaar C10
Cartographer10 (2021-01-06 07:11:04+00:00): Hallo Walter,

Bedankt voor de toelichting. Over de access=no, daar is die eerste zin van de wiki belangrijk: "de weg is gesloten voor het algemeen publiek". Dat is hier niet het geval want het is, gezien het bord, een publiek toegankelijke weg (/ fietspad). Zoals je zegt, door het weghalen van die paaltjes kunnen voertuigen er wel door heen maar je moet een soort sleutel hebben voor die paaltjes. motor_vehicle=permit lijkt me dan prima ( dan moet je dat ook even aan de 2 paaltjes toevoegen). access=no kan hier dus echt weg.

Daarnaast, bicycle=designated is echt dubbelop. Zelfde als dat je geen foot=yes op een highway=footway zet.  

Over die paaltjes, access=no is hier ook niet nodig. Zoals wiki [1] zegt, een paatje impliceerd al acess=no, bicycle=yes, foot=yes tenzij anders wordt aangegeven.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=bollard
eggie (2021-01-06 07:20:56+00:00): Even los van alle goede bedoelingen zorgt access=no ook voor een minder prominente rendering op de kaart. De weg is nauwelijks zichtbaar, want die doet er niet toe. Beter access=no niet zomaar gebruiken.
Mvg
Eggie
Walter-NL (2021-01-06 10:48:19+00:00): Dag Eggie,  ik  duik er weer in om de correcte tagging te vinden en schrijf hierna nog op het commentaar van Cartographer10. Overigens voel ik mee met je bezwaar tegen het effect van access=no op rendering, maar mocht correct gebruik van access=no tot ongewenste rendering leiden, ligt het probleem dan niet in de in de rendering?
Opvallend dit verband: volgens de wiki NL:Tag:barrier=bollard zijn de impliciete waarden: access=no; foot=yes, bicyle=yes. In ID worden bij plaatsing van een bollard als default aangeboden: allowed access all=yes, en is de access voor modaliteiten Not Specified. In de praktijk zie ik bij alle bollards in de omgeving dan ook access=yes. 

C10/Vincent, dank voor je aanvullingen. Ik ga het fietspad tussen de bollards re-taggen met de regels van NL:Cycleway voor borden G12a en de bollards volgens wiki NL:Tag:barrier=bollard met inachtneming van alle defaults. Uiteraard is het expliciet maken van bicycle=designated onzin, maar omdat osmose bleef melden heb ik ook dat geprobeerd.  Je ziet de volgemde changeset wel komen, hopenlijk deze keer zonder fouten en tevreden osmose.
eggie (2021-01-06 10:57:08+00:00): Dag Walter,

Nog één aanvulling...  
Soms zie je dat worldwide random mappers 
'onnodige' tags verwijderen.
bicycle=designated of yes/ foot=yes wordt van een fietspad gehaald.
access=no blijft staan. Het effect kun je raden. 
Soms met mechanical edits. 
Het gaat me niet alleen om de rendering. 
Ook in de OSM community is toch wel  consensus om access=no of =yes te ontmoedigen. 
Bedankt voor je reactie,
eggie
Walter-NL (2021-01-06 10:59:18+00:00): Vincent, je aanvulling over access=no is heel waardevol. het verschil met de tags die de toegang voor modaliteiten regelen is me nu duidelijk. Overigens geen garantie voor foutenvrij werk in de toekomst.   
Groet // Walter
Cartographer10 (2021-01-06 11:05:42+00:00): Access tags kunnen ook best complex worden/ zijn. Ik kijk ook nog vaker op de wiki van access om iets uit te zoeken. Overigens, als je twijfelt over iets kun je ook altijd eerst even op het Nederlandse OSM forum een vraag plaatsen. Daar kan makkelijker gediscusseerd worden dan hier zo in de comments van een changeset.
Frans S (2021-01-05 16:09:17+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Mappings are fine and accurate. No errors
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sSghBZ1xSoo0JKAWUJH8VYood6VSL5eUI4ICnO_jg0/edit?usp=sharing
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96986607
Frans S (2021-01-05 16:08:51+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Mappings are fine and accurate. No errors. 
just 1 remark. 1 building not squared.
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sSghBZ1xSoo0JKAWUJH8VYood6VSL5eUI4ICnO_jg0/edit?usp=sharing
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96986738
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:38:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:36:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:39:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:42:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:36:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
MCDA (2021-01-05 19:34:59+00:00): Hi, OpenStreetMap is a real map of the world, used by many people for many things.  I have noticed that your edits seem to be primarily for playing Minecraft Earth and this is not allowed if the edits are not representative of what is there in reality.  For example the camp site,I can't see any sign of a site on any imagery.  Are you adding features that don't exist?
◪ Jarv (2021-01-17 16:36:59+00:00): Why have you tagged the old High Street Bridge over the River ouse as access=no?
stthomse (2021-02-01 09:38:23+00:00): It's a pedestrian bridge. My understanding of the access tags for highways (from the recommendations from osmose etc) is that the top level tag should only be yes if there is access for all transport types and no if access is limted to only certain types, with those types set to yes in the lower level tags. Your coment implies it should only be no if there is no access whatsoever and that leaving the top level tag greyed out as yes implies that it is actually no. This is confusing, what's right?
◪ Jarv (2021-02-02 14:31:32+00:00): So different highway types imply different access by default. For example a motorway or motorway_link will only suggest access for motor vehicles and no other means of transport. A pedestrian road will only suggest access for foot and no other means unless explicitly added (like "bicycle=yes")
Likewise highway=bridleway will allow access by default only to foot,bicycle&horse.

Access=no on a highway should only be used if the road or path is legally closed (for a substantial period of time)
Also I believe that the bridge on Lewes' Highstreet does allow some vehicles with conditional access, although from memory the signage is very inconstant.
stthomse (2021-02-02 16:03:52+00:00): OK so is it just a specific case when footpaths and bridleways are being flagged automatically as being access=yes and the guidance is to change it to no with specific sub tags specifying what's allowed? I assume this should only happen if the original editor incorrectly set the access=yes tag in the first place?
deneb48 (2021-01-05 14:56:27+00:00): Erreur (de débutant) dans l'orientation. Désolé.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:41:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
scai (2021-01-14 14:07:49+00:00): Hi klaus-kannemann,

du hast https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/892353976 angefasst. Da ist derzeit access=no angebracht, was mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit falsch ist. Schau mal bitte hier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2497847

Grüße
Alex
jmapb (2021-01-06 02:43:50+00:00): Hi there EZRouting... you seem to be changing a lot of service roads to residential in this changeset. May I ask why?
jmapb (2021-01-14 18:33:37+00:00): Hello EZRouting, I've reverted this changeset. I've also reverted, fully or partially, your other recent changesets in Ulster county: 96988257, 96990057, 96992155, and 96992894.

The biggest problem here is the reclassification of service and track roads to residential, which you have not explained. There are also roads you seem to have added by guessing. 

There are also some instances where you've mapped correctly, fixing errors and correcting names. It's tricky but I've done my best to remove your mistakes without damaging the good data. This takes a lot of work.

In the future please don't make any changes to the map if you aren't willing to discuss why you've made them. OSM is a group project and cooperative mapping is what makes it work.

Thank you, Jmapb
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:42:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
Frans S (2021-01-05 15:59:01+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Please see my comments on previous changesets. 
Be more precise in following the outlines of buildings. 

This document might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sSghBZ1xSoo0JKAWUJH8VYood6VSL5eUI4ICnO_jg0/edit?usp=sharing

Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96987451
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:40:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
Frans S (2021-01-05 15:57:06+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Mappings are fine and accurate. Please do not connect nodes of buildings to a highway and square all the rectangular buildings you map.
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sSghBZ1xSoo0JKAWUJH8VYood6VSL5eUI4ICnO_jg0/edit?usp=sharing
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96987503
eggie (2021-01-05 15:11:22+00:00): Dag mapper.. Wellicht highway=service ?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-01-05 15:27:18+00:00): Ik heb het aangepast naar highway=service en ook de parkeerplaats aangepast. 
MVG
eggie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:38:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
aceman444 (2021-08-28 15:15:36+00:00): Zdravim, to ze je to pitna voda, ste uz vyjadrili prislusnou znackou (amenity=drinking_water). Netreba tento opis zadavat este aj do nazvu. Naopak, je to v OSM zakazane, patri tam len vlastne meno objektu (napr. keby tam bol napis "Studnicka lasky").
aceman444 (2021-08-28 16:08:59+00:00): Aha, nemusite odpovedat, uz ste to vysvetlili inde :)
Frans S (2021-01-05 15:54:56+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
See my previous comment on mappings of clusters .
This document might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sSghBZ1xSoo0JKAWUJH8VYood6VSL5eUI4ICnO_jg0/edit?usp=sharing

Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96987721
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:42:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
mapper033 (2021-01-05 14:50:39+00:00): Freudian slip - my bad. Meant "added public football pitch and path from nearby road"
Nonexhudlix (2021-08-02 06:05:19+00:00): Hallo peanuts64,
bitte berücksichtige auch die Abbiegespuren, wenn Du (z.B. über StreetComplete) lanes einträgst. Wenn die Gesamtzahl der Spuren nicht zu den Abbiegespuren passt, dann funktioniert die Spuranzeige (z.B. in OsmAnd) nicht, so z.B. in der Weissacher Straße.
Warum StreeComplete hier überhaupt nach den Fahrspuren gefragt hat, ist mir auch unklar, denn es waren vorher lanes:forward und :backward schon eingetragen. Ist vielleicht auch ein Fehler in StreetComplete.
Bitte nicht als Vorwurf verstehen, nur als Hinweis. ich hab die Weissacher Straße korrigiert.
peanuts64 (2021-08-05 19:29:45+00:00): Vielen Dank für den Hinweis,
daß heisst dann muß man die Straße in diesen Bereichen in kleinere Stücke teilen und die zusätzlichen Abbiegespuren hinzufügen.
fabiotofy (2021-01-06 13:59:13+00:00): Hai per caso un idea sulla data possibile di fine lavori ? Grazie
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96988212
alessandrocarmeli (2021-01-07 07:10:04+00:00): mo, ma l'asse tra la SP80 e via quercie è stata completata di illuminazione e segnaletica, ma non so comunque
Frans S (2021-01-05 15:33:26+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Sorry to say, but here you clustered and  mapped nearly all your mappings as 1 building. Please map each building individually !
This is on Task 265. Please correct them

This document might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sSghBZ1xSoo0JKAWUJH8VYood6VSL5eUI4ICnO_jg0/edit?usp=sharing

Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/96988241
jmapb (2021-01-14 18:53:29+00:00): see comments in changeset 96987406
20180911 (2021-01-05 22:33:15+00:00): Thank you for mapping, as you requested someone to look for this changeset, I'll write my thoughts on it.
It is not important if the land or path is private. If the public allowed to go there and the owner cannot revoke this, it is access=yes (or do not use access=* at all, as this is the default.
If the public can go there but the owner can forbid it in the future, access=permissive is right.
Only if the public is not to go there, then access=private is the right one.

Usually all paths in an area have the same access=*, so you should update the other ways, too.
Your changeset comments were in English, so I write English. I speak also German. Feel free to ask using this discussion.
ganna10 (2021-01-06 08:33:32+00:00): Thanks for the tip. I'll change the rest of the paths to have same access rights.
StefanHRT (2021-01-07 05:50:33+00:00): Guten Morgen allerseits,
Ich war heute mal an 2 der 3 Toren (Rönnestraße und Lützenstraße hinter dem Aldikomplex), welche als Zugang in OSM sichtbar sind. die beiden Tore waren verschlossen und es standen keine Öffnungszeiten dran. Am Tor der Rönnestraße war sogar ein Schild mit Radfahren verboten. Wäre dann nicht sogar als Access privat sinnvoll? 
VG Stefan
ganna10 (2021-01-07 10:01:59+00:00): Guten Morgen,
Dann alle Wege in und zwischen der KGA Rönnestraße und KGA Wasserturm sollten als privat angestellt werden? Ich denke dass  ergibt sinn und warte auf deine Antwort um das nicht nochmal zu machen ;-)
20180911 (2021-01-07 10:37:47+00:00): Falls du auf meine Antwort wartest, ich sehe das der Beschreibung nach auch als private an. Wenn die Tore verschlossen sind sodass man nicht reinkommt, ist das ziemlich eindeutig private und es sollte auch keiner über diese Wege geroutet werden.
StefanHRT (2021-01-07 10:41:32+00:00): @ganna, Da ich gestern ja die fehlenden Wege noch zusätzlich bearbeitet hatte, kann ich auch gerne für Dich alles komplett bearbeiten, gib einfach Bescheid.
VG
Stefan
ganna10 (2021-01-07 12:04:21+00:00): @Stefan - du kannst das gerne bearbeiten. Danke!
StefanHRT (2021-01-07 13:04:40+00:00): Der Bereich ist komplett  geändert https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/97111159
20180911 (2021-01-05 21:33:03+00:00): Thank you for your contribution! You requested a review on your change, and here are my comments:

You modified the position and shape of the Pavilion and added the club's website.

What you could improve is the following:
-After drawing a building, you shoud make the edges rectangular. You can do this by right-clicking on the line and select the square symbol.
-On Bing imagery the building is a bit less to the north-eastern corner, it is shorter.
-One thing for advanced users, another user introduced this tag: "leisure=club" is no more used, it can be deleted as there is already the tag "club=sport"

Feel free to also comment on this changeset if you have questions.