piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ToeBee (2016-02-24 16:34:08+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap. Thank you for the addition of this point. Question: What is this business? You put in an address and a name (is the name right, by the way? Stats? States?) but you didn't classify what type of thing this is. Hotel? Restaurant? Used Car Salesman? 

If you go to edit the area again, click on the point you created before and then click on the box on the left that says "Address" and it will open a menu where you can select what type of thing this is.
Verkehrsrot (2016-06-25 18:02:33+00:00): Wieso hast Du am Bahnhof Fürstenwalde/Spree die Level-Angaben, die ich zu den Aufzügen eingetragen hatte, gelöscht?
MKnight (2016-06-27 02:43:24+00:00): http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=54906
user_5359 (2016-02-24 19:16:09+00:00): Welcome to OSM! If theses are a school, add amenity=school to the relation. If you need help: You are welcome.
Mloni (2016-05-18 08:41:43+00:00): Hallo haytigran,
wenn du flächendeckend tags präzisierst dann achte doch bitte darauf dich möglichst nicht zu verschreiben. Gerade habe ich an der Landshuter Allee und in der Rosenheimer Straße deine falschen tags bicycle:oneway in oneway:bicycle korrigiert nachdem das Radlrouting hier nicht mehr richtig funktionierte. 
Möglicherweise ist dir dieser Fehler ja noch in noch mehr der geänderten Straßen in diesem großen Änderungssatz unterlaufen.
Es wäre schön, wenn du das selbst nachprüfen würdest.
haytigran (2016-05-18 09:22:08+00:00): Hallo Mloni,

vielen Dank für den Hinweis.
Ich habe alle bicycle:oneways durch oneway:bicycle ersetzt.
MarkusHD (2016-02-28 17:56:18+00:00): Der dritte Bussteig Oberderdingen-Flehingen ist kein Bussteig, hab daraus den Busparkplatz direkt daneben gemacht: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/399683234#map=19/49.08334/8.77559
Und auf der Attenbergstraße darf man 50 fahren, nicht 30 wie in changeset 37480636 eingetragen.
Zeichne mal weniger von Bing ab oder Eintragungen aus vager Erinnerung, geh lieber mal raus zum Mappen. Macht auch viel mehr Spaß :)
muralito (2016-02-29 19:16:00+00:00): No es lo correcto marcar como building=house todas las parcelas. Solo las edificaciones en si deberian marcarse como "building"
GerdP (2016-02-25 09:19:37+00:00): Hi there and welcome to OSM!
I've noticed this change because you use highway=crossing for the footway
instead of highway=footway + footway=crossing. The tag highway=crossing shoud only be used on the node whch is shared by the footway and the major road.
SomeoneElse (2016-03-04 22:27:17+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

You've added something here with a name of "testing". If it doesn't really exist, please don't add test data here as OpenStreetMap's really about things in the real world.

If you want to add test data you could try and use the "dev" server over at http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ 

On the other hand, if there really is an industrial area called "testing" here, please accept my apologies!

Anyway, hope you don't mind me mentioning this, just trying to help - any questions please don't hesitate to ask.
Cheers,
Andy
GerdP (2016-02-25 09:38:01+00:00): Hi there!
You use highway=unknown instead highway=road for two ways, was that intended?
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/399707039  and 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/399707038
They look like highway=service roads to me.
literan (2016-02-25 15:31:02+00:00): Добрый день! Прошу не использовать теги bicycle=yes, foot=yes, horse=yes и подобные на дорогах, пешеходных и автомобильных, а также на тропах. Данные теги (как и любые access-теги) применяются для того, чтобы отобразить административные запреты/разрешения (т.е. установленные дорожными знаками, объявлениями, описывающими режим объекта и т.п. - или даже просто охранником, стоящим на КПП), а не физическую возможность проезда для пешехода или велосипедиста. Указанные теги избыточны, не имеют смысла и даже вовсе противоречат законодательству (в частности, по тротуарам ПДД на велосипеде почти всегда вовсе запрещают проезд), и поэтому вычищаются из базы.
Atakua (2016-02-25 16:48:00+00:00): Добрый день! Спасибо, понял, больше лишних тегов навешивать стараться не буду.
GerdP (2016-02-25 09:45:13+00:00): Hi there and welcome to OSM!
I've noticed this change because you used highway=unpaved instead of surface=unpaved. Please highway e.g. highway=footway or highway=residential for the road type and the surface tag for the surface. See also 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
Martin Borsje (2017-02-16 06:30:06+00:00): Hoi AnkEric,

Ik zie dat je aan de MTB-route Drunense Duinen gewerkt hebt. Vast niet alle edits zijn van jou, maar:
Een groot aantal elementen is als highway=track getagd terwijl het denkelijk om een pad (single trail) gaat: een track is breed genoeg voor een tractor.
Verder is de naam van de route aan de elementen gegeven als name=. Dit is natuurlijk niet correct: highway, name=* geeft de straatnaam aan en niet de naam van een route (al rendert dat natuurlijk mooi, maar dat is mapping for the renderer). De naam van de MTB-route behoort op de relatie alleen. Op de cyclemap wordt overigens de naam van een fietsroute wel gerenderd).

Wil je e.e.a. herstellen? Voor hulp of discussie: zie het forum: 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=632317#p632317

Martin
marczoutendijk (2017-02-16 17:46:38+00:00): Inmiddels is de MTB route door mij onderhanden genomen:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/46133771
en is verdere actie op dit moment niet nodig.
user_242798 (2017-02-16 18:11:30+00:00): Je zou alleen [tracktype=grade5] op [highway=track] nog kunnen verwijderen.
Dit is een beetje oneigenlijk op [highway=path] en [surface=sand] volstaat.
marczoutendijk (2017-02-16 18:27:28+00:00): In dit geval lijkt me dat inderdaad ook een goede wijziging. De wiki over tracktype 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype 
zegt wel dat ook voor andere wegen dan track deze toevoeging zinvol kan zijn, maar in combinatie met surface=* lijkt het mij ook nogal overdreven.
Ik haal hem weg.
Dank voor het meekijken!
user_5359 (2016-02-24 20:40:35+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dfire_hydrant !
GerdP (2016-02-25 09:04:20+00:00): Hi there!
You changed a highway=primary to the undocumented highway=mini_roundabout, this will lead to routing problems. Please note that 
highway=mini_roundabout is only for nodes. 
The area enclosed by the way itself seems to be too large as well, according to Bing.
I sugest to make it smaller and tag it highway=primary  + junction=roundabout and maybe a note=no physical obstacle.
fangly (2016-02-25 17:11:58+00:00): Hi,
I referred to this page for tagging the mini roundabout: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Circular_and_widened_road_features . However, I got tripped by the differences between mapping a regular and a mini-roundabout. Thanks for pointing out my mistake, I think it is now corrected. Note that Bing does have an up-to-date image of this intersection.
Cheers,
Florent
GerdP (2016-02-25 17:32:29+00:00): OK, looks good now, if that's really a round about. Bing shows a normal junction, but other area images show white paint on the road that look like a wheel.No idea which image is newer, and I am not a local.
fangly (2016-02-25 17:39:50+00:00): Good. Indeed, the mini-roundabout has a sort of painted wheel in its middle.
SomeoneElse (2016-02-27 12:49:31+00:00): Hi,
I've re-added the "name" tag for the country of Kosovo which you removed in this changeset.  OpenStreetMap follows the "on the ground" rule for names - see "names" in http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf for more details.  There may be names in different languages (for example I'd expect there to be a name:sr, which is currently missing) but where there is a well-accepted local name I'd expect it to be in the name tag.

Best Regards,
Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group.
pnorman (2016-02-25 15:34:01+00:00): This seems to have added something in the middle of nowhere. Was this intentional>
MarcoR (2016-02-24 23:50:10+00:00): errata corrige: added hamlet Mortaiolo
naoliv (2016-07-17 01:25:45+00:00): UsuárioPar, tem alguns caminhos que você acabou adicionando "admin_level" e "boundary", mesmo com eles já fazendo parte de relações.
Por exemplo: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/376604767
Não é correto utilizar "boundary" e "admin_level" nos caminhos dessa forma.
Dá para verificar os caminhos nessa região, por favor?
user_5359 (2016-02-25 18:27:04+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please read the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:microbrewery%3Dyes .
LucFreitas (2016-02-25 02:12:34+00:00): Olá muniz22. Bem vindo ao OpenStreetMap!

Percebi que você está nomeando algumas com abreviações (R., Av., Al, por exemplo). Como esse banco de dados é usado por diversas aplicações, a comunidade criou o padrão para que os nomes de vias sejam escritos de maneira integral, neste caso, "Rua Alvarenga Peixoto".

Se você desejar, pode ler mais e aprender aqui na Wiki do projeto (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt-br:Key:name#Abrevia.C3.A7.C3.A3o_.28n.C3.A3o_faz.C3.AA-lo.29).

Obrigado pela sua atenção e disposição em colaborar neste projeto!
Skippern (2016-07-01 11:56:11+00:00): Tem muitos escolas que não tem ruas ou estradas mapeado por perto, voce pode me ajuda achar eles e liga-los com estradas? Parecendo que problema principal e no Norte e no Interior do estado. Sige o link do Overpass se voce preciso auxilio acha-los: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/h4Z
LucFreitas (2016-07-01 14:25:34+00:00): Oi, Skippern. Vou rodar o arquivo no QGIS e cruzar com os dados das estradas para encontrar as escolas que estão desconectadas e ter uma direção.
Skippern (2016-07-01 14:35:57+00:00): Beleza, ja conectei uns 20-30 deles, mas demorar achar eles que não são conectadas. Se voce preciso ajuda me passa algum dados e vou tenta auxiliar voce
Skippern (2016-07-01 14:36:36+00:00): Talvez tem mesmo problema com os outros POI voce adicionou?
LucFreitas (2016-07-01 15:38:22+00:00): Acho que é só este conjunto de dados que pega áreas rurais dos que eu importei. Os outros (hospitais, delegacias e prefeituras) estão nos centros urbanos, e como são poucos, eu verifiquei todos eles.
LucFreitas (2016-07-01 16:02:15+00:00): Tem 469 escolas nesta condição, sem ruas ou estradas próximas. Vou deixar o resultado aqui:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Escolas_desconectadas_do_Esp%C3%ADrito_Santo

Tenho a tabela no Excel também, se você quiser eu te mando no Dropbox.

Vou começar a adicionar as ruas.
LucFreitas (2016-07-01 16:05:05+00:00): Eu fiz a análise com uma base de ruas um pouco antiga que tinha baixado anteriormente (acho que é do mês passado), por isso, tem umas escolas aí na lista que você já adicionou as ruas.
Skippern (2016-07-01 16:27:56+00:00): To começando no fundo, vou apago-los do wiki em grupos para voce ver onde terminou
Supaplex (2016-02-25 02:58:57+00:00): 原來建築刪了，但點沒刪掉
bananatw (2016-02-25 12:20:55+00:00): 是阿，完全沒注意到
Martin Borsje (2016-02-25 16:48:11+00:00): Hoi "merkwaardige naam"

Welkom op OSM en gefeliciteerd met je eerste edit!

Een kleine opmerking: Op de weg Trekweg, die als unclassified geklasseerd staat heb je oneway=no, bicycle=foot=yes gezet. Voor een unclassified way zijn dit alle drie al defaultwaarden, dus die had je gewoon weg kunnen laten. Ik heb ze nu verwijderd, maar voor volgende edits weet je dat dan. Groeten
user_5359 (2016-02-25 18:25:09+00:00): Please add shop=supermarket, if this is a really ALDI.
lostmike (2016-04-06 08:46:56+00:00): Hi There

Welcome to OSM.

A small issue concerning your edit though. Your traffic calming node on Morlay Street seems now to be attached to the north end of Silex Street. Can you fix this or should the changeset be reverted?
SomeoneElse (2016-04-09 11:53:34+00:00): Looks like someone's fixed it by deleting the offending node - see http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/38410242 .
rene78 (2016-02-25 19:34:03+00:00): i thought it is for motorbikes and not mainly for bicycles? cycleway is for bicycles.
AkuAnakTimur (2016-02-26 10:43:18+00:00): Could you please make edits to these, maybe? I also believed that these are motorcycle paths (highway=path with motorcycle=desginated)
user_5359 (2016-02-25 18:21:08+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Is "Francisco's Story the name of the building? Please add the name to building way. If not you should describe the object (shop?). As home page for the question "How do I describe you?" I recommend the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_to_map_a.
GOwin (2016-02-25 08:05:31+00:00): Hello. Can you provide a link to your source?

This appears to be just a *bill* and is not a law, and will not have any legal weight.
metaphysikhall (2016-02-26 07:50:17+00:00): Hey. It appears there is confusion regarding the boundaries of the area.
From my experience visiting the area many times, people often conflate, even residents of the marsh themselves, but there are 2 different boundaries: that of the AMWS which is the protected area, and the extent of the Agusan Marsh as a physical feature, defined I guess by peak flooding extents. The latter is naturally larger than the former.
Also, from what I can see, the boundaries of the AMWS on OSM that I replaced is similar to the area defined in the free Protected Areas shapefile from PhilGis. Unfortunately I do not have knowledge of the origins of that particular version of the AMWS' boundaries.
I've noticed, however, that it is not the same as the boundaries used in technical reports and published maps, like this Consultant's Report for the ADB:
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/68233/36540-phi-tacr.pdf
In that document, Fig. 2J-1 (pp. 114) has the current protected area map, the boundary defined in SBN 3265 (labeled as the Proposed Expansion of the AMWS), and the peak flooding extent of the marsh.
Meanwhile, the Senate's page on the Agusan Marsh Wildlife Sanctuary Act of 2012 links to SBN 3265 (2012), which replaces SBN 2154 (2010):
http://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=15&q=SBN-3265
The latest legislation on the matter, however, is SBN-1044 (AMWS Act of 2013),
https://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1708214297!.pdf
which contains essentially the same defined boundaries as the previous Bills, and is consolidated in the March 2015 Senate Committee Report #117, which essentially seeks to expand the NIPAS Act: https://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/2080117895!.pdf

I initially elected to replace the existing boundary with the smaller 19,000 hectare AMWS boundary, but I only have a very rough version of it which I digitized from low-res maps, like the one in the previously mentioned Technical Report, and as such, will have great discrepancies.

Also, from what I can tell after looking at senate documents online, the AMWS Acts have not yet made it past the readings stage, as there is no R.A. document, and AMWS Acts of 2010, 2012, and 2013 all link to senate bills.
So in essence, from what I can tell, the boundaries defined in the said senate bills are the best we have. :(
metaphysikhall (2016-02-26 07:58:38+00:00): ...unless we can get a hold of better data, that is.
metaphysikhall (2016-02-26 08:14:44+00:00): Ah. Something to add: The original boundaries date back to Presidential Proclamation 913 from 1996:
http://www.gov.ph/1996/10/31/proclamation-no-913-s-1996/
Though the forthcoming boundary expansions are highly anticipated, and even seen as necessary to maximize protection of the Agusan Marsh's ecosystems.

...as undoubtedly the current boundary expansions will take a while being stuck pending second reading, the 1996 boundaries still have weight, and would still be proper replacements for the existing boundaries on OSM, which are totally different. I'm not familiar, though, with OSM conventions regarding placing old and forthcoming park boundaries together.
GOwin (2016-02-26 08:53:37+00:00): Thank you for the prompt response. Much appreciated.

I brought this changeset to the attention of some of the local OSM mappers and mentioned that it's premature to modify the boundaries based on a bill. Please check out the `proposed:` life cycle tag prefix which seems appropriate in this case: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

With reference to Agusan Marsh, as a protected area, the Ramos-era Executive Order is the prevailing law, and defines the AMWS boundary.

The marsh, as a natural feature, is still undefined until we obtain better data or imagery.

Please join the informal, online discussions of the local OpenStreetMap community at http://is.gd/osmphchat

Sorry for the short reply. I'm mobile. I'll elaborate when I get back to my computer.
GOwin (2016-02-26 08:56:18+00:00): Also, perhaps you would consider reverting the AMWS boundaries back to version 1, then create a new boundary tagged with a `proposed:` prefix
GOwin (2016-02-26 08:57:17+00:00): ...  based on the Senate bill.
metaphysikhall (2016-03-01 07:55:44+00:00): Hey, I just added the PP913 boundaries. I decided to include both the park's core area and buffer zone, as they were both defined separately in the proclamation. I'm not sure though if I got the naming conventions spot on. I hope you can kindly check. Thanks.
GOwin (2016-03-02 02:02:22+00:00): Kindly refer to https://www.osm.org/changeset/37558311 for the modifications I made. And to the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area as reference for detailed mapping of protected areas.

Also, the Lifecycle Prefix tags: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Thanks for the contribution. Keep on mapping!
IIVQ (2022-08-10 08:47:13+00:00): Hello,

Regarding  https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=869182#p869182 (Dutch)

Any idea why you tagged https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24652800/history with trolley_wire=yes?
Mond00 (2022-08-10 14:15:44+00:00): Unfortunately, that was an input field and will delete the day in the next few days
IIVQ (2022-08-10 14:31:22+00:00): No problem!
Владимир К (2019-05-19 12:02:34+00:00): Здравствуйте.
вы давно добавили https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/56.72780/53.26994 эти улицы, но на снимках до сих пор нет даже намеков на строительство в этом месте. откуда вы взяли данные?
Hjart (2016-02-25 07:57:49+00:00): highway=cycleway bør efter min mening reserveres til deciderede cykelstier beregnet til almindelige cykler
Hjart (2016-02-25 09:04:34+00:00): Da disse spor ikke er beregnede til almindelige cykler har jeg tilladt mig at rette dem tilbage til "path". Tak
Martin Borsje (2016-02-25 16:52:08+00:00): Hoi Bertje,

Welkom op OSM. Een merkwaardig alias overigens als je serieus als mapper genomen wilt worden. 
Je hebt op de Wiemelhoek een paar rare key/values gezet:

Voor een highway=pedestrian hoef je niet foot=yes te zetten; dit is natuurlijk impliciet
Je hebt bicycle=yes; is het dan geen fietspad?
Verder heb je access=no staan; dat betekent dat niemand er mag komen; geen wandelaars, geen fietsers, niemand. Bedoel je dat echt?
Martin Borsje (2016-02-25 16:52:45+00:00): Ik heb foot = yes weggehaald, de rest moet je zelf even checken
Martin Borsje (2016-02-25 16:58:11+00:00): Bertje

Je hebt van de Rechterstraat eenrichtingsverkeer gemaakt. Volgens mij geldt dat niet voor fietsers. Ik heb onewy:bicycle=no toegevoegd. Als dat niet waar is mag je dat weghalen
waldhans (2016-03-01 13:55:58+00:00): you put a oneway to the street "Born". Please check if bicycles are still allowed to pass in the opposite direction. 
This street is part of the cycle network, which is now broken.
best regards, Kurt
Z-Net (2016-03-01 15:54:57+00:00): You are right, Kurt. Cyclists have permission in either direction. I've made the relevant changes. Greetings, Stefan.
Martin Borsje (2016-02-25 17:03:11+00:00): Bertje,

Je hebt op een highway=pedestrian gezet bicycle=yes. Als het geen fietspad is maar een voetpad waar fietsers ook op mogen dan is bicycle=designated beter. Verder kan motor_vehicle=no natuurlijk weg van highway=pedestrian
dvdhoven (2016-02-26 06:32:19+00:00): Waarom ga je hier aan die wegen knoeien terwijl alles goed lag? Nu lagen er meerdere wegen los van elkaar. Fietsknooppuntnetwerk in gort, boel routeert niet meer.
Als je niet kunt mappen, ga dan wat anders doen, maar loop niet voortdurend OSM te verzieken. Ik heb al het nodige van je gerepareerd en dat is alleen nog datgene wat ik zie door fouten in fietsknooppuntennetwerk. De rest kan ik niet zien.
dvdhoven (2016-02-26 06:33:00+00:00): Even het punt, wat ik gerepareerd heb, is het kruispunt bij knooppunt 38
DD1GJ (2016-02-25 09:13:02+00:00): Hallo Jever61, Katasterkarten sind im Gegensatz zu  einigen anderen Bundesländern in Niedersachsen für OSM unzulässig. Sie stehen unter dem Urheberrecht der Landesvermessung sowie unter den Regelungen des Vermessungsgesetzes. Höre bitte auf, diese für OSM zu verwenden.
freeExec (2016-02-26 10:28:28+00:00): Вдоль КДЦМ идёт сервис, есть знак, что это пешеходная зона, и присутствую шлагбаумы.
И как-то зебры странно режешь, и так же было отмечено https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/177791340
ff5722 (2016-12-09 11:21:08+00:00): Hi why did you add a housenumber to the place
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2703829246

Should it be on the townhall?

你为什么添加了地址？应该添加在市政厅?
Setti (2016-03-01 00:33:46+00:00): Hallo Chelsea,
ich glaube da ist was mit dem building tag durcheinander gekommen. Meintest du wirklich building = atze_musiktheater?
Das wird für den Renderer schwer auszuwerten sein. Ich weiß kein tagging für den Renderer aber auf irgendwas müssen wir uns ja einigen. Siehe http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:building
Wäre da building = university und  amenity=theatre nicht besser? Oder irgendwas anderes was in eine Kategorie passt?
Mfg Sebastian
ChelseaChels (2016-03-01 10:31:59+00:00): Moin Sebastian,
hast natürlich recht, irgendwie war ich da wohl nicht richtig bei der Sache! Ich hab mich allerdings schon mal gefragt ob das Atze Theater wirklich zur Universität dazu gehört (war mir nicht ganz sicher) oder ob es ein "Institut" für sich ist. Deshalb hab ich glaub ich nicht mit value university gearbeitet. Soll ich es ändern oder machst du es? 
Beste Grüße
 
Felix
Setti (2016-03-01 10:47:24+00:00): Hey Felix, ich habs geändert. Jetzt wo du es sagst bin ich mir auch nicht so sicher ob es teil der Uni ist. Ich hab mir mal die Website des Theaters angeguckt konnte aber nichts darüber finden. Ich hab den inneren Gebäudering jetzt auf building yes gesetzt und bei dem äußeren das building rausgenommen weil ja schon ein building part da ist. Ich denke mal ihr macht irgendwas mit 3d also wenn es noch nicht passt mußt du nochmal was ändern.
Ich hab mir schon gedacht das es ein versehen war aber ich wollte nicht gleich rumlöschen ohne es abgesprochen zu haben. Mfg Sebastian
mapper999 (2016-02-26 19:54:19+00:00): Auch hier wurden wieder sinnlos Objekte zusammengelegt nur um Warnungen zu unterdrücken. Des weiteren macht es durchaus Sinn abgerissene Objekte, die noch auf Bing oder Maps4BW zu sehen sind als "note" in der Datenbank zu lassen zum Schutz vor ortsunkundigen Sesselmappern und OSM-Note-Schreibern.
BCNorwich (2016-02-25 14:49:14+00:00): Hi, I removed duplicate features. A few descriptive nodes inside of areas with the same description, (pub, hospital and car shop).
Jean-Marc Liotier (2016-02-27 11:23:05+00:00): Commentaire de test pour la formation
edward17 (2016-02-25 13:44:47+00:00): Привет! Меня зовут Эдуард (или Эдик), и я - активный участник OpenStreetMap в Донецкой области. Спасибо за добавление информации в OSM!

Хотел бы дать тебе один совет: чтобы отделение почты, добавленное тобой, можно было увидеть на карте и найти в поиске, нужно обозначить его как почтовое отделение. Для этого:
* Выдели эту точку в редакторе
* Нажми на "Точка" вверху на левой панели
* Набери в строке поиска "почтовое отделение" или просто "почта"
* Выбери тип "Почтовое отделение"
* Готово! Теперь осталось только сохранить изменения.

P. S. Если у тебя возникнут любые вопросы, всегда можешь писать мне в сообщении (https://www.openstreetmap.org/message/new/edward17) или на форум: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=40 (логин и пароль - такие же, как на сайте https://www.openstreetmap.org/).