piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
WoodWoseWulf (2020-03-16 04:36:46+00:00): Hi Falynn99,

Welcome to OSM! Nice job on your first few edits!

I just wanted to send you some real quick feedback about the paths you're adding.

When you add footways, using more than one line is quite acceptable. If a path splits, it's normally best to use at least two (connected) lines to draw it rather than zig-zagging back and forth trying to include both diverging pathways in one go.

It's also good to include where the footway connects to adjacent roads so that routing software can use the paths you're adding more easily.

I've made some changes so that you can see what I'm talking about, but they could probably do with even more improvement

Anyway - thanks again for your contributions! Happy mapping :)

P.S. I also have a question about the basketball court - you've got a path cutting right through it. The path looks correct on the available imagery, but the court is also mapped as having 6 hoops and being much wider than it appears - do you know what's happening there?
user_5359 (2020-03-17 18:34:35+00:00): Welcome to OSM! You add some CSS information to your objects.
fill=#1bad03
fill-opacity=0.6
stroke=#ed4543
stroke-opacity=0.9
stroke-width=5
Please delete them. Did you need helo for searching? see http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RFx
Mir76 (2020-04-06 06:04:42+00:00): Это что за странная улица получилась?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/781680418#map=19/56.84106/62.88980
pesec (2020-03-16 08:08:32+00:00): Ваша правка не соответствует правилам организации улично-дорожной сети. Добавленный вами участок проезда имеет статус выше прилегающих улиц. Необходимо присвоить ему статус проезда, продолжением которого он является.
pesec (2020-03-16 08:09:49+00:00): Кроме того, по информации на панорамных снимках улиц данный проезд перегорожен воротами.
Mir76 (2020-04-10 07:15:50+00:00): Скажите, а почему вы полноценные улицы отмечаете как служебные проезды?
Kovoschiz (2020-03-16 14:05:25+00:00): Please don't confuse `=pedestrian` and `=footway`. The former is physically capable of two-tracked vehicle traffic.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82239643
javbw (2020-06-07 05:44:35+00:00): bad mapping of the cycleway. deleted and redrew. wrong side of the street and missed many crossing roads.
olehz (2020-03-24 10:40:33+00:00): от навіщо було понижувати ЛЕП 35 до мінорної? от чому вас таких по країні так дофіга? все було ідеально ще кілька місяців тому (https://nadoloni.com), нє приходять спеціалісти і починають "покращувати"
user_5359 (2020-03-16 17:49:53+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
SomeoneElse2 (2024-01-26 01:16:52+00:00): Just wondered if https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10841834 should really be a "historic=tower" - I wonder if maybe something like "townland" was what was intended?
user_5359 (2020-03-17 05:24:03+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM classification of the objects has the highest priority. Objects that have only name and description, have little sense. As home page for the question "How do I describe you?" I recommend the web site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
tekim (2020-06-06 17:08:36+00:00): The way that you added is a driveway as it leads to a residence and as such it should be tagged as highway=service, service=driveway. The fact that it is unpaved is not relevant. OSM uses a function classification for the highway tag, not a physical classification.
gazsri (2020-06-08 06:05:12+00:00): Hi,

Thank you for the detailed explanation. We are following the same approach regarding the track roads. Looking forward to learn more from you.

Regards,
gazsri.
user_5359 (2020-03-16 19:34:40+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have revert your changeset because your business is not the street. Please try again to mark the place of your business (and not the street) to add your business information.
Hedaja (2020-06-30 13:19:18+00:00): Hallo
Warum hast du den Weg? gelöscht Der existiert, Ich laufe da ständig lang
opendcc (2020-03-16 07:55:53+00:00): Hallo,

ein Tipp: Wenn Gebäude in echt rechtwinklig sind, sollten Sie das auch in OSM. Hierzu bitte das 'rechtwinklig' Tool von Id verwenden. Danke.
maschi68 (2020-03-16 08:27:43+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Ich habe alle rechteckigen Gebäude jetzt  korrigiert.
opendcc (2020-03-16 09:56:46+00:00): Hallo,

da waren auch sonst ein paar Unebenheiten (z.B. Bäche), ich habe mal ein bischen korrigiert. Wenn Du Fragen hast, melde Dich. Ansonsten weiterhin viel Spaß mit OpenStreetMap!
pio2_122 (2020-03-16 08:04:43+00:00): Wycofane - dubel.
1200562 (2020-03-21 23:57:37+00:00): na OsmAnd mi nie pokazało :/
Raksha Sharda (2020-03-18 06:54:36+00:00): HI, Can someone help me here? I am kinda stuck.
SHABANI MAGAWILA (2020-03-24 06:43:23+00:00): Hello friend, have you get solution to where you stucked??

Let me know I can help you
Raksha Sharda (2020-03-24 17:20:08+00:00): Yes, I got the solution. thanks a lot.
freeExec (2020-03-18 06:19:17+00:00): Никакого смысла в этом нет, дом и так находится внутри города.
Noah Peeters (2021-01-25 11:34:05+00:00): Warum wurde der Weg hier entfernt? Der Weg existiert noch und war auch richtig eingezeichnet.
ma-rt-in (2021-01-26 07:59:27+00:00): Hallo erstmal,
hast du dir mal meine Quelle angeschaut?
vg
Noah Peeters (2021-01-28 11:51:06+00:00): Ich habe mir die jetzt mal angesehen. Der Weg existiert definitiv noch so und hat sich auch über die letzten Jahre nicht verändert. Ich wohne hier in der Nähe und gehe da relativ regelmäßig lang. Kann man das wieder rückgängig machen?
ma-rt-in (2021-01-28 17:13:06+00:00): Rückgänig machen ist möglich und bereits erledigt
Glassman (2020-03-21 23:57:07+00:00): Tip - when deleting businesses, keep the address tags, they can be used for new businesses.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82244355
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-03-17 19:54:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 82316303 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some problematical edits mainly in the Balkans.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3572 for more information.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-03-17 19:53:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 82316303 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some problematical edits mainly in the Balkans.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3572 for more information.
gebux (2020-03-16 10:29:00+00:00): Hallo JM82, bist du dir sicher das der Tomscheweg mit einem Leerzeichen geschrieben wird. Laut amtlichen Daten ist die Schreibweise Tomscheweg korrekt. Auch auf Mappillary schaut es eher nach Tomscheweg aus: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/fOMi2vmAFkUf_stE76Us9Q
JM82 (2020-03-16 11:11:26+00:00): Hallo gebux,

Ich habe die Schreibweise der Adressen in den Gebäuden angepasst, da dort die Referenz des BEV ebenso drinnen steht und mir der Fehler (Straßenname der Adresse passt nicht zur Straßennamen) auf osmose.openstreetmap.fr angezeigt wurde.
Selbst der Tomscheweg wird, wie dzt. in OSM zu sehen, auf 2 Weisen geschrieben, mal mit Leertaste und mal ohne.
gebux (2020-03-16 11:48:21+00:00): Ich werds mir mal vor Ort anschauen und dann gegebenfalls anpassen.
JM82 (2020-03-19 17:54:02+00:00): Ich habe es mir heute angeschaut. Am Straßenschild steht Tomscheweg, zusammengeschrieben in einem Wort.
Es sind dann die Adressen in den Häusern falsch.
gebux (2020-03-20 10:41:26+00:00): Danke, jetzt schaut alles OK aus. Ich habe den Tomscheweg einheitlich ohne Leerzeichen geschrieben, durch mehrere Brücken war dieser in mehrere Abschnitte unterteilt
fims7 (2020-05-04 16:00:17+00:00): Добрый день, подскажите по какой причине Вы понизили статус дороги с tertiary до track, это нарушает маршрутизацию по садоводствам?
Tom Chups (2020-10-06 15:23:02+00:00): Был молодой и глупый. комментария не видел, прошу прощения
ralley (2020-03-16 09:09:21+00:00): Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits - this change has created a duplicate for Springvale Drive that has existed in OSM since 2010.  I will merge your new tags with the existing way and delete the duplicate.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82245545
user_5359 (2020-03-16 17:51:09+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
jlinfante_import (2020-03-17 09:50:28+00:00): Hola,
muchas gracias por la edición. Por favor, revísala ya que has puesto la etiqueta source mal escrita en algunos elementos. También has puesto mal PNOA en algunos sitios. 
Por último, no haría falta indicar el source para cada elemento si lo has indicado en el conjunto de cambios.
Un saludo!!
Supaplex (2020-03-16 13:06:09+00:00): 這不是一片都是博物館建築吧。看是單獨畫博物館建築，還是標博物館區域加上建築
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82245765
翁載富 (2020-03-18 01:40:28+00:00): 不好意思，不太會用這系統
因為館名改過，所以要將名稱修正。
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82245765
Kovoschiz (2020-03-16 14:13:35+00:00): `landuse=industrial` is correct, and it is not a `amenity=social_facility` or building.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82245766
mueschel (2020-03-17 14:07:59+00:00): Hallo,
du hast hier 3 Nodes mit seltsamen Tags eingefügt, z.B. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7298598120
Vielleicht vergessen das Tagging entsprechend anzupassen?

Jan
okilimu (2020-03-17 15:59:09+00:00): Hallo Jan,

danke für den Hinweis!

Ich habe die 3 Objekte erst mal wieder entfernt, da ich im Umfeld der Haltestelle abgedriftet war zum Straßen-Detailmapping. Die Bilder zur Haltestelle mit hoffentlich auch Rolltreppen muss ich mir erst nochmal ansehen und dann erfassen.
Kovoschiz (2020-03-16 14:15:36+00:00): Is there any reason to duplicate?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82246019
eggie (2020-03-16 10:10:29+00:00): Review.. Voor de zekerheid kun je op de eindnode noexit=yes bijtaggen.. Dit om te voorkomen dat iemand het weer doortrekt.
Ik heb dat nu even gedaan.

MVG,
Eggie
Rudy_VR_IJsselland (2020-03-16 10:11:32+00:00): Goede tip, neem ik mee, Bedankt!!
simonking717 (2020-03-16 08:42:03+00:00): Sorry Guys, when I created this point the browser had a problem, this one is not correct one, you can check the other one which I made.
ralley (2020-03-17 16:59:33+00:00): This changeset also dragged a node from the Massey Uni car park onto Albany Expressway - fixed.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82246726
Kovoschiz (2020-03-16 14:17:42+00:00): Is the toilet closed?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82247171
user_5359 (2020-03-16 17:48:00+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
dgitto (2020-03-16 13:48:47+00:00): Ciao, un utente ha appena duplicato la banca. Comunque dato che l'edificio non è interamente asservito a banca (credo ci siano normali appartamenti sopra) rimuovo i tag dall'edificio e lascio la banca come nodo separato, con l'indirizzo
dgitto (2020-03-16 13:23:17+00:00): benvenuto in OSM
dgitto (2020-03-16 13:27:31+00:00): Ma la fermata si chiama davvero "Unicredit Bank"? è scritto così, in inglese?
E soprattutto perché "addr:city=Genova"?
literan (2020-03-16 18:58:55+00:00): я, кажется, уже писал, что капс в названиях запрещен (если это не аббревиатура)
dgitto (2020-03-16 13:29:11+00:00): Ciao, Il tag addr:street deve riportare l'esatto valore della relativa highway. Cioè "Via Giuseppe Garibaldi" in questo caso.
eggie (2020-03-16 10:04:28+00:00): Lijkt me oke.., maar even geen idee of jullie routingapp rekening houdt met paved of unpaved.
Meestal wordt highway=footway gezien als unpaved  behalve als je natuurlijk toevoegt surface=paving_stones of paved (of wat ook van toepassing is)
Gr eggie
Leo Slager (2020-03-16 16:50:24+00:00): Is het ook zinvol om de straatnaam toe te voegen aan deze footway ?
Gr Leo
Leo Slager (2020-03-16 16:55:32+00:00): Sorry, ik had niet in de gaten dat Eggie reeds dezelfde suggestie deed.
user_5359 (2020-03-16 18:02:33+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
lmagreault (2020-03-28 20:35:01+00:00): Doublon
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82249647
user_5359 (2020-03-16 17:52:33+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
user_5359 (2020-03-16 17:55:40+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
dgitto (2020-03-16 13:32:33+00:00): Vedi commenti all'altro changeset.
Inoltre ci vuole almeno il tag "amenity=bank" per mappare una banca
Mike Baggaley (2020-03-19 22:57:24+00:00): Hi, if changing access to only allow emergency vehicles, please note that setting access=no means pedestrians and cyclists cannot use the road. A more usual access would be motor_vehicle=no + emergency=yes, which allows pedestrians and cyclists to pass the barrier, but prevents motor vehicles other than emergency.

Happy mapping,
Mike
srinatpa (2020-03-20 14:19:36+00:00): Hi Mike Baggaley,

Thanks for checking into our edit. Our edits are partially based on the GPS traces of our delivery partner. We will take this as a learning from the community and make sure it will be improving our editing quality.

Regards,
Srinatpa.
eggie (2020-03-16 10:42:36+00:00): ... en wellicht niet onbelangrijk .. wanneer hier de voordeuren zitten de straatnaam toevoegen.
name=
Geofreund1 (2021-04-11 15:58:04+00:00): Hallo Meyerph,
die sechs identischen Adressen HN 40, Waldseestraße sind m.E. zu viel. Das gesamte Areal ist doch bereits so bezeichnet?
Prüfe bitte außerdem den Verlauf eines tracks, der mitten durch ein Gebäude geht.
Danke
Gruß
Geofreund1
hsc666 (2020-03-16 19:29:08+00:00): Hallo JohnDoe11 und herzlich willkommen bei OSM! Bitte sieh Dir mal <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station> an, wie man Ladestationen für Elektrofahrzeuge einträgt. Im Moment hast Du eine Station zum gleichzeitigen Laden von 150 Fahrzeugen erzeugt. Ein Name wird nur für Eigennamen verwendet, für Ladestationen überhaupt nicht. Bitte überarbeite Deinen Eintrag nochmal entsprechend!
VG
hsc666
dgitto (2020-03-16 13:35:04+00:00): Ciao. Anche qui vale la stessa cosa: Una banca si rende con amenity=bank, e non con manmade=works
vedi il wiki quando hai dubbi:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbank
dgitto (2020-03-16 13:38:31+00:00): Qui sarà stata una svista: hai mescolato un centro abitato con una banca. Poi è stato subito risolto
dgitto (2020-03-16 13:40:48+00:00): Il tag "name" deve contenere solo il nome proprio di un oggetto, se esiste. Senza descrizioni, indirizzi etc.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
canfe (2020-03-18 07:40:18+00:00): Grazie per aver mappato.
Ho notato che hai dato nomi ai sentieri "lungo Tronta" e "verso sorgente Tronta".
Non penso siano i nomi ufficiali.
Il nome deve essere davvero il nome, non la descrizione dell'oggetto.
highflyer74 (2020-03-26 09:22:22+00:00): Hallo nochmal! Kannst Du Dir hier nochmal die Öffnungszeiten ansehen? Die Formatierung der Zeiten stimmt nicht. Auch 17:20 Uhr erscheint mir unwahrscheinlich. Wenn Du mir die Zeiten sagst, passe ich es gern an.
kmpoppe (2020-03-26 09:48:27+00:00): Manchmal frage ich mich an welcher Stelle mein Gehirn falsch abbiegt, dass sowas passiert. Auch hier: Fotos sind vom Telefon geflogen, liefere ich heute Abend nach. Die Zeiten auf der Homepage stimmen nicht mehr mit den aktuellen überein (abgesehen von den Corona-spezifischen, die wir gem. Konsens in der DE OSM Telegram Gruppe nicht mappen wollten).
kmpoppe (2020-03-29 15:51:20+00:00): Hallo Oliver,
erledigt mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82783382
user_5359 (2020-03-16 17:54:18+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
benshapiro (2020-03-16 23:39:36+00:00): thank you for fixing this, my bad. i'll make sure to do the right direction in the future
user_5359 (2020-03-16 17:51:59+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
tomhukins (2020-06-24 20:07:08+00:00): Firstly, thank you for your work on OpenStreetMap.

Some of the bridges you added seem odd to me: the "Bridge 72" you added at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/747859531 is already mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33534416 and your version uses the "name" tag whereas the existing way uses the more sensible bridge_ref tag.  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name suggests using the name tag for commonly used names.  I used to live in New Bradwell and never heard of anyone using "Bridge 72" as its name although people might refer to it as "the bridge by the New Inn".  What are the advantages of the extra ways you have created over the existing, more appropriately tagged, ways?
PeterPan99 (2020-06-24 21:44:08+00:00): Thank you for raising this comment / question on my changeset.
Sorry, but I was not aware that Bridge 72 also had another name.  
I am not convinced that tagging this information as “bridge ref=<nn>” is useful.  My experience is that, when organising runs in the area, I often find  it convenient to tell people to follow the towpath and turn at “Bridge <nn>” and that each bridge has a sign on it, usually clearly visible from the towpath, with ”<nn>” on it.  
I don’t have the knowledge or skills to produce my own specialised rendering, so, when planning runs (and when briefing others via a map) it is helpful if these Bridge Numbers are shown in the default rendering.  You might now accuse me of “Tagging for the Renderer”.  However, my defence would be that I am not mapping anything that is not true.  I am creating an object (“man_made=bridge”), which exists separately from the road or path which goes over it and has a separate identity from it.  
We can then debate whether “Bridge <nn>” can be the name of that “man_made=bridge”, or must be a reference.  Both names and references are means of identifying an object.  I do not believe that anything with a number in it MUST ALWAYS be a reference.  I think that the name is the label that the object is most commonly identified by and the reference is a more esoteric and less frequently used (but unique) identifier.  Is the bridge in question identifiable by the casual observer as “New Inn Bridge”?  From the road, I suppose that the New Inn is pretty obvious to see, but is the bridge marked as “New Inn Bridge” on the ground?  I note that the Canal and Rivers Trust shows it as “New Inn Bridge 72”.  Which information is it more useful to show on the default rendering?  What chance do I have of persuading the Carto support team to change the default rendering to display the bridge_ref, if “<nn> can only be tagged there?
Thank you for acknowledging my efforts in support of OSM.  I regret that I am steadily becoming disillusioned with the drawn out, inconclusive debates that go with it being a volunteeropoly.  
If you really feel that the “man_made=bridge” object should have “name=New Inn Bridge”, then I will not fight you.  Could I suggest, however, that it be given “alt_name=Bridge 72” and that other bridges, which do not have other names, should be left with “name=Bridge <nn>”?
tomhukins (2020-06-25 14:11:12+00:00): Thank you for your detailed, informative reply.  I agree that the "Tagging for the renderer" issue is more complicated than many mappers acknowledge.

I also recognise that the default rendering of the map hides a lot of useful information.  I suspect it's almost impossible to create a good default that works well for everyone.  As you say, it's far from easy for everyone to create new renderings of the map.

If you're looking for an alternative rendering that shows bridge references, you might find https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html helpful.

For example, the bridge across Arthur Road at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16222422 has its reference shown on https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=19&lat=51.434565&lon=-0.19949 whereas the default rendering hides this detail.

I don't believe the bridge by the New Inn should have a name tag, as it's not commonly known by any name.  It does have an official reference number, however.

I hope you will continue to add useful information to the map and do not let disagreements about the details put you off.  I happen to agree with the commonly accepted standard of using the "name" and "ref" for specific details, but I realise some people will disagree with it.
Kalepom (2020-03-23 17:13:55+00:00): Bonjour, 
Pour marquer la présence d'un sens interdit, je vous invite à indiquer que la rue est en sens unique (oneway=yes). Attention à ne pas placer de point portant uniquement un nom, et aucun attribut.
ராபர்ட் ஈ லீ (2021-12-01 10:34:45+00:00): All of your culverts are wrong: In reality the road has a bridge, not the river a culvert!
VLD109 (2021-12-22 08:49:52+00:00): Hi,
Thanks for bringing it to my notice. Data is corrected now.

Thanks!
gerzim (2020-04-28 13:02:08+00:00): Hallo sovereign_ch
Die Bremgartenstrasse in Mellingen hat im Ortsbereich beidseitig ein Trottoir. Wieso wird in einem Teilbereich zusätzlich ein Fussweg eingetragen, der so nicht vorhanden ist?
Gruss gerzim
rskedgell (2020-03-19 16:12:38+00:00): Your changeset description does not adequately justify vandalising the map by removing the name:cy tag.
eggie (2020-03-16 12:56:37+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
review...
Een bedrijf svp op de adresnode bijtaggen. 
Alleen name= doet niets in OSM
Dan toevoegen...
office=it
website=www.mybrain.nl

MVG,
Eggie
Kovoschiz (2020-03-16 14:21:57+00:00): That's not a `=farmyard`
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82256012