piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
yves klein (2021-11-04 09:48:54+00:00): Hallo Kollege/Kollegin, vermutlich ist dir und dem Waldbesitzer nicht bekannt, dass das Landes-Naturschutzgesetz ausdrücklich und grundsätzlich das Betreten privater Wälder zum Zwecke der Erholung ERLAUBT (NatSchG-NRW §57). Nur bei begründeten Anträgen darf die Forstbehörde davon abweichen und die Betretung vorübergehend untersagen. Nur mit vorliegender Ausnahmegenehmigung der Forstbehörde darf der Besitzer Verbotsschilder anbringen. Nur mit Verbotsschildern an beiden Enden ist die Bedingung erfüllt, dass openstreetmap die Zugangsberechtigung als "no" einstuft. 
Falls du Fotos beibringen kannst, dass an beiden Endes des Weges neuerdings Verbotsschilder hängen, ist deine Änderung auf access=no korrekt. Wie man hier Fotos uploaden kann, erkläre ich dir gerne; schreib mir einfach eine private Message. Falls ich aber beim nächsten Spaziergang immer noch keine Verbotsschilder an diesem Weg sehe, muss deine jüngste Änderung revertiert werden.
Nakaner (2021-11-04 12:59:45+00:00): Hallo,

die richtige Rechtsgrundlage wäre hier §§ 2 bis 4 Landesforstgesetz, da es sich um Wald handelt. Dort steht aber im Groben und Ganzen dasselbe drin.

https://recht.nrw.de/lmi/owa/br_bes_detail?bes_id=3830&aufgehoben=N&det_id=519680&anw_nr=2&menu=0&sg=0

Viele Grüße

Michael
yves klein (2021-11-04 14:27:52+00:00): Richtig, Michael, das Bundes- und die Landes-Naturschutzgesetze verweisen jeweils auf die Forstgesetze. Dort steht dann ausführlicher, dass auch für Wälder in Privateigentum grundsätzlich ein Recht zur Betretung zu Erholungszwecken besteht. Viele Grüße, Yves
yves klein (2021-11-07 21:03:02+00:00): Heute war in diesem Gebiet wandern und stelle fest:
1. Weg 804943819 ist deutlich erkennbar und regelmäßig begangen (aber nicht befahren). Er ist also nicht "abandoned". 
2. An den Abzweigungen zu Weg 804943819 gibt es keine Schilder, die seine Betretung verbieten. Zudem besteht im Landschaftsschutzgebiet “Bergische Hochfläche bei Rösrath” kein Wegegebot wie im benachbarten NSG "Königsforst". Daher ist dieser Weg nach LFOG NRW § 2 auch ohne Erlaubnis des Waldeigentümers für Wanderer frei zugänglich. 
Darum bitte ich jemanden, der das technisch kann, die jüngste Eintragung „access=private“ zu revertieren.
Nakaner-repair (2021-11-07 21:56:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113497767 where the changeset comment is: Revert addition of access=private by land owner because it does not match survey reality on the ground. OSM maps what's on the ground, not fiction.
tyr_asd (2023-07-03 10:46:57+00:00): Hi. Ich glaube die Tags `gauge=381` und `operator=Fricent Sarl` auf https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/193644571 und https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/998404403 waren ein Versehen, oder?
Halbtax (2023-07-03 12:04:11+00:00): Definitiv! Danke für den Hinweis.
Neuwessi11 (2022-07-07 19:17:37+00:00): Hi Gåsaborg,
I was told by Osmose that with the rapids you changed from node to way was something wrong. When looking into the OSM wiki, I saw that you didn't tag these rapids correctly.
If I understand the wiki right you have either to tag a node waterway=rapids, or you tag a second way right next to the mid of the river (that keeps its waterway=river) with waterway=rapids.
I changed 4 or 5 of these rapids near Dala-Floda. Only then did I see that you changed something.
Could you please check all your changed rapids and tag them according to the Wiki?
Yours,
Neuwessi11
Gåseborg (2022-07-08 10:50:22+00:00): Hi Neuwessi11, thanks for reaching out! I was not aware of the details on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Drapids; unfortunately, I only read the part on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway#Barriers_on_waterways. I will try to undo my mistakes!
bdwillet (2022-02-07 19:39:50+00:00): Northern boundary of Parque Karukinka appears to be off considerably.  How do I update this without causing problems in other areas? Thanks
PulisakZ (2022-02-08 07:33:07+00:00): I can not open their web cite and Wiki page does not have this info. 
Do you have an accurate map of the park?
LySioS (2021-11-05 20:08:51+00:00): Bonjour Andreu,
Je ne crois pas qu'il y ait de rendu pour les healthcare. On le voit bien sur le style fr https://osm.cquest.org/dev/#19/42.70140/2.94111
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113284300
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
sorcrosc (2021-11-05 18:11:12+00:00): Ciao

Alcuni giorni fa ho eliminato i tag sugli edifici e creato un poligono esterno per l'ITIS in modo che ci fosse un unico elemento per la scuola. Rimettendo tutti i tag sugli edifici adesso esistono quattro ITIS a Urbino e non va bene.

Poi ho visto che qualcuno oggi ha tolto i tag per i defibrillatori e li ha messi su dei nodi e mi sembra più corretto. Riesci a riposizionarli nei punti in cui si trovano?

Grazie
Galessandroni (2021-11-05 18:51:39+00:00): Grazie a te.
Ho posizionato i due defibrillatori correttamente.
Galessandroni (2021-11-05 18:56:48+00:00): PS Immagino sia stato tu a inserire i fixme: nei vari altri defibrillatori in Urbino.
Fatto bene. Io so dove sono (a livello di strutture) ma non dove sono di preciso nelle strutture.
Chiederò alla croce rossa.
OSM_RogerWilco (2021-11-02 15:15:07+00:00): Moin deierstoiner,

weißt Du welche Verkehrszeichen hier stehen? Die access-Tags scheinen mir nicht ganz richtig zu sein.

Gruß Roger Wilco
deierstoiner (2021-11-02 17:11:38+00:00): Müsste vor Ort nochmal genauer erkundet werden. Der Straßenname ist so aber richtig. Auch Einrichtungen im äußerst südlichen Bereich führen als Adresse "Hämelheider Straße".
OSM_RogerWilco (2021-11-03 13:47:56+00:00): Wenn es sich lediglich um eine Zufahrt handelt könnte es auch sein, dass die Zufahrtsstraße gar keinen Namen hat.
Warst Du vor Ort?
OSM_RogerWilco (2021-11-03 13:53:31+00:00): Die Straße ist darüber hinaus als Feldweg gemappt, was wahrscheinlich nicht richtig ist.
Lee Carré (2021-11-03 02:22:50+00:00): Much smaller changeset areas, please: http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
OSM_RogerWilco (2021-11-02 15:11:53+00:00): Moin dreierstoiner,
bitte nicht die Ortsnamen als Straßennamen an die Straßen und Wege taggen!
Gruß Roger Wilco
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:24:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:21:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
DressyPear4 (2021-11-03 10:47:28+00:00): Se a via não é acessível para carros apenas rebaixe para 'track' ou 'path', o caminho está visível na imagem de satélite.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113286632
eggie (2021-11-02 14:46:27+00:00): Dag redactie,
Het gebied van je edits is zo groot geworden omdat je de toegangsweg hebt laten eindigen op een grens boundery=protected area ... Springendal & Dal van de Mosbeek.
Ik heb je pad losgemaakt. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-11-02 14:47:21+00:00): Voor de duidelijkheid .. Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=113286703
ntkc-redactie (2021-11-02 15:02:36+00:00): Losgekoppeld, beter nu?
eggie (2021-11-02 15:14:55+00:00): Vast wel .. , maar ik gad het al zelf gedaan.
Dit w
eggie (2021-11-02 15:17:19+00:00): ...was je edit https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=113288960

Het is nu een veel kleiner edit gebied.
gr eggie
Buraddo (2021-11-04 21:47:19+00:00): Hello, thank you for editing OSM and adding the bike path!
I have modified a few things done by you in this changeset. As the bikepath is part of the road (a lane), instead of drawing a new way glued to the existing road, I have moved all tags from the cycleway onto the road (cycleway:left=lane).
Please read OSM wiki for more details regarding correct tagging : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
DaveF (2021-11-03 11:48:50+00:00): Hi
landuse=grass/natural=sand are not required for golf features. Landuse is for specific areas as indicated in the wiki page's first sentence:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass

The landuse of golf features is 'golf' not grass.
To distinguish any differences the 'surface' tag should be used.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface

golf=* are a specific sport subset of leisure=pitch.
The tag to distinguish a pitch's playing finish is 'surface'
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpitch

Please don't assume a validator's *suggestion* is valid or correct.

I've flagged it as an error:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8748#issuecomment-940155347
GrooveBox (2021-11-03 12:11:00+00:00): I think you've raised this with me before. I'm just clicking the "upgrade the tags" link against each of the features. If the upgrade doesn't add the correct tags then that needs fixing but is beyond my ability.
DaveF (2021-11-03 12:42:06+00:00): Click 'ignore'.
Futur3r (2021-11-03 17:34:34+00:00): Il n'y a pas de toilettes à cet endroit.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113288136
MxxCon (2021-11-02 21:49:45+00:00): Hello.
Could you please elaborate why did you delete this bus stop?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113288201
eggie (2021-11-02 19:41:16+00:00): Dag Vleefzwieg..  
Je vraagt feedback
Wat er niet meer is kan uiteraard weg. 
Je zou op de rest van de paden in het voormalige vierkant nog een note=  kunnen zetten voor andere mappers, want anders is je 'pad' zo weer yerug. Het staat immers ook in de BGT omtrekgericht.
MVG
eggie
pitscheplatsch (2021-11-03 15:06:13+00:00): Should be reviewed by a local contributor. Thanks.
iandees (2021-11-02 15:07:32+00:00): There's a "note" tag on here that lists https://www.hennepindowntown.com/construction-updates/ with information about what parts of Hennepin are under construction. It should be open entirely now.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113288868
amakarevich_lyft (2021-11-03 10:11:54+00:00): Hi, iandees
 
My name is Artem, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Many thanks for the valuable info about the official source and your contribution.
 
Regards, Artem
eggie (2021-11-02 15:20:50+00:00): Hier heb ik de scherpe hoeken waar de grens en de landuse in de knoop dreigden te gaan recht gelegd. 
Het is lastig te zien.
Bos en grens liggen weer recht.


https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=113288960
ntkc-redactie (2021-11-02 15:50:50+00:00): Het ongewenst vastplakken van een pad aan een ander object heb ik nog niet onder de knie, ga ik nog eens op studeren in een testbestand.
Heb nu access en andere tags van alle 20 NTKC terreinen aangepast. Ik stop er nu even mee.
eggie (2021-11-02 15:56:52+00:00): Tip.. Je kunt tijdens intekenen de linker ctrl toets gebruiken. Dan plakt josm niet.
Mapse
Eggie
Davileci (2023-09-28 00:15:59+00:00): I do not understand why you changed Wikimedia values on Konya Province for Konya City, which is the admin_centre.
katpatuka (2023-09-28 06:05:16+00:00): Can you tell which tag exactly do you mean? Either wikimedia_commons or wikipedia tag on node or relation?
If you think I've named something wrong just fix it ;)
Davileci (2023-09-28 06:32:58+00:00): On relation [223133](https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/223133) keep [Q81551](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q81551) of [tr:Konya_(il)](https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konya_(il)).
katpatuka (2023-09-28 16:45:57+00:00): Ok, I'd noticed that and fixed it at around 9:00 UTC+3.
pitscheplatsch (2021-11-03 14:55:59+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113336540
Leonard Ehrenfried (2023-03-23 12:49:52+00:00): Hi Julius,

Is there a reason you're modelling platforms as a relation with 2 railway=platform_edges rather than a single way with public_transport=platform and a semicolon-separated list of IFOPTs like it's done in this example? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27558650
juliustens (2023-03-23 16:54:57+00:00): Hi Leonard,

yes, I used platform_edges to allow use-cases where it is critical to know on which side of the platform a certain track is located. One example for that would be displaying the exit direction when onboard a train. Another reason why this model is useful (in my opinion) is that stations often don‘t allow boarding at the whole length of the platform, e.g. when a section at the end is blocked with a fence.

Does that make sense? Not sure if my modeling is perfect, but I knew several people (including myself) who had a need for that sort of data, so I added platform edges for a lot of stations in Berlin and Brandenburg.
juliustens (2023-03-23 16:59:05+00:00): (Another use case is to provide information like „exit at the middle of the train for the shortest interchange time“. This would also be possible using normal platforms, but one would need to use a heuristic approach for detecting the corresponding side of the platform, escpecially in cases where the platform is curved or has 3 tracks running from it.)
Leonard Ehrenfried (2023-03-24 06:44:17+00:00): Maybe I should explain the background a bit: I wrote a feature in OTP to guide passengers to the exact platform wait for the train.

At the moment it doesn't understand this tagging scheme yet. My initial thought was that it is wrong but I'm coming round to it and I think I will just teach OTP to use it.
Futur3r (2021-11-02 17:52:00+00:00): La consigne est bien à l'intérieur ?
Car il existe aussi une consigne à l’extérieur au niveau de l'entrée nord.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113289933
ThibaultGlx (2021-11-02 18:36:25+00:00): Merci, je viens de faire la modification. La consigne est bien à l'entrée nord du côté du square des martyrs.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113289933
Syl (2021-11-02 15:52:29+00:00): Bonjour, je viens d'annuler votre modification, vous aviez changé le nom de deux zones d'activité par celle de votre entreprise.
Le plus juste serait d'ajouter un point à son emplacement avec comme type bureau d'entreprise en plus du nom.
N'hésitez pas si vous avez des questions.
Luzandro (2021-11-02 18:36:45+00:00): Hallo,

ein FAHRverbot bedeutet vehicle=*, was im iD-Editor leider nicht unmittelbar im Formular angezeigt wird, sondern erst unter "Eigenschaften". access dagegen bedeutet ALLE Verkehrsteilnehmer und damit bspw. auch Fußgänger. In diesem Fall hier macht es nicht so einen großen Unterschied, wie sonst oft, weil es nicht unbedingt empfehlenswert ist, dort zu gehen, erlaubt wäre es allerdings.

Mit
vehicle=agricultural
+ bicycle=yes
+ bus=yes
waren die Beschränkungen damit schon weitgehend korrekt erfasst und es müsste nur bus durch psv ersetzt werden
emjay61 (2021-12-07 14:04:03+00:00): Danke für die detallierten Informationen!!!
impiaaa (2021-11-03 14:57:05+00:00): Swamps don't just move 1000 feet over. Please delete bad data instead of making it worse.
ma-rt-in (2021-11-29 06:06:44+00:00): Hello 
What exactly did you try to map with oneway:2021? 
Greetings
Barretina (2021-12-10 09:32:43+00:00): Hi.
Using oneway=yes with a highway:2021=primary_link raised a warning so I also prefixed the oneway property. I guess it is a misuse of the lifecycle prefixes?

A subterranean crossing is under construction here so this link might or might not be restablished. (final layer-1 highways can't be inferred yet, former highways may be kept but they could be replaced by a roundabout as well)
mapper377 (2021-11-02 23:47:31+00:00): Newer imagery (Mapbox Satellite, Maxar Premium Imagery (Beta), and OSIP 6in, 2020) indicates that this substation had been demolished. Therefore I'll delete it in my next changeset.
Tómas Ingi (2021-11-02 16:04:30+00:00): Hi,

There's currently some construction ongoing at the northern end of Háaleitisbraut (see https://reykjavik.is/sites/default/files/framkvaemdasja/skjol_2014/umferdaroryggisadgerdir_2021_-_haaleitisbraut.pdf), so the aerial imagery is a bit out-of-date.

I've gone ahead and realigned the section of the road using the pdf.

Best regards,
Tómas Ingi
flother (2021-11-02 16:09:13+00:00): Good to know, thanks for the update
EuroScout (2023-05-22 11:10:58+00:00): There is a small water basin, but the freshwater outlet was out of order on 2023-05-21! Maybe remove it?
Futur3r (2021-11-02 17:47:47+00:00): Le tag information n'est pas fait pour ça.
OSM n'est pas un service client.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bonnes_pratiques
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113290707
hatul (2022-02-20 17:21:47+00:00): Hi
Why you delete En Karem National Park?
I added it to the map and today I discovered it deleted.
Flayer (2022-02-20 17:24:40+00:00): I was fixing other issues, I had no intention to delete it.
hatul (2022-02-20 17:58:40+00:00): I reverted the changeset
ticki_52 (2021-11-04 09:47:05+00:00): Hallo wies1, die Buslinien im Raum Backnang Murrhardt habe ich vor ein paar Monaten aktualisiert. Heute werden Fehler bei der Benennung den Bus-Routen 375 und 377 gemeldet. (Es gibt da strikte Vorgaben). Gibt es einen Grund für Deine Aktivitäten? Und dann noch eine Bitte: Bitte aussagefähige Kommentare zu den Änderungen mitgeben.  "Buslinie 375 bearbeitet" ist etwas spärlich.  Danke für Deine Nachricht.... Grüße ticki_52
wies1 (2021-11-04 15:53:02+00:00): Hallo,

Ich habe die Namensbezeichnung bei der Linie 375 korrigiert, also so eingegeben, wie zuvor. Mir war da leider ein Fehler unterlaufen.

Den noch angezeigten Fehler bei 377 hatte ich heute früh um 6:34 Uhr bereits beseitigt.

Tut mir leid für den Fehler.

Gruss
wies1
ticki_52 (2021-11-04 19:10:56+00:00): Hallo wies1,

wenn ich mir die Linienbezeichnungen 375 und 377 anschaue, dann gibt es da doch noch einigen Korrekturbedarf.... Bleib' am Ball.....

Grüße ticki_52

P.S. was hattest Du eigentlich mit Deiner Aktivität im Sinn? 
Hintergrund: Ich habe alle Routen im VVS-Bereich 200 bis 399 nach 5 Jahren aktualisiert und wäre Dir dankbar, wenn da nichts dran geändert wird. Wenn es Fehler gibt, dann bitte ich um Info. Ich lerne gerne noch dazu.....
impiaaa (2021-11-03 14:59:33+00:00): Please don't reuse ways for unrelated objects.
Mike Baggaley (2021-12-05 09:20:19+00:00): Hi, I believe that the Sutherland Trail is an unmarked route that just exists in a guide book and as such do not believe it should be in Open Street Map. Can you please review?

Thanks,
Mike
mountainmonkey (2021-12-06 21:48:54+00:00): Hi, I moved the name from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48076622/history to a new route relation because that's a better way to tag a route name, I don't know anything about the Sutherland Trail itself, didn't see any signs when I was in the area and have no objection to you deleting it (but the original tagger might)
Mike Baggaley (2021-12-07 11:17:08+00:00): Thanks, I have examined the originator of the way. He/she only made two edits back in 2015, so I have deleted the relation.
ElliottPlack (2021-12-10 04:36:54+00:00): Hi there,

Please be more detailed in your changeset comments. Instead of saying "fixed tags" everything, put in a few more words describing what you did, where, and why. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

For instance, in this changeset, you removed the tagging of a store from a building and added it to a node. Why did you do that? If the building is only one store, as this appears to be, than it is perfectly okay to apply that tag to the building, rather than on a separate node. Read more: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Thanks,
Elliott Plack
OSM Foundation
Data Working Group
theurbanexploringman (2021-12-11 15:31:24+00:00): I typically use point tags so that was my bad, I’m trying to improve more on my edits now more than I used to, thank you though.
letihu (2022-03-09 21:16:16+00:00): Was ist denn hier
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/325767887/history
recycling_type=Knotenpunktnetzwerk Hohe Schrecke?
Sandal man (2021-11-08 19:55:29+00:00): Hola, gracias por su contribución al OSM, pero olvidó etiquetar esta línea.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/998466637
Saludos Juan
Dodko (2021-11-03 15:50:53+00:00): Pri kreslení cesty treba dávať pozor aby sa nespojila s inými objektmi, teraz je spojená s krajom lesa, a aj les bol presúvaný spolu s cestou
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9219144571

Ten kríž na konci cesty tiež mohol byť ako samostatný bod a nie súčasť cesty https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9144209818

Na lesnom chodníčku kvôli čomu je pridaná značka access=no a foot=yes?

Motorové vozidlá tam už z povahy cesty nemôžu ísť ale chodci áno
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:highway%3Dpath
rthik007 (2021-11-03 07:30:05+00:00): "Hi Paula Bacaltchuk,
Fixed the alignment as building polygons are overlapping with residential roads 
way 699552478
way 962174976
way 544143328.
Kindly check with 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113317521.
thank you."
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113294191
Paula Bacaltchuk (2021-11-03 14:40:43+00:00): Sorry, I was not able to recognize if those were valid streets. I am new to the mapping process. Let me know if you find any other issues please, and how can I fix those.
archie (2021-11-02 19:14:17+00:00): You tagged this highway (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/989039108) as "Bro (dam)". It is not the actual dam, but rather the highway accross the dam. Now this is a construct (dam in paranthesis) which is used at least in the swedish wikipedia. The reason of putting "()" around must be suspected to be that there is really no name (otherwise this name would have been used) or the auther dosn't know the right name and wanted the "name" not to be mixed up with something other, which acctually has the name - in this case "Bro". Now using this construct as you are doing (in this case "Bro (dam)") is not a name in the sense of openstreetmap (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names) and should not be used. Or am I wrong?
Gåseborg (2021-11-03 13:02:55+00:00): Thanks @archie for your comment! Actually, I intended to tag the waterway=dam with the name, not the  highway=footway. In Sweden, at least many dams that are related to hydropower have a name which can be found in a register (https://vattenwebb.smhi.se/svarwebb/) or on the mapping authoritie's maps (https://minkarta.lantmateriet.se/) or they have a commonly known name. I tried to find a "compromise" and named the dam after the name that first appears in the following order: Lantmäteriet's map, commonly known (works only if I am aware of that), SVAR register. In order not to confuse other users, I added "damm" in parentheses and hoped that clarified that the name refers to the dam. I am not really happy with this solution and your critique is relevant. Some of the dams in Sweden have the word "damm" in the name, that makes things easier. Other have not, e.g. this dam here is called Bro in the register likely because the power plant's name is Bro, too. As "bro" in Swedish means "bridge", I thought it good to have a clarifying "damm" in parentheses. Tricky! I guess, it would be best only to name those dams that either have a commonly used name or where the name is stated on official maps. In this case, I will delete the name. Best regards!
archie (2021-11-03 23:05:17+00:00): A lot of thanks for your answer and for your ardent work with inland waters!