piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Skippern (2015-03-14 01:20:36+00:00): Porque tirou "amenity=fuel" do edificio mapeado com o nome "Posto de Combustivel Ipiranga"? Este nao e um posto de combustivel?
hsch2 (2015-03-14 14:50:40+00:00): Não. O posto de combustível fica na Avenida Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes. Já está corretamente identificado.
Skippern (2015-03-14 15:51:18+00:00): Os dois postos, este, e o da Avenida Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes fui importada da Planimetria da Vitoria em 2009. Eu não sei se este posto tem serviços para automóveis ou para barcos. No mesmo jeito, se fornece serviço para barcos deve ser mapeado como amenity=fuel. Se não ha nenhuma serviço de combustíveis, tira o etiquete amenity=fuel pode ser certo, mas tampem tira o nome. Agora são mapeado como um edifício com nome indicando um posto gasolina. Favor verifique-se que não ha nenhuma serviço, ate para barcos, antes que tirar o nome, ou remapear como posto gasolina mesmo com amenity=fuel. Se somente fornece serviços para barcos, basta coloque fuel:mgo=yes, fuel:diesel=no, fuel:octan_86=no, etc. Veja pagina do amenity=fuel no wiki para entender o que tags de fuel para utilizar. fuel:mgo e "Marine Gas Oil", o combustível mais comum usado no barcos e navios.
hsch2 (2015-03-14 16:03:22+00:00): Ok. Certamente não há um posto automotivo.Tenho como verificar pessoalmente a existência ou não de um posto de combustível marítimo neste local.
Skippern (2015-03-14 16:20:46+00:00): O que tanto voce conheço dessa lugar? Eu nunca entrou estes ruas, somente passando Avenida Nossa Senhora dos Navegantes, mas também no lado marítimo observando que sempre ha muitos barcos de pesca e a balsa de abastamento combustível para navios neste lugar.
hsch2 (2015-03-14 18:14:49+00:00): Eventualmente acesso a rua Licinio... até o estacionamento do Horto Mercado. Por isso fiz as correções em primeiro lugar. Da próxima vez irei até o local onde está indicado o posto e perguntarei.
Skippern (2015-03-14 18:16:58+00:00): Também pensando em entra ai gravar para Mapillary, mas tem muito mais levantamento a fazer, não sei quando vai ter tempo para isso
hsch2 (2015-03-14 18:30:50+00:00): Farei a atualização quando possível. Ainda não conhecia o Mapillary. Projeto interessante.
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-03-14 00:04:56+00:00): Tutaj się coś nie domknęło: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4657025
SK53 (2015-03-13 22:45:49+00:00): You might want to add something a bit more than just the name to this edit if you want it to show up. Simply adding building=yes would be a start. I note that there is John Deere supplier at this location, so shop=agricultural_machinery might also be something of use. HTH
Chiefapasohak (2015-03-13 23:16:22+00:00): Ok. New to this, so thanks for the advice.  I'll try again!
SK53 (2015-03-14 00:01:24+00:00): Also for the business you can add things like website=www.somebusiness.com (or whatever), telepone=0123456789 and opening_hours=Mo-Sa 09:00-18:00 (or whatever), all of which while not showing on the main OSM site get picked up by other OSM-based products. Also adding postcodes (usually as addr:postcode) can be very helpful as it works towards having more information of the type people with SatNavs like. Feel free to ask more.
lavardera (2015-03-13 23:14:47+00:00): correcting some errors around my neighborhood, relocating tags, entering names, deleting erroneous streets, editing building outlines, labeling parks, correcting street intersections.
t_ja (2015-03-14 08:41:09+00:00): Ahoj,
pridal si sice dve nove ciary, ale vobec si ich neotagoval, takze sa nezobrazia na mape. Treba pridat aspon highway=track + prislusny tracktype.
zbodik (2015-03-14 21:38:22+00:00): ahoj, ďakujem za upozornenie.... ale nejako som presne nepochopil, robím to prvýkrát. Ved som tam nastavil že je to lesná cesta, typ cesty, šírka a ešte nejaké údaje čo som vedel som tam dal...... treba ešte niečo viac?
Durko_freemap (2015-03-14 22:07:23+00:00): tu niesu ziadne tagy http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/332606897
t_ja (2015-03-15 08:42:51+00:00): Už to vyzerá dobre. Ak si aj predtým nastavoval, že je to lesná cesta, tak si asi zabudol uložiť dané zmeny. Ja nepoužívam iD editor, preto ti v tomto neporadím.

V podstate každý objekt (bod, čiara) musí mať nejaký tag (či je to POI, cesta, budova, les, ...). Jediná výnimka je, ak je daný objekt súčasťou iného objektu, napr. bod tvoriaci cestu (taguje sa iba cesta), alebo cesta súčasťou relácie (napr. diera v lese, keď sa nevie, či je to lúka alebo rúbanisko). 

Odporúčam pozrieť, ako je zmapované tvoje okolie, a aké tagy sa používajú. Ďalšie tagy sa potom dajú nájsť na wiki.osm.org.

Veľa zábavy pri mapovaní!
lavardera (2015-03-13 23:15:12+00:00): correcting some errors around my neighborhood, relocating tags, entering names, deleting erroneous streets, editing building outlines, labeling parks, correcting street intersections.
lavardera (2015-03-13 23:14:25+00:00): correcting some errors around my neighborhood, relocating tags, entering names, deleting erroneous streets, editing building outlines, labeling parks, correcting street intersections.
lyctkel (2018-11-27 10:49:34+00:00): Hi EinKonstanzer,
das FIXME an der Schadowstr. sieht für mich wie eine SOURCE aus. Die Strasse stimmt auch mit weiteren Luiftbildern überein. Kann das FIXME weg?
Gruss
lyctkel
EinKonstanzer (2018-12-02 20:45:34+00:00): Wo genau? Ist aber auch egal. Mach weg wenn du meinst. Da hat sich inzwischen auch extrem viel geändert...
lavardera (2015-03-13 23:15:33+00:00): correcting some errors around my neighborhood, relocating tags, entering names, deleting erroneous streets, editing building outlines, labeling parks, correcting street intersections.
PT-53 (2019-05-30 06:09:11+00:00): Hallo Joker234,
Du hast an der Bischof-Sproll-Straße in Leutkirch in diesem Änderungssatz construction=minor eingetragen (z.B. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30152440/history).
Das wird im OSM-Inspector moniert:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30152440/history

Was bedeutet construction=minor?
Ist das nicht längst erledigt?

Fragende Grüße
PT-53 (2019-06-02 05:21:54+00:00): Hallo Joker234, 
es wäre schön, wenn Du noch antworten würdest.
Grüße
Joker234 (2019-06-02 08:09:03+00:00): Aber sicher doch :)

Das könnte/sollte sich längst erledigt haben nach 4 Jahren. Ich gehe zumindest davon aus. Wenn du dort vorbei kommst und die Baustelle weg ist darfst du natürlich gerne das Tag entfernen.
PT-53 (2019-06-02 11:29:27+00:00): Ich komme dort nicht vorbei. Außerdem hast Du das eingetragen und solltest dann auch die Erledigung überwachen und wieder herausnehmen.
Grüße
PT-53 (2019-06-09 07:33:31+00:00): Und, kümmerst Du Dich noch darum?
Fragende Grüße
Joker234 (2019-06-09 17:44:19+00:00): Wenn ich dran vorbei komme gerne. Kann aber dauern, so oft komm ich dort nicht vorbei ;)

Hab mal eine Note erstellt, damit auch andere Leute das Problem schneller beheben können. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1806959
PT-53 (2019-06-10 04:59:28+00:00): Warum trägst Du sowas überhaupt ein, wenn du es nicht selbst überwachen kannst.?
PT-53 (2019-06-23 05:49:47+00:00): Mini-Baustelle gelöscht
Joker234 (2019-06-23 08:01:48+00:00): merci :)
ze bernardes (2015-03-14 12:19:55+00:00): Naoliv ,muito obrigado  por ter consertado o que eu tinha feito errado .
naoliv (2015-03-14 12:36:16+00:00): Zé, dá uma olhada depois em http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Naoliv/Workflows que esse processo precisa ser um pouco mais manual (muito dos caminhos que definem os distritos provavelmente já existem)
emacsen (2015-03-19 22:04:25+00:00): Are you aware that you can't use Google Street View as a source in an OSM edit?
muralito (2015-03-14 01:19:59+00:00): Esta no es la forma apropiada de mapear las puertas. Lo mejor es un nodo encada puerta con entrance=yes
muralito (2015-03-14 01:19:45+00:00): Esta no es la forma apropiada de mapear las puertas. Lo mejor es un nodo encada puerta con entrance=yes
muralito (2015-03-14 01:19:17+00:00): Esta no es la forma apropiada de mapear las puertas. Lo mejor es un nodo encada puerta con entrance=yes
GerdP (2015-11-03 20:32:37+00:00): please review:
I've tried to fix invalid tagging of node
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1836811749
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35065527
LucFreitas (2015-03-15 19:12:10+00:00): Olá, naoliv. Uma dúvida:
No caso da Segunda Ponte, em Vila Velha (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-20.3317/-40.3540) não seria o caso de manter a ponte na camada 2 ao invés da 1? Pois esta via elevada possui um pequeno viaduto e outras pontes menores que passam sob a mesma, e estariam na camada 1. A situação se assemelha a parte elevada da Avenida São Paulo (http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-20.33642/-40.28461), por isso havia alterado anteriormente a camada.

Obrigado, e boa tarde.
Gumeg (2015-03-17 11:02:14+00:00): Вы удалили Зенитную улицу, понизили её до "сервис". Хотя есть и дома по этой улице.
d1g (2015-03-18 08:36:48+00:00): Участок до 10 дома еще можно оставить название т.к. там есть не отмеченные частные дома. Участок вдоль 24 дома нужно проверить т.к. там может быть блок и пешеходный проход вместо проезда.
Warin61 (2016-10-17 04:20:46+00:00): Tucklan ... while the council and post office may not regard it as a hamlet, I'd not think of it as a neighborhood either. I think in OSM terms .. hamlet.
aharvey (2015-05-03 08:15:03+00:00): Does the road still physically exist? Would it be better to tag it as access=no and place a barrier= node?
Hjart (2015-04-10 07:40:35+00:00): Vær opmærksom på parkeringspladser (amenity=parking) kun har en rent visuel funktion. Jeg kan se du har lavet et par stykker her og blandt andet forbundet nogle footways til parkeringspolygonerne. De skal i stedet forbindes til de serviceveje (highway=service;service=parking_aisle) der går over parkeringspladsen. Der er mange der begår denne fejl, men lad dig ikke snyde af det.
mikkolukas (2015-04-13 06:00:35+00:00): aaah, tak :)

Kom endelig med kommentarer hen ad vejen, så lærer jeg hurtigere :)
ENTUR Johan Wiklund (2018-05-03 13:52:26+00:00): På tal om gamle changesets, fant en litt spesiell tag på en way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/332633165
Turleder'n (2018-05-03 19:35:38+00:00): Takker :-)
Denne er rettet.
hurdygurdyman (2015-03-16 08:19:44+00:00): Warum wurde hier von secondary auf tertiary herabgestuft?
FTA (2015-03-21 21:00:43+00:00): Hi there, I noticed you've been making a lot of edits, which is great. But, would you mind leaving a changeset comment with the edits that summarizes what you have been doing? That's extremely helpful to other mappers in the area to keep informed. Thanks and Happy Mapping! -FTA
Superadlen (2015-03-14 10:25:46+00:00): salam
Hjart (2015-05-21 06:05:40+00:00): For veje under konstruktion og lignende kan det være en god ide at angive opening_date og relevante noter/links
mikkolukas (2015-05-26 14:11:41+00:00): Fandt den bare ved et tilfælde, og rettede den derefter til. Kan lige se om jeg kan finde oplysningerne, jeg rettede ud fra :)
Hjart (2015-05-26 15:49:36+00:00): Tak, det er rart for os andre at vide (og kunne tjekke) at den ikke bare er ren fantasi og desuden øger det chancen for at den bliver åbnet (i OSM) ca i rette tid :-)
joost schouppe (2015-12-14 14:32:25+00:00): Hey filip, volgens http://blog.izeize.com/ werkt hun app niet meer. Klopt dat dan niet? Of is het toch een andere app die je gebruikt?
<<filip>> (2015-12-14 18:01:12+00:00): Dag Joost,
Ik gebruik de app openmaps slechts heel af en toe. Momenteel is het al een hele tijd geleden. Daarom heb ik daar reeds lang geen updates meer van geïnstalleerd. Of die app nu nog kan gedownload worden, weet ik niet.
Mvg, Filip
joost schouppe (2015-12-14 18:38:35+00:00): Ha, ok, dan klopt hun blog niet. Moest je zin hebben in een app die nog leeft, ik heb al goede dingen gehoord over http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Go_Map!!
(ik gebruik zelf Osmand, maar de edit functies daarvan werken nog niet in iOS)
Bryce C Nesbitt (2015-03-23 06:03:29+00:00): Could you check your tags named 5.45949525959467 . See http://taginfo.openstreetmap.com/keys/?key=5.45949525959467%2C  and http://blog.jochentopf.com/2015-03-05-new-taginfo-features-and-a-challenge.html
jangol22 (2015-03-14 10:45:08+00:00): dokładnie z konfigurowane drogi w tym rejonie miejscowości
jangol2
gileri (2015-03-14 12:37:36+00:00): Bonjour,

L'unité des incline=* est importante (° ou %), pouvez-vous la remettre sur les funiculaires ?

Et sinon, quel outil utilisez-vous pour faire des voies parallèles sur JOSM ? J'ai cherché mais pas trouvé...
Otourly (2015-03-14 12:56:12+00:00): Bonjour,
J'ai enlevé l'unité car ça posait problème lors de l'import; j'ai pensé que ça irait mieux sans l'unité. Il semble que c'est uniquement à cause de l'espace.

L'espacement est fait à la mano à l'aide de la règle en bas de JOSM qui donne la distance entre deux points.
gileri (2015-03-14 13:02:48+00:00): Oulà quel courage ! J'ai fait un peu de parallélisme à la main, c'est vraiment galère!
kerodaku (2015-03-14 10:55:33+00:00): Ortographe
pnorman (2015-03-18 07:37:58+00:00): I was wondering what your source was for https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/332655105. I had a look on both MapBox and Bing and couldn't see any sign of a building. Bing shows cloud, and MapBox shows a clear field.
vogelfreier (2015-03-19 17:12:10+00:00): @pnorman
- bing can at some areas around the world up to date
- i see with bing under the dusty part a building
- when you mean there is no - thats by you (all)
Rogehm (2015-03-15 19:29:17+00:00): Hallo, Noframe
Habe deinen Bismarckturm mal etwas aufgepeppt. Werde noch die Wiki Beschreibung die Tage ergänzen. Und mit Lutz reden wegen einem eigenen Icon. Gerne weitermachen. Danke.
Das Wiki gibt da viel her.
Gruß Rogehm
mavl (2015-03-14 18:30:32+00:00): Спасибо.
SomeoneElse (2015-03-15 16:35:22+00:00): Something went a bit wrong here - it got created at latitude 0, longitude 0.  If you haven't already, you'll need to re-add it at the correct location.
Hjart (2015-03-15 06:00:09+00:00): Hvad har du forsøgt at lave her?
Thomas Adelhardt (2015-03-15 11:23:22+00:00): Det sidste stykke af Krogholmvej var fejlagtigt kaldt Stenløsevej.  Hele vejen hedder krogholmvej. Vejskiltet ud til Roskildevej står der at vejen hedder Krogholmvej. Jeg arbejder som postbud i Stenløse. På mit arbejde fik vi i sidste måned et brev med adressen Stenløsevej 70, der var ikke nogen kollegaer der kendte adressen. Men jeg kunne ud fra modtagerens navn se at det var til Krogholmvej 70. Der er en vej i vores postområde der hedder Stenløsevej, men den ligger i Slagslunde. Søg evt. efter Stenløsevej 34, 3660 Stenløse. Udover denne rettelse har jeg også tilføjet en lille sti mellem Roskildevej og Krogholmvej, jeg cykler på denne sti hver dag på vej til arbejde.
Hjart (2015-03-15 11:42:28+00:00): Jeg er ikke kendt i området , men bruger meget tid på på redigering overalt i Danmark udfra luftfotos, generel rettelse af tekniske fejl, vejledning af begyndere mm. Det ser ud som om der er noget motorvejsbyggeri i gang her. Hvor vidt er det? Udfra luftfotos er der for mig grundlag for en del justeringer, men hvis der er sket en hel masse siden de er taget, så vil det jo ikke nødvendigvis være så heldigt.
Jeg har desuden bemærket at den vestlige ende af den stump cykelsti du har tegnet ikke er forbundet til Roskildevej og for at diverse navigationsprogrammer kan bruge den er det nødvendigt at den er korrekt forbundet.
Hjart (2015-03-15 11:46:47+00:00): Så der er åbenbart nogen der har set efter adressen på OSM og fået fat i et forkert vejnavn på grund af det her?
Thomas Adelhardt (2015-03-15 13:03:29+00:00): Jeg skal lige have læst den cykelsti guide. Der er ikke cykelbaner på krogholmvej. Lige på nær de sidste 10 meter inden krydset til Roskildevej, jeg er i tvivl om der er i begge sider...

Jeg finder lige ud af det.
Og skal nok koble den til Roskildevej.

Motorvejen er de ikke gået i gang med endnu. Jeg vil tro der går nogle år endnu.
Hjart (2015-03-15 21:43:32+00:00): Det stykke platform du har lagt oven på gangstien lyser op på routinglaget på http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/. Det er nok en god ide at finde en anden løsning.
mikkolukas (2015-05-26 14:56:22+00:00): Hmm, kan ikke finde noget som lyser op. Måske nogen allerede har rettet det?
Hjart (2015-05-26 16:36:18+00:00): Højst sandsynligt. Jeg kan ikke umiddelbart huske hvilken der var tale om.
mikkolukas (2015-05-26 18:02:26+00:00): :-)
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-03-15 00:07:20+00:00): Przy tych numerach adresowych przydałoby się jeszcze dodać miejscowości i ulicę (jeśli jest).
Jacek Placek (2015-03-15 11:07:32+00:00): Zrobione
GRiera (2015-03-14 13:48:12+00:00): Crec que no s'havien d'haver fusionat, però no veig com tornar a la versió anterior
Lee Carré (2021-07-31 22:47:28+00:00): uic_ref is for railway stops (according to the wiki), not bus stops (which should use plain old ref).
SomeoneElse (2015-03-15 16:37:02+00:00): Something went a bit wrong here - some of the nodes got added at latitude 0, longitude 0.
Kiekin (2020-05-15 10:50:31+00:00): Was soll das sein?
streckenkundler (2026-05-18 20:00:37+00:00): Hei... Auch wenn es eine "Weile"  her ist: Nummern von Forstabteilungen...

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/erfassung-von-forstabteilungen-in-de/143935

Sven
mueschel (2020-01-12 11:24:21+00:00): Hi,
could you check this area? It has three strange tags:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/332712029/history

Thanks!
ligfietser (2020-01-13 15:55:45+00:00): Better ask user JTS51 It is not my edit, seems like an import
mueschel (2020-01-13 16:07:27+00:00): JTS51 edited the area last, but version #1 already contained these tags.
ligfietser (2020-01-14 09:49:22+00:00): Yes, you are right. It was me who imported it. ;-) Those tags makes no sense indeed, I can remove it.
Kiekin (2020-11-24 12:18:07+00:00): Was soll das sein?
mei62 (2020-11-24 12:47:52+00:00): 
Guten Tag!
Weiß ich auch nicht mehr.... wie kann ich das löschen??
Freundliche Grüße
streckenkundler (2020-12-01 11:27:27+00:00): Das ist die alte Forstabteilungsnummer (Korrekt wäre es Jagen 41), heute nicht mehr gültig...

Vergleiche z.B.: http://susudata.de/messtisch/openstreetmap.html?lat=53.024077&lng=13.661327&opa=1&zoom=15&baselayer=Open%20Street%20Map&overlays=tk25%2C&marker=Jagen%2041

@Kiekin: kann und sollte gelöscht werden.

Sven
streckenkundler (2026-05-18 20:02:24+00:00): Nö... lassen und Tagging anpassen...
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/erfassung-von-forstabteilungen-in-de/143935
letihu (2016-10-26 18:32:11+00:00): Hier
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/332713940/history
ist nur source:bing eingetragen. Aber was ist diese Line?
dieterdreist (2015-03-16 11:50:47+00:00): if you can (and there is), please also add a name
ij_ (2015-03-14 20:34:04+00:00): Now this edit in particular highlights why you definately shouldn't be doing this at all!

As these ways or at least on of them is likely to reappear once the construction site is gone and obviously you didn't know because you're not a local mapper! But I also understand that nobody put his/hers educated guesses about post-construction site status into note or FIXME, so I understand that you might even try to put the blame on locals not helping your housekeeping :-(.

To me, on the otherhand, it's indication that you shouldn't be doing what you did at all with was:*=* as your edit is clearly harmful here!
ij_ (2015-03-14 20:45:13+00:00): I want to stress again (to soften the tone here) that I find housekeeping in general good and support what you're doing with the namespace in general. It's just that was:* and perhaps old_* is sort of exception which you should be extremely careful with :-).
flohoff (2015-03-14 20:57:34+00:00): I am very careful about certain old_* tags e.g. old_name because those are processed by nominatim. But when there is a way ONLY consisting in was:* or unused old_* stuff i am not careful. I care about preserving semantics and information so copying all tag information on feature disapperance to was:* tags is simply abusing the namespace. All this information is preserved in feature history available from hundrets of channels. The REAL information here would be - Why has the feature disappered - when did that happen - and not to remap it from secondary information which is probably outdated. 

That information should stay - but not tags preserving redundant history which no data consumer needs.
ij_ (2015-03-14 21:31:08+00:00): Good to know about "old_*" but did you know that I find them useful even after a highway is gone completely as somebody might make an emergency call and use the old name (the only thing he/she might know as no longer local but only visiting) as the location indicator. How can one decide that's no longer a indicator for something if somebody is still using it even if the original feature is long gone already (this applies to names only, not a general "keep all history" argument here!). The official maps at least in Finland (perhaps in other countries too) seem to _immediately_ forget this kind of info and I find OSM would have lot to offer in this kind of knowledge if we don't drop old namings without extremely good justification!

I thought we're only mapping what's on the ground, not "why" it's on the ground. Or "why" it isn't! How can I even know that? Perhaps some decision in some city council or whatever to remove it, who knows... Why'd you even want to know that? Hopefully not because your housekeeping task depends on that information? I said I'm guessing what will happen in the future, not that I know. I didn't even do that guess about the construction site thing until now when I looked into your changeset where you removed it because it was enough for me to note that it's no longer on the ground (for whatever reason). I think such housekeeping approach that depends on a local mapper guessing future using local knowledge is broken to begin with (OSM should definately require that!).

Or the "when" question, how do I know? I only noticed it around the time when I changed that to was:* (or remembered to put that observation to OSM, might not be so easy to remember once one surveys a rather long route nearly every weekday and relies mostly on memory alone to carry such details about removals). So it was removed at earliest when I changed but requiring "when" is again requiring me to input non-ground information.
ij_ (2015-03-14 21:32:55+00:00): I mean "OSM should definately not require that" (guessing obscure future events). :-)
ij_ (2015-03-14 19:27:05+00:00): Why did you remove was: prefixed ways? Are you a local mapper or how did you consult Finnish community about this kind of edits in Finland? Is this some form of mechanical edit? Where's the description for this mechanical like edit?

And yes, we know that they don't exists anymore but we don't want some non-local to remove them prematurely to avoid somebody using obsolete imagery or local knowledge to redraw them.
flohoff (2015-03-14 19:35:10+00:00): Cleaing this up is a process of cleaning up the tag namespace. This is not a mechanical edit as when ways carried more than the was:* tags i left notes and other tags intact. e.g. for showing non existant features to prevent other to remap features.

Polluting the namespace with was:* tags is abusing the tagging. For history information we have a versioned database where anyone can have a look at what tags have been on a way in the past. So there is no need to copy tags to some was:* old_* or other strange tag prefix. This is namespace pollution and bloat in the planet.

For the issue of beeing a local mapper - the semantics of the ways have not been changed.

Flo
flohoff (2015-03-14 19:37:26+00:00): BTW: was:footway had a global usage count of 6 - So 6 ways had a was:footway and all of them were in the same area.