piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
przemas75 (2015-06-26 13:56:56+00:00): Relacje transportu publicznego to wersja druga. Zupełnie niepotrzebnie pododawałeś  forward/backword!
Tego już się nie stosuje.
mateusz499 (2014-11-09 20:37:00+00:00): Mogę prosić o źródło informacji o takiej drodze?
Perimex (2014-11-11 15:04:47+00:00): poszukianie tras obwodnicy zachodniej Pabianic do dyskusji wśród nas
naoliv (2014-11-13 11:46:58+00:00): Leonidas, você apagou um caminho nessa sua edição que definia o limite administrativo de um bairro. Por favor, tenha mais cuidado ao apagar ou modificar objetos que parecem estranhos ou errados.
Leonidasufsc (2014-11-13 14:30:50+00:00): Olá Naoliv
Gostaria que apontasse onde estava a feição que deletei.
Acredito que estejas se referindo a rua Arthur Mariano (principal do Bairro Forquilhinhas - São José-SC), esta referida, possui mão unica e teve seu trevo modificado (o OSM ainda não possui imagem atual desta modificação).
Mas caso esteja equivocado, favor me alertar.
naoliv (2014-11-13 14:33:56+00:00): Foi nesse local mesmo. No caso o trecho apagado foi este: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/310879272
Leonidasufsc (2014-11-13 14:38:27+00:00): Esses trevos foram modificados já fazem meses. Imagem de satélite do OSM está desatualizada. Favor retirar tal segmente, ele não existe mais. Essa entrada possui apenas uma mão (sentido bairro).
naoliv (2014-11-13 15:19:59+00:00): O segmento não é uma rodovia. Ele define a separação dos bairros Flor de Nápolis e Forquilhinhas.
Leonidasufsc (2014-11-13 15:42:10+00:00): Da forma como está, fica evidente a existência de uma via saindo do bairro.
naoliv (2014-11-13 15:53:05+00:00): O limite dos bairros também foram modificados com a alteração do trevo? Caso não, então o caminho atual está correto. A nota presente nele explica justamente isso, que ele define o limite de um bairro. É possível deixar de forma mais explícita que ele não é uma rua, mas não é correto apagá-lo. Para casos onde a imagem está desatualizada ou algo não é óbvio, deve-se utilizar uma nota no objeto (como já existe) e também um comentário mais completo na hora de salvar a sua edição.
Leonidasufsc (2014-11-13 15:57:40+00:00): da uma olhada aqui http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-27.60561/-48.63553

é isso que um usuário comum vai ver (uma via que sai do bairro). Vc que tem mais habilidade pode colaborar? grato
naoliv (2014-11-13 16:07:36+00:00): Entendo a preocupação, mas o caminho é representado de uma maneira diferente: http://i.imgur.com/dgWSg9G.png 
Note que enquanto as ruas são laranja, o limite administrativo do bairro é representado em uma cor rosa/roxa tracejada.
anderfo (2016-09-27 08:27:24+00:00): Hei, 
ser du satte bicycle=no på en sti her. 
Er det virkelig forbudt å sykle der, eller har du misforstått taggen?
Access-tagger som bicycle, horse og foot blir dessverre ofte misforstått og brukt som "anbefaling" for disse framkomstmidlene, men taggene skal kun brukes for å fortelle om det er lov eller forbudt å gå/sykle/ri/osv.
Hvis du ønsker å fortelle om det er egnet med sykkel her, må du istedet bruke class:bicycle eller class:bicycle:mtb (men da bør du først lese deg opp på hvordan de brukes). 
Forøvrig gå det an å ta en titt her: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/No:Mountain_biking

Anders
Feliz Pereira (2014-11-14 11:21:05+00:00): esta estrada neste pedaço de trajeto está fechada a todo o trânsito automóvel e não sei como posso colocar essa informação.
igeopr (2014-11-10 22:23:38+00:00): Vaya dándole duro tambien a la Fernández Juncos! Estoy jugando con esto nuevo de changeset discussion, escríbeme algo aqui de vuelta a ver que pasa!
vramirez122000 (2014-11-11 01:07:21+00:00): Eso es correcto. Tenemos que hacer un evento pronto.
DeBigC (2021-08-09 18:35:41+00:00): Confused - the building here is mapped as a landuse. It may have been brownfield in 2015, but it certainly isnt now
AltonSkiXC (2014-11-09 19:27:14+00:00): #UVM
maraf24 (2015-06-21 21:48:57+00:00): Fully reverted.
Tomas_J (2025-04-15 13:46:15+00:00): Zdar, obecny  nazev 'mineralka' do name nepatri...
LWillms (2014-11-09 20:24:16+00:00): Der Kommentar paßt nicht zu diesen Änderungen - hier geht es um Details in Frankfurt-Eschersheim. Wegen der Baustelle auf dem Platz des früheren Bunkers wurde die Bushaltestelle "Im Wörth" in die Nußzeil vor das Haus Nr. 50 verlegt, und der Glascontainer neben der Haltestelle entfernt. 

Die frühere Gaststätte in der Nußzeil 54a (die davor mal eine Tankstelle war) wurde umgebaut, und ist jetzt eine Kinderkrippe.
gudensberger (2023-10-22 15:23:56+00:00): Hallo,

zu https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/311980725 und seinen Kollegen:
Ist der Name da wirklich ein Name oder doch eher ref=* ?

LG
Matthew Hutchinson (2014-11-09 21:17:58+00:00): #Geo109
Matthew Hutchinson (2014-11-09 21:17:03+00:00): #Geo109
Nakaner (2014-11-28 19:51:13+00:00): Warum hast du denn bei diesem Way (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/305817920/history) usage=branch ergänzt? usage=* und service=* werden nicht gleichzeitig verwendet, siehe auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Gleis
 Die einzige Ausnahme besteht für Überhol- und Abstellgleise von Industrie- (z.B. Hafenbahnen) und Bergwerksbahnen (z.B. Braunkohlebahnen).
KartoGrapHiti (2014-11-28 20:24:12+00:00): Ich habe darüber ehrlich gesagt gar nicht nachgedacht, weil ich davon ausgegangen bin, dass beide Gleise gleichberechtigt wären und man gar nicht sagen kann, welches das durhcgehende Hauptgleis und welches das andere Hauptgleis ist, weil beide Gleise im Personenverkehr gleichermaßen genutzt werden. Ich hätte also gedacht, dass service=siding nicht zutreffend ist. Hiernach sind wohl beide Gleise Hauptgleise: http://www.tf-ausbildung.de/BahnInfo/bahnhoefe.htm
Wenn denn gesichertes Wissen ist, dass das nördliche Gleis das nicht durchgehende Hauptgleis ist und dass nicht durchgehende Hauptgleise auch als service=siding eingetragen werden, kannst Du das gerne ändern. Ich dachte bisher, dass nur Nebengleise service=siding sind.
Nakaner (2014-11-28 20:26:18+00:00): das ist ein Bug in der Doku. Das nicht durchgehende Hauptgleis ist das, welches durch abzweigendes Befahren der Weichen erreicht wird. Wenn ich durch das durchgehende Hauptgleis fahren will, dann brauche ich nicht wegen Weichenradien abbremsen.
dforsi (2014-11-15 15:53:52+00:00): Per le way 312001023 e 312001024, sei sicuro che sia "Sotopoortego" con 2 "o"?
Sarebbero le uniche con la doppia "o" in tutta la città.
Marco_T (2014-11-15 19:41:38+00:00): Errore mio. Ho corretto. Grazie.
kajord (2014-11-09 23:33:16+00:00): The designation of this road as "residential" is wrong as well, but I wasn't sure what the right one was, so I didn't change that.  It is a state park road closed to public vehicle traffic.
Supaplex (2014-11-10 04:20:57+00:00): 燦光寮山 西陵線的路況，也許可以依tracktype標示
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype
kcwu (2014-11-22 15:58:05+00:00): tracktype 比較是配合 highway=track 來標車走的路. 若是車都沒辦法走的山路可以視情況標 surface=* , sac_scale=*, trail_visibility=* 等來表示路況
AkuAnakTimur (2014-11-10 09:16:50+00:00): Boleh tahu, kenapa padam polygon area UUM ya?
Kagami (2014-11-10 14:04:58+00:00): Good Job
cadsauxk (2014-12-25 20:00:01+00:00): Vias residenciais em cidades são tipicamente classificadas como residential. Reserva-se residential caso alguma destas tenha uma função predominante para o escoamento de trânsito o que normalmente exige conhecimento pessoal do local. 

para a sua informação, isto foi revisado em
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27695231
cadsauxk (2015-02-12 22:22:14+00:00): Você sabe se o acesso a Inhaí é pavimentado?
alexosmbrasil (2015-02-12 22:26:36+00:00): Estive lá ano passado e não era.
cadsauxk (2015-02-12 22:30:16+00:00): obrigado pela pronta resposta, vou atualizar colocando surface=ground no trecho.
cadsauxk (2014-12-25 19:57:45+00:00): "Acesso à Rodovia" não é nome próprio, é uma descrição portanto deve estar contida em description.

De acordo com as regras schema_br2013 vias sem pavimentação devem ser somente unclassified ou tertiary e conter a descrição surface=ground ou surface=unpaved.

Corrigido em http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27695231
li22943035 (2014-11-11 12:52:35+00:00): 高雄市, 鳳山區
新增 銀行 和 ATM
dchiles (2014-11-10 17:42:02+00:00): 
Can you please create meaningful changeset comments

That'll make it a lot easier for people to see why you're making these changes.
P Dill (2014-11-10 19:10:00+00:00): Sorry for poor documentation; I'm new to OSM, though not to map-making.

I am a local in Berkeley, and have worked on design and planning projects here and beyond.

I am adding detail and fixing poor data. I have interest in adding pedestrian ways, especially ADA accessible paths-of-travel. And I plan to add many buildings in Berkeley.
seichter (2014-11-10 13:04:22+00:00): Buildings (except round huts) should be rectangular with (mostly) 4 corners.
A fith corner comes from misinterpretation of gabled roof from slightly distorted imagery when taken a few degrees from the side.
d1g (2015-04-02 11:15:38+00:00): Там точно был такой? Сейчас там "Шайба" на всё здание, как я понимаю
mavl (2014-11-11 04:36:24+00:00): Здравствуйте.

Неправильное обозначение. Написано "Почтовое отделение", но присвоен тег amenity=post_box (почтовый ящик).
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/2545846500/history. Почтовое отделение это amenity=post_office. Кроме того, эта точка является частью проезда, что неправильно, так как отделение не стоит посреди дороги.

Эти ошибки уже исправлены.
mavl (2014-11-11 04:37:05+00:00): Правильная ссылка http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2545846500/history
mavl (2014-11-11 04:32:27+00:00): Здравствуйте.

Дейстительно ли кафе занимает целиком такой большой дом? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/85565534

Если оно занимает только часть здания, то его лучше обозначить отдельной точкой внутри здания или точкой, которая является частью полигона здания.
saintam1 (2014-12-14 21:50:13+00:00): Привет, Боян,

Ще видите, че бул. Стамболийски сега е разделен на 4 ways, като това е объркало restriction-ите, които сте били добавили. Аз се опитах да ги оправя, но сигурно ще си струва да погледнете.

Изтрих някои, които вече не важат, например сега като има два еднопосочния way-я, в такъв случай ограничението за ляв завой се подразбира.
bobbyfuego (2014-12-16 11:13:29+00:00): Благодаря, за информацията, ще погледна. Имам един въпрос. Каква е причината според вас, много от булевардите, по които минава трамвай, да бъдат преобразувани в пътища с две платна, като реално това не е така.
saintam1 (2014-12-18 23:57:10+00:00): Когато има трамвайни релси, аз лично съм съгласен с това да се означава по единия или другия начин, стига обаче да сме последователни и да използваме еднакви правила за всички пътища. Но забелязах, че някои пътища, които нямат релси, са разделени на две платна, като за мен това е погрешно.
Hjart (2014-11-10 11:29:13+00:00): Du er kommet til at rykke ved en elledning. Desuden er adskillige af de liniestykker du har lavet ikke taggede (markerede som sti eller andet).
d1g (2014-11-10 14:14:50+00:00): Почему противоречие? Потому что Америка? Страна ничего не значит. У этого города население 40000. Улицы обозначены и названы уже хорошо.

В России у того города дома обрисовали и улицы, а вот с названиями или POI были бы проблемы.
GeneralSaratov (2014-11-10 17:37:09+00:00): Ну, к примеру если сравнивать поселок Ртищево (Саратов) - 41тыс и Albany (OR) - 50 тыс. То на самых известных картах, лидером по прорисовке окажется Американский город, пусть он будет даже 9 тысяч. Получается, что приложение maps.me мало американцев используют, некому обрисовывать здания и писать номера.
d1g (2014-11-10 23:17:58+00:00): Всё очень сильно завит от организованности тех, кто указывает информацию в OSM и где они делают своим правки. Захотел кто-то Ртищево отрисовать или ему терпения не хватило или спутник плохой там или он JOSM не использует (а это сильно затрудняет маппинг)

Нужно смотреть количество активных мапперов и количество полезных правок. Для второго у меня нет ссылки, вот для первого некоторое предствление пожно получит здесь: http://peirce.gis-lab.info/stat.php

Насчёт популярности maps.me не скажу, самое популярное приложение для OSM данных в России под андроид это OSMAnd. Понять можно из размера темы про него на форуме: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=17162&p=1
SomeoneElse (2019-06-11 22:32:37+00:00): Hello,
Hope you don't mind me commenting on a changeset from ages ago - this is more of a comment to anyone who comes across this changeset in the future.
A source of "Google Maps" on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/312038584 was added here, but (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_you_just_use_Google_Maps.2Fwhoever_for_your_data.3F ) we can't actually use that as a source in OSM.  In this case it's worth mentioning that the layout of the building exactly matches Bing imagery (which I guess is where it was traced from) and the name's actually available via OS OpenData, so all the data here is actually available via licence compatible sources.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.
SomeoneElse (2014-11-12 11:37:56+00:00): Railway problems at Rauceby:

As currently mapped, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/227726817 crosses the railway without crossing nodes and (more seriously) the railway lines run through the station platforms, which I suspect is unlikely.
SomeoneElse (2014-11-12 11:38:46+00:00): (also added as note http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/269441)
SomeoneElse (2014-11-13 13:20:01+00:00): Part of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27184678 was previously called "Main Street" rather than "Dark Lane": http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/15461905/history .  Was an on-the-ground survey done to determine that the name has changed?

(see note http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/269951 )
Arma IRM-ED (2020-08-04 03:09:43+00:00): Hi TuanIfan, I modified this road (way 312043271) based on Maxar Premium Imagery because I think it's newer than the others imagery. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Thank you
Arma IRM-ED (2020-08-04 03:09:43+00:00): Hi TuanIfan, I changed the classification of this road (road 312043266) to tertiary highway because I continued the tertiary road beside it based on Maxar Premium Imagery. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Thank you
kayle (2014-11-13 10:48:12+00:00): Ahoj, prosím ťa. Keď pridávaš na cestu jednosmerku (Muškátová ulica), rozdeľ existujúcu cestu a nepridávaj novú čiaru. Takto vzniknú dve cesty a aj keď to na osm môže vyzerať opticky OK, pre navigačné účely to je nepoužiteľné.  Ďakujem.
aceman444 (2014-12-14 23:04:28+00:00): Dobry den, ked pridavate chodniky, tam kde sa krizuju s ulicami (cestami) je potrebne aby mali spolocny bod. A idealne potom doplnit vlastnosti priechodu pre chodcov (highway=crossing). Dakujem.
Supaplex (2014-11-10 14:54:28+00:00): 你忘了改編輯備註了XDD
Pierce (2018-12-22 02:33:20+00:00): Hi There, It looks like you've included some meta data within the restaurant name here. Is this place still closed from this date?
I'd suggest that this would go into a more appropriate field next time.
Ewen Hill (2018-12-22 02:42:47+00:00): Apols - This was due to a fire on the premises back in 2014. Not certain ifand when it re-opened
PFMLB (2014-11-26 10:34:24+00:00): Warum wurde von Ihnen die A1 gelöscht?
Zbigniew_Cz (2014-11-10 17:54:10+00:00): Nie szkoda Ci czasu na powolne przepisywanie adresów z węzłów na obrysy? Robota zbyteczna, poza tym można ją zrobić w 2 minuty dla całej gminy.
W dodatku robisz to z błędami.
andygol (2014-11-10 20:04:13+00:00): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Uk:Key:name
Hjart (2014-11-11 12:36:00+00:00): Hej
Du fik ikke forbundet stien fra Skovvænget korrekt til Lilleskovvej. Jeg har rettet det + justeret en del andre ting
naoliv (2015-05-26 14:47:25+00:00): Marcio, você importou isso do IBGE?
naoliv (2015-05-26 14:50:14+00:00): Precisa ter mais cuidado nessas importações.
Está tudo em maiúsculo, sem acento, com várias duplicações.
Tem uma fazenda que aparece 6 vezes no mesmo local, por exemplo.
marcioaguiar (2015-05-26 14:50:45+00:00): Não. Foi de um CAD de um cliente meu que queria as fazendas que eles trabalham mapeadas. Esse changeset ficou sem o source, mas em vários outros changesets eu coloquei a fonte: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27552246
marcioaguiar (2015-05-26 14:52:05+00:00): Não foi uma importação propriamente dita. Eu gerei as camadas OSM, mas editei todos manualmente, até porque precisava colocar os nomes, gerar as relações. Acho que em algum changeset eu fiz uma besteira sem perceber.
marcioaguiar (2015-05-26 14:53:21+00:00): Pode deixar que vou verificar. Com certeza, sem querer eu salvei o dado cru, porque se você der o zoom vai ver que os nomes estão todos grafados corretamente.
naoliv (2015-05-26 14:55:04+00:00): Então, tem duas coisas: tem as áreas de fazenda (que estão nomeadas corretamente) e tem os nós com place=farm.
No caso são os nós que estão incorretos.
Olhe a Fazenda Mauriti para ver um exemplo (tem a área + 6 nós com a mesma informação).
marcioaguiar (2015-05-26 14:56:56+00:00): Entendi. Esse nós eu gerei como teste com base na área das fazendas. O que você acha de remover? Já que existe a área, precisa do place? A localização dele não é precisa.
marcioaguiar (2015-05-26 14:58:49+00:00): Na verdade existem nós que não tem a área relacionada. Vou ver o que faço.
naoliv (2015-05-26 14:59:59+00:00): Existe uma sede (uma área com prédios) visível e identificável nas fazendas? Se sim pode deixar o nó nelas.
Ou então usar mais ou menos o centro da área da fazenda.

De qualquer forma, não é pra retirar os nós (já que representam o local, enquanto a área representa a área de agricultura). Só precisa retirar as duplicações e arrumar os nomes.
dbouvier12 (2014-11-15 02:01:51+00:00): fire station
SomeoneElse (2014-11-12 21:16:59+00:00): From looking at the changes here (I'm familar with the area as I've surveyed most of the footpaths and live nearby):

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2137276876
presumably shouldn't be part of the road as well as the railway if the railway runs across a bridge

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203726475
seems to be an untagged duplicate of 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5746616
(at least in part)

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203726478
seems to be an untagged duplicate of
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/44958846
(at least in part)

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/212752864#map=19/53.19962/-1.40624
Is surely not tracks=2!
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/269740

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/55802814#map=18/53.28626/-1.43794
Is unlikely to be tracks=2

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29108373/history
has lost layer information when being redrawn as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30167350

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/62216854/history
has lost layer information when being redrawn as
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30167350

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/213106230#map=18/53.16819/-1.39244
Seems to have lost (or never had) proposed electrification tags

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/145334726
Seems to be an unfeasibly short unconnected spur

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/312068364
Seems to be an unfeasibly short unconnected spur
SomeoneElse (2015-01-04 19:54:01+00:00): I've nudged some stuff from http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.15511/-1.39235 down to the next footpath bridge across a bit to match the GPS traces (there are lots of them in the area).
SomeoneElse (2016-06-30 18:53:13+00:00): Looks like this has also added the Erewash Valley Line as far south to the Pilsley Road bridge to the MML relation in error, too.
SomeoneElse (2016-06-30 18:59:53+00:00): (for info I've fixed that)
Mezpit (2014-11-10 14:42:39+00:00): Avr Update
Mezpit (2014-11-10 14:45:00+00:00): Added new buildings
Mezpit (2014-11-10 14:46:55+00:00): Adjusted Car Park size
Mezpit (2014-11-10 14:41:28+00:00): AVR Update
Mezpit (2014-11-10 14:44:38+00:00): Updated Museum Shop and Cafe locations
Mezpit (2014-11-10 14:41:50+00:00): AVR update
Mezpit (2014-11-10 14:43:47+00:00): Added Model Railway Building
SomeoneElse (2014-11-13 16:41:21+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/312080900#map=17/52.85782/-1.55219&layers=N currently has an unfeasible dogleg at the southwestern end.  Also see (different issue) http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/270036 .
GerdP (2015-10-30 14:03:09+00:00): please review:
I've remove the rarely used highway=never_built tag from 6 ways.
They were all also tagged
highway:proposed:historic=*
and maybe should be deleted if they
are no longer planned.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34973079
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34973017
t2425b (2015-11-01 17:19:04+00:00): There are always plans but they will be planned later. Actaully, there is a stopped but not abandoned planning.
GerdP (2015-11-01 17:31:30+00:00): okay, change them to highway=proposed
when you think that is better. See also 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/how-to-tag-a-highway-that-doesn-t-exist-tp5857111.html
malenki (2014-11-10 17:00:42+00:00): Der Changesetkommentar ist fast noch besser als die Reparatur. ;)
Danke.
berndw (2014-11-11 16:37:14+00:00): Ehre, wem Ehre gebührt, 
Wenigstens das kriege ich hin ohne zu stolpern ;-)
zod (2014-11-10 16:52:51+00:00): No comment. (Test)
Geomapper69 (2015-02-05 15:03:56+00:00): New Roads added in Nardaran are disconnected and do not route:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/
lefuturiste (2014-11-10 18:15:50+00:00): Je suis un mappeur d'Aubevoye
MatthieuMartin (2014-11-12 13:11:31+00:00): Bonjour, bon boulot ;)
SomeoneElse (2014-11-12 21:55:35+00:00): I think that something went very wrong here - none of these roads are tertiary!  I've changed them back in http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26745242 .
*Martin* (2014-11-11 07:33:17+00:00): Ahoj Miguel.

Pozeram, ze v Michalovciach pridavas adresne body, co je super pocin.

Na Slovensku mame trochu odlisny system tagovania, ktory je popisany na http://wiki.freemap.sk/cislabudov.
rickmastfan67 (2014-11-11 05:21:10+00:00): Just so you know, we don't add County names to the ways like you did here.  The names are part of the relations the way is a part of.  I'll be reverting that part of this changeset.  As you see here ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/40.52337/-80.30074 ), the county names that are rendered are acquired from the Allegheny and Beaver County relations. Thus, I have deleted the name from the way in Changeset: 26703395. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/26703395
Mauro1985 (2014-11-12 14:49:53+00:00): La relation http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4182630 mi sembra da sistemare. Minimo minimo perché interseca l'edificio http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/129298706 presente su osm da tre anni, secondariamente perché con quelle forme sembra difficile che si tratti di un *unico* building, ma se così fosse sarebbe bene aggiungere una nota per i futuri mappatori ...
(e magari la prossima volta changelog più piccoli, così è più facile capire cosa viene modificato ...)
Marco_T (2014-11-12 15:36:59+00:00): Purtroppo Venezia è disegnata tutta a blocchi di edifici e non x singoli fabbricati. Sto splittando i blocchi (e relazioni multipoligono annesse) x individuare i singoli fabbricati oggetto di tag wikipedia. Ma è un lavoro complicato. Qualcuno ha disegnato sopra i blocchi alcuni singoli fabbricati (tipo quello che si interseca, vecchio di 3anni) ma in modo mooolto speditivo che sto sistemando un po' alla volta.
Mauro1985 (2014-11-12 17:27:15+00:00): Uh, grazie! In effetti adesso ho guardato meglio i dettagli di altri building/relations ed è da mettersi le mani nei capelli. Mi sa che alcuni import (di tre anni fa, sigh) non sono venuti molto bene. Ormai credo che la cosa più saggia sia cercar di migliorare a mano ogni edificio, un lavoro enorme! Servirebbe qualcuno sul posto per verificarli tutti...
Marco_T (2014-11-12 19:40:35+00:00): Gia', e' un bel casino, ma purtroppo molti grossi centri storici sono stati impoortati in quel modo (Firenze, Milano, Roma... Bologna si salva un po'...). A me interessa dare una definizione un po' piu' precisa "almeno" agli oggetti wikipedia, per aiutare i turisti/curiosi se usano OSM con dispositivi portatili (con OSMand si clicca sul fabbricato ed apre la pagina wikipedia collegata...). 
In Italia ne abbiamo parecchi da mappare, linkare: http://geodati.fmach.it/gfoss_geodata/osm/wtosm/it_IT/ ed e' un peccato non taggarli in mappa. Ti ringrazio anche io per la segnalazione.