piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Adamant1 (2021-09-04 18:38:27+00:00): From what I can tell at least Military Park is all residential. So is West End with the exception of a church in the middle. Which isn't an issue. The only neighborhood that might have that problem is May-Penn, but in that case you can pretty easily just map a residential area inside the neighborhood where it's solely houses. Doing so would be a lot better then leaving large landuse gabs on the map. So I'm not sure what your talking about or how it's an issue.
Baloo Uriza (2021-09-04 21:02:11+00:00): landuse=* is lot-level tagging, not district level.  A named landuse=residential area should be an apartment complex or a gated subdivision at most.  Otherwise you definitely have a lot of space that definitely should be landuse=highway in the middle at every publicly owned street.

Large landuse gaps on the map is more accurate than overly inclusive landuse areas, so changing landuse=residential areas in this space to boundary=administrative admin_level=10 and place=neighborhood is a more accurate definition.

I'm not arguing against tagging things as landuse=residential, but what got retagged isn't even remotely congruent with landuse=residential by the broadest possible definition.

TLDR: No.
Baloo Uriza (2021-09-04 21:08:51+00:00): Suggested iterative improvement would be to make sure these polygons actually fit the actual neighborhood boundaries (they're close but obviously not fully inclusive), and then tag groups of lots congruent to the boundaries with landuse=*.  Outside of very limited edge cases, if your landuse=* polygon is crossing a highway=* line that isn't access=private, it's probably wrong.
Baloo Uriza (2021-09-04 21:11:54+00:00): That said, landuse=highway and government land use outside of prisons and military bases doesn't currently have a good tagging, so AFAICT the best practice for landuse tagging on public commons is to not tag it at all.
Adamant1 (2021-09-04 21:18:57+00:00): "landuse=* is lot-level tagging, not district level."

Wrong. According to the Wiki "The landuse tag is mostly used for larger areas and not at parcel granularity." In the meantime, a neighborhood isn't really a "district"  and it's perfectly fine to tag them as a single residential area. People do it all over the place. I'd probably agree with you if they were place=suburb's or the whole town. But neighborhood's aren't large or distinct enough to warrant mapping them as a bunch of different residential areas instead of one large one that encompasses the whole neighborhood. 

Re: "changing landuse=residential areas in this space to boundary=administrative admin_level=10 and place=neighborhood is a more accurate definition."

I've had plenty of discussions about this and they aren't mutually exclusive. You can tag place=neighborhood and landuse=residential on the same area and isn't less accurate to do so. 

"what got retagged isn't even remotely congruent with landuse=residential" 

How exactly is an area made up only of houses not congruent with landuse=residential? Let alone not even remotely? That's literally what the tag is for.
Adamant1 (2021-09-04 21:37:24+00:00): Also, "AFAICT the best practice for landuse tagging on public commons is to not tag it at all."

Cool that you have that opinion. Don't map landuse tagging where you that's the case. I could really care less. The problem is that you removed landuse=residential tags from areas other people mapped where they thought it worked perfectly fine and there's zero reason your personal mapping preferences should override everyone else who thinks it's fine to tag the areas as residential or the Wiki.
Baloo Uriza (2021-09-04 21:50:05+00:00): No, they're not mutually exclusive but given the neighborhoods where it did get retagged, landuse=anything isn't an appropriate value ever for those polygons.  Literally zero of them are purely residential landuse.
Baloo Uriza (2021-09-04 21:51:46+00:00): landuse=residential is only appropriate for areas where homes and apartments are.  It's not appropriate where public roads are, for example.
Adamant1 (2021-09-04 23:12:48+00:00): "Literally zero of them are purely residential landuse."

The ones I pointed out are. The fact that there's a church in the middle of one of them doesn't suddenly make it not residential landuse. Same for things like parks. You can map a church yard or a park inside a residential area. Maybe not if there was offices or retail stores, but there aren't any. 

"It's not appropriate where public roads are" 

That's untrue. Some people prefer not map residential areas across wider roads, but plenty of people map them across residential areas and it's perfectly appropriate to do so. 

You should really separate your personal opinions from wider consensus and how things are actually mapped instead of acting like they are the same thing or there's any connection between them. It's cool to say that you think landuse shouldn't be mapped across residential roads, but saying it's inappropriate to do so is just cynical. Really, a lot of what you've said has been.
Baloo Uriza (2021-09-05 02:23:25+00:00): OK Karen.  Calm down.  landuse=residential is absolutely incorrect in this case and landuse=residential should be smaller areas that actually fit the land use.
Adamant1 (2021-09-05 03:13:19+00:00): Yeah sure, I'm the one that needs to calm down. Yet your the one making up things and throwing around racist, sexist, insults instead of just saying how landuse=residential is incorrect. Right...
Frans S (2021-09-02 09:30:51+00:00): Send a PM to the project manager to check this mappings.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110486116
NM$L (2021-09-07 17:05:01+00:00): 尊敬的孟阁下，您好：

您在变更集#109657388中变更了金门边界，并且没有给出相应的依据或变更理由，亦造成了关系上的错误，在下回退了阁下的变更集，并在变更集内解释了原因，阁下现继续做出此编辑，且在变更集注释中没有给出有效的信息，希望可以给出做出此变更的原因或根据，谢谢，祝编安。

NM$L，重庆
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-09-07 18:18:17+00:00): Dear 孟天皓
It seems like you are using a unmeaningful changeset comment. And this have been a long time. If you have something to describe or disagree with NM$L, you'd better show It with neutral reference for your changes, or your changes will be seen as vandalism.
Best wishes.
快乐的老鼠宝宝
gpserror (2021-08-31 21:40:38+00:00): Hello, I had a question: is this building really named "Einstein Bros Bagel"?  Did Einstein Bros buy out this building?  Seems FedEx is using the building as well.

Perhaps the building should be better unnamed because they share the same building, or is FedEx renting from Einstein?
Frans S (2021-09-02 09:29:39+00:00): Send a PM to the project manager to check this mappings.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110488151
Carlos Eduardo Rodríguez (2021-08-31 04:56:24+00:00): Ruta Forestal-Mercado documentada a través de la traza OSM Tracker el día domingo 29 de agosto. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Carlos%20Eduardo%20Rodr%C3%ADguez/traces/3800456
mariotomo (2021-08-31 21:00:39+00:00): hola Carlos Eduardo.  que bien que hayas puesto la nueva relación route=bus directamente en el PTv2, pues de esta maneras aprovechamos de la validación automática: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=-80.96360&lat=8.11378&zoom=15&overlays=ptv2_routes_,ptv2_routes_valid,ptv2_routes_invalid,ptv2_error_,ptv2_error_ways,ptv2_error_nodes
Kovoschiz (2021-08-31 08:28:09+00:00): The `addr:housenumber=` needs to be kept as it represents the main campus itself. Hotel Icon and Block Z would have a different address.
AmalfiCoast (2021-09-02 16:26:34+00:00): Hi Kovoschiz, thank you for your suggestion, I have restored the "addr:housenumber=11" tag on the way 40271698.
Allison P (2024-03-07 02:47:46+00:00): Please don't connect landuse to roads! It is incorrect topology and makes it harder to maintain.
EneaSuper (2021-08-31 15:51:30+00:00): Ciao, ho visto che hai modificato i tag dell'area denominata "Giardini Rossini".

Come accennato in precedenza, sono definiti "giardini", ma alla fine dei conti sono una piazzetta, quindi ho pensato che la formula "highway=pedestrian" fosse la scelta migliore da fare.

Non so cosa dica il regolamento a riguardo, ma ho comunque preferito controbattere dicendo la mia 😅
camminatoreseriale (2021-09-01 03:46:54+00:00): Hai ragione tu, in effetti è un po' una cagatina più che un giardino. eheh :-) Ho messo pedestrian area che anche a me pare più opportuno. Ho aggiunto anche l'attraversamento in modo che sia collegato con il sistema strade. ;-)
EneaSuper (2021-09-01 09:57:08+00:00): Ho verificato, ottimo lavoro per tutto ❤
vulasala (2021-09-01 07:52:08+00:00): Hi Harits Fadillah,
Trust you are doing well. I have modified the classification of the way 736695550 from residential to service as the building has private access.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110490160
Anisa IRM-ED (2022-12-15 08:28:46+00:00): Hi, reenas. Hope you're doing well. 
I found a crossing highway with this waterbody (pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/978037974). Is there a bridge or weir where the road can pass? 
would you mind fixing this issue (maproulette.org/challenge/30161/task/142918560) ? or let me know if there's any update on this area. Thank you and happy mapping
Russ McD (2022-12-20 00:15:22+00:00): Way: 978046909
pa-dala : you have attempted to "fix road geometry" again, and complexity messed this one up.
This is a U-turn junction. It was tagged correctly as a primary link.
You cant even exit the government offices and head south west, as you have drawn.
Check the street imagery before just guessing.
Dont apologise, just read the Wiki and leave existing mappers work along - we are far more experienced that you #Grab amateurs.
I will correct as we do for all your tardy work.
superrache (2021-08-31 07:04:53+00:00): super, merci
Wilmer Osario (2021-09-01 23:48:48+00:00): Le queda mejor "Puente Angostura", el nombre "Vía del Puente..." es un derivado de éste para los segmentos que no pertenezcan al puente
Da_Capo (2021-09-03 09:47:05+00:00): Hola Wimer Osario,

Gracias por la aclaración y por corregir los datos.
kapazao (2021-08-31 12:55:51+00:00): Hola, ¿esta vía se llama así, de dónde es la referencia?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110493626
vulasala (2021-09-01 04:37:50+00:00): Hi arayamm,
Trust your doing well. I have modified the connectivity of the way 156407366 as there is a road bloackage at node 1686525120.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110493741
kapazao (2021-08-31 12:55:20+00:00): Hola, ¿puedes explicar de dónde tomas la referencia del nombre de la vía?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110493761
pio2_122 (2021-08-31 09:49:39+00:00): W tym budynku nie ma kościoła - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/408041024/history - przy okazji zmieniłeś też właściwy adres budynku na oficjalnie nieistniejący. Kościół ten był już prawidłowo oznaczony (tylko bez szczegółowych tagów) tu https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/408036800/history.

Jeszcze odnośnie „dzikich” (nieoficjalnych) adresów. Kiedyś już wspominałem, że najlepiej byłoby, gdyby takie adresy byłyby najpierw „zalegalizowane”. Umożliwiłoby to np. uniknięcie wspomnianego błędu, czy usprawniłoby weryfikację zmian przez innych użytkowników - warstwa z oficjalnymi adresami jest domyślnie dostępna w JOSM. Zresztą, już teraz powinno się przeprowadzić taką weryfikację przed każdą zmianą już istniejącego adresu w OSM.

https://www.biznes.gov.pl/pl/firma/inwestycje-budowlane/chce-zalatwiac-sprawy-przed-rozpoczeciem-budowy/proc_113-numer-budynku
Prosty wniosek można złożyć on-line, listownie lub we właściwym urzędzie. „Nie musisz być właścicielem budynku ani jego władającym (czyli np. użytkownikiem wieczystym, zarządczą lub dzierżawcą).” Proszę to przemyśleć.

Pół biedy, gdyby lokalizacja tych POI byłaby właściwa, a zostałby dodany adres, którego nie ma w oficjalnej bazie (ale występuje tam luka właśnie na niego). Poważnym problemem jest natomiast dodawanie POI do niewłaściwych budynków i zmiana ich prawidłowych adresów...
Przypominam także o dodawaniu właściwych kodów pocztowych do adresów (przy zachowaniu innych zasad, o których wspomniałem wyżej). W wielu przypadkach są one nieprawidłowe. Baza kodów pocztowych Poczty Polskiej jest dostępna tutaj: https://kody.poczta-polska.pl/#/

Podsumowując, proszę o dokładną weryfikację wprowadzanych zmian w kilku niezależnych źródłach (np. http://mapy.geoportal.gov.pl/imap/?gpmap=gp0, czy w gminnym i powiatowym portalu mapowym [właściwy można znaleźć korzystając z warstwy „Portale Mapowe” w powyższym serwisie]) – szczególnie adresacji i kodów pocztowych. Danym, z których korzystasz brakuje wiele do ideału. To już nie pierwszy raz, kiedy o to proszę. Mimo zapewnień nadal pojawiają się te same błędy. Ostatnie zmiany w woj. zachodniopomorskim sprawdzę i poprawię już sam. Jednak, w przypadku kolejnych rażących błędów (głównie: zdublowane adresy lub zmiana urzędowego adresu na nieprawidłowy) zmiany będę już wycofywał w całości.
WieKo68 (2021-08-31 11:06:19+00:00): Przepraszam, z rozpędu pomyliłem obiekty do otagowania. Ale nie myli się ten, kto nic nie robi. Nie wiem, co mam zrobić, ale mam dość dużo danych, które chciałbym nanieśc na mapę. Uważam, że dla lepszej orientacji adres jest potrzebny
Hanan Tikveša (2021-08-31 16:18:14+00:00): Hi.
please don't test.
OpenStreetMap is the real map of the world.
Adding fictional data to the map will get reverted quickly.
So only add things that exists in real life.
reverted in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110522627
obst96 (2021-09-05 13:20:45+00:00): Ist aktuell noch nicht ein Asphaltiert. Es liegt noch Schotter drüber. Für die Feuerwehr erstmal entfernt. Wird wieder aktiviert, sobald dieser Einsatzfähig ist.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110494860
pesec (2021-09-01 05:18:25+00:00): Адресация зданий должна соответствовать общепринятым правилам:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Addresses#.D0.9D.D1.83.D0.BC.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B0.D1.86.D0.B8.D1.8F_.D0.B4.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.B2
"Номер дома (вносится в addr:housenumber=*) кроме цифр может включать буквы и другие символы. Корпус и строение дома следует указывать в формате "48А к2 с1 соор3 фл1" - дом номер 48А, корпус 2, строение 1, сооружение 3, флигель 1 (см. Голосование по написанию номеров домов).

Если есть необходимость указать не дом, а владение, то перед номером дома вплотную пишется "вл": "вл48А соор3".

Если номер дома написан через дробь, то так и пишется, например, "2/10".

Если есть необходимость указать литеру (не путать с буквой в номере дома, корпуса, строения), то его значение добавляется в конце через пробел и строку "лит": "48А литБ".

В случаях, когда несколько соседних участков были объединены, адрес здания, построенного на объединённом участке, следует указывать через знак "дефис-минус" (-, U+002D), например, "17-23".

В случаях, когда один и тот же адрес по документам присвоен территории и здании на ней (например, детский сад), адрес следует ставить на здании."
mueschel (2021-09-02 08:59:52+00:00): Hi,
please have a look to these edits. There are 27 nodes with several strange tags that should be corrected to usual OSM keys, e.g.

document number
organization type
principal
related URL
service object
Frans S (2021-08-31 08:25:14+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and accurate mapped
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110495386
Jakka (2021-09-01 09:36:35+00:00): op een highway=unclassified is paard standaard toegelaten....
Zie welkom bericht.
vulasala (2021-09-01 04:40:18+00:00): Hi arayamm,
Trust your doing well. I have changed the connectivity of the way 301325047 as there is a road blockage at node 9050122642.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110497641
whb (2022-03-13 10:24:26+00:00): Guten Tag,

war die Änderung des Namens von Strahlenburg in Stralenburg (ohne h) beabsichtigt? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/893940732/history
Ich frage, da hier jemand ein fehlendes h meldet: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3085702

Viele Grüße
whb
pesec (2021-09-01 05:22:05+00:00): Старайтесь, чтобы названия правок отражали суть вносимых изменений.
mavl (2021-09-01 16:27:03+00:00): Здравствуйте. Подробнее  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Good_changeset_comments
Retired Account (2021-08-31 16:11:11+00:00): Hi,
OneMap is a valid source, but StreetDirectory is not a valid source due to license issues.

See https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Maps
Joel Amos (2021-09-01 00:15:04+00:00): Hello, it looks like you marked the role=inner ways with building=yes, which has caused them to be interpreted as additional buildings. The inner ways don't need any tags.
Frans S (2021-08-31 10:15:33+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and accurate mapped
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Just a remark. Try not to connect buildings together by their nodes
 
Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110499673
wkdgs (2021-09-02 09:16:34+00:00): Weißt du von wem der Platz übernommen wird?
sebarnaud (2021-09-03 06:26:53+00:00): Bonjour,
Même commentaire (cf https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110388133 ).

Ici par exemple vous dupliquez l'information présente ici : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/146250964

"coursP8" ou "cours P8" ne signifient rien pour les sources, il faut que les autres contributeurs puissent utiliser cette source ou comprendre où l'obtenir.
PT-53 (2022-03-09 06:47:51+00:00): Hallo KWKBKGrub,
Du hast an diesem Weg
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/410351259/history
das Merkmal
highway=construction
abgeändert in
highway=cycleway
aber das Merkmal
construction=cycleway
nicht gelöscht.

Straßensperrungen wegen längerfristigen Baustellen werden in OSM mit der Merkmal-Kombination 
highway=construction + 
construction=z.B. cycleway 
markiert.
Wenn die Straße fertiggestellt und für den Verkehr freigegen ist, reicht es nicht aus, daß Merkmal 
highway=construction auf 
highway=cycleway abzuändern. Es muß dann auch noch das Merkmal 
construction=residential 
gelöscht werden. Ansonsten funktioniert das Routing bei manchen Navis dort nicht.

Wiki: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:construction

Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an? 
Fragende Grüße



PS: 
Für Fragen / Anmerkungen / Rückmeldungen bitte diesen Änderungssatz aufrufen und in das leere Feld unterhalb Diskussion als neuen Kommentar eintragen.
PT-53 (2022-03-20 11:44:44+00:00): Hallo KWKBKGrub, 
schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?
Fragende Grüße

PS:
Für Fragen / Anmerkungen / Rückmeldungen bitte diesen Änderungssatz aufrufen und in das leere Feld unterhalb Diskussion als neuen Kommentar eintragen.
PT-53 (2022-04-17 06:38:04+00:00): Erledigt,
Danke und Grüße
Commodoortje (2021-09-01 03:56:14+00:00): lift_gate dient als node versmolten te worden op de weg, en mag niet als lijnelement worden aangebracht.
Hoe ik dit gedaan heb doet zie je in onderstaand filmpje.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UblEGBt-rHo
silversurfer83 (2021-10-18 15:38:01+00:00): Hi rolfdieter,
gute Arbeit im Park :) danke Dir.
Kleiner Hinweis: Farben nur in Englisch angeben.
Frans S (2021-08-31 10:19:55+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and accurate mapped
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 

Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110502795
Ltrlg (2021-08-31 11:12:14+00:00): Cette modification est incorrecte sur bien des points :

- Aucun des nœuds ajoutés n’utilise les tags usuels d’OSM (au hasard, « Tél » devrait utiliser https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:phone).

- Certaines informations n’ont rien à faire dans OSM (« Responsable » ne respecte probablement pas https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Limitation_de_la_cartographie_des_informations_priv%C3%A9es).

- La source (« P8 ») ne permet pas de déterminer d’où viennent les informations, ce qui implique que la compatibilité avec la licence est invérifiable (voir https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Import/Guidelines#S.27assurer_que_la_licence_est_compatible).

En l’état, l’annulation pure et simple de cette modification me semble la seule option.
Ltrlg (2021-08-31 11:15:49+00:00): J’ajoute encore que, vu le contenu des nœuds, ils sont en majorité mal placés.
Hanan Tikveša (2021-08-31 16:05:57+00:00): the nodes you added
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9050356707
didn't have any significant tags.
do we need to revert this changeset?
Ltrlg (2021-09-01 10:39:31+00:00): @Hanan That was my first point. I plan to revert in case I don’t get feedback from @tgassama.
sebarnaud (2021-09-03 06:11:24+00:00): Bonjour,
Je suis pour un revert.

Apparemment c'est dans le cadre d'un cours scolaire : https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110388133
Ltrlg (2021-09-03 10:37:03+00:00): Du fait de mon point 2, je considère qu’un délai de plus de trois jours serait déraisonnable. En l’absence de réponse, je viens donc de supprimer tous les points (changeset/110669751).

@sebarnaud Il y a en effet un paquet d’autre changesets liés (changeset/110501507, changeset/110502959, changeset/110501507, changeset/110501506, changeset/110533716, changeset/110502107, changeset/110503001, changeset/110501477, changeset/110502432, changeset/110502435, changeset/110669751), tous à vérifier…
sebarnaud (2021-09-28 19:40:12+00:00): Bonsoir,
Je reviens sur ces changesets, au vu de l'absence de réponses, faut-il tous les supprimer ? Comme remarqué par @Ltrlg les points sont mal placés + en doublons + toutes les erreurs de tags relevées.
rthik007 (2021-09-01 11:09:49+00:00): "Hi Eko Bie ,
I have changed the classification of road way 978094434  from motorway to residential  as it is passing through the residential area.
Kindly check with,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110560515,
Thank you
"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110503361
Davileci (2024-04-04 22:06:34+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:species
Landry GAIFFE (2024-04-14 11:19:27+00:00): Hello, indeed, I will correct that if possible when I have some time in about two weeks
pesec (2021-09-01 05:21:08+00:00): Старайтесь, чтобы названия правок отражали суть вносимых изменений.
Данная правка добавляет проезд, который пересекает пешеходную дорожку, что не отражено правкой.
Hanan Tikveša (2021-08-31 15:59:16+00:00): Hi.
This way you added had no "significant tags"
for example:
building=yes
highway=residential
and so on.
i removed everything you added in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110521809
eggie (2022-01-04 11:06:12+00:00): Beste

Niet dubbel taggen svp.. Alleen de adresnode benutten 
Ik heb de bedrijfsnaam weer verwijderd.
MVG
eggie