piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Viajero Perdido (2018-11-10 00:01:36+00:00): PS, this breaks auto-routing, eg to Cadomin, or Nordegg to Hinton, and thus needs to be fixed promptly.
MappingJunkie (2018-11-14 06:22:39+00:00): My goal with these edits is to improve the map.  I am committed to a cordial and production discussion on the topic.  As you are the major editor in this region, I lean to your judgement as to the appropriate tagging and the best way to fix the issues.
Viajero Perdido (2018-11-16 15:45:25+00:00): Thanks.  I'm back at a real computer now, and slowly getting over jet lag.

This is the recent discussion on the issue.  Would you mind having a look?  https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=62581

I'd still need to be convinced track is appropriate here, especailly since it appears that discussion ended up leaning the other way.

But as it is, the whole region would need to be consistently mapped one way, or the other.  As it is right now, 1) you can't car-auto-route from Hinton to Robb via the FTR (logical choice) and 2) the entire Chungo Road / Wapiabi Road network and their tributaries are orphaned from the road network, being linked only by tracks.

If you agree, would you mind reverting these changes?  If you're unfamiliar with the tools for that, let me know; I can do it.

Thank you,
VP in Edmonton
MappingJunkie (2018-11-16 15:51:52+00:00): Yes, please revert. After looking over the way roads are tagged in your region, I agree with you. I wasn’t intending to start an edit war. It is great to have regional editors who are keeping the map consistent.
Viajero Perdido (2018-11-16 15:59:51+00:00): Roger wilco, thanks for understanding.

Do you mind if I also revert the two Ghost Lake and the Spray Lakes changeset? (After review that is; I haven't looked at them yet.)  Also, are there any changes in those four changesets that are unrelated to this issue, that you think should be kept?

Thanks,
VP
Viajero Perdido (2018-11-16 16:13:43+00:00): Correction; "haven't more than glanced at them yet".
MappingJunkie (2018-11-16 16:46:38+00:00): No, they can all be reverted.
Viajero Perdido (2018-11-17 01:26:19+00:00): Done for the four changesets, thanks.

I won't look at your other changesets (eg USA); that's outside "my area" so I claim no local knowledge.  :)

Cheers and happy mapping,
VP
mueschel (2018-11-09 10:32:08+00:00): Hi,
you added the tag "tm_data=true" on many objects. This looks like a mistake. Could you check it?
Thanks!
nathan206 (2018-11-09 15:28:48+00:00): Ooops, my bad, yes this was a mistake, I have removed the tags, thanks for the heads up :)
Andrea Musuruane (2018-11-11 18:35:28+00:00): Ciao,

In Italia, i numeri civici (tag addr:*) non vanno messi sugli edifici. Le direttive dell'ISTAT, che tutti i comuni italiani devono seguire, dicono che "il numero civico [è] costituito dal numero che contraddistingue l’accesso esterno che dall’area di circolazione immette direttamente o indirettamente alle unità immobiliari (abitazioni, esercizi, uffici, ecc.)":
https://rnc.istat.it/DOCUMENTI/Manuale_per_le_operazioni_sul_campo.pdf

I numeri civici devono quindi essere inseriti come nodi in corrispondenza dell'accesso (porta, cancello, ecc).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Addresses

Ciao,

Andrea
Svetlana Montuffar Simonova (2025-07-29 18:56:43+00:00): Can you please explain the origin of the suggested name?
EneaSuper (2018-11-09 10:14:21+00:00): Ciao Cirobob, ho apprezzato molto il tuo ennesimo lavoro qui nel Medio Ponente. Per quanto riguarda i prati nelle piazze dovresti creare un multipoligono, in modo da renderizzare il tutto correttamente.
narceliodesa (2018-11-09 00:40:44+00:00): No lugar de service eu usaria unclassified.
Ou mesmo residential, já que não são vias de serviço e sim vias em uma área residencial.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64307433
Jakson Aquino (2018-11-09 01:16:54+00:00): É, de fato, rua residencial. Como faço para indicar que a rua é muito estreita? A saída da Travessa São Caetano para a Rua Carvalho Mota tem menos de 2 m de largura. Seria bom se a renderização do mapa indicasse isso e se os roteadores evitassem a via. Passei por lá por estar seguindo rota calculada pelo OSMAnd.
Jakson Aquino (2018-11-09 01:24:22+00:00): Talvez, highway=service e service=alley
Na página wiki em inglês diz que essas tags têm sido usadas na Europa para ruas estreitas de cidades medievais.
narceliodesa (2018-11-09 11:25:10+00:00): A combinação highway=service e service=alley é para o acesso a quintais, "portas dos fundos", saídas de emergência, depósitos ou anexos. 
Veja: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Tag:service%3Dalley

Podemos usar a tag: width, mas ela não afeta na renderização. A via continua sendo renderizada com a mesma largura de uma via residencial comum.
narceliodesa (2018-11-09 11:29:31+00:00): Outra tag que pode ser aplicada nesses caso é : narrow=yes que indica que a via é estreita. A questão é fazer com que os roteadores, como o OSMAnd trabalhem com essas tags para evitar essas vias.
Jakson Aquino (2018-11-09 12:16:49+00:00): Eu adicionei valores aproximados para as larguras: width=4 e width=2.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64323121
Só agora vi sua segunda mensagem com a dica de usar narrow=yes
Jakson Aquino (2018-11-09 12:19:52+00:00): Adicionei narrow=yes também. Vamos ver como renderiza e se os roteadores levam em consideração. De qualquer maneira, conceitualmente, está mais correto agora.
Obrigado!
DaveF (2021-01-04 00:04:25+00:00): Hi
Is there a reason this is tagged as a train station?https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/638367309
jjsomewhere (2021-01-04 06:25:50+00:00): Hi Dave,

Good question! Yes, it was built as the first part of Plymouth's first railway station, but the location for the station was changed and the building was sold and reopened as a pub called the No Place Inn. I've spoken to local historians and others who've confirmed this, but the best description is the one below. At some point we are going to add a load more historical information to this area, I just haven't had time yet.

"In the early 1840s the three towns of Plymouth, Devonport and Stonehouse were having a heated debate about where to build a railway station that would best serve all of the towns. The South Devon Railway wanted to expand the growing railway network and build a line from Exeter to Plymouth. At the same time, the Cornwall Railway wanted to build a railway from Falmouth to Plymouth. Where should the railways meet? Brought in to make the decision, Isambard Kingdom Brunel chose a site at the top of Eldad Hill which was included in the subsequent Act of Parliament obtained in 1844. Work on the site commenced around this time and a building was erected to act as the waiting room and ticket office with hotel rooms upstairs. It was built in the Italianate style. Unfortunately the matter did not rest and further debate continued with a resident of Plymouth, a Mr George Saltau proclaiming that Brunel’s location was “no place” to build a railway station. Brunel’s decision was overturned, the station’s location was moved to Millbay but the insult stuck. The building was sold to become a public house and was named “The No Place Inn”. It is now student accommodation but stands as the only remnant of the grand railway terminus that Brunel had planned for Plymouth."

Quote from: https://plymouthhistoryfestival-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/plymouthhistoryfestival.com/2020/05/27/walks-with-history-victoria-park-2/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16097407567882&amp_ct=1609740796347&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fplymouthhistoryfestival.com%2F2020%2F05%2F27%2Fwalks-with-history-victoria-park-2%2F

Happy to discuss further if required, I live very nearby.

Jeremy.
DaveF (2021-01-04 09:03:20+00:00): Hi
So it's never actually been a train station? OSM is a map to reselect the current situation.
At the moment I'm cleaning up railway stations in the UK ensuring there are the correct number in the right location.   

Is the building South still called the Wyndnham Arms?
jjsomewhere (2021-01-04 09:39:37+00:00): I think my tags were correct, if minimal. For example converted churches can be shown as building=church and building:use=apartments (see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dapartments#Converted_Buildings_used_as_Apartments) which is a similar use case. However for clarity I have added lifecycle tags (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix) and an historic=railway_station tag. 

Its worth also mentioning that the building doesn't show on the map as a real live railway station because I specifically have not used railway=station.

building:use=apartments
disused:amenity=pub
disused:building=train_station
historic=railway_station

Jeremy.
PT-53 (2019-07-07 07:35:42+00:00): Hallo YukonTramp,
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz diesen Kanal https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/642314271/history neu eingezeichnet. Dieser Kanal überdeckt auf der östl. Seite teilweise diesen Bach https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/453773299/history.
In keep right wird dazu dieser Hinweis angezeigt:
https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=95&error=107386876
Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?
Fragende Grüße
PT-53 (2019-07-14 06:06:57+00:00): Hallo YukonTramp, 
Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?
Fragende Grüße
PT-53 (2019-07-21 06:40:04+00:00): Hallo YukonTramp, 
es wäre schön, wenn Du dir das nochmal anschauen würdest. Oder soll ich den Kanal wieder löschen?
Fragende Grüße
PT-53 (2019-07-30 05:24:31+00:00): Keine Reaktion > Kanal gelöscht
anu_smita (2018-12-15 15:09:21+00:00): Hi Sassquatch,

I could see every road near ភូមិត្រពាំងអញ្ចាញ (Trapeang Anhchanh DK13 Community) is marked as path roads which can be marked as residential roads.
Ex : way 151562700 , way 151562703

Please review your edits made and let me know if i can go ahead and change classification accordingly.

Thank you,
anu_smita
Sassquatch (2018-12-17 21:25:55+00:00): Hi, anu_smita, 

I didn’t edit the classification of the ways near the Trapeang Anhchanh DK13 Community, node 2077065367, so feel free to update the classifications to residential. 

Thanks!
Sassquatch
highflyer74 (2018-11-18 17:12:21+00:00): Moin und willkommen bei OSM!

An dieser Stelle wurde durch Dich die Beleuchtung entfernt und der Bodenbelag verändert. Bei meinem letzten Besuch in der Böttcherstraße habe ich nichts dergleichen gesehen. Was ist denn die Grundlage für Deine Änderungen?

Viele Grüße!
opendcc (2018-11-09 07:00:25+00:00): Hallo,

willkommen auf OpenStreetMap.

Bei der Verbindung von Hochstraß nach Sorsbach handelt es sich um eine allgemein freigegebene Gemeindeverbindungsstraße. Die Oberflächenbeschaffenheit ist allerdings eher mau (um es vorsichtig zu forumlieren), das war auch so eingetragen. Trotzdem sollte man das nicht als Track kennzeichnen, siehe hierzu auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway=track?uselang=de.

Servus Wolfgang
b-jazz (2018-11-09 01:09:37+00:00): Hello @braidrass and welcome to OpenStreetMap. Your contribution is appreciated. I noticed you asked for a review. Most of your addition looks just fine but I wanted to let you know about a feature to "square" the corners of things like buildings by selecting the line and hitting 'Shift-S' or right clicking the line and selecting the Square function. It will make sure all of the corners are 90 degrees, like most buildings are built with.
We hope you come back again.
Glassman (2018-11-10 19:42:01+00:00): Great edit - thanks for updating to the new name and adding the address info
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64308424
Cantuck (2018-11-08 22:24:24+00:00): How can I change this comment?
HubMiner (2019-05-13 02:37:16+00:00): Greetings, thanks for capturing this Christmas market!  Please see this example and wiki for tagging Christmas markets.  Please consider updating the tags.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5282885292
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:xmas:feature#Christmas_Market
shuui (2019-05-13 13:39:50+00:00): I've added the xmas:feature=market tag. The other tags seem to be duplicates of existing tags for name, opening_hours, website, etc. So I've left those off.
HubMiner (2019-05-13 15:00:59+00:00): Thanks!
mariotomo (2020-02-07 14:14:51+00:00): hola, gracias por añadir información a OSM.  Cuidado con las importaciones de otras bases de datos.  Con tantos conjuntos de cambios como este, y sólo en este con 169 "way", 43 "relation", y más de 1000 nodos, mejor mencionar las intenciones en la wiki, y pedir revisión de los datos añadidos.  Por favor considera las https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines, gracias.
mueschel (2018-11-09 10:30:41+00:00): Hi,
you added keys like "destination:lanes:ref" here - the usual order is "destination:ref:lanes" (and likewise "destination:ref:to:lanes"). 
Could you have a look and fix these?
Thanks!
vorpalblade-kaart (2018-11-12 15:24:14+00:00): Absolutely.
Thanks for the information.
Glassman (2018-11-10 19:45:27+00:00): Tip: Change the comments for each upload - it helps later to understand what you were doing.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64308731
rui228 (2021-05-10 17:01:13+00:00): Rua Nossa Senhora de Campos, conforme consta na toponímia da Câmara de Santa Maria da Feira.
abakus_uploader (2018-11-09 23:30:24+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
pitscheplatsch (2018-12-02 13:18:08+00:00): should be reverted?
freebeer (2018-12-02 22:52:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 65107809 where the changeset comment is: Yes, I think so.  Please do not add a tourist bed-and-breakfast at your home or any personal info to OSM, and please only add real things with factual info, as what you do is visible to the whole world.
user_3022894 (2020-10-06 14:16:18+00:00): Hi EvanE,
auch, wenn es länger her ist: Ich wollte nur sagen, dass ich die layer-Tags von den Tunnel-Ways am Dortmunder Hauptbahnhof bald wahrscheinlich wieder entferne. Im Changeset dieses Kollegen hier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320802117/history war das layer-Tag bereits von der Unterführung wieder entfernt worden. Dabei wurde es auch von einem Way entfernt, aber eben nur von einem, nicht von allen.

Ich weiß, dass Tunnel normalerweise mindestens layer=-1 haben sollten. Aber können wir für Dortmund Hbf evtl. eine Ausnahme machen? Es handelt sich ja schon um einen Tunnel, aber wir haben mit Mentz die Bahnsteige und deren Ausstattung auf level=1 und layer=1 gesetzt, so passte es aus unserer Sicht wieder. Weil die ja darüber liegen und man für den Bahnhofstunnel nicht wirklich sagen kann, dass er "unter der Erde" ist. Man könnte natürlich auch nur ein covered=yes nehmen, aber das würden andere dann wahrscheinlich wieder bemängeln.

Mein Versuch ist gerade nur, die layer für die Unterführung einheitlich hin zu kriegen.

Viele Grüße, Lukas
user_3022894 (2020-11-23 14:48:24+00:00): Habe jetzt layer=0 vereinheitlicht.
freeExec (2018-11-09 06:32:53+00:00): Вы это будете в дальнейшим отслеживать?
Т.к. в последнее время пошла мода на преобразование сельский поселений в городские. И большой шанс, что названия поменяют, а статус останется прежним, т.к. он мало кому интересен и ошибка может висеть годами.
aharvey (2018-11-09 01:53:55+00:00): maxspeed is good, but did you mean to shorten the name? https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/4375369
aharvey (2018-11-09 01:51:58+00:00): What's this square river inside the shopping center?
SammysHP (2018-11-10 10:12:20+00:00): Auch wenn es dieser Kran mal wieder in die Medien geschafft hat, ist es dennoch "nur" eine Baustelle. Dieser Kran ist – zumindest theoretisch – beweglich und nur "vorübergehend" dort aufgestellt. Siehe dazu auch die Anmerkung im Wiki:
 
"Nicht für nur vorübergehend aufgestellte Kräne auf Baustellen. Mobile Kräne werden nicht erfasst."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:man_made%3Dcrane
 
Außerdem halte ich einen Kran für keine Attraktion. Kräne gibt es viele, dieser steht halt nur schon etwas länger hier.
 
Auch der Name ist nicht offiziell. Dann müsste es schon ein Kunstwerk oder so sein und vom Künstler entsprechend benannt. Die Bezeichnung in einer Satiresendung reicht dafür nicht aus.
 
Ich bitte dich daher, den Kran wieder zu löschen.
Nakaner (2018-11-10 10:24:33+00:00): Hallo,

ich sehe das etwas anders. Wenn der Kran so lange steht, greift die Regel "wir mappen nichts Temporäres" nicht mehr. Da müsste manche Verbindungsrampe am Ende unfertiger Autobahnen gelöscht werden, selbst wenn der Weiterbau nicht absehbar ist.

tourism=attraction klingt für mich nach Tagging für den Renderer. Wird er in Reiseführern erwähnt?

Wenn der Name eher ein spöttischer Name der Einheimischen ist, ist loc_name=* besser als name=*.

Statt disused=yes würde ich disused:man_made=crane taggen. disused=yes kehrt die Bedeutung des Haupt-Tags um und widerspricht grundlegenden Entwurfskonzepten des typischen Designs von OSM-Tags.

Viele Grüße

Michael
SammysHP (2018-11-10 10:28:01+00:00): Ich habe den Namen ehrlich gesagt vor dem Bericht in extra3 noch nie gehört. Dann werde ich das Tagging folgendermaßen ändern:
 
access=private
crane:type=floor-mounted_crane
height=15
disused:man_made=crane
gpserror (2020-09-22 19:00:01+00:00): Hey, I wonder you could convert this to a "T" type intersection.  Looking at a lot of style guides it seems that drawing curved lanes through intersections for individual lanes isn't suggested, plus it makes maintaining turn restrictions a hassle (which was what I was trying to fix).  Though this is not exactly the same case, https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/71825/traffic_light-complex-intersection is one way to look at things.  Just wondering what your ideas were?
nevw (2018-11-09 08:47:28+00:00): Where you have placed the furniture shop is very unlikely. Did you mean to place it over the Amart Furniture shop location? If so, can you re-locate it to be over the building Amart occupies instead of a residential house.
nevw (2018-11-10 10:59:03+00:00): I surveyed the area today and have shifted your node to the Amart Furniture store location
aharvey (2018-11-15 03:45:06+00:00): Hi, since the building already existing at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/336023262 and it looks like these are different places within the building I've made them nodes sitting in the building in https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64512163/
pitscheplatsch (2018-11-09 16:25:36+00:00): Hi Yamato Y, welcome to OSM.

May I know the reason behind deleting several mapped objects? Thanks.

See https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=64312787
Russ McD (2018-11-12 11:39:23+00:00): Way: 642404272
Akram - you have added this as a residential road.  Its courtesy to the rest of the mappers to add a source tag as to where it came from.
To me it looks more like a small path, but no matter what it is, you did not connect the road to the footpath, using the same node.  Do you understand the importance of this ?
Please take the time to learn more about OSM editing before working on important features like roads.
ak_ram (2018-11-12 13:14:41+00:00): Hi Russ McD,

Thanks for the feedback.

Basis  our internal quality feedback, the given way id is not required to be created which is in-line with your observation. Hence i am deleting the segment.

Will be more careful moving forward.

Thanks,
ak_ram.
SomeoneElse (2018-11-12 15:09:15+00:00): @Russ McD - of the previous 40 edits are there similar problems with those too?  If so, it might be easiest if we (the DWG) revert the previous 40 changes which haven't already been dealt with to allow @ak_ram to start afresh, as it were?
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.
ak_ram (2018-11-12 15:24:35+00:00): Hi Russ McD,

I will recheck all my edits done and will make appropriate changes as required.

Thank you,
ak_ram.
ak_ram (2018-11-12 17:47:06+00:00): Hello Russ McD,

I have rechecked all my edits and necessary changes were made. All the edits were re-validated by our internal quality team also.

Thanks for your time and will be careful moving forward.

Thank you
ak_ram.
SomeoneElse (2018-11-14 08:46:21+00:00): @Russ McD Do you now agree with the two comments above, or are there still issues introduced by this mapper that have not been fixed?  Currently there are 42 edits at https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ak_ram/history only 2 of which have comments on.  If there are further problems please do let everyone know.
Russ McD (2018-11-15 01:43:48+00:00): Andy (DWG) - OK, lets leave it for now.  I will do some random checks on his previous work, but given a revert can sometime introduce more errors (and I see segments of the Superhighway have been since modified again by other mappers) it is probably easier to accept the 42 edits, and I will make individual changes if necessary.  Rgds, Russ.
Warin61 (2019-01-06 06:46:52+00:00): The Mt Victoria Post Office is at Number 109 NOT 111! 109 building was constructed as the post office but is not the present post office nor has it been for many years. 
Please correct your entry.
Warin61 (2019-01-06 06:48:52+00:00): Err .. correction to my above comment! Should read
The Mt Victoria Post Office is at Number 109 NOT 111! Number 111 was constructed as the post office but is not the present post office nor has it been for many years.
Please correct your entry.
radnaj (2019-01-06 11:01:37+00:00): I edited this when I visited. Just so I do not edit it wrong when I fix it, you mean that the number of the currently mapped post office is 109, instead of 111, right? Or that the building with number 111 is not the post office (since it would be in number 109)? 
Sorry for the mistake.
Warin61 (2019-01-06 21:35:07+00:00): Number 111 is not the Post Office, it was the Post Office when it was built and has a sandstone entry that says 'Post Office'. Hence the errors that keep occurring :) If you knock on their door they are very annoyed about being constantly asked for postal stuff. Why they don't put a small sign up is beyond me.

Number 109 is correctly marked as the Post office.
radnaj (2020-07-13 09:56:12+00:00): The Post Office tag was removed, and a note added to prevent this issue in the future.
Supaplex (2018-11-09 07:57:28+00:00): 加old_name?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/64314264
Vintagejhan (2018-12-12 13:57:24+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65409609
eggie (2018-11-09 08:43:37+00:00): Please don't add info on the map that is already there, I will delete your contribution.
Владимир К (2020-05-14 16:42:16+00:00): Здравствуйте!
Хотел бы ухнать почему вы поставили motor_vehicle=no? туда запрещено вообще всем заезжать? или это для того чтобы навигатор не вел через эти улицы?
alexey_zakharenkov (2018-11-09 20:15:59+00:00): Приветствую!
С точки зрения ОСМ, "Цветы 24" - не имя собственное, а наименование товара и режим работы, написанные на вывеске. Вывеска при желании заносится в тег inscription.
user_610278 (2018-11-12 07:38:04+00:00): Алексей, добрый день!
А что вносится конкретно в данном случае в поле name?
alexey_zakharenkov (2018-11-12 07:45:48+00:00): Добрый день!
А ничего не вносится. Не каждый объект на карте обязан иметь имя. Если владелец не постарался придумать своей точке имя, то маппер не должен делать это за него. При необходимости рендер сможет взять подпись из inscription (как здесь) или просто "Цветы" на локальном языке.