piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Bergfan (2024-12-19 21:59:46+00:00): War vor ein paar Jahren das letzte Mal oben. Da stand ein recht einfaches Holzkreuz ohne Beschriftung am höchsten Punkt (Habe jetzt extra das Foto herausgesucht).

In neueren Karten scheint sich die Bezeichnung Merschenhöhe tatsächlich auf den Sattel zu beziehen (habe nochmal alle Karten durchgesehen, die ich finden konnte), während in älteren Karten die Bezeichnung gar nicht vorkommt, aber teilweise die Höhenangabe des Sattels angeführt ist.

Ein Sattel der "Höhe" heißt ist in dieser Gegend einmalig. Sonst ist mit Höhe immer ein oben abgeflachter Gipfel oder ein (Abschnitt eines) Bergkamm(es) mit mehreren Gipfeln/Anhöhen gemeint.

Für mich hört sich die Bezeichnung für eine Anhöhe logischer an. Habe aber nichts dagegen den Namen beim Gipfel zu entfernen.
kuhni74 (2024-12-20 16:13:29+00:00): Vielen Dank! Das mit "Höhe" finde ich einleuchtend. Ich hab den Namen wieder eingefügt mit einem erläuternden "fixme" auf beiden Objekten. Das Kreuz ist jedoch, wie schon erwähnt, eine Spur weiter nordöstlich, man sieht es im DOM.
PPete2 (2026-06-02 09:42:20+00:00): siehe dazu auch https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4544996
alester (2022-07-08 02:11:53+00:00): I've reverted both this and the subsequent changeset that removed relations for no apparent reason. I then spent 30 seconds to resolve the two trivial issues with them.

It isn't your job to resolve issues like this around the world. If you don't know how to properly troubleshoot and fix a relation, or don't have sufficient local knowledge to do so, it's fine to leave it as-is and allow a local or a more experienced contributor to fix the issue.
kartler175 (2022-07-08 14:23:52+00:00): 
I don't understand your problem with the result of my editing. As before, there are four buildings that can be represented as simple closed ways.

It doesn't make sense to split up these closed rings only to build relations around them again so later users like area renderers can build simple rings again.

The simple ways are easier and safer to maintain and consume fewer resources for data storage, data retrieval and further processing.

Openstreetmap is a worldwide project and I don't see why I shouldn't be active worldwide as well. Why local knowledge should be necessary for fixing geometric problems I don't understand either.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
eggie (2022-07-07 15:24:58+00:00): Hi.. Ik merged the info with the present addressnode. Hint... first look for the addressnode and then add the info.
openings_hours in English please.. not in German.
Sunday.. = Su  not So.. 

Greetz,
eggie
eggie (2022-07-07 15:26:21+00:00): Your edits
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=123318744

I fixed the opening_hours..
Gr eggie
BCNorwich (2022-07-08 07:47:49+00:00): Hi, You've duplicated a highway here, Way: 1076584269 on top of Way: Leamington Road (1076584267).

I've removed the duplication and amended the tags on the existing highway. Can you check that it's now correct, please?

Regards Bernard.
MDB-BBURN (2022-07-08 11:48:07+00:00): yes it is correct. thanks
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-07 15:30:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123325568 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious changes in the USA - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6124
bxl-forever (2022-07-09 00:03:37+00:00): Hello,

I thought you might want to get some feedback on your first edit.

It looks like you have been tracing buildings on aerial imagery.  You should use "SPW(allonie) PICC numerical imagery" to draw buildings, otherwise you will corrupt the map by giving them strange shapes.  When you are editing the map, you can change the background map (one of the buttons on the right).

For instance, this building (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1076585334) is probably not one single building.  PICC imagery shows it differently.

The building here (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1076585333) has its official address as "1 Rue du Puits", and you gave it "41 Allée du Bois de Bercuit, unit 3".

There are 3 houses with exactly the same address next to each other, I think this is a mistake: three houses have "41 Allée du Bois de Bercuit", and you filled the "unit" box with 1, 2, 3 for them.  Normally, this box is reserved for apartments numbers within a building, it is very strange to have this on separate houses.  If that’s really how the municipality numbered them, you might want to use 41-1, 41-2 and 41-3 as the number, instead of that.

There might be some other issues but I don’t want to discourage you with too much information.  Hope this might help a little.
Icapitaine (2022-07-09 13:25:48+00:00): Thnak you for your informations and kind feedback ! 
I made some corrections. I'm sure of the configuration of these houses and their numbers as corrected
Have a nice day !
karr4s (2026-04-03 16:39:22+00:00): SIRET erroné (55204648400325 au lieu de 55204648401166). C'est corrigé.
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2026-04-07 06:48:20+00:00): Bonjour merci pour votre action. Bonne journée
SomeoneElse (2022-07-07 15:15:38+00:00): As requested earlier, please use changeset comments that explain to other mappers what you have done. "675" does not do this.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-07-07 15:30:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123325568 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious changes in the USA - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6124
karr4s (2026-04-03 16:46:54+00:00): SIRET erroné (55204648400325 au lieu de 55204648400234). C'est corrigé.
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2026-04-07 07:01:00+00:00): Bonjour merci pour la correction. Bonne journée
marc__marc (2023-03-28 22:36:41+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenu un peu tardivement :)
quel différennce faite vous en pratique entre le béton et le béton poreux ?
poreux voulant dire que l'eau passe à travers, j'ai du mal à comprendre comment c'est identifiable hormis pour une dale sur le toit d'un parking ou d'un batiment
Cordialement,
Marc
LS44 (2023-03-29 19:17:14+00:00): Bonjour, 
Dans le contexte d'un court de tennis, le béton est totalement lisse alors que le béton poreux (appelé parfois "quick") est tel que son nom l'indique. On remarque bien les espaces sur cette image zoomée :
https://tcwesthouse.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/dsc_00722.jpg
Je ne connais pas les détails, mais cette page les décrit : https://tcwesthouse.com/2021/04/13/terrains-de-tennis-les-avantages-du-quick/
Vu d'avion ou du satellite, je ne pense pas qu'on puisse les différencier.
Rien ne vaut un passage sur le terrain !
marc__marc (2023-03-29 20:32:34+00:00): c'est bien parce que vous connaissez l'endroit mieux que moi que je vous écrit :)
est-ce qu'on pourrait décrire cette surface comme un béton de qualité non parfaite ?
car il existe un attribut pour la régularité du sol (smoothness)
Cordialement,
Marc
karr4s (2026-04-03 16:41:53+00:00): SIRET erroné (55204648400325 au lieu de 55204648401125). C'est corrigé.
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2026-04-07 06:49:03+00:00): Bonjour merci pour votre correction.
Bonne journée
SHARCRASH (2022-07-07 13:17:09+00:00): + farmyard updated
GEO ECLA (2022-07-11 14:40:40+00:00): Merci !-)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123320573
Frans S (2022-07-09 08:44:45+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say that your mappings are not accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to these points:
A: buildings not always accurately drawn. Please pay more attention on following the outlines of a building (with extensions).
B: Overlapping buildings drawn.
C: Multiple buildings drawn as 1 building.
D: Nodes of buildings linked to other buildings or roads.
E: Rectangular buildings not squared. They are mostly strict rectangular.



Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123320609
eggie (2022-07-07 13:53:12+00:00): Tip   access=no is bijna altijd fout en geeft problemen.. ook op een paaltje. 
bicycle en foot=yes zijn default en hoef je niet toe te voegen. 
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=123320878

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-07-07 13:55:20+00:00): accesstags aangepast
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Tag:barrier%3Dbollard

mofa en moped yes is wel nuttig om toe te voegen.
Frans S (2022-07-09 10:10:25+00:00): Hello. I reverted most of the buildings due to poor mapping quality
Best regards
eggie (2022-07-07 13:59:34+00:00): Die doorsteken zijn overigens geen fietspaden.  Er staan wel paaltjes.
Het zijn gewoon toegagswegen op de parkeerplaats.
Er liggen hier ook wegen op elkaar. We noemen dat duplicated ways. 
De Iseomeer loopt haakt op een andere weg verder.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=123321386
eggie (2022-07-07 14:06:23+00:00): Ik heb de wegklasse weer aangepast en de opgeplakte wegen verwijderd.
Elk begin is moeilijk.
defaulttags verwijderd van paaltjes. access=no betekent Verboden toegang en geeft problemen. 
gr eggie
dmpcc (2022-07-08 13:39:33+00:00): Bedankt voor de feedback :)
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-08-14 22:42:35+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629613829 - is it a separate carriageway?
kmarkish_lyft (2023-08-15 18:03:37+00:00): Hi, Mateusz! My name is Kate, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. 
In this changeset, I made edits only with lanes and turn:lanes tags without modifying the existing geometry - https://osmcha.org/changesets/123321403/.
It seems to me that this version of adding a separate link is reasonable here due to the physical barrier at the intersection and the long solid marking line. We can see this barrier on Lyft-owned street level image from 06-01-2023 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l22n6PWOJ6V0NTMEeTyzLAX7TJuKoSAH/view?usp=sharing. 
There are different approaches for mapping such cases, in our practice we try to follow general logic and principles adopted in the OSM and stick to the short links, but at the same time we don’t correct other options of mapping.


Regards, Kate.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-08-15 19:23:13+00:00): note that solid line is not a physical separation, does not split way into a separate carriageway and should not cause separate way to be mapped (some extreme exceptions may apply, but in general separate lanes are not mapped as separate carriageways)
kmarkish_lyft (2023-08-16 14:56:42+00:00): Many thanks for this note! You make a really good point, and I share your opinion that the solid line isn’t the valid reason for adding a separate link. 
However, the link was added earlier by another OSM member -https://osmcha.org/changesets/103197300/  and in our practice, we try not to change geometry without apparent reasons for that. 
In my view, there is no reason to delete the link since the physical barrier can be seen on a street -level image from 2023-06 taken from South Potomac Street (39°34′26″N; 104°49′37″W - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l22n6PWOJ6V0NTMEeTyzLAX7TJuKoSAH/view?usp=sharing)
BCNorwich (2022-07-08 08:21:42+00:00): Hi, Highway Way: Trincomalee Hwy (1076594841) duplicates an existing highway so I've removed it. Please make any necessary corrections to the existing way.

Regards Bernadr.
Frans S (2022-07-09 08:22:59+00:00): Hello.  I have sent you a PM about your mapping skills. Please take the time to read it and to improve your mapping skills.
It is a waste of time to map like this because a validator will revers (remove) these mappings. 
The result is than that all your tasks involved needs to be mapped again from scratch.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123321605
Frans S (2022-07-09 08:31:23+00:00): Please take a look to this webpage on which you can see your original mappings, and how they should be.
I corrected all your mappings here.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=123391710
Read the legend for explanation.
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123321605
highflyer74 (2022-07-07 18:04:11+00:00): Moin!

Sei so nett, aussagekräftige Änderungssatzkommentare zu verwenden, da "Updates", "Ergänzungen" etc. praktisch nichts aussagen, da dies für alle Änderungen zutrifft.

Weitere Infos, warum wir das so machen, findest Du hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments

Danke Dir!
Frans S (2022-07-08 15:08:23+00:00): Mappings reverted due to poor mapping quality
Frans S (2022-07-09 08:49:18+00:00): Hello. 
Reverted due to poor mappings
TrickyFoxy (2022-07-19 13:17:07+00:00): 👋 Реку-то вместо дороги зачем сделали?:)

p.s. С возвращением спустя шесть лет:)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123322345
eggie (2022-07-07 15:10:26+00:00): Ha Chiem..  Je vraagt feedback  ..
warnings:crossing_ways:highway-highway
Kijk naar de waarschuwing. Je nieuwe weg heeft geen verbindingsnode met de kruisende weg Holtkamperspad. 
Verder kun je oneway=no weer verwijderen. 
MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-07-07 16:06:14+00:00): Verbinding wegen gemaakt... oneway=no verwijderd
Gr eggie
便携式小朋友 (2022-07-29 09:00:24+00:00): 少个站台
便携式小朋友 (2022-07-29 09:00:42+00:00): 38
Frans S (2022-07-08 14:51:56+00:00): Reverted mappings due to poor mapping quality
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:11:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
Langlaeufer (2022-07-07 18:34:18+00:00): Das sind doch vermutlich (wilde) Trampelpfade?
Ist da tatsächlich Radfahren und Reiten anders als zu Fuß gehen verboten?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123322509
Langlaeufer (2022-07-07 18:35:47+00:00): Und wenn auf wegen Radfahren per blauem Verkehrsschild erlaubt ist, dann ist es auch kein footway
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123322509
Langlaeufer (2022-07-07 18:56:34+00:00): Ich hab das mal geändert. Sollte ich irgendwo inhaltlich falsch liegen gibt bitte bescheid.
emergency99 (2022-07-07 15:21:09+00:00): Also wenn ich auf die verlinkte Website schau steht gleich oben zwei mal “Messstelle Hermannskogel”. Wo wird da ein anderer Name verwendet?
stefanct (2022-07-07 21:15:00+00:00): "Wiener Luftmessnetz - Messstelle Hermannskogel" (so war das Gebäude(!) vorher benannt) steht dort als Überschrift, dann "Messstelle Hermannskogel" im Text, wobei der Link auf den Gipfel geht, auf der Karte aber auch die Messstelle zu sehen ist, mit dem Namen "Hermannskogel". Das ist auch der Dateiname des Fotos. Nur "Hermannskogel" wird z.B. auch in der Übersicht auch https://www.wien.gv.at/umwelt/luft/messstellen/ und in den diversen Tabellen wie zb. https://www.wien.gv.at/ma22-lgb/luftsl.htm und Dokumenten wie https://www.digital.wienbibliothek.at/wbrup/download/pdf/3902180?originalFilename=true häufig verwendet - da es in dem Kontext klar ist, dass es such um Messstellen und nicht geografische Orte handelt. Jedenfalls is sehr eindeutig, dass "Messstelle Hermannskogel" eine Beschreibung und keine Name ist. Wenn überhaupt wäre der Name nur Hermannskogel und das ist auch nicht wirklich sinnvoll, aber man könnte es in ref setzen. In wirklichkeit ist das halt einfach nur eine Beschreibung, die sich auf den jeweiligen Ort bezieht, damit man das Ding irgendwie referenzieren kann. Eindeutige (Eigen)Namen sind etwas anderes.
tux67 (2022-07-07 14:12:20+00:00): source was Südtirol Orthofoto 2020
Frans S (2022-07-08 14:40:11+00:00): reverted mappings due to poor mapping quality
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:16:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:15:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:07:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
eggie (2022-07-07 15:01:25+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback   In dat geval is het 'nodig' om een BAG  terugmelding te doen naar het Kadaster...., want anders komt de verkeerde situatie weer terug bij een periodieke update vanuit de BAG.
Doe je zelf een terugmelding dat de nummering hier verkeerd is. Gewoon op het potloodje rechts klikken. 
Weet je het zeker dat het Kadaster het verkeerd heeft? Dit komt echt niet veel voor.
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=weegje%20171&resultOffset=0&objectId=0585100001327503&geometry.x=101831.24&geometry.y=421131.6729985&zoomlevel=7&detailsObjectId=

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:42:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:33:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
user_16476429 (2022-07-07 17:40:11+00:00): Hej Michał! 

Wyspa, którą usunąłeś na prawdę istnieje. Znajdziesz ją pod tym linkiem: https://i.ibb.co/0DyJ3Yv/Zrzut-ekranu-2022-07-7-o-19-36-21.png

To mała wysepka usypana przez mojego wujka w latach 2000-2006, która istnieje do dziś. 

Bardzo proszę o przywrócenie jej, to bardzo ważne dla mnie.

Pozdrawiam, również z Gdyni
RicoElectrico (2022-07-07 18:09:04+00:00): To jak to jest, że jedynie na Apple Maps (sprawdziłem - dla nie-applowców tu jest demo https://developer.apple.com/maps/web/ ) istnieje ta wysepka? Żadna inna ortofotomapa Geoportalu, zdjęcie z Google Earth, Bing nie mają tej wysepki. Nawet te o porównywalnej rozdzielczości. Rozmiar sugeruje, że to rower wodny. Zresztą trochę dalej na północny zachód jest jakaś łódka.
maraf24 (2022-07-08 12:45:17+00:00): Gratulacja dla wujka. 
Archiwalne zdjęcia lotnicze wskazują, że w podanym czasie powstała ta wyspa: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/729270787
I na początku była to niewielka kupka kamieni.
user_16476429 (2022-07-09 16:19:10+00:00): Hej maraf24, dziękuję!
Czy jest możliwość udostępnienia map lotniczych, o których mowa? :)
skquinn (2022-07-07 14:28:53+00:00): This also included data from web searches
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:14:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:39:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
mavl (2022-07-08 04:25:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123341796 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6126].
redd (2022-07-09 16:09:33+00:00): Korrektur: Buschfläche
Frans S (2022-07-09 08:47:51+00:00): Hello. Reverted most of the buildings due to poor mapping quality
Best regards
ThomR (2023-04-06 06:37:52+00:00): Bonjour, 
Il semble que vous ayez créé deux pharmacies Sainte-Barbe à quelques jours d'intervalle. 
Celle rue Tiblier Verne (nœud 9872591367) doit-elle être supprimée ?
raspbeguy (2023-04-06 06:43:48+00:00): Hum, étrange en effet. Je ne me souviens plus exactement de la disposition de la rue, mais je vérifierai ce soir.
Syl (2023-05-24 08:07:05+00:00): Bonjour, je viens de corriger.
raspbeguy (2023-05-24 08:29:03+00:00): Merci. Il me semblait avoir corrigé suite à mon message, mais il semble que j'ai oublié d'envoyer les modifications...
Hufkratzer (2022-08-01 18:18:07+00:00): Hi, you have removed the building tag from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/446871831/history and replaced it with leisure=horse_riding some weeks ago. This object looks like a building in the aerial view, therefore I assume it was not intended to remove the building tag. Maybe it is a riding hall / indoor arena (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building=riding_hall). The horse_riding tag is not appropriate for buildings (or outdoor arenas), it is for complete riding centres, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=horse_riding and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1038324748 .
L'imaginaire (2022-07-09 13:43:08+00:00): Dag Kris,
Bedankt voor alle aanvullingen en opmerkingen. Ik denk dat we alle percelen van de "Vallei van de Zuidleie" best in één natuurgebied steken. De afzonderlijke delen (Warandeputten, Leiemeersen) kunnen we dan apart een naam geven met de tag place=locality. Dat lijkt me een elegantere oplossing dan met namen tussen haakjes te werken. Het is een werkje waar ik me wel mee wil bezighouden. Ik veronderstel dat de  Warandeputten Zuid dan ook opnieuw mogen aangeduid worden als moerassig gebied, want die tag had je verwijderd.

Geef hieronder of via een privé-bericht gerust een seintje mocht je hierbij nog vragen of opmerkingen hebben.

Vriendelijke groeten,
Seppe
KrisDC (2022-07-11 12:06:25+00:00): Warandeputten Zuid is in volle ontwikkeling naar moerasbos.
Doe gerust, helaas ben ik nog niet zo vertrouwd met de kneepjes en ontbreekt mij ook de tijd om er intensief mee bezig te zijn.
Groeten
Kris
mavl (2022-07-08 04:25:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 123341796 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6126].
martin-kokos (2022-07-12 09:42:05+00:00): Hi. You have left some duplicate nodes of way nodes in your edit.
way node: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9872527555
duplicate node: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9872684852
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123324578