piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Agus2019 (2021-06-30 20:34:32+00:00): I'am underage
pitscheplatsch (2021-06-30 05:20:47+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107174478
pitscheplatsch (2021-06-30 05:20:56+00:00): revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107174417
skquinn (2021-06-30 07:44:48+00:00): Especially if the bounding box of your changeset covers basically the entire planet, you need something more explanatory than "general improvements" when describing your changeset. What exactly did you change/improve, and if it isn't obvious, why?
Srdjan023 (2021-06-30 19:19:08+00:00): Changeset seems to change one island in Greenland, river and two lakes in Russia and one small lake in Chile that's why bounding box covers the entire planet, please DON'T do this. Make two, three changesets that DON'T cover the entire planet.
Lee Carré (2021-07-09 22:22:10+00:00): What makes for http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments 🙂.
JriSv250 (2021-12-22 21:10:00+00:00): This was for an OSM Streak task that has since been removed, and I will no longer do "General improvements" changesets.
pitscheplatsch (2021-06-30 05:20:13+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107175156
pitscheplatsch (2021-06-30 05:20:04+00:00): revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107175108
ID`s (2021-06-30 06:32:14+00:00): Хорошее дополнение!
Chillik (2021-07-01 18:38:18+00:00): Да. Шикарное.
boopington (2022-06-07 04:08:43+00:00): why did you put an abandoned railroad into a road route relation?
rjhale1971 (2022-06-07 12:02:49+00:00): If I remember correctly - the abandoned railroad was there. I did change it into a trail or add a trail when it entered Erin. I drove through there sometime ago and there is an abandoned track which is now a trail. If I've done something wrong please feel free to fix my mistake.
amgusha (2021-11-25 15:26:48+00:00): Здравствуйте. А почему вы удалили ряд дорог в районе р. Пра? В частности, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/614772321 В конце прошлого года они точно присутствовали на местности.
iandees (2021-06-30 02:45:51+00:00): Welcome to OSM. The area you added doesn't look like a park or a footway. Please don't add fake parks to the map.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107176158
pitscheplatsch (2021-06-30 05:16:02+00:00): Hi 1gagarin, welcome to OSM.

Could you use the comment field of your created changeset for describing your map edits? Thanks.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
aharvey (2021-06-30 10:41:40+00:00): What's E473?

I'll change the surface to using a ; as value separator.
WoodWoseWulf (2021-06-30 03:48:15+00:00): Hi Edward,

Thanks for your recent contributions to OSM.

Just a bit of feedback - we generally use Title Case for place names.

I also have a question - is this beach James Corner or Janies Corner? I've heard of the latter before, but not the former.
Fizzie-DWG (2024-06-30 03:11:42+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153353681
WoodWoseWulf (2021-06-30 03:49:38+00:00): Hi again!
Is this beach actually called "cape hawke 2"? Or is that some kind of reference number?
aharvey (2021-06-30 10:39:40+00:00): This looks like the name of the Harbour not the beach, if the beach doesn't have a name then it can be left blank.
nevw (2021-06-30 06:31:43+00:00): Please use up to date imagery. Try Maxar or Esri, the Bing imagery being too old and not displaying the footways constructed since the imagery was taken. I have also disconnected the park boundaries from the roadway centrelines which has been that way for quite some time but is an incorrect way of mapping.
ravali_78 (2021-07-08 10:12:54+00:00): Hi
Removed invalid turn restriction by reenas. Kindly check with r12902091,https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107486192.
Thank you.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107178654
user_5359 (2021-07-07 08:10:11+00:00): Hello! What is the meaning of the tag "landuse=logging"="yes"? see http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/19cV
Kovoschiz (2021-06-30 11:34:43+00:00): Don't remove the `landuse=brownfield`. It shows it was previously something else.
aharvey (2021-06-30 10:49:20+00:00): Hi please see the comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107117225, the beach is already mapped. I have retained your area but used the JOSM replace geometry tool to retain the history from the original node and bring in the additional tags.
aharvey (2021-06-30 10:37:48+00:00): I updated the name to the proper name "Chinamans Beach", Green Point is separately mapped as a headland.
aharvey (2021-06-30 10:35:58+00:00): Given Gerringong Harbour is the name of the Harbour not the beach, I'm not sure we should apply this name to the beach? If the surface is a mixture of sand and gravel, then surface=sand;gravel would be the best way to tag this as it's machine readable and the common practice for multiple surface values.
topolusitania (2021-06-30 10:52:07+00:00): Olá
Tenho uma dúvida em relação aos ramais ferroviários abandonados, como este.
Deve-se desenhar as partes do ramal de Mora, em terrenos onde já nem o "canal ferroviário" existe ?
Estamos a mapear o que de facto não existe fisicamente no terreno...
Cumprimentos 
TL
Supaplex (2021-06-30 10:00:05+00:00): 恭喜編輯破萬了，再繼續邁向下一個一萬
ovruni (2021-06-30 06:05:16+00:00): Hola, tal como le he escrito anteriormente en el conjunto de cambios, el campo "Descripción" no es una etiqueta que utilicemos en OSM, tampoco lo es "tipo_edificacionipo".
Si tiene alguna duda sobre como mapear, puede hacerla por el canal de telegram https://t.me/osmpe o la lista de correos de la comunidad de OSM en Perú https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pe 
Saludos
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:40:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
GOwin (2021-06-30 06:33:26+00:00): Before making these changes, it would've been appreciated if you bothered to discuss it first in the changeset.

These classification reflect the  highway classification convention of  the local community. You may review them here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions#Roads
DP24PH (2021-06-30 10:55:04+00:00): Yikes! The whole PH mappy community needs thorough discussions and review that we have mapping convention as outlined above. Kindly review the highway classification convention to prevent further errors in any classification changes.
rthik007 (2021-07-08 12:38:37+00:00): Hi Gowin & DP24PH,

Thanks for bringing this to our notice. We had modified the classification of the highway based on the quality & length of the road as per the wiki. The wiki says https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions#Roads the secondary classification should serve 3 or more barangays/districts. Hence, in this location, since the road ends on a tertiary road and immediately follows the convention of a short secondary highway, it ends up creating a classification gap.
Which is why we had reclassified the secondary highway to tertiary, to maintain the continuity. If the method is wrong, please do let us know how we can approach such scenarios, and we will make sure to document these cases for the future reference of the mapping teams.

Refer link https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-YItf37KbKCk/YObxR5dITNI/AAAAAAAAG0s/Q2h1d4AKjwIW9rc5xnbgD3qnbqAHLWtHACNcBGAsYHQ/s0/image%2B%25282%2529.png?authuser=0

Thanks
 rthik007
GOwin (2021-07-10 01:09:41+00:00): Thank you for this more nuanced explanation instead of your changeset 107130566 comment "I have changed the classification of roads based on the surrounding area."

I know see that I left this area incomplete, leaving you to think that the "classification gap" is an error.

QA flags for "classification gaps" , especially in developing countries like ours, should not be automatically thought of as errors by mappers. Many of parts of our road networks are in development, and information from the ground is vital to reflect local use.

Next time, please ask or discuss the changeset to clarify the issue, rather than making a unilateral change that may cause loss of information from the ground.

Thank you.
rthik007 (2021-07-13 04:24:22+00:00): Hi Gowin,
Thanks for making the changes, the current change fixed the classification gap and made the uniformity at this location. Happy Mapping! 

Thank You
Leo Slager (2021-07-02 19:57:44+00:00): reverted due to vandalisme
351293 (2021-06-30 17:10:13+00:00): Changeset has been reverted with Changeset 107220115 due to discussions on Changeset 106652698 and Note 2719245
mundlk (2021-07-05 11:10:05+00:00): Hello,
I have added motor_vehicle=no as per the driver feedback. I have gone through all the discussions regarding the issue. Thanks for the valuable feedback and correcting my changes. Always happy to learn from the community. 
Thanks and Regards,
mundlk.
abakus_uploader (2021-06-30 22:30:37+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!
CjMalone (2021-07-04 21:22:54+00:00): Please don't use Google Maps as a source. Otherwise looks good. Thank you.
ChehrehBargi (2023-05-22 15:30:39+00:00): Hello
The junction on this highway is an official roundabout. Therefore, it should be registered as a highway connection.
Solheimajokull (2023-05-23 03:13:20+00:00): Hello ChehrehBargi, thank you for your comment.  I am not sure which roundabout you are referring to, would you be able to specify the feature in question?
ChehrehBargi (2023-06-19 04:16:26+00:00): Hello
Yes
  I saw it closely and corrected it.
dvdhoven (2021-06-30 09:31:02+00:00): Radknoten gehören immer auf die Kreuzung des Weges. Nicht auf irgend welche Wegweiser.
Sonst gibt es Fehlermeldungen in knooppuntnet.nl
Ich habe rcn_ref=14 wieder zurück gelegt wo es gehört.

Grüsse, Dick van den Hoven
MartinKausO (2021-06-30 12:22:03+00:00): Hallo Dick van den Hoven.
Wieder was gelernt. Ich hatte nur den Osmose Fehler "Dem Objekt fehlt ein Tag, das beschreibt, um welche Art von Merkmal es sich handelt. Das ist unerwartet für benannte Objekte." beheben wollen.
Gruß
Martin
Futur3r (2021-06-30 21:12:05+00:00): Salut,

est ce que tu peux faire des commentaires de changeset plus descriptif de tes modifications.

Aussi, les imports de nom de quartier au milieu des champs sont pas forcément utile.

Merci !
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107188992
user_5359 (2021-06-30 18:24:50+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (you are not a church). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data.
SafetyIng (2021-06-30 11:44:56+00:00): Hey,
dein Changeset-Kommentar ist leider falsch. Du hast keinen Namen geändert, sondern einen Platz komplett gelöscht...?
ovruni (2021-06-30 14:23:52+00:00): Hola, el uso de la etiqueta de nombre no se encuentra destinado para ser usado para agregar descripciones. [0], por lo que procedo a eliminar todos estos nombres que ha agregado. Si tiene alguna duda sobre como mapear, puede hacerla por el canal de telegram https://t.me/osmpe o la lista de correos de la comunidad de OSM en Perú https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-pe 
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Nombres#Los_nombres_no_son_para_descripciones
f_husni (2024-06-10 04:51:12+00:00): hallo, saya ingin bertanya terkait penamaan rumah yang bapak tulis di osm dengan nomor dan nama2?
Lee Carré (2021-07-09 22:23:43+00:00): An ice_house which covers half of Europe?

Smaller changeset areas, in future, please.

Also, what makes for http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments 🙂.
philippec (2021-06-30 17:36:34+00:00): Westoeter aed
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=3834766913302338
De pijl wijst naar de verkeerde richting.
Ik had in Geosetter rekening moeten houden met de lichtjes verkeerde positie van de foto van Zors.
ovruni (2021-06-30 14:27:50+00:00): En este conjunto de cambios se ha alterado la carretera generando ángulos agudos en carreteras. Procedo a revertir este conjunto de cambios.
Saludos
DD1GJ (2021-07-01 09:22:15+00:00): Revert, unsachgemäße Änderung. Dies ist kein schmaler Pfad sondern ein breiter und gut befestigter Waldweg.
mariotomo (2021-06-30 14:36:03+00:00): hola, recibas una bienvenida a OSM. necesitas ayuda para aprender cómo mejorar tus contribuciones? estás en un grupo o mapeas individualmente?

1) intenta agrupar tus cambios en conjuntos de cambios homogéneos, pero con más que un sólo cambio.
2) evita los nombres descriptivos.
3) disfruta del mapeo, que es una actividad social dentro de OSM.
danieldegroot2 (2021-11-02 09:34:17+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/56884726/history
"A mini-roundabout is a one-way street with right-of-way and a traversable centre island."

This looks to have (raised) kerbs, grass and a tree on the island. I wouldn't call it a traversable island.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout#Possible_misinterpretations

All incoming ways seem to have give way marks, which suggests a regular roundabout (as opposed to a rotary/circular).

Regards,

Daniel
gscscnd (2021-06-30 11:45:52+00:00): Zawsze dodawaj tag maxspeed:type i/lub source:maxspeed.
SomeoneElse (2021-07-25 14:56:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108565276, 108568002 where the changeset comment is: Reverting a mixture of edits that includes fantasy mapping and border vandalism.  Numerous attempts to engage with the mapper have failed.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5233 et al.
borovac (2021-06-30 08:20:30+00:00): Adding missing roads in Chile using MapWithAI detections #MSFTOpenMaps
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107191447
Stereo (2021-07-01 21:26:21+00:00): Moien yhuberty,

Wëlkomm, a bravo fir däin éichten Edit!

Vill Spaass beim Mappen an där schéiner Géigend.

Guillaume
Kovoschiz (2021-06-30 11:39:38+00:00): This is a podium underneath. The `building=apartments` only needs to have eg `building:min_level` added, although the layout can be complicated.
Pantanal5 (2021-07-02 17:10:32+00:00): Hi Kovoschiz, thanks for reaching out and providing the additional context. I see you’ve added those tags back, thanks! I’m wondering, what is the function of layer=0 in this case?
Kovoschiz (2021-07-02 23:15:38+00:00): I can understand why you have this question, and I agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately like this one , the region has many stacked ground-level features unconventionally tagged as `layer=1` when there's nothing below (worse still `covered=yes` or `tunnel=building_passage` changed to `layer=-1`). Since this "mistake" has occurred here (with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/804807388 running through on top also `layer=1`), I usually change to an explicit `layer=0` to prevent further redundancies (and potential errors around). It's not really good practice, but just in case. 
If you have doubts, I see that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer has some conflicting wordings on "0 should not be used explicitly" and "Features at layer 0 should not normally have a layer tag.". Given the ~47900 https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/layer=0 instances, this should be tolerable.
Pantanal5 (2021-07-05 09:43:16+00:00): I see, thank you for providing your explanation here. If I have any further questions I’ll be sure to reach out. Thanks again!
DD1GJ (2021-07-01 09:26:07+00:00): Teilrevert, unsachgemäße Änderung. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/302910744/history ist kein schmaler Pfad sondern ein breiter und gut befestigter Waldweg.
scai (2021-08-30 09:56:04+00:00): Hi Murksl,

"Sandkasten" ist vermutlich nicht der offizielle Name dieses Spielplatzes, oder? Als Namen tragen wir in OSM nur den offiziellen Namen ein, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Names#name_ist_nur_der_Name. 

"Sandkasten" könntest du als description hinterlegen. Das ist aber auch nicht notwendig, denn man kann auch konkrete Spielgeräte einzeln eintragen, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:playground
Im Fall vom Sandkasten wäre das ein Objekt mit playground=sandpit innerhalb der leisure=playground Fläche.

Grüße
Alex
Leo Slager (2021-06-30 17:49:02+00:00): Hi Bram,
De fouten zijn precies wat er staat. Wat je niet ziet is dat die fouten niet veroorzaakt zijn door jouw wijziging.
Die fouten waren dus al aanwezig in elementen die raken aan de elementen die je gewijzigd hebt.
Bijv: In de voorstraat doorsnijdt de area=pedestrian meerdere malen de gebouwen. Door deze area-lijnen wat te verschuiven komen ze dan vrij te liggen van de gebouwen.
Ik heb dat even voor je gedaan want Ik vraag me af of je dat met de editor iD wel voor elkaar krijgt.
Overweeg eens of je niet beter over kunt stappen naar de editor JOSM.
Dan kun je verder inzoomen en zie je duidelijk waar lijnen elkaar ongewenst kruisen.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710
DD1GJ (2021-07-01 09:16:05+00:00): Revert, unsachgemäße Änderung. Der Weg war bereits mit bicycle=no gekennzeichnet. Zudem wurde die touristische Unterrichtungstafel an der Autobahn in einen Hofladen geändert.
DD1GJ (2021-07-01 09:18:34+00:00): Revert, unsachgemäße Änderung. Dies ist ein breiter gut befestigter Waldweg und kein schmaler Pfad.
DD1GJ (2021-07-01 09:14:09+00:00): Revert, unsachgemäße Änderung. Der Weg war bereits mit bicycle=no gekennzeichnet
DD1GJ (2021-07-01 09:13:40+00:00): Revert, unsachgemäße Änderung. Der Weg war bereits mit bicycle=no gekennzeichnet
Rainero (2021-11-27 20:46:20+00:00): Hallo rms_GAON,

ich habe die Haltestelle Baiershofen auf der Südseite des Dorfangers an die tatsächliche Position 20 m weiter westlich verschoben und die Atrribute des Amenity=shelter auf das bereits eingezeichnete Wartehäuschen übertragen und den Punkt https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8879526936 gelöscht.

Viele Grüße,
Rainer
Luzandro (2021-07-03 06:49:45+00:00): habs ergänzt, siehe

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:opening%20hours?uselang=de

https://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/?setLng=de
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107194092
d3d9 (2021-07-10 12:44:14+00:00): Das sieht irgendwie nicht richtig aus, sollten die Bordsteinkanten nicht lieber als barrier=kerb ohne noch einmal highway=footway dranzutun gemappt werden? Generell sind hier doch auch viel zu viele Fußwege gemappt, nur um Verläufe von tactile_paving darzustellen.
d3d9 (2021-07-10 12:49:54+00:00): Vielleicht wäre es eine Idee sich hieran zu orientieren: https://lists.openstreetmap.de/pipermail/nrw/2017-August/000044.html Ist zwar auch noch nicht wirklich verwendet oder dokumentiert, aber es sollte geeigneter sein, als dafür highway=footway-Wege zusätzlich zu den bestehenden zu mappen.
rah_em (2021-07-01 04:51:40+00:00): Hi RichX10, 
I have changed the classification back to tertiary_link from service. Kindly refer this way 780239438, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107237586
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/107194736
Michael_H (2021-08-23 17:52:37+00:00): Was ist hier besser als vorher? Diesen Zustand hatten wir vor 2 Jahren schon mal. Wir drehen uns hier im Kreis.
Irgendwann wird wahrscheinlich wieder jemand den Kreisverkehr auf "residential" degradieren, weil JOSM das so wie es jetzt ist anmeckert. Das ist aber unpassend, weil die St 2544 definitiv bis zur B2 geht.
drlellinger (2021-08-23 19:28:02+00:00): Ist doch noch die St2544??
Michael_H (2021-08-23 19:32:17+00:00): Aber nicht mehr "secondary". Daher vertreten manche QA-Tools die Ansicht, der Kreisverkehr wäre falsch getaggt.
drlellinger (2021-08-23 19:49:39+00:00): Dann stimmt aber was mit den Tools nicht und nicht mit meinem Tagging da sind wir uns doch einig?
drlellinger (2021-08-23 19:51:22+00:00): Vielleicht sollte es eine neue Regel geben: „don’t Tag for the QA Tool“ 😂
BCNorwich (2021-06-30 15:36:27+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I disconnected your POI from the features you inadvertently joined it to. It would be good if you could add more info than just a name. Need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.
user_3022894 (2021-07-03 12:24:41+00:00): Hi Muhmaker,
Respekt, wow "krass", du hast ja richtig viele von den öffentlichen Telefonen hier in der Umgebung geprüft. Auch, wenn es zu OSM gehören mag wie vieles andere auch, trotzdem vielen Dank dafür. Es freut mich immer, wenn sich jemand diesem Thema annimmt. 
Viele Grüße
Lukas

P.S.: Das mit den Basistelefonen in Jöllenbeck und Brake gebe ich an die Telekom weiter.
Geomaplex (2021-07-06 10:31:58+00:00): Hi KnoppiNRW, du hast im Bereich des Wandelweges einige Änderungen durchgeführt. Bei den folgenden Abschnitten des Wandelweges handelt es sich aber um gemeinsame Fuß/Radwege. Es sind keine alleinigen Radwege. Ich habe das entsprechend umgetagged. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/942881789
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/799612288
Dimacn (2021-07-02 14:46:01+00:00): Пожалуйста скажите как называется гостиница?
lostmike (2021-06-30 10:11:32+00:00): Perhaps it should have been tagged as private rather than just deleted? I guess people park here when attending church.
SK53 (2021-06-30 13:24:07+00:00): Hi mmccnn,

No doubt people are thinking this can be used willy-nilly. I'm afraid people regard the presence of something on a map as giving them the right to use it, even though this has never been the case. 

In practice the best way to deal with such issues is to improve the data (a car park can be set with access=private or access=customers : which may sound odd, but would be the appropriate information related to worshippers or people pay respects in the graveyard). I see that the church ceased being used for worship and may now be converted to residential use, so private is more likely.

The reason why it pays to add extra info is that someone may come along at a later time and assume the area was never mapped, and then we'd be back to where we started.

It would also help to know a little more about the current status of the churchyard, what little I see on the internet suggests its under local authority care. Is it accessible to passers-by or also private now?

One last thing. Amazon make extensive use of OpenStreetMap  in rural areas for guiding delivery drivers to the right place. Amazon employees may also update things like driveways & parking areas, and may not be aware of local nuances.

We're keen to make sure OpenStreetMap data works for everyone (locals, delivery people, visitors, drivers, walkers, first responders etc.). Usually enhancing the overall information is the best way to do it.

Regards,

Jerry aka SK53
mmccnn (2021-06-30 14:00:40+00:00): I own this land and it MUST NOT be marked as "car park" in any way
It is NOT a car park & I do not want it to appear on any map as car park - think of this as your private drive or your garden
THIS IS NOT A CAR PARK!!
mmccnn (2021-06-30 14:29:44+00:00): To lostmike
This is not a car park it is private land
The church is now a private house
lostmike (2021-06-30 14:34:36+00:00): Thank you for the clarification.