piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
viloan (2019-10-27 15:31:50+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt
Se você está mapeando por causa do jogo do Harry Potter, as dicas e explicações na página anterior também são úteis para você.

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
skorpion62 (2019-11-18 16:13:24+00:00): Hallo NGL-engel,
warum hast Du diesen an der L836 und L838 richtig gemappten kombinierten Fuß- und Fahradweg zum zweitenmal in einen Radweg mit Fußgängerbenutzug geändert.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76269120
Ich finde es nach wie vor nicht richtig von Dir, dass Du richtig gemappte, kombinierte Fuß- und Radwege (Pfad), in halbrichtige Radwege umwandelst.
Meine Meinung dazu: Es  ist einfach anderen Mappern gegenüber unfair.
Das Thema hatten wir auch schon vor ein paar Monaten, aber Du machst  es immer wieder.

Viele Grüße
skorpion62
eggie (2019-10-27 15:49:37+00:00): Het gebied van je edits is veel te groot 
Schuiven met de kaart in editmodus levert vaak schade op door onbedoelde verschuivingen. Intekenen en schuiven gaat immers met de linkermuisknop. 
Beperk je tot het gebied van één pad. Dan opslaan en uit de editmodus. Dan pas naar een nieuwe locatie.
Gr eggie
Knagie (2019-10-27 15:52:39+00:00): Dankjewel, sorry dit is nieuw en heb dit denk ik gemist in de uitleg aan het begin. Zal er op letten in de toekomst
eggie (2019-10-27 15:53:48+00:00): Own road ?  Bedoel je wellicht "Eigen weg"?
Daar is de extra tag access=permissive
Op een Eigen Weg mag iedereen gewoon komen. 

Wanneer het echt prive (art 461) betreft met verbodsbord dan access=private.
eggie (2019-10-27 15:54:10+00:00): Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=76269203
Dimacn (2019-10-30 06:48:40+00:00): В name пишем только названия (официальные) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:name
eggie (2019-10-27 16:01:44+00:00): Oke.. Er zijn voor MTB paden speciale tags.
Je zou eens het draadje kunnen bekijken 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=67119
Verder wordt je overigens niets kwalijk genomen.
De laatste trend is weer om mtb paden toch als cycleway te mappen icm met nog een aantal tags om ze te onderscheiden van reguliere fietspaden.
Snuffel maar eens rond op het forum.
Je kunt jezelf toevoegen in het draadje Wie wat waar.
Succes,
Eggie
eggie (2019-10-27 16:08:48+00:00): Nog even naar andere mtb paden gekeken. De meeste tags zie ik toch gewoon als highway=path  met bicycle=designated  Dat rendert dan blauw op de kaart als fietspad.
Met dan de mtb:scale  =   wordt het vervolgens wat minder prominent weergegeven.
Dus gewoon highway=path gebuiken.
Gr eggie
CartoCharles (2019-10-30 12:04:02+00:00): Bonjour Clément,
Tu as ajouté un double sens cyclable Rue Coypel (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/3630707#map=19/48.83319/2.35615) et j'ai vu aussi que tu avais ajouté un panneau de zone 30 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6920378028) mais que la rue est restée à 50km/h. Est-ce que tu peux me dire si la rue est passé en zone 30 pour compléter les informations et si le DSC est simple en application de la zone 30 ou s'il y a un nouvel aménagement avec une bande cyclable pour ce DSC. Merci d'avance pour ton aide.
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
CartoCharles (2019-10-30 12:12:11+00:00): Si tu peux me dire également pour la 
Rue Rubens https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4080683
Et sinon j'ai l'impression que Rue de la Reine Blanche (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4080686) il s'agit d'un double sens avec une bande... *d'amorce* ;)
https://twitter.com/nryc_/status/1131113458362146816
https://twitter.com/EtienneTraisnel/status/1131474558932979712
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
CartoCharles (2019-10-30 12:32:27+00:00): Je me demande aussi s'il est bon de faire cohabiter cycleway:both=no avec oneway:bicycle=no. Je sais que oneway:bicycle=no peut être assimilé à une absence d'aménagement mais d'une certaine manière on peut aussi le décrire avec cycleway=opposite.
Clement R (2019-10-30 12:40:56+00:00): Je n'ai pas modifié les vitesses, car pour l'instant la zone est incomplète, il manque encore des panneaux.
Certaines rues ont juste des pictos au sol, d'autre juste "sauf vélo" d'autres c'est le débouché qui dispose de panneau cédez le passage pour les vélos, mais sans marquage etc
. Je n'ai donc mis opposite que s'il y a des marquages au sol, oneway no si il y avait juste le panneau, et la rue reine blanche c'est bien juste une amorce.
'Ai rien oublié ?
Si j'ai le temps je mettrais les photos sur mappilary mais c'est chronophage.
Clement R (2019-10-30 12:42:33+00:00): Pour moi cycleway définit une infrastructure, le oneway une autorisation. Donc s'il n'y a pas de picto ( c'est pas obligatoire) pourquoi décrire avec cycleway ?
Carto'Cité (2019-10-30 12:47:01+00:00): Je te remercie chaleureusement pour ta patience à me répondre :)
Je suis d'accord avec toutes ces informations. Quand il n'y a que panneau j'utilise aussi opposite même en l'absence de marquage mais c'est vrai que c'est équivalent à oneway:bicycle=no.
C'est claire que si tu as la possibilité de déposer tes photos sur Mapillary c'est génial mais je suis bien placé pour savoir que c'est une démarche qui demande de prendre un moment ;)
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
Clement R (2019-10-30 12:51:52+00:00): Merci pour tes vérification !
Carto'Cité (2019-10-30 12:52:37+00:00): Nos messages se croisent :)
Oui je suis d'accord que cycleway définit une infrastructure, le oneway une autorisation. C'est effectivement difficile de considérer que la peinture ou un panneau constituent un aménagement. Je me permets cette souplesse en considérant parfois moins le sens que l'objectif d'arriver à tomber sur une description interprétable sans ambiguïté. Pour ce qui est des aménagements cyclables les réflexions reflètent beaucoup l’ambiguïté des aménagements eux-même souvent :)
Charles
aceman444 (2022-03-15 11:02:51+00:00): Zdravim, preco vymaz stareho nazvu?
andrewsh (2022-03-15 11:05:41+00:00): Lebo je starý a neaktuálny?
aceman444 (2022-03-15 20:38:50+00:00): Kedze je stary preto je v old_name. Co je na tom zle? Nie je to na co ta znacka sluzi?
andrewsh (2022-03-15 23:18:06+00:00): Aký má zmysel to ponechávať? Nemá to podľa mňa žiadnu historickú hodnotu.
aceman444 (2022-03-15 23:43:36+00:00): Zvyknem to nechavat, ked ide nadalej o restauraciu ci kaviaren, len sa zmeni nazov. Moze byt, ze ludia este poznaju povodny nazov, tak to moze byt pomocka.

Ak je ta znacka v poriadku, nemazte to. Ak to podla Vas nema hodnotu, neznamena, ze nema ani pre ostatnych.
eggie (2019-10-27 16:24:07+00:00): access=no komt bijna nooit voor . meer voor een gebied. . Dus beter niet mee beginnen. Je kunt wel per categorie aangeven bv motor_vehicle=no  of gewoon vehicle=no 
Alleen bij een bord.
Een weg over een boerenland of erf is bv access=private.
Mogen er dan wel wandelaars komen dan foot=yes
access=private wordt het meest gebruikt.
eggie (2019-10-27 16:24:32+00:00): Dit zal dus access=private zijn als het naar het erf loopt.
Richard (2019-12-14 13:40:02+00:00): Hi,

Could you explain why you've removed the railway from the bike route relation?

The bike route requires going on the train. It's an integral part of the route so should be included in the relation.

Removing the railway has broken routing on cycle.travel for this route. :(

Richard
Luzandro (2019-12-14 18:24:27+00:00): I don't know if it's documented on cycle.travel that routes can contain sections where you have to take the train. On first glance it's at least not obvious to me and I would be rather surprised by such results. More importantly it's definitely not how cycle routes are defined in OSM, so I'm with Roland5 that this doesn't belong to a cycle route.
Richard (2019-12-14 18:27:21+00:00): Bike routes in OSM have included ferries since time immemorial. Trains are less common but no different in practice. I put code specifically in cycle.travel to cope with routes like this.

See https://www.alpe-adria-radweg.com/en/ - it's very definitely an official part of the route.
Roland5 (2019-12-15 08:26:51+00:00): According to my observations, neither railway tracks nor trains are part of this bicycle route. This edit tried to reflect this reality..Have you made contrary observations?
Richard (2019-12-15 16:09:11+00:00): https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciclovia_Alpe_Adria : "Da qui con il treno navetta in 11 minuti si raggiunge Mallnitz (1.191 m), e quindi di nuovo in bicicletta si attraversa la Carinzia toccando Spittal a. d. Drau, Villach e Arnoldstein, al confine italo-austriaco"

https://www.alpe-adria-radweg.com/en/bahn-rad/unterwegs-am-alpe-adria-radweg-von-salzburg-nach-grado/ (the official site): "At the end of Gastein Valley, you will have to use the 'Tauernschleuse' motorail service (Böckstein – Mallnitz) in order to reach the south side of the main Alpine divide"

https://italy-cycling-guide.info/international-cycle-routes/ciclovia-alpe-adria-radweg/ : "it heads through the Gasteinertal towards Bad Gastein and Böckstein where you pick up the Tauerntunnel motorrail shuttle that takes you to Mallnitz"

There is literally no other way to get from Böckstein to Mallnitz other than a 160km detour involving significant backtracking. If you don't think the route does follow the rail shuttle, which way do you think it does go?
Roland5 (2019-12-22 11:36:06+00:00): Hi Richard,

I agree with you, the best way to travel from Böckstein to Mallnitz is by train. And the travel guides you quote recommend it that way. But the lack of alternatives does not mean that there has to be a signposted cycle route here.

Travel guides and OSM have different objectives. Travel guides recommend how we can travel the world. In OSM we try to map the world with its observable and verifiable elements. In the concrete situation here, however, you have to take note that between Böckstein and Mallnitz there is no signposted cycle route - unlike the sections before and after.

We should not mix up route recommendations and signposted cycle routes. This would reduce the quality of the OSM data. It makes a significant difference whether you can follow a series of signs or whether you have to take a guidebook with you. 

From a marketing point of view, I too see that a continuous cycle route between Salzburg and Grado is more attractive than separate northern and southern sections. And it also seems that some cycle routes in OSM are more like the course of a tour recommendation than the course of a signposting. However, I see examples in this, which should not be spread further, but corrected.
Richard (2019-12-22 13:56:05+00:00): Life is honestly too short to deal with this sort of bullshit. Thanks for the lecture on what OSM is, it had somehow escaped me in the 15 years I've been involved in the project.

Faced with this sort of muppetry it's generally quicker and easier to hardcode in a workaround, and though obviously I don't actually mind the result being that cycle.travel will be the only router that can follow the Ciclovia Alpe-Adria, you might want to consider whether your misguided concept of purity is hurting or helping OSM.
eggie (2019-10-27 16:26:38+00:00): bicycle=designated kan er dan wel bij icm mtb:scale. 
Zie discussie op het forum. Ben zelf geen specialist mtb paden.
eggie (2019-10-27 16:27:42+00:00): Zie hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Mountain_biking
mavl (2019-10-27 16:10:34+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 76208211, 76209168, 76209529, 76209936, 76210318, 76234855, 76234924, 76234949, 76234974, 76235035, 76236376, 76241794, 76241878, 76245200, 76259208, 76264296, 76264533.
eggie (2019-10-27 17:31:27+00:00): Hi Murdock.. Please be careful with routerelations. Don't interupt, delete or change routes with editor iD . Ask first for help at the Dutch forum.
English is no problem.
Routes are imported for proper routing on the map in routeplanners and gps.
Greetz,
Eggie
mavl (2019-12-15 16:35:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 78423908, 78425731, 78431462, 78428956, 78427975, 78422742, 78430242, 78423304, 78424715, 78432742, 78426855 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: an incompatible source].
PT-53 (2019-11-03 09:51:54+00:00): Hallo RSchd,
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz diesen Kreisel-Anschluß
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5052180/history
gelöscht.
War das ein Versehen?
Ich habe den Kreiselanschluß wieder hergestellt.

Fragende Grüße
RSchd (2019-11-03 20:28:52+00:00): Hallo PT-53,
vielen Dank für den Hinweis und die Wiederherstellung.
Sorry, da bin ich wohl nicht sorgfältig genug vorgegangen. Soll nicht wieder vorkommen.
Dankende Grüße
eggie (2019-10-27 16:43:28+00:00): Hi Murdock.. 

Here you find a walking- and a  cycleroute. If you interrupt the cycle route the routing is disturbed. Are you aware of the walking and cycleroutes?
Eggie
eggie (2019-10-27 16:45:46+00:00): In this layer you see the cycleroute. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/76270319#map=16/51.4726/5.9104&layers=C
eggie (2019-10-27 17:38:38+00:00): fixing is in progress
Murdock7762 (2019-10-27 17:39:06+00:00): are you saying I cannot restore the cycle route with the ID editor? any other way to restore the changeset?
Murdock7762 (2019-10-27 17:43:03+00:00): the track between 84 and 02 is not a dedicated cycle path with proper signs. it follows the unmaintained track road I created
Murdock7762 (2019-10-27 17:43:45+00:00): same between 85 and 25
eggie (2019-10-27 17:46:15+00:00): DvdHoven (routeexpert)  is fixing the routes at the moment. So please don't map for now at this area.
The simple way is of course to revert your changeset, but that will be pity for your efforts. :)
For the next time first check if there are any routerelations. For starting mappers relations looks extreemly difficult. 
That's the hidden world behind OSM. 
Editor iD is not well suited for route relations.
We prefer JOSM.
Greetz,
eggie
Murdock7762 (2019-10-27 17:48:37+00:00): thanks a lot for trying to keep my other work.
Murdock7762 (2019-10-27 17:50:12+00:00): just for the future....can I change some tags if a track has a relation to a cycle route? or better not touch it at all then with Editor ID? thx
eggie (2019-10-27 18:15:53+00:00): Editor iD is improving, but in the eyes of the route-experts it's a routekiller.
The order of the parts are mixed up. 
Making a routes is easy  but changing a route is the problem. 
Better invest in JOSM.
editor josm stap voor stap
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710       

It's also possible to consult the experts at the forum.
We don't blame new mappers making faults. :)
Greetz,
Eggie
DressyPear4 (2019-10-27 23:06:00+00:00): O que seria esses pontos que você está adicionando?
As tags adicionadas são inválidas
Glassman (2019-10-27 19:49:55+00:00): You left some crossing ways. The track just north of your new service road doesn't appear to exist. I would probably delete it. 

Remote areas are full of old garbage left over from a 2007 import of TIGER data. I typically just delete the old data, especially if there doesn't appear in the aerial imagery. 

Tip: use the Forest Service overlay to see if the road is in the USFS inventory.  

Can you fix this?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/76270452
Nonexhudlix (2020-05-17 19:41:36+00:00): Verschiedene Arten von Gebäuden sollen im building= Schlüssel verarbeitet werden, nicht im Namen.
Building=yes und name=Scheune seiht vielleicht bei Mapnik nett aus, macht aber keinen Sinn - außer das Gebäude hieße namentlich "Scheune", was hier aber wohl nicht der Fall ist.
Carto'Cité (2019-10-30 13:21:14+00:00): Je t'embête encore fois =$
Sur la route https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/739119860 on dirait que le DSC est sur bande. Est-ce que tu te souviens si c'est le cas ou pas ?
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
Clement R (2019-10-30 13:30:19+00:00): La bande n'est plus visible, en théorie elle aurait due être repeinte après les travaux, mais il n'en reste pas grand chose.
Clement R (2019-10-30 13:32:58+00:00): J'ai vérifié sur les photos il n'en reste que 4m env au début de dsc
Carto'Cité (2019-10-30 13:58:01+00:00): Ça marche ; dans ces conditions, je te laisse juge et je laisse comme ça. Encore merci pour tes retours.
Charles
flohoff (2019-10-28 16:08:42+00:00): Moin,
warum ist hier auf dem weg ein access=no drauf? 

Da darf niemand durch? Dann wäre der weg irgendwie über ...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/739120128
Minden1600 (2019-10-28 18:11:00+00:00): Moin,
bei diesem Weg wäre der Wert access=private wohl besser gewesen ->wurde bereits angepasst.
Aber „irgendwie über“ ist kein real vorhandener Weg. Wege, deren Nutzung nicht zulässig ist, sollten trotzdem eingetragen werden. Oder?
flohoff (2019-10-28 18:16:21+00:00): 
Ich halte access=* für in 80% falsch. Es gibt kein Schild in der StVO das das Aussagen kann. Zeichen 250 als Maximum ist immer vehicle= - Zeichen 252 sogar motor_vehicle=*.

Dazu ist ein private immer fishy. Was steht denn da für ein Schild? Danach muss sich das ja richten.

Wenn keine Schilder stehen sollten keine access tags verteilt werden, da diese Ansonsten ja nicht verifizierbar wären.

Und ein Schild "Privatweg" ist keine aussage über ein access - Das ist nur das nicht die öffentliche Hand unterhaltungspflichtig ist. Erst wenn da "Durchgang verboten" oder "Durchfahrt verboten" steht sollten wir das mappen.

Flo
Minden1600 (2019-10-28 18:38:22+00:00): Hi,
bei diesem Weg handelt es sich um eine Zufahrt auf ein Firmengelände. Kunden dürfen diesen ebenfalls nutzen. Hier reicht der Firmenname und die ansonsten erkennbare Zugehörigkeit des Weges zu dieser, um mit Menschenversand erkennen zu können, dass dieses kein öffentlicher Weg ist (und auch nicht als Abkürzung in Navis etc. auftauchen sollte).
opendcc (2019-10-31 05:17:40+00:00): Hallo,

soweit aus Luftbild ersichtlich, ist Linie 739121351 kein Gehsteig. An der Wasserburgerstr nur ostseitig.
drlellinger (2019-10-31 07:18:44+00:00): Bin gestern für ne Überprüfung (war mir da nicht sicher) mit dem Auto durch Grafing. Da war und ist ein Gehsteig
opendcc (2019-10-31 08:48:49+00:00): Der ist dann wohl neu: auf dem Bayern 80 von 2018 ist vom Göthering südwärts ein Gehsteig erkennbar, vom Göthering nordwärts erkennt man den Gehsteig ostseitig, westseitig fehlt er.
ACarlotti (2019-10-31 12:23:16+00:00): I don't see any reason for including the tag "oneway=no" - it's the default for this type of road, and there's no reason why any other mapper might think it weren't twoway.
andy mackey (2019-10-31 22:18:53+00:00): from memory i clicked on two way, default potlatch2  edit.  but i may be wrong .
freebeer (2019-11-07 16:55:07+00:00): i have seen where the arrow keys in potlatch2 work to both pan the map and to cycle between tag possibilities when not trapped properly.

i have also had oneway=no get added due to this bug on selected ways.

dunno if this is what happened here, but just thought i'd mention it, as my own such changes went unnoticed for a while.
andy mackey (2019-11-07 21:24:22+00:00): Thank you freebeer  well spotted i hadn't noticed that before, it's a possible explanation.   Good news the A14 will open on the 12th  Dec next, according BBC news a couple of days ago . Happy Mapping   Andy
user_5359 (2019-10-27 18:34:03+00:00): Welcoem to OSM! I merge your duplicate entry.
user_5359 (2019-10-27 18:37:33+00:00): Welcome to OSM! For a better description of the School building please read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels. I've already corrected it.
511792 (2019-10-27 21:09:38+00:00): Thanks, this building only has one level though. Very tall ceilings. I will change it.
freebeer (2019-11-03 11:17:18+00:00): also, we write out names in full, rather than use abbreviations, so the street address of the school is likely to be East M36, or `East M 36' to match the existing highway spacing style.
MosKartograf (2020-04-28 11:38:53+00:00): Здравствуйте! Тоннеля https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/739123677 не существует. Городня уходит в другое место, посомтрите как было. Вам нужны фото или сможете сами найти?
tdctdctdc (2020-01-19 16:15:56+00:00): Hi BMM,
I noticed you made some strange edits in this  changeset. For example, you deleted the western end of Simtat Livne (way 24539732) (it most definitely connects to the road there), and you moved the water tower (node 266545822) away from its correct location in the middle of the roundabout. Can you clarify?
BMM994 (2020-01-20 08:46:39+00:00): The water tower is located on the same spot it was previously, but since the bing imagery which was imaged back in 2015, a new roundabout was constructed just meters from its original location. you could check the area as of today.
Regarding to Simtat Livne, Thanks for the note, and I've connected both ways.
Hjart (2019-10-27 18:05:14+00:00): Hvorfor har du brugt BYGN_TYPE =Bygning tags her?
Bilbo-denmark (2019-11-03 15:03:44+00:00): Beklager med den gård, det er rettet op nu.
Hjart (2019-11-03 15:10:28+00:00): Du tilføjede det til alle bygninger i det her changeset. En anden mapper slettede det et par dage efter: Se f.eks. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/739125127/history
SomeoneElse (2019-12-14 23:03:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 78418905 where the changeset comment is: Undoing some mechanical edits involving 'subway'.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3277 and https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/77145512 for an explanation why there is a problem with this change.
kasmar00 (2019-12-15 11:59:21+00:00): Hej, usunąłeś tutaj relację linii autobusowej 164 w kierunku Kaczej, czy to było celowe? Jeśli nie to uważaj proszę na przyszłość, przywróciłem już ta relację.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/149141
TomaszWójcik (2019-12-15 15:07:01+00:00): Nie wiem jak się to stało, nie było to oczywiście celowe. Będę uważał :)
Basstoelpel (2020-01-18 12:56:05+00:00): Virtual objects like flight paths do not belong  to OSM.
Ficky IRM-RV (2021-06-14 04:54:21+00:00): Hi xtd,
I removed your edit on this restriction relation (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/relation/10222796) based on this image (https://is.gd/k2vHgU). if there is any update around, please let me know.

Thank you, happy mapping!
(https://maproulette.org/challenge/17411/task/97093118)
eggie (2019-10-27 20:23:28+00:00): Je edits..
Wanneer je schuift met de kaart kan schade ontstaan door onbedoelde verschuivingen. Je ziet hier dat je nr 6 op de parkeerplaats hebt "geparkeerd'. 
Alle gebouwen zijn import van het kadaster. Daar beter niets aan veranderen.
De naam Grasafscheiding hoort niet op de kaart thuis. De naam grass wadi hoort niet op de kaart van OSM thuis. Kijk nog eens even.
Gr Eggie
eggie (2019-10-27 20:23:48+00:00): Hier je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=76272444