piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
!bm (2021-02-03 17:05:58+00:00): @PT-53: Tja, leider hängst du dich hier an diesem Punkt auf. 
@taxi-adem: Nein, das stimmt nicht, s.o. und:

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=taxi
[All] 37 691
[Node] 33 590
[Way] 4 066
[Relation] 35
taxi-adem (2021-02-03 17:12:39+00:00): Und für Berlin alleine?
!bm (2021-02-03 17:15:08+00:00): @taxi-adem: Ich wiederhole mich nur ungerne: s.o. (siehe oben) – sogar inkl overpass-Abfrage!
taxi-adem (2021-02-03 17:20:42+00:00): Macht was ihr wollt, aber wenn ich Rollberg suche darf es nur einmal in meiner Suche vorkommen. Dh wenn es Way bleiben soll, darf nur der vordere Rollberg heißen. Ansonsten lösche ich es.
taxi-adem (2021-02-03 17:23:08+00:00): Und dann sollte es in Way umgewandelt werden. Es ist die einzige in Berlin mit Relation.
!bm (2021-02-03 18:14:21+00:00): @taxi-adem
Eines vorweg: Du hast hier keine (wenn vielleicht auch "lustigen") Forderungen zu stellen, damit das mal klar ist – geht gar nicht!  

Inhaltlich dazu nur soviel: Nein, das funktioniert so nicht – ein simples Multipolygon besteht per Definition nunmal aus mindestens zwei closed ways (areas). Und das ist hier mE korrekt gemappt.

Bisher habe ich noch kein (vernünftiges) Argument gesehen, das gegen Mapping als Fläche spricht – außer natürlich "aber mein overpass!" und "aber mein deutsches Wiki!". Die von Supaplex030 und mir angeführten Argumente wurden ignoriert – schade! In dieser Form war das bisher leider keine lösungsorientierte Diskussion und daher bin ich auch nicht besonders motiviert, mir hier länger zu überlegen, wie man das Multipolygon eventuell anders taggen könnte, um amenity=taxi als eigenständigen node zu behalten.
Supaplex030 (2021-02-03 20:26:21+00:00): Peace ^^ Da amenity=taxi in OSM ein eher gering definierter Begriff ist und auf kein spezifisches Objekt (z.B. _die_ Taxisäule oder _den_ Wartebereich) referenziert und es sich bei den hier getaggten Objekten gleichzeitig um Parkbuchten im baulichen Sinne handelt (hier: exklusiv für Taxen), wäre es mMn tatsächlich eine gute Lösung, die Parkbuchten wieder als solche zu taggen – nur eben mit access=no + taxi=designated – und amenity=taxi als Node wie er dort zur Zeit doppelt gemappt ist. Dann wäre es genau so klar und entspräche tatsächlich eher der Gepflogenheit, wie amenity=taxi üblicherweise verwendet wird.
taxi-adem (2021-02-03 22:07:23+00:00): Ich war 3,5 Jahre Taxifahrer. Die Rufsäulen kannst du vergessen. Die werden kaum benutzt. Das sollte kein Richtwert sein, um den Node zu platzieren.
Wer sonst nichts im Leben zu tun hat, kann sie ja als nostalgisches Relikt aus alten Zeiten markieren. Als Kunststück vielleicht.
Der Node gehört dahin, wo das erste Taxischild steht mit den Anzahl der Taxen, die dort stehen dürfen. Die Nummer der Rufsäule kann man da auch eintragen, aber nicht überall gibt es Rufsäulen und nicht überall ist die Rufsäule da, wo die Taxihalte ist.
Es heißt ja auch amenity=taxi und nicht taxisäule. Die Person, die die Suche tätigt soll ein Taxi dort vorfinden und keine Rufsäule.
ivanbranco (2021-02-04 11:22:35+00:00): Hi Synkopenleben,

I suppose the c=* tag in this bench was supposed to be colour=*, am I right?
muchichka_s (2021-02-02 22:03:22+00:00): Stop reclassifying this road again and again!

First of all, part of the international freight traffic goes through this road

Secondly, this road connects 2 towns - Berehove & Irshava in the most convenient way

From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Uk:%D0%92%D1%96%D0%BA%D1%96%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%B0/%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%96%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D1%96%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B3

"Основна дорога, що з’єднує два міста типу place=town, повинна бути щонайменше highway=secondary."

Which means that the main road connecting the 2 towns must be secondary
Burricane (2021-02-04 14:50:33+00:00): Hello Muchichka_s,

I was making edits based on policy from the Ukraine Highway OSM Wiki page; https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Uk:Key:highway. It states on the OSM Wiki that regional roads with "O - ######" ref tags that connect large villages are to be classified as tertiary. However, after doing some more reading about the policy, I noticed I missed the important exception regarding raising or lowering the classification of roads, outside of the city, based on their importance. I now agree with what you're saying, and will change the classification of О-070110 to a secondary. Thank you for pointing this out! 

Thanks,
Burricane
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-02-02 22:30:31+00:00): Sorry, not sure what happened here. I reverted it in case that I damaged something.
Tom360 (2021-02-07 16:47:20+00:00): Bonjour,

J'ai remarqué une portion de piste nordique qui me semble une erreur : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903187862
Il s'agit juste d'un sentier?
titouski (2021-02-07 19:47:06+00:00): Bonjour.
Il s'agit d'un itinéraire de ski de randonnée nordique (backcountry = non damé) de largeur 1m environ.
MxxCon (2021-02-03 01:35:57+00:00): Hey, according to https://vzv.nyc, flatbush ave has speed limit of 25mph. Is that incorrect?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98603755
jmapb (2021-02-03 02:17:59+00:00): Never seen vzv.nyc, I love that I'm always learning about another tool.

I was on Osmose for some reason and it alerted to an unmapped speed limit spotted on mapillary imagery. The link is https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=0frD34Fd0wnoI9qpEtMNjM&signs=true&points=true&lat=40.67887305860807&lng=-73.9737479024309&z=17&x=0.36977766359498543&y=0.5453082129810397&zoom=1.2827864259811022 but this is almost a year old so I'll check it out in person next time I'm by.
jmapb (2021-02-04 20:14:41+00:00): The 30mph sign is real, but only in the southbound direction between Prospect and Park. Southbound from Park there's a 25mph sign and northbound there's also a 25mph sign. And the rest of Flatbush between GAP and Barclays is unsigned.

Seems odd, but that's how I've tagged it.
MxxCon (2021-02-04 20:36:48+00:00): lol. allowed to speed up but only in one direction and only for one block.🤦‍♂️ Maybe DOT just forgot to remove that sign?
OSM_RogerWilco (2021-02-03 09:49:49+00:00): Hallo AnKa112,

hier hast Du die Apotheke geändert und den Tag amenity=shop verwendet. Dieser Tag ist veraltet und soll nicht mehr verwendet werden. Stattdessen verwende den Key shop=*

Siehe:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=shop?uselang=de
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:shop

Außerdem wäre es nett und hilfreich, wenn Du einen etwas aussagekräftigeres Änderungssatz verwendest. "Ergänzungen" hilft anderen nicht nachzuvollziehen, was Du (und warum) getan hast.

Viele Grüße
Roger Wilco
TomCerts (2021-02-03 22:32:01+00:00): Also used Ground Survey
ChillyDL (2021-02-03 09:11:17+00:00): Hallo, du hattest gestern das Großsteingrab Löningen/Werwe als Gangrab auf dem Ladenesch/Evenkamp (Sprockhoff Nr. 973) identifiziert. Mir scheint, das stimmt nicht: Ich habe den passenden Sprockhoff gerade nicht zur Hand, aber tw.strahlen.org, megalithic.co.uk und Wikipedia/Wikidata geben für 973 eine andere Position an, südöstlich von Evenkamp. Das von dir bearbeitete Grab ist anhand der Beschreibung auf tw.strahlen.org und megalithic.co.uk tatsächlich das Großsteingrab Werwe (Sprockhoff 972). Ich habe es entsprechend geändert. Hast du andere Informationen?
NGL-engel (2021-02-03 12:57:55+00:00): Hallo ChillyDLesby 
    ich bin anhand von der Beschreibung und den Fotos davon ausgegangen das es dieses Großsteingrab sein müsste. Auch eine der Anfahrtsbeschreibungen passte zu dem Großsteingrab. Auf wikipedia steht: "Das Großsteingrab liegt nordöstlich vom Weiler Evenkamp, südlich der B 213 (E 233) und westlich von Löningen im Landkreis Cloppenburg in Niedersachsen."
Direkt südlich von Evenkamp ist mir auch noch kein Grab aufgefallen, aber ab und zu liegen sie ja auch sehr versteckt bzw. auf nicht zugänglichen Stellen.

Da ich mir aber nicht hundertprozentig sicher bin, ist es besser es bei Deinen Änderungen zu belassen. Vielen Dank dafür.
Gruß Angela
NGL-engel (2021-02-24 21:55:16+00:00): Hallo ChillyDLesby, 
   ich habe gesehen das du in Evenkamp die zwei Großsteingräber getauscht hast. Nochmals Danke dafür.
Ich habe ein ähnliches Problem. In Löningen, im Waldstücke nördlich des westlichen Teils der Tannenbergstraße, befindet sein ein/mehrere Hügelgräber. Vor Ort steht leider nur eine ziemlich allgemeine Hinweistafel. Dort sind weder Name, Zeitperiode noch andere Infos eingetragen. Hast Du eventuell Infos diese Hügelgräber?
Gruß Angela
ChillyDL (2021-02-26 23:18:55+00:00): Hallo Angela, nein, leider kann ich zu den Hügelgräbern dort nichts sagen. Eine schnelle Suche danach hat auch gar keine Hinweise ergeben. Hügelgräber sind oft viel schlechter dokumentiert als Megalithgräber. Tut mir leid!
NGL-engel (2021-02-27 22:44:18+00:00): Hallo ChillyDLesby, 
   ja so etwas ähnliches hatte ich auch befürchtet. 
Danke nochmals für deine Bemühungen
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-02-02 22:25:15+00:00): Sorry, I merged two edits in one.

I will revert it and do it properly.
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-02-02 22:28:37+00:00): Split into https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98604467 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98604480

Sorry.
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-02-02 22:31:27+00:00): I reverted my edit that for some reason wet wrong and merged unrelated changes. Sorry.
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-02-02 22:32:17+00:00): I reverted my edit that for some reason went wrong.

To avoid damage I simply reverted it as I am unsure what happened.
eggie (2021-02-03 09:03:56+00:00): Welkom bij OSM
Bedankt voor uw bijdrage.
Evt phone nog verbeteren .
Format is +31.......
MVG
eggie
Chois545 (2021-02-02 23:10:01+00:00): Mapillary is used for 'covered' tag of way 903197644.
karson_ (2021-12-31 21:31:00+00:00): I hope your golf course tagging has improved in the year since this edit. In the series of edits around this course you incorrectly demoted highway=residential -> highway=service, used the name tag on various golf features rather than the ref tag, drew low quality buildings, etc
jaywhyenecks (2022-03-29 20:33:45+00:00): i apologize but this is what the person who hired me told me to do
Reeniz (2021-02-02 23:41:08+00:00): source?
Street_Shark (2021-02-02 23:55:48+00:00): I cited my sources in this changeset. Car direction in Esri is how I made the decision.
Reeniz (2021-02-03 00:10:14+00:00): You are assuming the direction of the street. I have already seen in the past in my city how other kaart members assume the meaning of streets and are wrong.
will_p (2021-02-03 11:39:58+00:00): Any reason why you have deleted lots of barriers between residential properties? Most are still clearly visible on the aerial imagery. The aerial imagery in this area is now poorer quality than when I added these barriers, so it would be preferable to revert this, rather than trace back less accurately.

As someone who knows this area well, your "delete some unmappable things" comment doesn't make sense to me. The data here is from survey or careful use of aerial imagery.
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-02-03 12:04:36+00:00): I deleted solely barrier=property_boundary that represented guessed or imported boundaries between properties, not a physical barriers mappable in OSM (some were going for example though middle of a building).

I mapped some barriers clearly visible in Bing (maybe there is a better aerial imagery available)
will_p (2021-02-03 12:33:35+00:00): Your initial statement is inaccurate. Nothing here is imported. I have always been very careful in tagging imported data. Also, I wouldn't say anything is really 'guessed'. There is certainly abstraction/simplification as with any mapping.  When I added these barriers it was common practice to draw right around the property to save time, but that doesn't change the fact the intention was to represent physical features (walls/fences/hedges). 

To reiterate, you have deleted a number of clearly visible barriers. If you had improved the data, perhaps by deleting the bits that pass through buildings, I would have no disagreement.
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-02-03 13:28:35+00:00): So in summary: barrier=property_boundary was mapped from aerials and survey and represents unspecific physical barrier (may be wall, hedge, fence, row of bollards etc).

There are some mistakes like going though building, but it represents mistakes/simplifications.

Would you be OK with reverting my edits, retagging this barrier=property_boundary to barrier=yes (standard tag for representing unspecific physical barrier) and deleting parts that are clearly not existing?

(I can explain how I reached my initial conclusions but it is likely unimportant and uninterestesting)
RicoElectrico (2021-07-13 09:29:18+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2753005
DUGA (2021-04-26 00:22:54+00:00): "status" tag is vague and it shouldn't be used anymore. Everything in the OSM should be at least "planned" or "constructed".

"access" tag is not necessarily needed for the tower itself. The access to your house is obviously private, to the cell towers owned by tower company, they are private as well.

The "operator" tag, in my opinion, is not very helpful at all. The ownership may change in the future, will you be able to track each change and update the map in the next decade?

The "website" tag you put (FCC ULS) is never an official one. The feature (cell tower) does not have anything called a website. It should be Crown Castle's company website if you specify the operator.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/38.05955/-84.43297
Glassman (2021-02-04 00:31:02+00:00): #Tip: if the business occupies the entire building then you can just place the business information on the building outline.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98606920
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:44:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:42:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
Kovoschiz (2021-02-03 08:35:11+00:00): Are you sure?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:23:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:39:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:37:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:52:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:45:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:56:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:37:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:26:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:40:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:23:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:43:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:31:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:36:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
andi9876 (2021-02-09 01:42:12+00:00): del
andi9876 (2021-02-09 01:41:50+00:00): del
andi9876 (2021-02-09 01:41:28+00:00): del
literan (2021-02-03 15:48:44+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/234340923/history зачем тут residential? разве там большинство жилых зданий? вдоль улицы? верну. 

ознакомьтесь https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Highway_classification
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:22:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:54:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:40:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-28 20:56:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 108776146, 108778638 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly Google-derived and otherwise poor edits in the Philippines and Nigeria.  See https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/83 , https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/2021-July/006788.html et al
andi9876 (2021-02-09 01:39:37+00:00): listed already
Glassman (2021-02-04 00:35:20+00:00): #TIP: Instead of deleting the existing tag, just re-tag with the correct information.

Also - I hope you didn't need to actually visit one of those urgent care facilities.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98612265
Glassman (2021-02-04 00:32:47+00:00): #Tip: We don't use descriptive names, just tagging it as a volleyball court is sufficient.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98612351
ScottWalkerAU (2021-02-03 07:29:05+00:00): What is the source for the bus stop name changes? You haven't listed a source at all.

The latest TfNSW GTFS data still shows the previous names.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98612575
MapCam (2021-02-03 23:24:00+00:00): Hi Scott,

I work for TfNSW Data Services,  I had updated the stop in our source system and made the same change in OSM.

Where do you source the "latest" TfNSW GTFS data?
ScottWalkerAU (2021-02-03 23:29:33+00:00): That makes sense then. I didn't see anything on your profile so didn't assume you worked for them. If I did a wiki search I would have figured that part out.

The TfNSW GTFS data was from here: https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/dataset/timetables-complete-gtfs. I imagine if I pulled it down again today I would see the change.

All good :)
ovruni (2021-02-03 04:46:10+00:00): Hola AnaisMarcos, gracias por contribuir a OSM!. En este conjunto de cambios se había cambiado el nodo de lugar 2784102922 [0] a plaza, sin embargo la plaza es el área que esta a su alrededor, este nodo es el que representaba al centro poblado capital del distrito. Ya he restaurado las etiquetas del nodo.
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://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2784102922
AnaisMarcos (2021-02-04 06:00:02+00:00): entendido, gracias!
SK53 (2021-08-11 12:34:42+00:00): Hi Thomas,

I dont suppose you walked Claypole FP 3 in doing these changes? If you did was there any evidence of Newark Model Flying Club? I've  I've just mapped this because of discussion on talk-gb because I know someone who is a member.

Jerry