piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
fabiotofy (2021-04-08 06:13:18+00:00): è dal 2015 che l'ISTAT chiede che nei toponimi i numeri, anche quando inizialmente inseriti in stile "ROMANO", siano standardizzati in lettere per esteso. Come mai hai riportato il valore fuori standard ?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102502312
Zeborg (2021-04-08 06:22:54+00:00): Scusami non lo sapevo, era mia intenzione riportare esattamente l'indicazione del cartello situato a inizio della via, anche su Google Maps e sulla corrispondenza la via è indicata come XVI Marzo. Quindi è bene lasciare "Sedici Marzo"?
Cascafico (2021-04-08 07:56:39+00:00): Ciao Zeborg e benvenuto in OSM. 
Immagino tu non sapessi delle decisioni degli enti territoriali. In futuro, quando rinnoveranno la segnaletica, i comuni divranno adeguarsi a non utilizzare numeri romani. Tra l'altro dovranno scomparire anche le abbreviazioni (per esempio G. Garibaldi) .

OSM è un po' avanti :-)
Zeborg (2021-04-08 11:49:03+00:00): Grazie per le dritte. Che voi sappiate è possibile ripristinare in blocco un gruppo di modifiche o devo andare a ricorreggerle? Uso iD. perdonate, ho appena iniziato ad usarlo
Cascafico (2021-04-08 12:48:35+00:00): Puoi fare il "revert" di tutto il changeset sul sito
http://revert.osmz.ru
fabiotofy (2021-04-08 05:54:34+00:00): quando inserisci un indirizzo in OSM dovresti standardizzare i suoi attributi per uniformarli al resto dei contenuti già presenti in OSM. Nello specifico nel nome via XVI lo devi cambiare in lettere "sedici". La lettera A del civico invece va messa in minuscolo "a". Puoi cambiare ? Grazie. Saluti
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102502571
Zeborg (2021-04-08 18:47:38+00:00): Sistemato. Grazie per le info
BCNorwich (2021-04-08 07:12:22+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

"Footpath" isn't the formal name for this highway rather footpath is a highway description or status. I've removed the name and added more tags to the way. I've joined the path to the track at north.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2021-04-08 07:17:00+00:00): By the way it is not allowed to use data directly from Ordnance Survey maps as they are protected by copyright. You can use the OS map to walk the path then draw the path from your experience. There are also other maps/data that OSM is allowed to use.
laznik (2021-04-08 06:35:09+00:00): kostol v zaniknutej dedine Lest urcite nema nazov "niekdajší kostol". Tento tag treba vyhodit.
Rainero (2021-04-09 08:42:14+00:00): Hallo steven schindler,
bei diesem Änderungssatz hast du zu vielen Flächen, die schon mit landuse erfaßt waren, leisure=park hinzugefügt. In den meisten Fällen ist das eine falsche Verwendung dieses Attributs.Schau doch bitte mal ins Wiki, wofür leisure=park gedacht ist: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:leisure=park
Im iD-Editor, mit dem du arbeitest, gibt es beim Klick auf das i-Symbol neben jedem Objekttyp eine Kurzbeschreibung und darin dann den Link "Dokumentation ansehen" zur Wikiseite.
Es gibt sicher ein paar Grenzfälle, ob eine Fläche nun in die Kategorie Park nach OSM Definition fällt oder nicht, aber so Dinge wie Ackerflächen oder Kleingartenanlagen hier im Änderungssatz sind sicher kein Park.
Von daher werde ich diese Änderungen zumindest in Teilen wieder zurücksetzen.
Gruß,
Rainer
GinaroZ (2021-04-13 14:51:15+00:00): Hi, this driveway is marked as private - is it actually private for all modes of transport or perhaps just vehicles? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/671182400/
Cycling Occifer (2021-04-13 16:15:13+00:00): Hi, it appears to be open for people to use by foot or car - it just says 'No through road' at the entrance as it is a dead-end access road leading to a residential property. I've changed the access settings to permit walking, cycling and horses and to be destination only for motor vehicles as it is a narrow, single track, access.
GinaroZ (2021-04-13 19:34:50+00:00): Thanks for sorting it.
Also, if you have local knowledge it might be worth having a look at the various map notes in the area to see if you can fix the issues they are highlighting: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/55.9541/-2.7845&layers=N
Cycling Occifer (2021-04-13 21:02:49+00:00): No probs. I'm nearby to Haddington so will take a look over those issues.
jmilot (2021-06-07 16:05:41+00:00): Hi,

When adding sidewalks to OSM, would it be possible to make sure to add all related marked/unmarked crossings too? Otherwise this changes break pedestrian router. 

Thanks,
Jeff Underwood (2021-06-07 17:58:11+00:00): Hi Jmilot,

This user left our team recently.

Sure thing. The goal of this mapping is to capture all pedestrian ways and crossings, but I can see we missed some here. I ran through the area and added any that I noticed were missing. 

We will also have an additional validation pass as the area gets filled in further as well.

Thanks for reaching out
-Jeff
Tomas Straupis (2021-04-08 08:17:05+00:00): Tokių tai gal nereikia objektų :-) Nes čia jau ne žemėlapio, o plano dalis.
Aurelijus Visagurskis (2021-04-08 09:24:14+00:00): Šitą jei galima palikim. Supratau ir daugiau taip nesismulkinsiu :)
Tomas Straupis (2021-04-08 09:32:16+00:00): Tai kad jau išėmiau... tiksliau palikau tik įvažiavimą į kiemą. O vidiniai privatūs keliukai tai čia labai jau... :-) Geriau svarbesnius elementus sužymėti - bent pastatus.
Aurelijus Visagurskis (2021-04-08 12:45:43+00:00): Niekada nebuvo, nereikia ir dabar. O iki pastatų dar "paaugt" man. Noriu bent pagrindinius, arterinius takus susikelt :)
Tomas Straupis (2021-04-08 12:54:34+00:00): Pastatai - vieni paprasčiausių objektų - building=yes ir kvadratizacijos mygtuko nepamiršti ir tiek reikalų ;-) O štai keliai - rimtesnis dalykas, ten pilna klasifikacijų, reikia žiūrėti, kad susikirtimuose būtų taškai (nebent tunelis/tiltas), kelių grafas turi būti logiškas ir pan.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-05-09 13:37:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 104396077 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  The most recent edits of this user are still somewhat problematic.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-05-09 13:37:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 104396077 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  The most recent edits of this user are still somewhat problematic.
DressyPear4 (2021-04-08 09:23:33+00:00): Vias terciárias geralmente conectam uma cidade menor a outra, em condomínios use residencial ou serviço.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102503778
eggie (2021-04-08 19:28:46+00:00): Dag Leandert. Je vraagt om feedback.. Lijkt me correct zo.
MVG
eggie
leandert (2021-04-08 19:44:14+00:00): Dankje Eggie.

Groet, Leandert
BCNorwich (2021-04-08 08:07:13+00:00): Hi, Are you sure this path is drawn in the correct place? The OS map and the county definitive map show it more to the west.

You've also placed it and the bridge on top of the outline of the woods ond other outlines, I would have thought it's either in or out of the woods. The formal name is unlikely to be Footpath.

Regards Bernard.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-26 11:00:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103628042 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  The most recent edits of this user (unlikely secondary roads, farm tracks to fields as unclassified) are still problematic.
Palolo (2021-04-08 15:13:06+00:00): Congratulations on your first contributions to OSM. Please look over the instructions to learn how to accurately map buildings. You can use the q key to make the corners square.  Thanks
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-26 10:59:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103628042 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  The most recent edits of this user (unlikely secondary roads, farm tracks to fields as unclassified) are still problematic.
tuxayo (2022-09-07 18:37:17+00:00): Are there really two ATMs in this remote place?
ika-chan! (2021-05-01 03:57:26+00:00): I do not know why the A1 between Chalastra and Gefyra should be a motorway_link, when it is clearly a major road to N. Macedonia? In fact, I would leave it as trunk until the motorway signs actually appear.
user_9221753 (2021-05-01 09:49:18+00:00): My thought is that since it is not interrupted by other way and actually is connecting EO2 with A2 it should be a link. Should be link only the small parts close to the junctions?
ika-chan! (2021-05-01 10:35:08+00:00): Only the slip roads should be *_link for a main road like that. In my opinion, the A1 should be trunk because it has not been upgraded yet.
user_9221753 (2021-05-01 11:50:20+00:00): I agree 100% about being trunk
Tomas Straupis (2021-04-08 10:04:11+00:00): Išvažinėtas takas nėra „dviračių takas“, nes nėra pažymėtas atitinkamu kelio ženklu, nėra prižiūrimas ir pan. Pakeičiau į highway=path.
Aurelijus Visagurskis (2021-04-08 12:48:41+00:00): Ačiū
maxolasersquad (2021-04-08 21:59:49+00:00): Thanks for the great contribution here. I wanted to provide some feedback about the drawing of buildings. The intention is to use the satellite imagery to approximate the shape of the walls, not to outline the roof as it appears from space. After you have outlined the walls (not the roof) you can right-click the building and use the "Square" option to get perfect right-angles on the building.
vorpalblade (2021-04-23 01:12:26+00:00): I *really* hope you weren't using Bing for alignment. *Really, really, hope.*

If you've got the imagery_db_offset plugin installed, I've added some offsets for some survey markers for the Mesa County Imagery, and I also did some aligning of other layers, like Bing.

Just so you know, Mesa County GIS has allowed us to use their (much more) up to date imagery for tracing in OpenStreetMap. 

JOSM has access to the 2019 and 2020 aerial photos with the names starting as "Mesa County GIS".
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-05-09 13:37:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 104396077 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  The most recent edits of this user are still somewhat problematic.
eggie (2021-04-08 05:12:41+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht. 



feedback.. Een slagboom op de T kruising zal waarschijnlijk niet kloppen. Kijk nog even.. Je edits
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=102505544

MVG, 

Eggie 
namens de OSM Community
De Raad (2021-04-12 07:13:46+00:00): Ik heb een aanpassing gemaakt in een nieuwe edit
eggie (2021-04-12 07:25:21+00:00): Dag De Raad.. Lijkt mij oke nu. 

MVG
eggie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-26 10:59:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103628042 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  The most recent edits of this user (unlikely secondary roads, farm tracks to fields as unclassified) are still problematic.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-26 10:59:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103628042 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  The most recent edits of this user (unlikely secondary roads, farm tracks to fields as unclassified) are still problematic.
DressyPear4 (2021-04-08 09:55:33+00:00): Olá, essa via foi duplicada?
Por que não colocou o nome e o código da antiga via na nova?
Note que se a classificação da rodovia for alterada suas ligações também devem ser.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102505678
Claudio Tosetto Filho (2021-04-08 11:13:34+00:00): Bom dia. Sim, a rodovia foi duplicada mas não recentemente, isso já tem  mais de uma década. Coloquei a nomenclatura a alguns minutos, obrigado por me avisar.
Ficky IRM-RV (2021-06-10 01:32:58+00:00): hi Claudio Tosetto Filho,
can you confirm this restriction relation role (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/relation/3213366)? relation missing a "from" and "to" member. there is only "via" member.
Thank you, happy mapping!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-26 10:59:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103628042 where the changeset comment is: Following a request from HOT, reverting some poor quality edits.  The most recent edits of this user (unlikely secondary roads, farm tracks to fields as unclassified) are still problematic.
Awoobis (2023-08-14 18:33:00+00:00): Hejo, przez maproulette zwróciłem uwagę na https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/927303959, w layer jest wstawiony tekst zamiast numeru. Ten tekst można wyrzucić?
d3mol3k (2023-08-17 15:43:06+00:00): Dzięki za uwagę usunąłem tekst pozostawiając layer=1
aweech (2021-04-08 00:51:02+00:00): Hi,
In this edit, you deleted a whole bunch of perfectly valid ways, only to redraw some of them. This behavior is not appropriate as it deletes the history. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history for more information.
DaveF (2021-04-09 02:31:09+00:00): Hi
I changed the building to a train station. There should only be one entity per railway station. There will be multiple buildings/entrances for the Elizabeth line. 
All the other EL building need to be tagged similarly. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/927357453#map=18/51.51975/-0.09937
woodpeck_repair (2021-04-09 22:08:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 102672593 where the changeset comment is: revert vandalism
TomPar (2021-04-08 02:59:50+00:00): FYI: I had access to MassGIS L3 parcel shapefiles so made it more accurate.
woodpeck (2021-04-12 16:21:15+00:00): Please, when updating lots of names in the future, specify your data source. If you just add a name or two then it might be that you simply know them, but you've added hundreds of name:zh tags, i.e. it is likely that you copied them from somewhere. That "somewhere" should be in your changeset source tag.
MapSpot (2021-04-10 04:00:50+00:00): Nice work and attention to detail with these river areas. I just wanted to give you a heads up that there is an ongoing global collaborative project to phase out the waterway=riverbank tag in favour of using natural=water + water=river as the modern standard. (The iD editor actually already considers waterway=riverbank to be an "outdated" tag when displaying error warnings.)

Since Ireland has already fully switched over to the new tagging scheme in February, I would recommend avoiding the use of waterway=riverbank for consistency's sake.

Here is a link to the project wiki for more information: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Procedure/River_modernization
Nmxosm (2021-04-08 06:50:09+00:00): Hallo Rob-Dog,

vielen Dank für deine Änderungen!

Bei der Feuerwache (https://osm.org/way/4904698) hast du building=no hinzugefügt. Ich finde im Wiki keinen Hinweis, dass amenity=fire_station ein Gebäude impliziert. Warum hast du explizit building=no gesetzt?

Viele Grüße
Nmxosm
Rob-Dog (2021-04-08 20:03:35+00:00): Ji Nmxosm!

Wenn ich das nicht verbaselt habe, habe ich building=no bei dem Weg angegeben, der den ganzen Komplex umrahmt. Das ist ja kein Gebäude im engeren Sinn, sondern grenzt nur den Bereich mit den echten Gebäuden ab. Da StreetComplete hier gefragt hatte, was das für ein Gebäude ist und die ganze Gegend gehighlighted hatte, dachte ich es wäre sinnvoll, explizit zu taggen, dass es sich nicht um ein Gebäude handelt. Ich hoffe, ich hab das richtig interpretiert (und mich auch nicht verklickt...)! Wenn das anders muss, änder es gerne! Kannst du mir dann Bescheid sagen, wie es muss? Falls ich sowas noch mal antreffe.
Nmxosm (2021-04-10 13:39:24+00:00): Hallo Rob-Dog,

das ist natürlich interessant. Bevor jemand mit StreetComplete da irgendeinen falschen building-Tag hinzufügt, finde ich building=no gut. 
Ich denke, dass das einen Fehlerbericht bei https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues wert ist, aber ich bin gerade zu faul. ;-)

Viele Grüße
Nmxosm
user_5359 (2021-04-09 14:44:37+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM classification of the objects has the highest priority. Objects that have only name and description, have little sense. As home page for the question "How do I describe you?" I recommend the web site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.

Dont overpaint existing streets!
SherbetS (2021-04-10 01:19:54+00:00): Hi, 

Please use the tag man_made=mast + tower:type=communication for communications masts.
Sparks (2021-04-10 01:25:37+00:00): I was following the standard published on the Wiki and JOSM:

A man_made=communications_tower is a huge tower for transmitting radio applications like television, radio, mobile phone or officials radio. An indication could be a height greater than 100 meters. Both of these towers are well over 100 meters tall.
SherbetS (2021-04-10 23:01:21+00:00): The tag isn't determined exclusively by the height, the communications tower tag is only relevant if the structure has a place to stand. 

The wiki page for man_made=mast says: "Unlike a man_made=tower which is accessible and provides platforms, a man_made=mast only offers ladder steps to climb it on the outside."

see:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmast
LySioS (2022-04-13 17:18:59+00:00): Bonjour Tr4sK,
Est-ce que tu peux confirmer que la voie "Espace des écoles" est bien connectée à la rue du verdouble. Ça n'a pas l'air d'être le cas sur les photos aériennes
Tr4sK (2022-04-13 18:55:50+00:00): Je ne suis pas sur place je vais vérifier. Mais de mémoire oui, c'est bien connecté.
DressyPear4 (2021-04-08 09:13:28+00:00): Removi os pontos adicionados, já que o endereço não condiz com a realidade e você não prestou informações.
NieWnen (2021-04-08 05:26:19+00:00): Dlaczego bicycle=yes?
Piotr Piotrowski (2021-04-08 19:23:46+00:00): Niektóre mapy wyznaczające trasy dla rowerów i narzędzia (np. wandrer.earth) biorą pod uwagę dostępność drogi serwisowej dla rowerów jeżeli ten tag jest dodany. Ruch rowerowy na tej drodze jest dozwolony i ma sens (jeżdżą tam rowery regularnie) w przeciwieństwie do dróg serwisowych np. na stacjach benzynowych czy alejek parkingowych.
NieWnen (2021-04-08 20:16:36+00:00): Mapowanie pod niektóre narzędzia nie wydaję mi się zbyt dobrym pomysłem, bo to raczej powinni twórcy narzędzia obsłużyć. 

Np. http://brouter.de/ jest świetny do routingu rowerów, a jak się ostatnio dowiedziałem ignoruje highway=construction i do tej pory nie zostało to naprawione, mimo, że zdecydowana większość innych narzędzi jednak nie prowadzi przez budowę, raczej nie powinno się specjalnie dla tych ustawiać dodatkowych tagów.

Domyślnie highway=service raczej zezwala na ruch rowerowy, choć widzę, że w tabelce rzeczywiście dla Polski brakuje dopisku service, więc to wypadałoby na wiki zaktualizować.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions

A co do samego tagu, no błędem to nie jest, choć imo duplikuje zbędny access i możliwe, że ktoś na to trafi to usunie, bo nie będzie mu się zgadzać ze stanem faktycznym.

O stacjach benzynowych/alejkach parkingowych pierwsze słyszę z zakazem (a przynajmniej tak to zrozumiałem), możesz coś więcej o tym napisać?
Piotr Piotrowski (2021-04-09 18:39:35+00:00): Odnośnie stacji, alejek: zakazu tam nie ma tylko też nie ma sensu prowadzenia przez nie trasy. 

Moje tagi wynikają bezpośrednoi z tego https://wandrer.earth/scoring 
i m.in. jest dopisek że serwisowe drogi brane są tylko pod uwagę jeżeli mają ten tag. 

Pisałem w tej sprawie nawet do autora i problem z drogami serwisowymi w PL pokazał mi na tym zapytaniu https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/10Gs - serwisowe są tam drogi wewnętrzne (np. przy stacji energetycznej, przy kościołach), drogi przez myjnie samochodowe, drogi parkingowe w parkingach typu PR (przy metrze) etc.  Gdyby były otagowane dodatkowo jako parking_aisle, driveway, private to by pewnie nie było problemu, ale jak widać nawet na takim małym wycinku sporo brakuje.

Podsumowując: to co w codziennym życiu wydaje się nam drogami serwisowymi, często b. wygodnymi do jazdy rowerem to tylko mały wycinek tego co na OSM jest oznaczonone jako droga serwisowa. 

Wydaje mi się, że dodawanie tego tagu ma sens. Dodaję go tylko na drogach którymi jechałem rowerem i osobiście sprawdziłem że do tego się nadaje :)
NieWnen (2021-04-16 13:41:00+00:00): Strona wander mi nie działa, ale może to chwilowo. Podesłałem temat na discordzie i access restrictions na wiki dla Polski został zaktualizowany i uwzględniony o "service" (wcześniej, go nie było). Mimo, że na samej górze jest napisane, że to NIE JEST jeszcze nic oficjalnego, to część pewnie z tego korzysta, więc możesz podesłać tam, gdzie jest problem z dopuszczeniem rowerów na service:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Poland

Może poprawią :D
Polarbear-repair (2021-04-21 19:20:00+00:00): Dear marc__marc,
in a number of changesets worldwide, 
you remove the apparently correct building type and replace it with "building=yes". This is a regression. 
Please consider that the building type is just the purpose for which the building was originally built, it does not describe any architectural style. 

You also mechanically set a new amenity tag without having knowledge if the building is currently used as such. 

What kind of source is "extrapolation", is that an euphemism for "guessing"?
marc__marc (2021-04-21 21:53:16+00:00): Dear  Polarbear,

Thank you for your questions.

about building=clubhouse
building type as the 1st purpose ? one can very well build a building having the shape of a church (building=church building:use=residential) which would never have been used as a church (if one wishes to remember the first use of the building, it seems to me that the life cycle or ohm are preferable).
the appearance of the building being unknown to me, that's why I put yes, so that its real value can be informed by the next contributor.

about "not knowing if it is currently used as such" the previous version of the object describes a clubhosue club=sport, it's from osm itself that I "know" it's a clubhouse

I'm using source=extrapolation as as described on the wiki for key:source *The information was extrapolated from other information* : this changeset is only using already existing info from osm, I did not use any external source, no sat images, no survey.
is my understanding of its description on the wiki wrong and if so what is the most suitable value ?
it's not guessing.

Regards,
Marc
Becky Candy (2021-04-21 11:51:22+00:00): Please remember to square the buildings by selecting the buildings and pressing the key Q, thank you for mapping
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102508766
Becky Candy (2021-04-21 11:53:40+00:00): Please remember to square the buildings by selecting the  buildings and pressing the key Q,thank you for mapping
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/102508768
eggie (2021-04-08 05:14:56+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht. 

Feedback.. Je kunt het best bijtaggen op de bestaande adresnode.. Niet zelf adressen aanmaken in OSM.

MVG, 

Eggie 
namens de OSM Community
eggie (2021-04-08 05:30:09+00:00): Kleine aanpassing verricht:  
► Uw node samengevoegd met bestaande adresnode
eggie (2021-04-08 05:22:03+00:00): Hier liggen de gebouwen deels op elkaar.
Ik zal het herstellen.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=102509365
eggie (2021-04-08 05:27:21+00:00): Fouten in de BAG (Kadaster) kun je doorgeven aan het Kadaster middels een terugmelding.
Anders komt de oude vorm bij periodieke import weer terug in OSM. 
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=grotestraat%2080&resultOffset=0&objectId=1735200000011961&geometry.x=236901.154&geometry.y=472329.141&zoomlevel=6&detailsObjectId=1735010000013171
MVG
eggie