piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Jrachi (2021-11-24 19:19:33+00:00): However, it seems to me arbitrary and contrary to the community's rules to use changes automatically or massively.
If you change the riverbanks in my changesets again, you find yourself redoing the work other times ...

Inoltre alla pagina:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank

Dice: The OpenStreetMap community has not achieved a consensus on which tagging scheme is preferred.
ovruni (2021-08-21 20:34:10+00:00): Aquí he modificado un área muy grande por error. En Bolivia solamente he modido un pequeño nodo que generaba un ángulo agudo.
Saludos
BubbaJuice (2021-10-11 02:19:48+00:00): Hey GREGMAP1,

In this changeset you added some highway links to intersections. Some of these highway links should be removed though. This is because these roads should only be created if physical separation is present (ie. a median or bollards). However the ones that you added only have strips of paint indicating lanes. Therefore they should be deleted.

If you could leave a comment saying that you got this message that would be great.

Thanks,
BubbaJuice
redd (2022-09-01 18:29:34+00:00): hi phaerrax,
thanks for your contributions to openstreetmap!  
What did you mean with roof:shape=roud? Was this a typo and you meant round? 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/975301506
Thanks,
redd
phaerrax (2022-09-06 10:22:29+00:00): Yes, thanks, it was definitely a typo, it's "round".
redd (2022-09-06 11:44:55+00:00): Thanks for your fast response. If you are going to fix it I will say thank you :)
maraf24 (2021-08-23 18:41:40+00:00): Proszę prawidlowo opisywać swoje zmiany. Znak "/" to ne jest opis!
TestSkizze (2025-07-06 14:19:33+00:00): Bzgl. deinem "Schlenker" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/975304128 vermute ich eher die alte, immer noch mit blassen roten Punkten markierte Abzweigung zum Jägersteig hinunter. Ist nun auch von unten als "Verlängerung" eingetragen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1326303209
Ich kenne diese Möglichkeit von früher und bin auch gestern Nachmittag dort abgebogen. Trittspuren sind erkennbar, wenn auch heute wenig benutzt, da sich die Markierungen unterwegs "verlieren" - und damit auch die Bergler den alten Steig... 
Wie "gesund" das komplette Verzeichnen für das "allg. Wandervolk" ist, ist noch ein anderes Thema...
ottwiz (2021-08-21 21:58:19+00:00): *Esri World Clarity Beta imagery. :)
BubbaJuice (2021-08-21 22:06:35+00:00): *Esri World Imagery (Clarity) Beta
Hanan Tikveša (2021-08-21 22:33:18+00:00): you don't need to put time on your changeset comment.
it is already written.
just hover your cursor over the text that says "28 minutes ago" and you will see the time uploaded.
Geo-Tobi (2025-01-11 14:11:31+00:00): Hi, hier wurde agricultural=yes gesetzt. Das ist gemäß Wiki das Schild "Traktor frei". War das wirklich so beabsichtigt oder wolltest du das Schild "landwirtschaftlicher Verkehr frei" abbilden? Das wäre dann motor_vehicle=agricultural. 
Bitte ggfs um Korrektur. Danke
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24544251
mm_droide (2025-01-11 15:28:00+00:00): Danle für den Hinweis, hab's geändert!
eggie (2021-08-22 06:28:55+00:00): Dag ewc..
Werd even getriggerd omdat er geen bicycle=yes stond. 
Even gespiekt in straatkijk en bevestig door de verkeersbordendata-kaart
https://smoothefiets.ddns.net/html/verkeersbordenkaart/index.php?lat=52.274016044&lng=4.928419590&z=19

Nu omgezet naar G11 fietspad.
Mocht dat bord zijn weggehaald aan de zuidzijde (laat het even weten) dan inderdaad highway=path maar dan voor de duidelijkheid bicycle=yes.... laatste hoeft niet op G11 fietspad) 
Vreemd dat het G11 bord ontbreekt aan de noordzijde. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-08-22 07:09:25+00:00): Tja.. Voor wat het waard is  https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.273737600576&lng=4.9281425792005&z=16.038753796531314&pKey=378345856758519&focus=photo&x=0.49300488958787775&y=0.5262738009261667&zoom=0

en de noordzijde is een recente foto, maar toen werd er aan het 'pad' gewerkt.
eggie (2021-08-22 08:01:28+00:00): Toch maar weer even highway=path van gemaakt met bicycle=yes..  'k Vermoed dat de boer zelf een G11 bord in elkaar heeft geknutseld in z'n schuur. 
Maar wellicht is het nu toch een officieel fietspad geworden.
Dan taggen als volgt...
G11: mofa=yes, moped=no, traffic_sign=NL:G11 
G12a: moped=designated, mofa=designated, traffic_sign=NL:G12a 
G13: moped=no, mofa=no, traffic_sign=NL:G13 

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Cycleway 
MVG
eggie
e_w_c (2021-08-22 14:09:29+00:00): Dank voor je opmerkingen. De gemeente noemt het een fietspad en het zit in een fietsknooppuntennetwerk, maar ik kan niet goed herinneren welk bord er bij stond. Als ik er weer ben zal ik hier op letten en aanpassen als nodig.
eggie (2021-08-22 14:14:28+00:00): Oke.. top.. !
Mapse
Eggie
DressyPear4 (2021-08-23 14:41:16+00:00): Olá, a informação do numero vai no ponto e não na via, o ponto também deve ser colocado em paralelo e não grudado
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110043628
VictorIE (2022-08-08 05:04:19+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9025542678

Might healthcare=optometrist be better for this?
lyctkel (2021-09-25 18:49:18+00:00): Hallo Hans Erren,
Vandaag stond ik voor de fitnessstudio en was verbaasd hier een bouwplaats te zien toen ik die invoerde in Openstreetmap. Er was tenminste geen bouwplaats op dit deel van het gebouw.
Het volgende lijkt me meer geschikt
proposed:building=yes
name=Harbour park Indola fabriek
website=https://www.rijswijk.nl/project/harbour-park-indola-fabriek
Groten,
lyctkel
Hans Erren (2021-09-26 08:34:02+00:00): Goed idee, is aangepast.
Kai Johnson (2022-07-04 15:12:22+00:00): I noticed you used the USFS IVM to get some of the names for tracks in this changeset. You have to be careful with that map because it has two components: a basemap with data from an outside source, and an overlay with USFS data. If the information is in the USFS overlay, it's generally pretty good, although it's always a good idea to double check it with additional sources. The basemap data is often inaccurate, so you don't want to rely on that alone. I'm just going to take the name "Big Pine Flat Road" off of FR 3N87 because that name belongs to FR 3N92 and the other available USFS documents only refer to 3N87 by number, not by name.
user_11609320 (2022-07-05 02:44:55+00:00): That makes sense. I will double check in the future with other sources. I thought the data was consistent. Thank you for letting me know. if there are pdf maps from the forest service would that be a better source?
Kai Johnson (2022-07-05 16:48:19+00:00): The Motor Vehicle Use Maps are great for confirming access restrictions but they only have route numbers, not names. The best places I've found to double check names are in the USFS Road Analysis and Environmental Assessment documents. Although they usually don't have maps, these documents usually have the route number paired with the name. And there's a trick to finding them. Just use, e.g. "3N92" site:fs.usda.gov (with the quotes) to search Google to find references to route 3N92 on the USFS web sites.
Supaplex (2021-08-22 04:49:20+00:00): 已經有啊
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9020115374
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110044619
sarawaremono (2022-05-17 01:15:26+00:00): What's going on with this way? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/975314136 It has no tags, and seems to follow forest edge with an offset.
user_11435438 (2021-09-04 14:07:03+00:00): Hi edvac,
You revert the changeset, and made the village (node/8138514813) which established by the Chinese government and inhabited by Chinese residents outside the border of China. Please answer positively why you did this. As a member of the DWG,  it is quite SHAMEFUL to violate the file [https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf]. If you fail to give sufficient explanation and prove that this area is under the control of the Bhutanese government, then I will ask another DWG members reported this change again.

About the village, see https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/27/world/asia/china-bhutan-india-border.html .Or other news about '庞达村'.
NM$L (2021-09-04 14:30:24+00:00): ==Copy from 94546363==
devac您好， 
我谢谢您的评论。 
那根据所谓的“地上”原则，一个中国实控村——庞达村——是不是应该算在其他的国家里面呀😅？ 
你是第二或第三个评论有关边界问题之人。我要是不懂“地上”原则的话早他母亲地将所有中国声称领土标注了，我已经很尊重开放街图之原则和现实情况，其余我无可奉告。 
并且，数据组可以放任十万甚至九万人按照印政府的口味改边界，不加以警告或提醒，干啥啥不行，双标第一名，我确实忍不了。 
最后这些可能有些带入情绪，请见谅，我承诺不会带入编辑。 
以我的名字祝福您 
宫本宇森于2021年8月27日夜

Dear devac, 
Thanks for talking with me! 
So according to "On the Ground" principle, should a Chinese actually controled village, 庞达(Pangda), be in other country when OSM ONLY shows ONE boundary, the LAC😅? 
You're the second or third person talking about the boundary. Because I understand what the "On the Ground" principle is, I just changed the actually controled area rather than turn all boundary Chinese government claiming into OSM's Chinese boundary. I'm trying my best to respect OSM rules and the actually situation. 
Also, there're some one ONLY changing Chinese boundary in favor of India, never being warned or reminded. 
Please understand that sometimes I can't stand double-standard. And recently I'm angry with some things in real life so maybe these words would disappoint you. Please forgive it and I promise I would never take my anger into OSM data. 
Best wishes, 
NM$L
FreedSky (2021-09-04 15:59:50+00:00): 有明确的道路数据可以证明控制归属，不理解阁下为何如此编辑？
FreedSky (2021-09-05 07:13:55+00:00):   There are a large number of Chinese-controlled roads in this area of Doklam, and Bhutan has almost no actual control nodes, but the entire area is returned to be displayed as Bhutanese territory; if you zoom in and look at the detailed OSM data, for example, the roads can find China to the disputed area here. There are many roads, and there are administrative villages here.

also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangda
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-09-06 03:23:08+00:00): 建議閣下仔細觀察您所修改的區域，在該區域中有明顯的由PRC實控的證明，按照在地原則，閣下的這次編輯是顯然不正確的。
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule
FreedSky (2021-09-24 07:39:43+00:00): [Ticket#2021090510000032] Re: Regarding the unreasonable border retrea [...]

Data Working Group <data@otrs.openstreetmap.org>

Hello,

this is an automated reply. Your request has been recorded as Ticket#2021090510000032 and will be processed by one of the members of Data Working Group in due course.

Please understand that our working group consists of volunteers only who do this job in their spare time. All incoming messages are read but processing them can take a little time.

Best regards
OSMF Data Working group

--
OTRS data@osmfoundation.org


so DWG need so long？ one year? or ten year?
NM$L (2021-10-14 15:27:42+00:00): 已经55天过去😅
NM$L (2022-08-27 09:44:20+00:00): 😅 One year...
Supaplex (2021-08-22 04:47:55+00:00): 已經有啊
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8742657794
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110044676
ottwiz (2021-08-21 23:57:12+00:00): *Bear Rock Lakes
SherbetS (2021-08-22 00:52:45+00:00): marvyn, not cotswold
Marmanvii (2021-08-22 04:24:52+00:00): Hay áreas marcadas como “forest” que tienen más pinta de ser un cultivo o plantación
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110045722
Marmanvii (2021-08-22 04:37:24+00:00): Acabo de re revisar la wiki y estaría bien ese uso.
3ngineer (2022-01-31 23:26:56+00:00): Hi, do you have a source for tagging power lines as "24940" volts? I know this is technically 2 * 12470 V, but typically these are just referred to as 25kV, since I believe the voltages are actually irrational numbers anyway. Cheers.
3ngineer (2022-01-31 23:27:59+00:00): Sorry, just realized a different user may have tagged this.
Allison P (2021-08-23 20:47:29+00:00): Making paths that don't really exist for routers is a form of tagging for the renderer, I would think.
h551w (2021-09-06 23:11:35+00:00): Yeah, I agree it's not quite the most accurate representation, it's not like there's a segment of pathway between the sidewalk and the street. However I think that there needs to be at least some sort of connection to the street to show it's possible to reach the street from a pathway, as opposed to when there's a strip of grass between the sidewalk and road (like with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/913614219). I'd think there's at least enough precedent for including ways that aren't quite physically there but are absolutely necessary for routing purposes, such as with putting a way through a pedestrian area (like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:area:highway%3Dpedestrian#Correct_tagging suggests) or with unmarked crosswalks. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it an unmarked crossing and maybe add the curb, but it would feel wrong to me to suggest it's not possible to get to the street from the path
Zhent (2021-08-30 09:20:34+00:00): Not sure exactly what you were trying to do, but the entire catchment area has been incorrectly changed to 'heath'.
Warin61 (2021-09-12 08:03:41+00:00): Albert - start small. Use a good source and state the source under 'imagery used' ... yes you can include more than one source. 
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hope that helps.
Zhent (2021-08-30 09:32:18+00:00): A couple of things to tidy up with these edits:
The whole walking track is tagged as a bridge, looks like you only want a small portion as bridge - need to split the way into 3 sections.
The creek added should be tagged as a stream not river, end node should be joined to the existing stream upsteam, and direction reversed to show correct flow.
A couple of objects appear to have name field mixed up with a description field. e.g. 'walking track' should be under description not name - name is only for proper titles of things.
Have a look at the wiki for more guidelines - e.g. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines
Zhent (2021-08-30 09:35:41+00:00): Also just realised the walking track is tagged as highway=track, this is for vehicles it should be highway=path
And for good practice add tags such as SAC scale, visibility, source (e.g. GPS data) etc.
Check https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=path
Zhent (2021-09-05 05:17:52+00:00): I did a ground survey, the 'track' is little more then bush bashing and animal scratchings. I don't think it qualifies for OSM. I will fix it up if I don't hear back.
Allison P (2023-03-14 21:13:23+00:00): I don't think it's appropriate to add the unit as a name. Probably should be addr:unit instead
h551w (2023-03-31 19:23:54+00:00): Oh, yeah that'd be more accurate. Updated!
Supaplex (2021-08-22 17:25:15+00:00): 請問你繪製的依據是?政治上海峽兩邊不同國家與政權不大可能興建，而台灣海峽的海像惡劣並不容易施工。如果是計劃路線請標示為proposed，並且標示資料來源。
Supaplex (2021-08-22 17:25:44+00:00): 请问你绘制的依据是？政治上海峡两边不同国家与政权不大可能兴建，而台湾海峡的海像恶劣并不容易施工。如果是计划路线请标示为提议，并且标示资料来源。
Supaplex (2021-08-22 17:28:37+00:00): Could you explain what is the source of your editing? Due to political difference between Taiwan and China, it is unlikely to build a railway bridge across the Taiwan Strait. And it is also very hard to build a bridge of the walrus Taiwan Strait. If it is a proposed line, please tag as proposed and add data source.
Supaplex (2021-08-22 17:34:28+00:00): 請問你畫圖的根據是啥物？政治上海峽兩爿是無仝的國家，無啥可能建跨過臺灣海峽的大橋。而且臺灣海峽的海相誠䆀，施工困難。干焦是計畫路線就標示是計畫路線，並且加上資料來源。
Marmanvii (2021-08-22 17:17:13+00:00): Hola, en ID al seleccionar un área, por ej. el centro social en este caso, se puede cuadrar con la tecla Q.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110046985
MatthewSeale (2021-10-02 06:20:55+00:00): Hi HighRoueur
I have several queries on this changeset.  Are you able to clarify the reasons for the following or if these should be reverted?
1/ You have added access=private to Cardinia Close (Way: 22898760) and Sylvan crt (Way 22898764).  Bing aerial images and Mapilliary appear to show these are normal residential streets with no indications of restriction on bicycle access.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=490471555733089
2/ You have changed the cyclepath alongside Brady Road (Way 678341454) into a footpath with bicycle=no.  Mapilliary photo trails  show this is signed and marked as a shared cyclepath (same link as above).
3/ You added bicycle=no to Dunlopillo drive (Way 40342469).  Mapilliary photo trails do not appear to show any restriction on access for bicycles
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=785496155435920
4/ You added multiple bicycle=no tags to turn lanes on Greens Rd, Princes Hwy and The Frankston-Dandenong road. All of these appear inconsistent with their primary roads which have no restrictions on bicycles.  As the main roads are tagged with bicycle access why would the turn lanes be tagged as not allowing bikes?
Thanks
tonyf1 (2022-08-20 10:22:35+00:00): See Changeset: 125141128
Glassman (2021-08-22 20:43:14+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110047916
mueschel (2021-08-22 12:17:37+00:00): Hi
you used the tag 'name:kk-arab' here.
The common spelling is 'name:kk-Arab' with a capital A. Could you check and fix that?
user_11435438 (2021-08-25 07:01:50+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset 110209640 because of   deletion of place nodes.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110047935
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:37:26+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.
Kovoschiz (2021-08-22 12:02:15+00:00): 1. Please don't create excessively large area changesets. This confuses everyone and changeset viewers. 
2. Please avoid deleting objects when it contains an address, also representing a shop space. Simply remove the tags as you have done.
Flacco (2021-08-22 12:20:08+00:00): Thanks for the tips, I'll try to avoid those issues in the future
eggie (2021-08-22 06:13:59+00:00): fesa?...  Typo.. Reshaped bridge from bgt omtrekgericht
Carto'Cité (2022-01-13 12:19:16+00:00): Bonjour RGONON,
Je me suis permis de repasser ce chemin en « path » avec les précisions nécessaires pour comprendre qu'il est cyclable mais il ne s'agit à priori pas d'une piste cyclable.
N'hésite pas si tu as des questions ou des remarques :)
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
Allison P (2021-08-23 20:46:30+00:00): Thanks for doing that. Very hard to determine actual boundaries.
eggie (2021-08-22 07:20:57+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Tip:  phone = +31  ...  in OSM-format

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
AlexNcUa (2021-08-22 18:59:02+00:00): Доброго дня, підкажіть, ref-и CHRN G7M8+CP, M-01 C874+G6, M-01 6657+78 це ви тимчасово рандомні поставили чи це дійсно реальні данні? 
Якщо реальні, - поділіться будь ласка посиланням де ви знаходили, мені буде дуже корисним.
AlexNcUa (2021-08-22 19:17:10+00:00): Зараз для більшості камер по Україні у якості ref я використовував КАСКАД NNNN-NNN, наприклад КАСКАД 051-1219, КАСКАД 029-1219, КАСКАД 002-1118, це офіційні назви, але для нових камер їх ще неможливо нагуглити, тому залишав ref порожнім.
Тому також додатково для усіх камер добавляв name у форматі ККШ "більш-менш нормалізована назва з сайту МВС" https://mvs.gov.ua/uk/ministry/avtomaticna-sistema-fotovideofiksaciyi-porusen-pdr/adresi-kamer-fotovideofiksaciyi-ta-dozvolena-svidkist-ruxu

Тут багато прикладів, зокрама Київ, и більшість трас.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1axL
sHa (2021-08-22 20:42:48+00:00): Є додаток KyivSpeed я беру данні ref з нього
Знайти першоджерело я не зміг. Але назва сильно схожа на офіційну
E de Wit (2021-08-22 13:23:04+00:00): Helaas geen officiële bekendmaking gevonden over de naam van de vaart bij Deinum. Maar de naam "Deinumer Feart"is wel in courant gebruik bij zowel de gemeente als de media.

Ik heb de naam toegevoegd in changeset:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110060371
JeroenHoek (2021-08-22 13:34:56+00:00): Klinkt aannemelijk. Ik had de dorpsvereniging vanochtend ook even een mailtje gestuurd. Wellicht dat zij het zeker weten.

Gemeente Waadhoeke hoort dit soort dingen natuurlijk te weten (en bij te houden), en ik heb ze ook wel een keer eerder gemaild over een naamgevingszaak (en netjes antwoord gehad), maar mijn laatste twee mails (en herinnering) blijven onbeantwoord, dus die route is momenteel een beetje traag/onbetrouwbaar.

Wat echt een wereld van verschil is met gemeente Leeuwarden waar ik steevast antwoord krijg van de naamgevingscommissie zelf (top!).
JeroenHoek (2021-08-22 13:35:52+00:00): Goed gevonden trouwens, en nu snap ik ook wat dat object daar in het water is (zwaluwwand)!
E de Wit (2021-08-22 13:51:38+00:00): Maar even kijken wat daaruit komt, we kunnen het altijd aanpassen als er een andere naam uit komt. De spellingswijze van "Deinumer Feart" komt in ieder geval overeen met de nabijgelegen "Blessumer Feart" en "Menamer Feart". De naamgevingscommissie in Leeuwarden ben ik ook wel over te spreken. Hetzelfde met BAG terugmeldingen die enorm snel worden afgehandeld.

Dat soort kleine dingetjes zoals deze zwaluwwand die ik dan toevallig tegenkom vind ik mooi om aan de kaart toe te voegen. Ik wist ook niet wat de bedoeling was van dat object.
3ngineer (2021-08-22 22:46:05+00:00): Please don't delete stop nodes- bus stops do not get demolished.
user_1566574 (2021-08-28 09:06:48+00:00): Bonjour Xavier,
Qu'entendez-vous par « Zone à mettre à jour » ? La cartographie manque de précision, ou il y a de nouveaux aménagements en cours ?

Merci d'avance !
xavier025 (2021-08-28 14:19:50+00:00):  Zone à mettre à jour : 
je ne sais plus pourquoi  j'ai mis comme ca le commentaire.
pas d’aménagement en cours de travaux .
Comme ceci ca me parrait bien.
Cordialement
user_1566574 (2021-08-28 18:57:49+00:00): Pas de soucis, je rectifierais ! Merci à vous. :)
Dave Venables (2021-08-24 07:37:38+00:00): Signs outside still say "Tesco Metro" as of 23 August 2021 but the Tesco website clearly says "Derby Saint Peter's Street Express" Tesco Express https://www.tesco.com/store-locator/derby/7-st-peters-st and it was reported that all Tesco Metro stores will become either a Tesco superstore or a Tesco Express https://osm.mathmos.net/ghosts/tesco-metro/ and this shop is small enough to become a (larger that average) Tesco Express
Dave Venables (2021-09-14 16:52:28+00:00): Signs now say Tesco Express
SK53 (2021-09-15 13:22:03+00:00): I think the same is true of the one in Vic Centre (some press coverage in Nottingham Evening Post).
Dave Venables (2021-09-15 14:20:36+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2795837
Abn_976 (2021-08-25 06:35:23+00:00): Bonjour, 
Merci pour les corrections :-)
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-09-21 08:07:38+00:00): 您好，请不要向OSM中添加无意义的内容，感谢

------
Best wishes
快乐的老鼠宝宝
Belonging to OSMChina DT
(A user who want to join DWG and hard working to reach this goal)
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-09-21 08:05:33+00:00): 您好，建议您在以后的编辑中，使用一些意义更加明确的修改集注释，如这个修改集添加了什么，删除了什么，改动了什么，有助于后人了解修改集的内容

------
Best wishes
快乐的老鼠宝宝
Belonging to OSMChina DT
(A user who want to join DWG and hard working to reach this goal)
joost schouppe (2022-05-30 12:44:44+00:00): Hey Rik,
Wat is je bron voor de naam "Beverbeek"? In de volksmond noemde iedereen dit de Molenbeek, in het GRB zie ik ook die naam verschijnen.
Je bent trouwens een klein stukje vergeten: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/975349081
joost schouppe (2022-07-03 08:49:09+00:00): Iemand die bij de stad werkt kon me bevestigen dat de officiële naam wel degelijk Beverbeek is.
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-09-21 08:05:26+00:00): 您好，请不要向OSM中添加无意义的内容，感谢

------
Best wishes
快乐的老鼠宝宝
Belonging to OSMChina DT
(A user who want to join DWG and hard working to reach this goal)