piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2020-07-25 13:15:23+00:00): Hi. To give you an idea, this is how your mappings looks. The majority should be rectangular, accurate mapped and squared.
Zoom in for a detailed look
https://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?Q=%5Bout%3Ajson%5D%5Btimeout%3A250%5D%3B(node(user%3A%22Frans%20S%22)(18.1562914021348%2C-76.717529293812%2C18.1667304095209%2C-76.7065429656875)%3Bway(user%3A%22Frans%20S%22)(18.1562914021348%2C-76.717529293812%2C18.1667304095209%2C-76.7065429656875)%3Brelation(user%3A%22Frans%20S%22)(18.1562914021348%2C-76.717529293812%2C18.1667304095209%2C-76.7065429656875)%3Bnode(user%3A%22ScottRogers%22)(18.1562914021348%2C-76.717529293812%2C18.1667304095209%2C-76.7065429656875)%3Bway(user%3A%22ScottRogers%22)(18.1562914021348%2C-76.717529293812%2C18.1667304095209%2C-76.7065429656875)%3Brelation(user%3A%22ScottRogers%22)(18.1562914021348%2C-76.717529293812%2C18.1667304095209%2C-76.7065429656875)%3B)%3Bout%20body%3B%3E%3Bout%20skel%20qt%3B
Frans S (2020-07-25 11:23:58+00:00): Hello.
Sorry to say, but your mappings are very sloppy. varies from unaccurate and non squared buildings to clusters of buildings mapped as 1 building
Task is invalidated.
I send you an other PM with more guidelines.
Rainero (2020-07-27 20:35:23+00:00): Hallo mappy123,
die Adressen in Abrain waren doch mit addr:place + addr:housenumber korrekt gemappt, da es in dem Weiler keine Straßennamen gibt. Daraus addr:street + addr:suburb zu machen, halte ich für falsch. Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:addr#.C3.BCbliche_Adressebenen .
Das würde ich wieder zurückbauen.
Diese 4 Adressen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104831293
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104831283
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104831279
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/104831286

Servus,
Rainer
mappy123 (2020-07-28 12:40:11+00:00): Hallo Rainer,
kann man machen, es gibt viele Dörfer (weiß nicht wie es hier ist) wo dieser Weilername dann wirklich auf dem Straßenschild steht. Kann hier leider vor Ort nicht mehr nachschauen da ich schon wieder weg bin. Ich bin flexibel, du darfst es gerne für die 4 Adressen wieder ändern, die neuen Hausnr. stimmen aber die hatte ich vor Ort aufgenommen.
Frans S (2020-07-24 17:36:38+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping
I noticed that you mapped tall buildings on a wrong way. On the image you always see a siding of a building. The higher the building , the bigger that part.
The point is to map only the rooflines and move the whole to the place where the building meets the ground,
This video shows how. It is made for JOSM but you can use it for iDeditor as well. It is the principle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPiGntG6fs
Best regards
Frans S (2020-07-24 17:43:43+00:00): Hi Here is the situation as you mapped and how it will be properly mapped
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k7BKBrJPhR3aM-SWclfHf8W6aEHcDOns/view?usp=sharing
Best regards
eggie (2020-08-02 20:24:39+00:00): Je Park heeft als aadres Ede.. dat is niet correct. Deze kleine stukjes groen vallen niet onder de definitie leisure=park. 
landuse=grass is voldoende en Ede "moet" eraf. 
MVG,
eggie
eggie (2020-08-02 20:34:24+00:00): De plaatsnaam Ede verwijderd van de grasvelden ..Svp geen adressen opzetten. 
leisure park verwijderd. Vlakken losgemaakt van andere objecten.
MVG,
eggie
sasQuach (2020-08-05 17:37:24+00:00): Hello Fabrizio83! Welcome to OpenStreetMap. I noticed in this changeset and others that you changed some oneway tags and road connections that don’t seem correct, and you added some kinks in roads. Please make sure you are paying close attention to the imagery, and also take a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice.
Specifically, you removed some oneways (off of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/583101608 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/822069226) and deleted road connections (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4239443108 to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1640532571, and east of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3528724681). However through aerial imagery it appears the connections and routing before these changes were made was accurate. 
These edits also caused some kinks in the data (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4589181974) and oneway transitions that don’t seem logical (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/583101608 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/822069226 where both will result in a dead-ending northbound road)
Is there a specific resource you are using to make these changes? Thanks!
Supaplex (2021-04-16 09:26:17+00:00): 您好：

歡迎加入開放街圖，群眾共同參與，繪製生活週遭大家關心事物的共編地圖。
台灣的標示依循準則可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taiwan
常見的圖徵標示方式可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features
給Pokemon Go玩家的建議：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers
組織性編輯指南：https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

下面是台灣社群相關的網站，可以加入彼此切磋切磋！

https://www.osm.org or https://osm.org
常用圖徵(Map Features)表 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features
給Pokemon Go玩家的建議：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers
組織性編輯指南：https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
國內網站與協作：
OSM.TW https://osm.tw/
臉書粉絲頁OpenStreetMap台灣 https://www.facebook.com/openstreetmaptaiwan/
OSMWiki Project Taiwan https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Taiwan
Hackpad https://osmtw.hackpad.tw/
Trello https://trello.com/osmtw
GitHub https://github.com/OsmHackTW
與社群交流：
台灣開放街圖 社群組織理事會 信箱 hiboard@openstreetmap.tw
Facebook 社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Slack https://osm-tw.signup.team/
Telegram OpenStreetMap Taiwan https://t.me/joinchat/Aqu2IgnTuIidMfREdNmomQ
Telegram OpenStreetMap Asia https://t.me/OpenStreetMapAsia
敬祝畫圖愉快！
Frans S (2020-08-03 15:55:32+00:00): Hello Cmeltz2
Thanks for mapping.
Please map more accurate, and follow the outlines of a building precise.
Also square all buildings you map.
Best regards

I've send you a PM with advises>
Frans S (2020-08-03 16:02:03+00:00): Hello
On this web page you can see your mappings and how they had to be adjusted
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=88885256
woodpeck (2020-07-24 19:58:34+00:00): Dear floridaeditor, please stop downgrading roads until you have made sure that the US community is actually on board with what you're doing. You seem to have unilaterally decided to be doing the right thing (as is evident from your user profile page) but it doesn't seem you have followed any of the recommendations to discuss with a wider community that were given to you in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88299504#map=10/34.4580/-83.4417 - the fact that other mappers disagree with you should make you pause and seek confirmation, instead of continuing your fight against "too much orange".
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-09-29 13:22:25+00:00): "Looking too orange" is not a valid reason for edit.

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

And as author of current road styling in OSM Carto (default map layer on OSM website) I can confirm that correctly tagged highly populated USA areas will be too red and too orange. This is one of consequences of a global map style with the same rules applying everywhere. I tried to reduce problem and balance it, but I have no succedeed in 100%.

But mistagging roads is not a solution.
JohnDoe23 (2022-11-02 00:15:03+00:00): Hallo mapper1mapper2mapper3,

kannst du bitte genauere Angaben machen, aus welchen Quellen die Daten für die Gipfel, die du in OpenStreetMap eingetragen hast, stammen? Vielen Dank!

Gruß JohnDoe23
itineris (2020-11-03 21:34:40+00:00): Szia!

Az M4 rendezése során az útdíjas szakaszhatárokkal és szakaszokkal elég csúnyán elbántál. Kérlek, a jövőben figyelj oda rájuk egy kicsit jobban!

Köszönöm:
Ákos
BCNorwich (2020-07-24 18:56:03+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
It may well be a private road but there is public access on foot. So please don't make incorrect statements. I added foot=yes to the southern gate.
Regards Bernard.
habi (2020-09-07 12:08:37+00:00): There's no need to  add 'name=building' to buildings you draw (or name='dirt road' to highways). Tagging them as 'building=yes'/'highway=track' is sufficient.

Happy mapping!
Glassman (2020-07-25 02:20:14+00:00): TIP: To show that the public isn't allowed through gates, tag the gate then add access=private or even access=no. Using barrier=locked_forest_service_gate may not tell routers not to use the road since the tag value is unique. Can you fix the gates?

TIP: When editing in wide geographical areas, save your edits for each area you are working in.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88469581
BCNorwich (2020-07-24 19:08:03+00:00): Hi, Please don't corrupt the database by removing the highway status/type tag, by all means correct it if it's wrong.
Jo W (2020-07-24 20:15:19+00:00): Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not a highway!  It is a private driveway with a designated footpath.
b-jazz (2020-07-24 23:27:07+00:00): Hi there skinnyhunt05. I removed the golf cart paths that duplicated the existing residential roads on Barleywood, Collinwood, and Glenwood Drives, and Village Parkhouse Gatehouse Road and added a "golf_cart=yes" tag to the existing roads to indicate that golf carts are allowed there. As I understand it, a duplicate path shouldn't be used, but instead have appropriate tags added to existing roads. If you know otherwise, please let me know. Thanks.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-02-18 23:14:30+00:00): Please don't mistag features for any reason.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Problematic_mapping/golf
habi (2020-09-11 12:30:06+00:00): Please don't name buildings with their features, you could have added 'roof:colour=blue' in this case.
Supaplex (2021-04-16 09:33:23+00:00): 您好：

歡迎加入開放街圖，群眾共同參與，繪製生活週遭大家關心事物的共編地圖。
台灣的標示依循準則可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taiwan
常見的圖徵標示方式可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features
給Pokemon Go玩家的建議：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers
組織性編輯指南：https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

下面是台灣社群相關的網站，可以加入彼此切磋切磋！

https://www.osm.org or https://osm.org
常用圖徵(Map Features)表 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features
給Pokemon Go玩家的建議：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers
組織性編輯指南：https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
國內網站與協作：
OSM.TW https://osm.tw/
臉書粉絲頁OpenStreetMap台灣 https://www.facebook.com/openstreetmaptaiwan/
OSMWiki Project Taiwan https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Taiwan
Hackpad https://osmtw.hackpad.tw/
Trello https://trello.com/osmtw
GitHub https://github.com/OsmHackTW
與社群交流：
台灣開放街圖 社群組織理事會 信箱 hiboard@openstreetmap.tw
Facebook 社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Slack https://osm-tw.signup.team/
Telegram OpenStreetMap Taiwan https://t.me/joinchat/Aqu2IgnTuIidMfREdNmomQ
Telegram OpenStreetMap Asia https://t.me/OpenStreetMapAsia
敬祝畫圖愉快！
habi (2020-09-07 10:17:26+00:00): You should not add 'name=building' to buildings. Tagging them as 'building=yes' is sufficient.
user_2066394 (2020-07-25 11:06:38+00:00): Auf der gesamten Fläche für den Segelclub liegt jetzt ein building=yes mit layer=1

Als Anregung vgl. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:sport%3Dsailing
eggie (2020-07-24 19:27:26+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.

Je bijdrage met als commentaar "ik" heb is teruggedraaid. 
Wat was je bedoeling?
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2020-07-24 19:27:56+00:00): reverted by changeset  #88474273
Allroads (2020-07-25 19:50:16+00:00): Ik heb veel paden beter neergelegd op basis van BGT en eigen foto en die van andere.

Behulpzaam was ook AHN, actueel hoogte bestaan, die we kunnen gebruiken in JOSM editor.
Ga naar de locatie en zoom in
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~allroads/NLOSMOK/OSMOKNL/OSMOKNL.html, speel dan wat met de lagen. OSMOK lagen die voor Openstreetmap te gebruiken zijn. deels private licentie. zie opmerkingen lagen.
Allroads (2020-07-25 19:55:25+00:00): access=yes, betekend eigenlijk dat alle vervoersmiddelen er langs kunnen. Wegens trap gaat dat niet. Ik zou het weglaten.
De aansluitende paden hebben ook geen tags.
Luc Heres (2020-08-01 13:49:41+00:00): Met een moutainbike kan men prima dit pad gebruiken. Bij trap even de fiets optillen en hoppa, men kan weer verder fietsen. Acces = yes betekent m.i. dat het in principe geoorloofd om daar met fietsen langs te gaan. Het zegt niets over het gebruiksgemak. Als het pad voorzien zou zijn van het bord G07 (voetpad) dan is het niet toegestaan om daar te fietsen en dan zou acess - no moetn zijn (voor fietsen en andere voertuigen)
stevea (2020-07-25 03:49:51+00:00): Are you sure this is non-existent.  I've seen SikeMo add many absolutely real-world trails.  Before deleting this, please contact user:SikeMo.
Snowy Leopard (2020-07-25 17:58:12+00:00): This is not public land, and trails are not allowed.  The Forest Service will destroy this "trail" if they discover it on a map.
stevea (2020-07-25 18:14:25+00:00): Both of your two sentences are confusing, rather than enlightening, to me.  Let me elaborate:

1)  You say "this is not public land," which I understand completely.  However, "trails are not allowed" isn't something I've ever seen on public land — even wilderness has trails.  Trails also exist on private land.  So, exactly "who?" is "not allowing" trails?  If this is private land, it would be the owner, and that's fine.  Please explain.

2)  You say "the FS will destroy this trail if they discover it on a map."  Do you mean the FS will delete the trail from a map like OSM?  Or will the FS delete the trail from the real world?  I've never seen the FS removing trails of either sort and #1, removing map data isn't in the FS's mission, and #2, why would the FS have anything to say about this trail, as it is on private land?

So, you see, everything you say doesn't make sense (to me).  It might make sense to you, so please better explain it as I am thoroughly confused by why the FS has anything to say about a trail on private land.  Thank you for identifying that this is private land, that is new information to me.  However, if this trail exists in the real world (as user:SikeMo asserted by entering it into OSM), the data should remain in OSM, but have an additional tag applied to it of access=private, that would be correct in the OSM spirit of tagging real-world objects with proper OSM tags that reflect their characteristics, including access.

Thank you in advance for your answers.
Snowy Leopard (2020-07-25 18:49:12+00:00): My apologies for any confusion.  Private land.  The trail will soon be removed from the real world.
stevea (2020-07-25 18:55:38+00:00): What I suggest (as it is correct) is that you restore the trail, add tag access=private and when it actually IS "removed from the real world" (perhaps by being cordoned off on both ends) THEN remove it from OSM.

Although, in my experience, "trails being removed from the real world" means that they are cordoned off on both ends, then nature reclaims them, with this process often taking many years.
stevea (2020-07-25 19:03:09+00:00): What I suggest you do (as it is correct) is to restore the trail, adding access=private.  THEN, when the trail actually IS "removed from the real world" (you say "soon," so it hasn't happened yet), it may be removed from OSM.

In my experience, though, a trail being removed in the real world means that it is cordoned off on both ends, allowing nature to reclaim the land.  Depending on many factors, this usually takes many years, the trail slowly disappearing until it actually does.  During this occurrence of nature reclaiming the trail, I would say it should remain in OSM (with access=private, of course and perhaps a trail_visibility tag that gets progressively worse) until it truly vanishes, THEN it can be removed from OSM.  Any other process has a whiff of heavy-handed censorship of OSM, which I discourage:  we map what is real, not what we wish to be.
stevea (2020-07-25 19:05:03+00:00): (Whoops, double-entry of the same info; sorry).
SikeMo (2020-07-25 20:35:42+00:00): Hi. While I cannot vouch for the legality of this trail, it's definitely there and that's why I added it. It makes a nice connector from the Rim Trail to Alpine Peaks, however you do basically end up in someone's backyard. I agree with stevea that the best thing to do here is make it 'private', if the homeowners do not want random people showing up in their backyards. However, if they collectively believe that deleting it is a better idea, I suppose that's their business. I cannot comment on what the forest service will do with this trail. I just aim for freedom of information and accuracy when I add new trails.
Ze0zohk1 (2020-12-31 10:04:16+00:00): Hallo an_OSM ,

was soll width=0 beteuten? Ist das ein Schreibfehler?

Viele Grüße
Ze0zohk1 (2020-12-31 10:04:32+00:00): Z. B. bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/798787722/history
an_OSM (2020-12-31 15:01:19+00:00): war ein Schreibfehler! sorry, ist korrigiert,
viele Grüße
Ze0zohk1 (2020-12-31 15:54:32+00:00): Vielen Dank :-)
GoodClover (2020-08-18 13:31:43+00:00): For some reason this edit has moved a bus stop in Louth as well as the buildings you mentioned.
The bus stop: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/502337851
If this was intentional try to make these separate edits in the future as this change set has a massive bounding box and the edits are unrelated.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88472355
Megnami (2020-07-29 06:02:29+00:00): #RiotGamesKarma
marc__marc (2022-09-29 13:31:30+00:00): Hello,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7712296128
infos about the bench is for the nearby bench ? or a missing one ?
Regards,
Marc
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-07-24 18:39:35+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 88405981, 88405999.
SomeoneElse (2020-07-24 18:44:56+00:00): There were 76 ways that failed revert:
grep ERR complex_revert.log | grep "^way" | grep -v "410 Gone" | wc
     76    1216    7524
A sample of these suggests that these have all been sorted out by other mappers (tags corrected, joined to nearby roads, presumably also check they actually exist on the imagery).
user_5359 (2020-07-25 18:31:12+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM description (with defined values) of the objects has the highest priority. Objects that have only one a free text description, have little sense. As home page for the question "How do I describe you?" I recommend the web site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
sovereign_ch (2020-07-25 16:54:14+00:00): "Richtungszuweisungen" sind in PTv2-Relationen nicht nur überflüssig wie ein Kropf, sondern schlichwegs falsch, und werfen in PTNA und OSMI umgehend Fehler über halb Europa aus. Bitte das Handbuch nochmals exakt durchlesen. Danke.
PT-53 (2020-07-26 09:26:26+00:00): Hallo Domme9991,
Du hast an diesem Straßenabschnitt
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51753005/history
das Merkmal
oneway=yes
gelöscht. Das war wohl ein Versehen.
Ich habe das Merkmal wieder eingetragen.
(Gefunden mit brouter-suspects)
Grüße
Mike Raust (2020-08-03 12:38:01+00:00): Please straighten your building footprints by pressing "Q".
Frans S (2020-07-25 14:44:08+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here
A request.
Please square all rectangular buildings with the Q key in the editor
Best regards
Mike Raust (2020-07-24 19:02:12+00:00): Is this rather a manual or a mechanical retagging?
clay_c (2020-07-24 19:18:05+00:00): Manual. I'm using aerial imagery and doing a little internet research to determine whether places tagged as railway=station are actually disused, as well as creating station nodes wherever railway=station is erroneously tagged on a building (should usually be retagged building=train_station).
pio2_122 (2020-07-24 19:22:58+00:00): Chciałbym zwrócić uwagę, że obręby ewidencyjnie nie są dokładnymi granicami wsi (takich granic nie ma w ogóle w PRG). To, że w wielu przypadkach obręby ewid. pokrywają się z adresacją dla danej miejscowości nie oznacza, że można uznać je za wiarygodne i oficjalne źródło do dodawania takich granic.

Tutaj tego przykład: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5998181979
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/637995789
Są to adresy z Paprotni, mimo, że formalnie są one na terenie obrębu ewidencyjnego "Granice". Mam potwierdzenie z Urzędu Gminy, że są to prawidłowe adresy.

W związku z tym prosiłbym, abyś nie dodawał w ten sposób granic miejscowości, ponieważ jest to niezgodne z rzeczywistością (a także formalnie).

Temat był poruszony na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=776390#p776390
W planach jest import granic miejscowości, ale nie można go przeprowadzić, ponieważ na razie nie ma dostępnych danych odnośnie tych granic.
syntex (2020-07-25 10:38:58+00:00): Ok, a jak są tożsame to można dodawać? W większości gmin jednak obręby ewidencyjne pokrywają się z granicami miejscowości
syntex (2020-07-25 11:01:52+00:00): W tym obrębie Granice to są dosłownie 4 adresy inne niż Granice i są one tuż przy granicy miejscowości. Może to właśnie urząd był niekonsekwentny w nadawaniu adresów?
syntex (2020-07-25 11:09:11+00:00): Granice wydają się poprawne, także z Paprotni wychodzą jedynie 4 adresy i to dosłownie kilkanaście metrów dalej na inny obręb. Nie wygląda mi to na niezgodną granicę obrębu z granicą miejscowości, ale na urzędniczą niekonsekwencję lecz oczywiście mogę się mylić
syntex (2020-07-25 11:13:33+00:00): I kolejny przykład, dwa budynki przy ulicy Szymanowskiej mają jednocześnie adres Szymanowska 69A w Teresinie i w Kaskach i 69B w Teresinie i w Kaskach i te punkty adresowe są obok siebie
pio2_122 (2020-07-25 12:17:21+00:00): Tyle tylko, że na obecną chwilę pojęcie "granica miejscowości" (oprócz miast) jest niemożliwe do zweryfikowania - kiedyś były to oficjalne dane z EMUiA, jednak nie są już dostępne (wspomniał o tym @WiktorN w poście na forum, który wcześniej podlinkowałem). Tutaj przykład importu tych danych https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44964523
Również uważam, że granice należy uzupełniać tylko na podstawie oficjalnych źródeł.

Mam mieszane odczucia odnośnie dodawania teoretycznych i nieoficjalnych granic (szczególnie, że obręby ewidencyjne mają inne zastosowanie). W ostateczności przystałbym na takie rozwiązanie tylko w przypadku, gdy na terenie danego obrębu ewid. występują tylko adresy z danej miejscowości. Choć te "granice miejscowości" mogą się zmieniać dynamicznie - ciągle są dodawane nowe adresy i nie można przewidzieć, czy zawsze będą pokrywały się z danym obrębem ewid.
pio2_122 (2020-07-25 12:31:32+00:00): Jak wspomniałem wcześniej, mam potwierdzenie z UG, że te adresy z Paprotni poza obrębem ewidencyjnym "Paprotnia" są poprawne i funkcjonują w terenie.

Odnośnie adresów z Teresina w gminie Baranów - wydaje mi się to na ewidentny błąd. Może jakaś zaszłość z dawnych czasów... Zgłoszę ten problem prze SIP gminy.
__
Jeszcze odnośnie granic miejscowości.
Warto by było, aby poruszyć ten temat na forum. Zawsze lepiej poznać opinię innych osób na ten temat przed podjęciem jakiś działań.
syntex (2020-07-25 13:24:39+00:00): Skoro są poprawne, to znaczy że granica miejscowości czasem "wcina się" na dosłownie 5 metrów w inny obręb pewnie po granicy działki i natychmiast wraca. Trochę to bez sensu
nevw (2020-07-25 05:00:07+00:00): Hi
I reverted your edit which I believe mistakenly changed a footway to a named residential road.
user_8466505 (2020-08-29 01:28:34+00:00): Hey there! I just wanted to give you a quick reminder to square your buildings. Squaring your buildings helps to keep OpenStreetMap looking neat and organized. You can do this by pressing Q while selecting a building or by right clicking a building and tapping “Make Rectangular”. 

Thanks,
TheAdventurer64
skfd (2020-09-01 21:06:10+00:00): Населенный пункт не нужно указывать -- у нас он определяется по нахождению в границах 😎
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/88473848