piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Tomas Straupis (2021-05-30 18:18:42+00:00): NOTE: There is currently NO WAY to know the opinion of international community. Few tagging list people are miniscule/unimportant/unrepresentative group. Even usage statistics can no longer be trusted because some people like Brian Sperlongano are organising criminal like deceptive world wide mass retagging of valid tags without consulting local communities.
Friendly_Ghost (2021-05-30 22:02:11+00:00): Dear Tomas Straupis,

1. Here follows a link to the documentation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details#Deprecation I am happy to inform you that 10 years after approval, broad renderer support for water details has been achieved, which means that legacy tagging schemes can be safely deprecated. 

2. As woodpeck asked before, could you point out how the Lithuanian community made the decision to tag moats in a certain way? The tags you mentioned earlier are not in use, and I would be glad to know which tagging scheme for moats the Lithuanian community has agreed upon. 

3. I should not have to tell you that water detail tagging has been a part of OSM for much longer than I have been. Furthermore, the fact that this water body is a moat is of interest to historians, which makes tagging it as a moat valuable information. 

4. I know some military history and my country has a very high density of moats. That should qualify me to identify moats at forts. In our discussion here I also noticed that we seem to be in agreement that this body of water is in fact a moat, which makes me wonder why you removed the related tag. 

I would like to remind you friendly that no communities within OSM are unimportant and that Brian Sperlongano's mass retagging is well-documented, has been conducted only after local community approval and so far does not concern any moats, which by the way are a rare sight in the USA. 

I ask you to stop gatekeeping, acting hostile and vandalising the map. 

Regards,

Intruder Ghost
Tomas Straupis (2021-05-31 05:39:18+00:00): 1. Stop LYING or you have problems with text comprehension? Original water schema was NEVER deprecated! There was NEVER a vote to deprecate it!
2. Even if there was: tagging litst/wiki voting means NOTHING. It has never been as is not an authoritative source ("tag as you like").
3. Brian Sperlongano has been caught doing mass retagging WITHOUT asking local communities (mainly by abusing/lying to newbies who believe the fairy tail of "deprecation/better schema") after writing on another wiki page that such retagings should not be done. So that is an example of highly immoral behaviour of Brian Sperlongano.
4. Casper, STOP telling my what to do, and I will not tell you where to go. You're in no position to teach.
GoodClover (2021-05-31 07:05:37+00:00): I think discussion of country-wide tagging should take place with some of those community members here, no? Rather than just you, Tomas.

Can you link to cases of when Brian has not consulted local communities? I'm yet to see proof of this happening.
GoodClover (2021-05-31 07:06:59+00:00): (I don't mean literally here in this changeset, it'd be best to move to another communication medium)
Tomas Straupis (2021-05-31 07:42:19+00:00): I have reverted riverbank damages in Lithuania, Martin Koppenhoefer has mentioned changes in Italy(?). Both had no prior consultation with local community but rather some attempts to LIE - f.e. explain that "I was fixing some errors" when simply moving one point here another there.
NOTE: This topic has been discussed million times on millions different medias. This started almost ten years ago and most people who have been active during that period (including me) are already bored of this discussion because it has never led to anything but anger. My point is that until the root is not fixed - until there is no way to make an authoritative decision (wiki/tagging list is not) - there is no way to solve this (ant other) problems.
woodpeck (2021-05-31 08:43:40+00:00): GoodClover, your comments are not helpful; I am pretty certain that rarely anybody making high-level tagging plans on the wiki and the tagging list has contacted small local communities like the Lithuanian one. Tomas is right in so far as that wiki votes and tagging list discussions are not binding for local communities to follow - even though it can of course happen that data consumers like rendering engines slowly follow "new" standards leading to those rejecting them getting a less nice map. The crucial question here is whether the Lithuanian community actually exists as a group and stands behind Tomas, in which case his rejection of FriendlyGhost's mapping would be ok, or whether this is essentially one stubborn person clamouring for souvereignity when nobody else really cares. Tomas, be careful what you wish for - any global mechanism for making authoritative tagging decisions will probably overrule a small community like yours 10 times out of 10. The current system allows everyone some leeway where they feel it is important and it works on the whole. This sometimes requires some compromise. When was the last time you changed your mind on something regarding OSM tagging? Are you only this stubborn if someone from outside of Lithuania tags something you don't like, or do Lithuanian users get the same "I have been here for over 10 years, I know what is right and you know nothing" treatment?
Tomas Straupis (2021-05-31 09:02:03+00:00): This is really a bad medium for this discussion. I will simply explain that this particular water schema dispute can easily be solved by technical means (this particular case is not something crucial), the main problem as I see it is that it is possible for uneducated inexperienced newby (less than year experience no Carto/GIS knowledge for the introducer of new water schema) users to actually introduce such a pointless change in tagging. I would be totally fine to comply with expert commission (experts in GIS/Carto/IT, not coding nerds) because I believe they would not be pushing pointless changes for prominent schemas, because that is one of the golden rules of IT in general. Motivation of new water schema "to write SQL easier" is totally stupid for so widely used objects, experts would never ever do that.
Tomas Straupis (2021-05-31 09:07:43+00:00): And for "current system works on the whole". It LOOKS like its working while it is changing some meaningless stuff like how to tag the colour of gates in suburbian football pitches. Let them try changing tagging for something really used/useful and widespread and see how it will work "on the whole" :-)
But again, while decision making/governance is the real problem here, not water schema or local community decision process, noone wants to do any movements on this front. And I guess there IS nobody who would have an authority to do such a movement... Steve C.? :-)
VictorIE (2021-12-06 21:55:43+00:00): I've added this house: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8779928188 Do you have any other details you wan to add?
b-unicycling (2021-12-06 22:47:38+00:00): I don't think I can. I was walking the Barrow way that day, I'm not in the habit of doing that regularly. ;-)
Thanks for adding the house.
VictorIE (2021-12-06 23:38:22+00:00): Ah, I normally take a camera. :)
b-unicycling (2021-12-06 23:43:19+00:00): I might have taken mapillary, can't remember.
mycota (2021-06-07 17:26:22+00:00): This is not a park. It's a landscaped area on a college campus. It doesn't fit the description of a park listed on the OSM wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark

I will be reverting this edit.
fabiotofy (2025-03-23 17:05:55+00:00): Ciao, a me il civico 1 di Largo Antonio Bertolini in realtà dovrebbe essere riferito ad un Largo Antonio Bartoloni. Come da etichetta del civico 1 esposto, come da affige lapidea esposta lì nel slargo. L'edificio è ora in ristrutturazione. Ciao ciao
damjang (2025-03-23 18:07:25+00:00): Scusa, ma io da gmaps vedo che lo slargo si chiama Largo Bertolini. Da dove esce questo Bertoloni? Vedi https://www.google.com/maps/@45.6843294,13.7755019,3a,15y,301.91h,88.02t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slkzkaYvdB-P6a0QMyAk5Fg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D1.975483411509117%26panoid%3DlkzkaYvdB-P6a0QMyAk5Fg%26yaw%3D301.9060479691941!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMxOS4yIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D
fabiotofy (2025-03-23 18:13:50+00:00): Sono passato lì questa mattina: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13JnwBhthJJV15jWI_E1H-eQpQ-h_Gq03/view?usp=sharing

Sembra anche coerente con la storia di Trieste e dell'Obelisco lì vicino (La piantagione dell’Obelisco che rappresentava il XVII bosco del Comune di Trieste fu dedicata ad Antonio Bertoloni (Sarzana 1775 – Bologna 1869) il quale fu autore di una ponderosa ricerca trentennale sulla flora italica in cui inserì ampie relazioni sulla realtà vegetazionale locale)
fabiotofy (2025-03-23 18:15:23+00:00): Foto zoom sul numero civico esposto: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y3ql39SGDYHXz53MVeFPXoLuBSLsu9jR/view?usp=sharing
fabiotofy (2025-03-23 18:47:32+00:00): Ed aggiungo... Bertoloni non è neanche Bartoloni.. come neanche Bertolini... di una tabella esposta, forse allora neanche una è quella giusta. Vabbè vedo di scrivere in settimana al Comune di Trieste. Vediamo cosa mi rispondono
damjang (2025-03-23 19:00:46+00:00): SI, grazie
fabiotofy (2025-03-26 19:34:16+00:00): l’odonimo LARGO ANTONIO BERTOLONI, già LARGO BERTOLINI, è stato modificato a seguito delle attività di standardizzazione e di normalizzazione effettuate dal Comune di Trieste su disposizioni dell’Istat. Vedasi la Determinazione n. 4419/2022
iandees (2021-05-30 01:39:56+00:00): Why are you making these road classification changes? They don't seem to make sense.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105551262
!bm (2021-05-30 18:17:27+00:00): Hallo Seymour1978,

beachte bitte OSM-Grundlagen – ganz allgemein[1] und im konkreten Fall: Name ist nur der Name – nutze name=* nicht, um Dinge zu beschreiben [2] sowie: Ein Feature, ein Element [3].

Ein Blick ins Wiki sei generell empfohlen! 

Overtagging bitte auch vermeiden – bei payment:* und service:vehicle:* mag es für vollumfängliches Tagging so korrekt sein(, schwindlig wird einem dennoch dabei). Im Unterschied dazu ist das Explizieren von einzelnen, implizi(ert)en access-Tags (foot,bicycle,motor_vehicle,horse...) sowie default-values wie covered=no, oneway=no für highway-Typen nicht erforderlich bzw auch explizit nicht erwünscht!

Bei Gebäuden bitte an der Grundlinie orientieren – und nicht an der Dachlinie! Die Gebäude hier waren anhand öffentlicher Daten (ALKIS Gebäude) schon exakt erfasst. 

Fehler entsprechend revertiert/korrigiert in [4]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Verwende_das_Name-Tag_nicht.2C_um_Dinge_zu_beschreiben
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
[4] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105578369

--besteGrüße!bm
Seymour1978 (2021-05-30 20:27:14+00:00): Hey hey, das mit dem overtagging werde ich mir zu herten nehmen. Das mit dem Grbäudegrundriss verstehe ich nicht ganz. Ich arbeite seit dem 1.5. in dem Gebäudeteil und weiß von daher, dass es ein Anbau an den komplex Charlottenstr. 58-62 ist und von der Adresse mit zur Elisabethstr. 33-35 gehört. Also ich denke es sollte dann schon eine eigene Gebäudelinie haben? Ich kann mal Fotos machen, wenn ihr wollt. Falsch ist auf jeden Fall das zur Charlottenstr. 58-62 zu zählen. Oder versteh ich die Gebäudestruktur hier falsch?

Und das Lackcenter was zwar die Adresse Charlottenstr. 58-62 hat ist exakt an der Position wo ich es hingesetzt habe (auch wenn das auf der Karte unter Elisabethstr. 33-35 steht). Ich kann auch da gerne Fotos nachreichen. Das ist auf dem Hof zugegebenermaßen ziemlich vermischt.

Liebe Grüße, Seymour

P.s. das Problem bei dem Lackcenter ist tatsächlich, weil das auf vielen Karten falsch platziert ist stehen die Leute immer bei mir in der Halle und wollen Lacke kaufen :)
jmapb (2021-05-30 02:35:47+00:00): Hi yoasif -- looks like you removed the highway=seconday tag from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/579984657 so it's no longer tagged as a highway at all. I'm wondering if this was a mistake?
yoasif (2021-05-30 02:39:18+00:00): I'm not sure how that happened, but I wasn't intending to make changes to roads at all. Is that something you can fix? I'm not sure how to revert changes on OSM, sorry. Documentation to do this is fine too, so I can do this on my own (if it is handy to find). 

If you can't handle it or help me with docs, let me know so that I can dig into it further to fix. 

Thanks for bringing my attention to this!
jmapb (2021-05-30 02:43:33+00:00): No problem I fixed it, cheers!
neo-plan (2021-05-31 14:11:50+00:00): В настоящее время, в Реутове только три площади - Победы, Ленина и Челомея.
http://reutov.omsu.inlite.ru/about/toponimika?tab=tab6494
Всё, что было раньше - убираем в поле old_name, что планируется - в поле proposed:name
user_5359 (2021-05-30 04:45:56+00:00): Welcoem to OSM! There is a difference between you entry of the opening_hours and the website. Please check this.
markbegbie (2022-05-05 09:01:41+00:00): There is a waterway marked as a track with incorrect layer and tunnel tags as well.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105552689
Supaplex (2021-05-30 13:23:53+00:00): 小七是俗名，非正式的名稱，可否改成7-Eleven?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105553269
Supaplex (2021-05-30 13:25:29+00:00): 7-Eleven已經有，重覆加了
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105553269
user_5359 (2021-05-30 04:53:18+00:00): Hello! Why did you remove the picture and the wikidata from https://www.osm.org/way/121989402, https://www.osm.org/way/121989403?
ElliottPlack (2021-10-11 05:11:24+00:00): Hey there, this is super cool work! But by using the Bing imagery here everything is shifted a great deal. Would you considered moving things with the Maryland latest imagery instead? The Maryland imagery is adjusted for local distortion unlike Bing.

PS: User_5359, I think they moved those tags to the larger rock cut areas.
Akrimullah IRM-RV (2021-07-07 00:46:03+00:00): Hi gaby 96, whis https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/948574401 that you have corrected is overlap with another way that also have the same tag. is there any reason you leave it there instead of remove it ? thanks
Akrimullah IRM-RV (2021-07-07 00:46:16+00:00): Olá gaby 96, whis https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/948574401 que você corrigiu é sobreposição com outra forma que também tem a mesma tag. há algum motivo para você deixá-lo lá em vez de removê-lo? obrigado
user_5359 (2021-06-01 03:39:32+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8780287920 What is the meaning of all this keys?
jptolosa (2021-06-01 04:27:51+00:00): I'm sorry, now foreign tags has been fixed.
user_3022894 (2021-06-03 16:35:03+00:00): Hi Yorvik,

sorry for complaining, but maybe just the position of the phone ws not so well, because according to mapillary, the phone box existed in April, 2020 (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=Ye5o47LN7rCSkakkJQ7fqA&focus=photo&lat=50.891532870056935&lng=6.990333236760451&z=17&x=0.6085260494304018&y=0.44834555895922523&zoom=0.6818181818181818). In know, this was one year ago, but do you have local knowledge here?

Also, the post box you moved in now placed where a bin is. I guess that Esri Clarity shows the correct position of the yellow post box.

Greets, Lukas
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-02-16 13:45:13+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8780316930/history

You added shop=restaurant there.

Have you intended to map a restaurant?

Or place selling equipment for restaurants?

Or something else?
tobji (2023-02-17 00:57:53+00:00): Hello Mateusz. In the name of the shop it is "Restaurant Equipment" or "식당장비", and this is all I know about it, so I can only assume it is a "place selling equipment for restaurants". If there is a more appropriate tag I would be happy to fix it.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-02-18 18:33:44+00:00): I tried to improve tagging

This is a relatively rare shop type so there is no clear standard so feel free to revert.

Though many shop=restaurant are mistagged restaurants and new style provides two level of info - both general and specific one - so I think that maybe it is better

Thanks for a quick reply!
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-29 05:02:26+00:00): Hello!

You used
cuisine=arabic
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8780337771/history

Have you maybe meant
cuisine=arab
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?

If it is a mistake - can you fix it?
ElliottPlack (2024-04-22 19:51:43+00:00): I love this geology editing! Please do more :)
aharvey (2021-05-30 09:25:20+00:00): Hi just checking why access tags were  removed? For highway=track, it's a good idea to explicitly tag motor_vehicle, bicycle and foot access.
aharvey (2021-05-30 09:26:28+00:00): Hi, could I also check why foot=yes was removed? Do you know if foot access is permitted here? Best to have it explicitly tagged yes or no.
solenoid jam (2021-05-30 06:23:02+00:00): Так-же источник данных - local knowledge
Jerry_W2k (2021-05-31 12:02:35+00:00): To jest droga polna - poprawiłem wandalizm
Jerry_W2k (2021-05-31 12:02:53+00:00): To jest droga polna - poprawiłem wandalizm
Jerry_W2k (2021-05-31 12:03:03+00:00): To jest droga polna - poprawiłem wandalizm
Jerry_W2k (2021-05-31 12:03:09+00:00): To jest droga polna - poprawiłem wandalizm
Jerry_W2k (2021-05-31 11:46:17+00:00): Jest to droga polna - poprawiłem
user_8120638 (2021-05-31 15:04:02+00:00): To jest gminna  droga lokalna mająca swoją kategorię
archpdx (2021-05-30 06:34:55+00:00): Error in changeset comment, downgraded Moxee to village, not city
maraf24 (2021-05-30 16:40:40+00:00): To jest droga na pole i ma mieć tag highway=track.
Hrs_365 (2021-06-01 03:17:28+00:00): Привет! Вы наверное случайно убрали place? Я его вернул.
Luzandro (2021-06-07 18:37:20+00:00): Hallo,

Zufahrtsweg ist service=driveway oder im iD-Editor die Vorlage "Grundstücks-Zufahrt". Du hattest stattdessen "Parkplatzweg" (service=parking_aisle) gewählt.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:service=parking%20aisle?uselang=de

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:service=driveway
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105555778
maraf24 (2021-05-30 16:55:33+00:00): Te drogi nie istnieją.
Jennifer Jacobsen-Wood (2021-05-30 17:19:03+00:00): That is so cool! I have the gps of when we walked it, but I know that is not always accurate. We saw a murmuration of starlings when we walked here and it was awesome.
ChunkieRamos (2021-05-30 07:42:17+00:00): JOSM did not upload the description for this changeset. Raised Ticket #20940.

This is the changeset description: "Added buildings, a residential road and adjusted existing buildings and residential roads #TiruchirappalliBuildings"
user_2066394 (2021-05-30 11:19:37+00:00): Technisch unnötig, den alten POI zu löschen, du kannst ihn einfach mit den neuen Daten aktualisieren.
Die Hausnummer 18 war als separater Adressknoten angelegt und der sollte dort auch bleiben.
Ich hab das mal nachbearbeitet.
eggie (2021-05-30 08:17:29+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
Jennifer Jacobsen-Wood (2021-05-30 18:49:43+00:00): Thank you! We’ve gotten a little comfortable with some mild trespassing, but the node here was on the roof of this house. :) 

Even if going right next to the house would have been close enough to get it, I’m not sure we should have wanted to walk through someone’s yard like that.
pitfire (2021-05-30 11:26:55+00:00): Wurde das Teilstück erneuert. "surface 	ground" Ist jetzt "tracktype  grade2" Wassergebundene Decke mit tragfähigem Unterbau?
o12n (2021-05-31 07:53:06+00:00): Mit diesen englischen Beschreibungen würde ich sagen "Nein". In StreetComplete hatte ich eine Option angezeigt bekommen, die ich für passend hielt.
Mein Änderungs/Updatevorschlag also einfach ignorieren - als falsch markieren.
Danke für die Rückfrage.
eggie (2021-05-30 08:20:59+00:00): Dag Joris.. elk begin is moeilijk. Svp geen wegen splitsen met editor iD waar routerelaties overlopen zoals fietsroutes. De volgorde van de routedelen gaat dan stuk.
Ook geen wegen aan grenzen vastplakken. Daarom is het gebied van je edits zo groot. Ik zal even kijken of het simpel te herstellen is.

MVG
eggi
eggie (2021-05-30 08:30:45+00:00): Twee knooppuntroutes hersteld..
In route Loonse en Drunense Duinen zat al een fout..  
Wanneer je gaat splitsen kjjk dan eens naar editor JOSM.. Dan kun je wel splitsen en heb je overzicht. 
Editor iD is een 'routekiller', maar dat kon je moeilijk weten. 
 
editor josm stap voor stap 

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710        

Succes,
eggie
eggie (2021-05-30 08:40:32+00:00): Dag Joris... Wanneer het is opgeleverd dan ook de regel construction=apartments 
en construction=house
verwijderen
gr eggie
eggie (2021-05-30 09:03:54+00:00): Het gebouw heb ik enigzins gefatsoeneerd, want het is geïmporteerd als Niet ingemeten
Je zou een terugmelding kunnen doen naar het Kadaster dat de geometrie nu nog niet klopt.
Bij wijziging in het Kadaster zou je nieuwe import kunnen aanvragen via het forum in het draadje Verzoek BAG import.
Nu heeft dat nog geen zin.
Terugmelding kan hier (het potloodje)
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=van%20der%20pollstraat%205&resultOffset=0&objectId=0865100000021276&geometry.x=148027.28097237&geometry.y=407131.00940923&zoomlevel=7&detailsObjectId=
eggie
trial (2021-06-06 12:43:06+00:00): Bonjour, bon retour sur OpenStreetMap. Vous (ou tu) avez remplacé des residnetial=apartments par builduing=yes. Building=apartments semble plus approprié. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=apartments
vcastanet (2021-11-16 23:26:18+00:00): Bonjour, effectivement je n'avais pas vu cette notification, pour cause je ne fais des modifications que ponctuellement quand j'ai envie de m'attarder OSM . 

Je ne considère pas comme un spécialiste en la matière donc je me contente de faire ce qui me paraît bien mais si des corrections de mes modifications semblent nécessaires, je ne m'y opposerait pas !
eggie (2021-05-30 08:42:12+00:00): Alle begin is moeilijk.. Je tagt nu oneway=no  Dat zo kunnen, maar cycleway=opposite heeft dan geen functie meer en kan weg.
gr eggie
Supaplex (2021-05-30 13:21:48+00:00): 好像標示的範圍大於實際的建築大小，看要不要再依衛星圖再調整大小
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105558427
Supaplex (2021-05-30 13:22:47+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/531181353/history
這邊把原先的分類改掉了，應該是停車場而非公園吧
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105558427
Cristoffs (2021-06-01 10:59:33+00:00): Proszę mi powiedzieć jakim cudem dodał Pan budynek korzystając z podkładu mapowego układu ulic w miejscu, gdzie zgodnie z rejestrami nie ma nic. Dodatkowo zamiast rysować nowe obiekty, może powinien się skupić na poprawie mapowania tych błędnie lub niedokładnie naniesionych. (W iD użycie skrótu "Q" pozwala uzyskać proste kąty w budynku.)
user_8120638 (2021-06-01 11:14:09+00:00): W tym miejscu został wybudowany budynek zapraszam w  teren
Cristoffs (2021-06-01 11:26:52+00:00): W zeszły tygodniu weryfikował Pana edycje w terenie w Więcborku oraz Złotowie. Duża część z nich nie pokrywała się z rzeczywistością. Mam więc powody sądzić, że budynek przez Pana naniesiony nie istnieje, ma inny kształt lub jest w innym miejscu. Szczególnie jeśli jako podkład mapowy, użył Pan wyłącznie  warstwy z przebiegiem i nazwami ulic.
user_8120638 (2021-06-01 13:08:20+00:00): Nich Pan wyśle drona albo skorzysta z aktualnej mapy satelitarnej tego miejsca to się Pan przekona, ze to ja mam rację.