piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
jptolosa (2016-06-05 09:40:40+00:00): The history doesn't lie: you did these deletions. I know it was not your intention, but if you want to contribute also you must instruct.
I appreciate contributions, but every week I have fixed hundreds of mistakes that you has done in several changesets and is possible that I have not detect all of them.
Coastline works differently of the rest of features. When you edit any feature the rendering appears inmediately in higher zoom levels. But coastline is rendered separately more or less twice a month.
http://openstreetmapdata.com/data/coastlines
Here you can seen the last update was today. If we are lucky we only wait one more day, otherwise can be one month.
BTH (2016-06-05 09:57:43+00:00): OK, If I understand well, we have to wait for two weeks approximately to see again a correct mapnik coastline rendering in higher levels ?
BTW, It seems I made the same kinds of mistakes on Isla Topar, now corrected by yourself.
Well, I will be very cautious about those bloody coastlines when creating new bays, peninsulas and "senos"...
Have a good night JP !
jptolosa (2016-06-05 10:14:14+00:00): I already fixed all of your other same errors, I think.
Two weeks is only a "mean". Sometimes the coastline has been updated daily in higher zoom levels, but other times has elapsed two months between each update. The link of above show last update. To see the changes in every zoom level you must be patient (like two months).
Thank you, good morning for you!
rickmastfan67 (2016-11-27 12:00:46+00:00): Just so you know, in this changeset, you added a few incorrect lane counts.  For instance, on the two "Market Street" ways, you said they were 2 lanes, but they are only 1 way in each direction.  Also, with way 369274384, you said it was only 1 lane, but it's clearly 2, and not oneway.

Just thought I'd mention this stuff so you were aware in case these mistakes were done in error. ;)  I've already fixed them, so you don't have to worry about it. ;)
Vincent de Phily (2016-06-05 20:15:38+00:00): Is that a different restaurant than the already-mapped one called "Treacy's Bar" ? Bing imagery suggest there is only one establishment here.
user_5359 (2016-06-04 05:46:01+00:00): Welcome to OSM! The house number of a address isn't the name of the building.
Supaplex (2016-06-05 17:22:52+00:00): 恭喜您透過Maps.Me，完成第一次的地圖編輯！ 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。Maps.Me App採用開放街圖的地理資料，由社群而非商業公司建置的地理資料庫。以下是相關的參考資料，歡迎隨時指教與提問。

編輯須知
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

台灣社群網站
台灣社群Facebook社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Happy Mapping!
muralito (2016-06-04 21:42:07+00:00): Freddy, no se que quisiste mapear, pero un rest_area es un lugar para descansar de manejar al costado de una autopista.
highflyer74 (2016-06-07 11:10:08+00:00): Hello there!

There still seems to be a problem with tagging here. Can you confirm this https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4218554992 is a traffic_calming=bump? If yes, it needs to be tagged properly and also be connected to the highway...

If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Gracias!
Supaplex (2016-06-04 06:28:34+00:00): The Hualien node is already there, and in Korean too. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/60655818

Please don't make duplicated items
chnav (2016-06-04 06:38:56+00:00): пожалуйста не меняйте в названиях школ № на No - это баг программы MAPS.ME
Владимир К (2016-08-23 08:44:16+00:00): Что за индустриальная? это улица? где она проходит?
whb (2023-04-17 13:16:35+00:00): Hallo mappy123,

"cycleway:both:oneway=yes" bedeutet, dass man auf beiden Seiten nur in Zeichenrichtung fahren darf.
Wahrscheinlich war das so nicht gemeint?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/5235999

Viele Grüße
whb
mappy123 (2023-04-17 16:15:14+00:00): Hast Recht, gut aufgepasst. Habe es angepasst, jetzt sollte es stimmen. Auf der Straße gibt es auf beiden Seiten einen getrennten Radweg und der ist jeweils Einbahnstr. für die Radler.
Supaplex (2016-06-04 06:25:17+00:00): 重覆了
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4207707330
chihchun (2016-06-04 08:05:19+00:00): 因為 maps.me 上面空空的，拿到名片就順手加一下... Orz 我來合併一下
chihchun (2016-06-04 08:14:25+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39793371
SomeoneElse (2018-05-21 12:17:16+00:00): Hello,
A quick question about this import - what was it that governed the tagging?  Take as an example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/422772848/history#map=19/40.62698/16.78819 .  That's since been changed from man_made=chimney to building=yes, and looking at the imagery it certainly doesn't look like a chimney.
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2018-05-21 12:17:57+00:00): Ciao,
Una rapida domanda su questa importazione: cosa ha regolato il tagging? Prendi come esempio https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/422772848/history#map=19/40.62698/16.78819. Sembra che sia stato cambiato da man_made = chimney a building = yes, e guardando le immagini non sembra certo un camino.
I migliori saluti,
Andy
Reclus (2016-06-04 12:17:38+00:00): Was soll denn dieser Edit? Noch dazu in Verbindung mit dem Kommentar "neue Messstation"? Du hast keine Messstation eingetragen sondern nur einen privaten Weg gelöscht.
jo$ (2016-06-04 13:43:02+00:00): Dort ist kein Weg. Sondern nur ein Hof
Reclus (2016-06-04 13:50:16+00:00): Das Tor ist jetzt auch eingetragen und schon vorher war alles als privat gekennzeichnet. Auch Flächen werden in OSM manchmal als Wege eingetragen. Bitte nichts löschen was du nicht ganz verstehst.
Reclus (2016-06-04 13:54:46+00:00): Hast du denn wenigstens tatsächlich irgendwo in Witten eine neue Messstation entdeckt?
jo$ (2016-06-04 13:57:26+00:00): Nein das mit der Messstation war von mir Falsch
jo$ (2016-06-04 13:59:27+00:00): Finde die Darstellung aber nicht gut.
Würde keien Weg eintragen.
Reclus (2016-06-04 14:12:57+00:00): Du hast es ja auch nicht eingetragen. Nur eben bitte nicht löschen.

Wenn du möchtest kannst ja gerne den Hof als Fläche eintragen, also den Eintrag damit verbessern. Nur eben nichts einfach löschen und den Eintrag damit verschlechtern.

Allgemein: Vorsicht! In Witten ist schon vieles sehr genau eingetragen. Es besteht immer die Gefahr, dass du leicht etwas kaputt machst. Es gibt viele Orte, an denen noch viel mehr fehlt und vieles eher ungenau eingetragen ist. Diese Orte eignen sich zum Üben besser.

Viel Spaß weiterhin beim Mappen!
SomeoneElse (2016-06-11 11:25:31+00:00): Would it be possible to explain what change was actually made here?  "remove self intersection of area outline" doesn't really explain anything.
Parzelle13 (2018-05-06 10:20:03+00:00): Hallo Peer, hier gibt es einen Fehlerhinweis seit 2 Jahren. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/490443
Du hast hier die Bushaltestellen überarbeitet. Die Relationen für die Buslinien 220 und 270 sind auch drin. Kann der Hinweis geschlossen werden?
Peer van Daalen (2018-05-06 17:58:06+00:00): Ich habe diesen Hinweis nicht geschrieben und ich kann mich auch nicht erinnern, hier jemals Bus-Relationen bearbeitet zu haben! 
-
Bus-Relationen sind mir mitunter auch zu kompliziert. Da haben wir hier fittere Leute (aixbrick z. B.) für den Großraum Aachen für. Außerdem ist Jülich nicht so wirklich mein Hoheitsgebiet.
-
Hab vor etwa drei vier Jahren mal ein paar Sachen rund um den Markt eingetragen (Fischgaststätte Bremerhaven etc.)
-
Wen alles paßt, dann mach zu das Thema!
SomeoneElse (2016-06-11 11:32:46+00:00): Re https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/421687725/history , I'd have thought that "landuse=farmyard" would make more sense than "place=farm".  Also, as you can see from the underlying GPS traces, Bing is offset here, so you'll need to nudge it a bit.

I'm not convinced that the access road to it is residential either.

I will at some stage get in touch with the original mapper here (they're new, and I've been waiting a bit for them to get the hang of things) - I wanted to send them a "proper" welcome message rather than just "XYZ is wrong".
SomeoneElse (2016-06-11 11:44:55+00:00): For info, I've sent a message re https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39890861 .  I mention it here because the current mapping will show up as an "error" on whatever you're using to direct your remote editing.
SomeoneElse (2016-06-27 12:53:39+00:00): No ack from user so I've fixed as best I can based on what I've seen from the roads and paths around here and the imagery.
jumbanho (2016-09-12 15:04:57+00:00): I'm not a fan of the change to service roads for fire roads.  I agree that it is a hard call, but the wiki, which represents general consensus, states that tracks are generally for access for jeeps and tractors.  I've been on these fireroads and I would really drive on them with a normal vehicle.  The wiki also doesn't say anything about unmaintained.
niborg (2016-09-12 15:36:34+00:00): I agree it's often a tough call. However, I'm on these fireroads all the time, and it would be inaccurate to characterize them as "unmaintained." They are definitely maintained from time to time. That reasoning led me to make the change.  But I don't have strong feelings on it. Either description let's people know they are in for some dirt.
jumbanho (2016-09-12 16:00:34+00:00): I think the "unmaintained" may be something that shows up on the iD editor only and is not necessary for a track.  They are generally defined as being used for agricultural/forest maintenance, which I think is reasonable for fire road.  

Also if you look at the tracktype wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype the different grades represent different amounts of maintenance.

If you don't object, I'll change these ones back.
niborg (2016-09-12 16:54:14+00:00): No objection!
mavl (2019-03-23 16:28:50+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
Tomas Straupis (2016-06-04 09:03:10+00:00): Reverted. Streatm does not exist here.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:28:54+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:28:57+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:29:00+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
AsgerFrank (2016-06-05 16:15:46+00:00): Mon det er rigtigt at give en gravhøj tagget name=Gravhøj? Den oplysning ligger jo allerede i tagget site_type=tumulus, og den hedder i virkeligheden ikke Gravhøj, selvom det er én; det var noget andet hvis vi havde fx et Jelshøj eller Kongehøj som navn at sætte på.
Hjart (2016-06-06 08:06:17+00:00): Du har ret i at det ikke er helt rigtigt og denne praksis bliver da også frarådet i flere forskellige sammenhænge (f.eks. kan det have en noget forvirrende  effekt yderligere at tagge en highway=footway, "name=sti"). På den anden side er det ikke klart ud fra ikonerne på standardkortet (eller andre kort jeg kender til) at der er tale om netop gravhøje og umiddelbart synes jeg ikke det gør nogen større skade, så indtil videre vil jeg personligt lade det være. (Og ved yderligere eftertanke: Det er ikke sikkert at en udlænding vil kunne gætte at det er en betegnelse og ikke et reelt navn)
mavl (2019-03-23 16:29:04+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
aharvey (2016-07-08 10:15:19+00:00): Jintang Hai Fresh Restaurant ? Is this a hotel or restaurant, because you tagged it as a hotel.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:29:08+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:29:12+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:41:24+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:41:28+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:41:31+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:41:34+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
Cascafico (2016-06-04 10:14:49+00:00): Please, "Остановка" is already in bus_stop definition. Avoid exclamation marks.
dieterdreist (2016-06-04 11:53:38+00:00): the name tag is only for _names_ and in the local language. Please, do not enter descriptions in the name tag.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:41:37+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:41:41+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:41:45+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:41:48+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:41:52+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:41:55+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:41:58+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:42:01+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:42:04+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
muralito (2016-06-04 17:21:12+00:00): Hugo, no se que quisiste mapear, pero un "rest_area" es para que se pueda salir de la autopista y descansar del manejo. 
Creo que el concepto no se aplica en Uruguay, ya que por un lado no hay ninguna autopista, y esta todo muy cerca o se para en cualquier lado.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:42:08+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-03-23 16:42:11+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
Supaplex (2016-06-04 10:39:02+00:00): 請問這真的是具有公共性的資訊嗎？如果不是廟也非公共資訊的話請移除
ff5722 (2017-05-15 18:26:23+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335031789 has the tag 'abbatoir=cat'

except for the fact that the key abbatoir is only used here, I don't think this business is really a slaughterhouse for cats.
SomeoneElse (2017-05-15 18:39:45+00:00): Strange as it may seem, as far as I could tell from the signage, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335031789 really did appear to be an abbatoir specialising in cats.
ff5722 (2017-05-15 18:42:53+00:00): Well there's a first for everything...

I have to believe you on this :)
SomeoneElse (2017-05-15 18:44:05+00:00): I was pretty surprised too :)
jlcod (2016-06-04 12:54:57+00:00): Hallo, anscheinend wurden hier versehentlich einige POI doppelt angelegt, (z.B. Postbank, Gamestop, etc.) teilweise auch um ein Gebäude verschoben eingetragen. Bitte nochmal prüfen und zusammenführen. Danke!
jlcod (2016-06-04 13:03:28+00:00): Und natürlich erstmal willkommen bei OSM! :)
mapper999 (2016-06-04 14:43:40+00:00): Hallo willkommen bei OSM. Bitte sei in Zukunft etwas vorsichtiger beim Anlegen von neuen Punkten. Alle in diesem Changeset neu angelegten Punkte waren bereits vorhanden und teilweise sogar mehrere Häuser neben der tatsächlichen Position. Ich vermute jedoch, dass auch die Wheelmap-Software nicht ganz unschuldig ist, teilweise lagen bis zu 6 POI auf exakt dem selben Punkt. Ich habe die POI zusammengeführt und die in diesem Changeset neu hinzugekommenen Daten ergänzt.
jlcod (2016-06-04 12:56:09+00:00): Hallo, anscheinend wurden hier versehentlich einige POI doppelt angelegt, teilweise gibt es auch Tippfehler (Alsi, Nordesee) Bitte nochmal prüfen und zusammenführen. Danke!
jlcod (2016-06-04 13:03:39+00:00): Und natürlich erstmal willkommen bei OSM! :)
mapper999 (2016-06-04 14:43:24+00:00): Hallo willkommen bei OSM. Bitte sei in Zukunft etwas vorsichtiger beim Anlegen von neuen Punkten. Alle in diesem Changeset neu angelegten Punkte waren bereits vorhanden und teilweise sogar mehrere Häuser neben der tatsächlichen Position. Ich vermute jedoch, dass auch die Wheelmap-Software nicht ganz unschuldig ist, teilweise lagen bis zu 6 POI auf exakt dem selben Punkt. Ich habe die POI zusammengeführt und die in diesem Changeset neu hinzugekommenen Daten ergänzt.
luiswoo (2016-06-04 15:55:24+00:00): А это точно стоянка для домов на колёсах, а не какой либо мобильный магазин?
Объект для туризма странно смориться рядом с типовым жилым домом. В отличии от ларька-прицепа.
Commodoortje (2016-06-11 04:58:02+00:00): Diverse nodes samengevoegd. Deze bank was al aanwezig op OSM.
geri-oc (2016-06-16 15:22:47+00:00): Warum wir hier eine Relation angelegt für eine Brücke?
man_made mit den railways reicht m.E.
Wir wollen nichts komplizierter machen, wenn es einfach geht.
geri-oc (2016-06-16 15:26:14+00:00): http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=101&error=78122465
Мирослав Цонков (2016-06-04 15:40:52+00:00): Беше ли нужно да се изтрива ?
k1wi (2016-06-05 09:09:48+00:00): reverted on http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39812107
k1wi (2016-06-05 09:26:27+00:00): reverted on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39812391
k1wi (2016-06-05 09:23:06+00:00): reverted on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39812343
k1wi (2016-06-05 09:21:35+00:00): reverted on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39812312
luschi (2016-08-31 17:27:51+00:00): In keinen der hier aufgelisteten Punkten und Flächen wurde von mir etwas geändert. Wieso JOSM das als Änderung übertragen hat ist mir unklar.
fkv (2017-01-01 00:19:44+00:00): I just restored node 4016935198 after I verified it on the ground by walking to that place yesterday. Photos in http://steige.info/austausch/drag.zip (ca. 2 MB). One can argue about proper tagging, but at least it is now proven that this site exists. I did not check the other sites that were in doubt, as they are too far away. But given that this one is real, I see no reason to believe that the others are all bogus.
Gppes (2017-01-01 11:31:17+00:00): To my opinion, the tag tourism=artwork artwork should be removed. I can't see any kind of artwork on the provided photos and - as far as I can remember - it was not the intention of the creators of this place to build some kind of artwork.

The name of the object can not be independently verified. Nothing "on the ground" gives reason for the naming.
fkv (2017-01-01 13:17:13+00:00): Gppes is just trying to justify his previous tag deletions in order to not lose face. The name has been given by the artists themselves, and that's without any doubt the most qualified source for an artwork name.
Gppes (2017-01-01 13:39:26+00:00): Your accusations are ridiculous and provoking. As far as I know the creators did not state themselves as artists and thy did not introduce the site as piece of artwork.
Gppes (2017-01-01 14:21:21+00:00): I tried to improve the situation by adding the tag "disused". According to fkv's photos, I would say, "abondoned" would be an even better way to describe the situation there.
fkv (2017-01-01 14:36:41+00:00): Art does not depend on its creators showing off. Anyway, I already stated in my first comment that one can argue about tagging. What we cannot argue about is that there is a real-word feature, so it deserves a POI in OSM. You deleted the tags without substitution and you have been suggesting to delete the POIs altogether. This is plain vandalism.
Gppes (2017-01-01 14:40:31+00:00): I don't know, if the creators "showed off", but they published their site at OSM and opened a discussion about it. They didn't mention artwork, right?
Gppes (2017-01-01 14:41:01+00:00): Whatever it is, it's at least "disused", right?
fkv (2017-01-01 15:00:50+00:00): No. The artwork is still there.

Sorry. My first comment was targeted at changeset 40803604 where the nodes were actually deleted. I did not want to trigger a discussion on your changeset.

On the other hand, I warn you not to start an edit war on the node. I just noticed that you deleted a tag again. Stop that, or otherwise I will need to file a complaint to the DWG.
Gppes (2017-01-01 15:07:53+00:00): Please don't name my edits vandalism. Please do not revert my edits without discussion.

I
Gppes (2017-01-01 15:14:24+00:00): I find the current situation misleading. See the discussion at the Austrian OSM mailing list.
fkv (2017-01-01 15:27:46+00:00): You ask me to not revert your edits without discussion, but you did not discuss your own edits in the first place. How dare you delete tags that a local mapper has carefully set after visiting that place?
Gppes (2017-01-01 15:34:55+00:00): It is not common sense to discuss every single edit with the previous users, if the intention is to improve the data.

The current situation is misleading.

You just reverted my edit without any discussion, without the intention of improving the situation. That is offensive!
Gppes (2017-01-01 15:35:22+00:00): I did not delete any tags.
Gppes (2017-01-01 15:48:32+00:00): And please try to avoid phrases like "how dare you". That is really offending. And of course I dare to edit the map. This is a community project. Users are warmly welcome to edit!
fkv (2017-01-01 15:56:00+00:00): You deleted amenity=*, name=*, designation=*, religion=* and source=* in this changeset and tourism=artwork in changeset 44823416.
Gppes (2017-01-01 16:07:02+00:00): Today I modified the tag tourism to unused:tourism.

A year ago I moved some tag information to a map note, because they were (in partial consensus with the creators) misleading or obviously wrong.
Gppes (2017-01-01 16:07:36+00:00): Sorry, not map note, to the tag "note".
Gppes (2017-01-01 16:09:47+00:00): By simplifying my edits to the terminus "deletions", your accusations sound like vandalism, but they were not.
Gppes (2017-01-01 16:14:13+00:00): I wrote a complaint at the Austrian OSM mailing list about your revert philosophy and about your unacceptable way to discuss things.
Supaplex (2016-06-05 16:46:50+00:00): 恭喜您透過Maps.Me，完成第一次的地圖編輯！ 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。Maps.Me App採用開放街圖的地理資料，由社群而非商業公司建置的地理資料庫。以下是相關的參考資料，歡迎隨時指教與提問。

編輯須知
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

台灣社群網站
台灣社群Facebook社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Happy Mapping!
CloCkWeRX (2016-06-04 16:37:18+00:00): So with tracing places like this; you don't need to add both an area and an individual node with the same information - the area tracing will set the right name and other details.

You might be interested in tracing the car parking and building itself separately - right now this is tagged as one big funny shaped building, but it's more accurate to call describe this as a place of worship with an actual building in it (and parking, driveways, etc)
InputMan (2016-06-04 21:56:48+00:00): I see.  I was concerned over the parking as some of the parking came from a parking place (like an automated "parking" spider, or something), which may indicate on the map that the parking was for the general public.  I wasn't sure about that, so I removed it from some of the buildings, as the block is a place of worship, and isn't used for any other purpose.

I see what you mean about having two people icons on the same map too, and I can see that this is a problem.:)  I could add the buildings in as well as the block...that's a good idea.  That would be more accurate, as the BUILDING would be the hall, and the land the property of Jehovah's Witnesses.
mapper999 (2016-06-04 15:22:55+00:00): Danke für die vielen POIs im Ettlinger Tor Center. Leider scheint die Position der Läden ziemlich willkürlich zu sein. Schöner wäre es, wenn sie auch an der korrekten Position im Gebäude wären.
Die ganzen doppelten und falschen POIs habe ich gelöscht bzw. zusammengeführt (siehe auch Diskussion zu Changeset 39795240)
user_5359 (2016-06-04 15:19:51+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Is your node a different shop to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2483671757 ?
Supaplex (2016-06-05 16:47:22+00:00): 恭喜您完成第一次的地圖編輯！ 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。以下是相關的參考資料，歡迎隨時指教與提問。

編輯須知
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

台灣社群網站
台灣社群Facebook社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Happy Mapping!
dudka (2016-06-04 15:21:26+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6242221 - тут, похоже, неправильное название улицы, если сусдить по входящим в отношение улицам. JOSM должен был об этом предупредить.
Ars-UA (2016-06-04 15:38:31+00:00): Улица правильная, название отношения неправильное. Спасибо за замечание, поправил. JOSMу сделал выговор, он обещал исправиться )
Leon K (2016-07-14 12:30:22+00:00): Hi, Just a note that i'm updating some of these.  
The building tag is used to indicate that the object is a building outline, not that it has a building on it.  
In these cases you are tagging the entire block as a building.
mrpulley (2016-07-14 22:31:06+00:00): For the outline of the land around the Kingdom Hall, you can use landuse=religious - see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreligious for info.
mrpulley (2016-07-14 22:37:22+00:00): Also, the tags religion/denomination tags should be religion=christian denomination=jehovahs_witness - see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:denomination for info