piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:51:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:51:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:03:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:00:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
GinaroZ (2021-09-21 12:22:52+00:00): Have you surveyed this?
ChrisEdits (2021-09-21 13:06:55+00:00): Hi GinaroZ! No, not surveyed. This change was to correct the highway/construction tags for 2 ways from "highway=residential" to "highway=construction"; "construction=residential" was already present. This brings these ways in line with other roads under construction in the area, as well as using the correct use of highway/construction tags. As a result of doing this, I also spotted a short section of road tagged under construction which appeared incorrect. I corrected with a best guess but please feel free to revert/change if you think that’s wrong! No offence taken :) Cheers, Chris.
GinaroZ (2021-09-22 17:59:49+00:00): Thanks for the reply (I've reverted it). In this case if you check the history of the way you can see someone changed it from construction to residential (as in, the road is now open) 12 months ago.
So I think you've wrongly assumed that the highway/construction tag mismatch means that the road is still under construction. In my experience it is usually the opposite - construction=residential with highway=residentially is normally because someone has forgotten to delete the construction tag! :)
Worth checking other imagery to confirm, as Esri shows cars parked at these houses and OS OpenMap shows it as open.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:51:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
rskedgell (2021-09-21 14:39:50+00:00): If it's a ground-level tunnel, it would probably be better to change it to tunnel=building_passage and delete the layer=1 tag.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel%3Dbuilding_passage
tdcorrie (2021-09-21 19:55:33+00:00): Thank you for pointing me to that guidance, I have corrected as you suggest in changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111512752
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:01:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:02:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
hsc666 (2021-09-21 13:17:26+00:00): Hallo ThiemoH und herzlich willkommen bei OSM! Prima, dass Du helfen möchtest die Daten zu verbessern. Ich habe mir Deine Änderung angesehen und frage mich, welches Problem Du mit dem tertiary_link überhaupt lösen möchtest. Im Luftbild sieht das nach einer einfachen T-Kreuzung aus - ohne dass es eine baulich getrennte Abbiegespur gäbe, die diesen Eintrag rechtfertigen könnte. Kannst Du das bitte kurz erklären? Bitte antworte gern hier im Changeset-Kommentar.

VG
hsc666
ThiemoH (2021-09-21 13:28:06+00:00): Moin hsc666,

Der Telemetrie Sensor in Kombination mit Mapbox und OpenStreet Map markiert einem immer schnelles Kurvenverhalten da der Knick hier extrem scharf ist (entgegen der Befahrbaren Abbiegespur).

VG Thiemo
hsc666 (2021-09-21 14:45:50+00:00): Auch wenn ich nicht weiß, was Du mit Telemetrie Sensor meinst - wo keine baulich getrennte Spur ist, mappen wir auch keine. Alles andere wäre Mapping für diesen Telemetrie Sensor. Was sicher möglich ist, wäre den Abbiegewinkel etwas rechtwinkliger zu gestalten. Das scheint mir durchaus angebracht. Willst Du das allein korrigieren oder soll ich das übernehmen?
ThiemoH (2021-09-21 15:49:39+00:00): Hallo hsc666,

meine Versicherung gibt unter Verwendung von Mapbox (und somit OpenStreetMap) Rabatt auf passende Fahrweise....

Fahre ich diese Kurve mit 22 km/h (vorher ist ja 30) auf der per Satellit gut sichtbaren breiten Kurve, so erhalte ich trotzdem eine schlechte Bewertung wegen angeblicher schneller Kurvenfahrt. Dies liegt daran, dass ich so gesehen die Hypotenuse dieses rechtwinkligen Dreiecks und somit eine kürzere Strecke fahre. Er misst die Zeit, korreliert es mit der eigentlichen (ihm bekannten) Distanz und erhält somit eine deutlich höhere Geschwindigkeit, als man tatsächlich fährt.

Da diese Kurve nahezu dauerhaft in meinen Routen ist, habe ich folglich dauerhaft eine schlechte Bewertung, es sei denn niemand fährt hinter mir und ich kann die Kurve mit 10 km/h nehmen....
hsc666 (2021-09-21 16:52:15+00:00): Bei allem Verständnis für den Hintergrund - wir malen uns nicht die Welt, wie sie uns gefällt, sondern bilden nur die Wirklichkeit ab. Ich habe den Abbiegewinkel der kreuzenden Straßen jetzt nochmal besser nach Luftbild ausgerichtet. Vielleicht genügt das ja bereits.
ThiemoH (2021-09-21 17:37:15+00:00): Herzlichen Glückwunsch für den diesjährigen Bürokraten-Award.

Haben Sie vielen Dank
Herman Lee (2021-09-21 09:20:46+00:00): Can you or dwg reply my and our comments first?
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-09-21 09:24:05+00:00): What's the result of your investigation? Why you ask all people to stop but you still doing revert, with no result announced?
NM$L (2021-09-21 09:40:57+00:00): So the result???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
user_11435438 (2021-09-21 09:46:06+00:00): Nice, dwg can do everything without evidence, but other mapper can't do anything with evidence. Nice job edvac!
NM$L (2021-09-21 09:55:51+00:00): How DWG solve this?

Just by giving a sentence again and again:"
This area, together with the Doklam plateau, are under investigation by the DWG."
NM$L (2021-09-21 10:00:07+00:00): I think 快乐的老鼠宝宝 done in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111485466 is fix to your damage because addition in fixme and deletion in name:en truly make damage to data, this should not be done as a maintainer.

Besides, how long will your investigation finished? 

If your "investigation" never ends, does that mean freezing this area forever?

PLEASE RESPONSE TO THOSE QUESTION BEFORE LAST TIME YOU DO，DEAR DWG MEMBER，EDVAC SIR！
user_10714872 (2021-09-21 13:43:38+00:00): 那么DWG到底做了什么事情呢？DWG的调查结果呢？DWG除了修改这些边界还做了什么吗？
FreedSky (2021-09-24 07:50:56+00:00): DWG你们是调查还是拖延时间？眼见为实的道路以及 https://www.sentinel-hub.com/explore/sentinel-playground 可以搜索到的最新卫星图都是实打实的证据。
Herman Lee (2025-05-16 08:31:22+00:00): 已经3年多了，已经3年多了，已经3年多了
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:56:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:53:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
eggie (2021-09-21 17:48:34+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback Beter niet dubbel taggen. Het beste kun je de brandweerkazerne toevoegen aan de adresnode. Dan is adres gekoppeld aan de instelling en/of bedrijf.
MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2021-09-21 17:50:48+00:00): 'k Zie dat het al is aangepast door een medemapper.
Veel plezier met mappen verder..
MVG
eggie
JeroenHoek (2021-09-21 20:06:24+00:00): Ik had inderdaad bij de tweede changeset al even een toelichting gegeven. :)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:59:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
JeroenHoek (2021-09-21 16:55:57+00:00): Hallo,

Bedankt voor het toevoegen van de brandweerkazerne. Tip voor de volgende keer: je had in twee edits zowel het gebouw als de adresnode een amenity=fire_station gegeven. Daardoor lijkt het alsof er twee brandweerkazernes zijn.

Je kan het beste óf op de adresnode de tags zetten, óf op het hele terrein een vlak tekenen en het daarop zetten. Ik heb ze verplaatst naar die laatste optie:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111505718
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:00:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
danieldegroot2 (2021-09-21 09:33:19+00:00): Hey strubbi77,

I have manually reverted your changes in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111485013 as they are a violation of "tagging for the renderer";
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Regards,

Daniel

PS: The area is already sufficiently tagged.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:00:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
MxxCon (2021-09-21 23:38:56+00:00): Hello.
Can you please elaborate on the name change of this building? Is this no longer a Turkish embassy?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111484861
basarrr (2021-09-22 06:24:18+00:00): Hi. The name of the building is Turkish House in English and Türkevi in Turkish. It not only hosts Turkey's permanent mission to the UN but also other representative offices of the Republic of Turkey.
danieldegroot2 (2021-09-21 10:33:26+00:00): Hey strubbi77,

Keep changeset discussion seperate, please; see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/55734638

Regards,

Daniel

-
Removed discussion from fixme in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111488499
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:52:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:02:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-10-03 07:45:49+00:00): This changeset made me banned by 2 DWG members separatedly.

Woodpeck for 1 day
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5341

edvac for 0 minutes
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5342
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-10-03 07:49:36+00:00): Latest edit war is in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111486876
Flaviu Andrei Csernik (2021-09-21 22:08:01+00:00): Great that you are doing this! but pay attention, the cycle paths should not overlap the roads. Please don't ignore the warnings when committing the change set.
For example 985468759 is overlapping 'Strada Avram Iancu'. Also on 'Strada Avram Iancu' the same cycle path goes both ways so there is not need to map two cycle paths side by side, you can just add the `oneway: no` tag.
skyper (2021-09-22 23:10:33+00:00): Hallo m-gu-b
iD hat so einige Problem mit der richtigen Reihenfolge der Mitglieder von Routenrelationen. Insbesondere beim Aufteilen von Linien werden sehr häufig Routenrelationen beschädigt, wie auch in diesem Fall.

Habe es bereits korrigiert, aber bitte achte auf die Routenrelationen und deren Mitgliederreihenfolge. Danke.
JOSM ist da um einiges besser.

Grüße skyper
Kovoschiz (2021-09-21 13:52:25+00:00): Do you know where's A Kung Ngam? Please don't "fix" correct names. Put other romanization elsewhere.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2021-10-05 05:07:06+00:00): شكرا أبو مانع
Herman Lee (2021-09-21 10:06:19+00:00): Can you or dwg reply my and our comments first?
Herman Lee (2021-09-21 10:07:59+00:00): We hope dwg can give a reasonable respond for adding fixme=What's this.
booktiger (2021-09-22 08:13:46+00:00): Please investigate quickly, don't keep investigating until the next century.
ztztztz (2021-09-22 15:38:00+00:00): Dear DWG,

While we admit that the China-Bhutan border, as a disputed border, needs further investigation by DWG, there are still a couple of questions that we want to address.

1) THE PROPER WAY TO START AN INVESTIGATION.
What is the proper way to show if a place is under investigation by DWG? If tagging "fixme=what's this" alone is sufficient, why have you ADDITIONALLY changed the China-Bhutan border before the investigation starts (as shown in changeset #110858577) ?

2) THE RELIABILLITY OF THE CURRENT IMPORTED COUNTRY BORDER.
It seems that the current borders (and the choice between two ditributed borders) are imported from the LSIB dataset. How would you guarantee that this dataset is consistent with the OSM "on the ground" rule, especially considering the fact that this dataset is released by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE? [1]
[1]https://geonode.state.gov/layers/geonode%3ALSIB

3) THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS.
Do we have a rough schedule about such investigation performed by DWG? It has been 15 days since the first changeset (#110858577) and there has been NO result. We have already shown lots of proofs [1,2] about China controlling the distributed area, and we think it shouldn't take a lot of time to perform such investigation.
[1] https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9D%B0%E7%BD%97%E5%B8%83%E6%9D%91
[2] Satellites showing the road to the distributed area from China side.

Please fix this as soon as possible, otherwise leaving the case unsolved with a wrongly-mapped border would be a vandalism itself to the OSM community imho.

Thank you for the investigation and apologies to any caused confusions.

Best regards
edvac (2021-09-28 10:41:12+00:00): Dear ztzthu:

1 and 2) We have reverted the border to the previous situation while we investigate these border changes thoroughly. It's not that we stick to the US Dept. of State source, but to the previous situation.

3) We are volunteers. Therefore, we don't have any time schedule on place to resolve this issue.

Best regards,

Rafael Avila, on behalf of the OSMF DWG.
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-11-13 14:57:24+00:00): 接近五十天过去了，但DWG并未对此事件做出任何后续的答复，也并无调查进展，令人不得不怀疑“调查”是否只是用来掩饰官方破坏的一种借口。希望“调查”能在可接受的时间给出结果。
祝好。
Nearly fifty days have passed, but the DWG has not made any follow-up response to this incident, and there is no investigation result showed, which makes one have to wonder whether the "investigation" is just an excuse to cover up official damage to data and fact.
Hope that the "investigation" can have a result in an acceptable time.
Best regards
NM$L (2021-11-24 16:31:58+00:00): 😅😅😅😅😅还没有进展啊😅😅😅😅😅
Herman Lee (2022-01-12 09:05:22+00:00): Will DWG never give any response？Have DWG finished the "investigation"? I feel extremely sad to 
the members of DWG.😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
DWG的同志们是不是不再关注这个地方了？是不是不再回复广大编辑者所关注的问题了？DWG的“调查”还要持续多久啊？我们对DWG很是失望啊。是不是DWG已经没有人了？？？😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
NM$L (2022-01-12 09:32:15+00:00): 😅
NM$L (2022-09-01 09:29:37+00:00): Will DWG never give any response？Have DWG finished the "investigation"? I feel extremely sad to
the members of DWG.😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
DWG的同志们是不是不再关注这个地方了？是不是不再回复广大编辑者所关注的问题了？DWG的“调查”还要持续多久啊？我们对DWG很是失望啊。是不是DWG已经没有人了？？？😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
Herman Lee (2023-03-30 14:01:44+00:00): DWG is still keeping investigating (silence)?
GSF1200S (2024-03-16 01:31:08+00:00): Investigation finished?
eggie (2021-09-21 19:26:22+00:00):  Dag NHVELDH   Op de relatie van het vlak stond nu landuse=heath maar ook nog een relatie van mij natural=heath.
Die landuse heb ik weer omgezet naar natural=heath.
Zie nog een foutmelding.. zal nog even kijken.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-09-21 19:29:00+00:00): Die fourmeldingen kun je voorlopig negeren.
Het is soms landuse en soms natural..  Niet altijd even logisch.
landuse heath rendert niet, maar omdat het dubbel was getagd zag je de 'fout' niet in de rendering. 
Gr eggie
Shaun das Schaf (2021-09-22 08:26:23+00:00): Hallo marcus30a, willkommen bei OSM!

Wie lange ist denn geplant, dass Radweg und Straße gesperrt bleiben? Hast du noch eine Quelle dazu?
Dann kann ich dir zeigen, wie man das richtig einträgt.

So wie es jetzt von dir eingetragen wurde, ist es leider schlicht falsch und kann nicht ausgewertet werden. Das muss ich leider wieder rückgängig machen.

Viele Grüße
Shaun das Schaf
user345 (2021-09-22 11:42:58+00:00): Als erfahrener und ortskundiger Nutzer schalte ich mich mal dazwischen, zumindest wenn ich darf :)

Tatsächlich ist gar kein Radweg selbst gesperrt, sondern aktuell die komplette Bundesstraße. Der Radweg entlang der B42 befindet sich im Abschnitt Assmannshausen-Lorch noch im Bau und wird erst in einigen Jahren vollständig fertiggestellt. Fahrradfahrer mussten bisher auf die Bundesstraße ausweichen.

Diese Bundesstraße ist jetzt aber eben bis Mitte Dezember (https://www.ffh.de/nachrichten/hessen/rhein-main/280191-b-42-nach-lorch-bis-dezember-gesperrt.html) gesperrt, so dass hier weder Rad noch Auto durchkommen und auf Umleitungsstrecken, Zug oder Schiff ausgewichen werden muss.

In wie weit eine solche Sperrung für OSM relevant ist, kann man jetzt natürlich wieder diskutieren^^

Viele Grüße!
Kovoschiz (2021-09-21 11:11:25+00:00): This is referring to the `landuse=education`, not the `amenity=university`
Kirkepladsen (2021-09-23 10:44:31+00:00): Hi Kovoschiz, I have considered that landuse=education could be a generic landuse tag for the area which is facilitating multiple types of educational institutes. Here, I found that deleted name tags are (e.g. name:en=The Chinese University of Hong Kong) which is already present inside the university relation. If you think that this piece of land has a specific name from the other outer member of the university multipolygon relation, I'll restore the tags. I would be happy to listen to your thoughts.
danieldegroot2 (2021-09-21 10:20:21+00:00): Beste Topo GPS,

Komen deze knooppuntenroutes van eigen kennis, of van o.a. Fietsknoop?

Groet,

Daniel
Topo GPS (2021-09-21 12:44:07+00:00): eigen kennis
ALu68 (2021-09-23 19:10:10+00:00): Hallo Danfost,

mit der Aufsplittung des Straßenabschnitts der Münchner Straße ("Abbiegespur eingetragen") sind u.a. in den Route-Relationen der Linie 102 & 103 die Reihenfolge der Straßen nicht mehr stimmig (in der richtigen Reihenfolge) - siehe PTNA: https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/results/DE/BY/DE-BY-AVV-Analysis.diff.html#bus_102 (PTv2 Route: hat Lücken, besteht aus 3 Segmenten).

Du siehst in deinem Änderungssatz, was verändert worden ist: 1 Knoten --> 2 Wege --> 15 Relationen.

Du kannst im Verlauf als Beispiel https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1553421/history sehen, dass einige deiner Änderungen eine Auswirkunng auf die Relation haben (nicht jede Änderung führt zu einen Fehler).

Bei der Version #35 hatten ich die Routen der Linie 102 bereits repariert.

Ich würde es begrüßen, wenn du bei Änderungen von Straßen, die Teil von Relationen sind, auch diese mit überprüfts und natürlich auch korrigierst. Ich habe keine Ahnung, ob dies mit ID funktioniert.

Gruß. Andre
user_12500175 (2021-09-23 19:24:46+00:00): Hallo,
ich hatte die Relationen in ID überprüft und keine Fehler gefunden, auch wenn ich über deine Links gehe finde ich in ID keine Fehler in den Relation.

Kannst du mir vielleicht einen Screenshot aus Josem schicken wo man das Problem sieht.
Am besten per PN das das hier nicht
länger wird
abakus_uploader (2021-09-21 22:30:48+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
ZLima12 (2021-10-28 03:14:14+00:00): Hi,

There has been discussion over this issue, and there proponents of either putting what is signed (in this case, just "M", not "MSP"), or nothing at all in ref for these parkways.

If possible, would you mind sharing which drivers you have feedback from?

Also, I have talked about a tagging scheme where something like "MSP" would be tagged as name:abbreviation=MSP, which could go together with ref=M. Perhaps any navigation app that might be used by these drivers could use this tag instead?

We have been discussing this issue in the #local-nyc and #local-newyorkstate channels in the OSMUS Slack. If it's convenient for you, we'd appreciate hearing from you there. Otherwise, you could continue to respond here.

Thanks!
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-12-09 18:50:14+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/278441154 - czyli to jest nazwa mostu, a droga nie ma nazwy?
kasztelan111 (2023-12-27 15:32:55+00:00): właściwie to tak, już poprawiam
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:02:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.