piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Piet128 (2022-03-27 10:22:00+00:00): Hallo, ja, danke für den Hinweis. Habe die Knotenbezeichnung wieder rückgägnig gemacht. War ein Versehen. Sorry
user_2066394 (2022-01-09 08:26:41+00:00): Du reduzierst hier technisch den Detaillierungsgrad, die ursprünglich erfassten Rehenhäuser und insbesondere alle Hausnummern sind verlorengegangen.
Flo13 (2022-01-09 17:31:41+00:00): Hallo, 
ich werde in den nächsten Tagen den Datensatz erneuern wenn ich vor Ort die Hausnummern überprüft habe. 

Viele Grüße 
Flo
user_2066394 (2022-01-09 20:28:46+00:00): Alles klar, habe erst im zweiten Blick gesehen, dass du die ja selber eingepflegt hattest, wäre schade drum :-) Können wir im Zweifel auch schnell zurücksetzen, dann braucht man nicht neu zeichnen, je nachdem was die Überprüfung ergibt.
Flo13 (2022-01-11 14:16:05+00:00): also ich war heute unterwegs und habe auf dem weg schnell die Hausnummern überprüft. Die passen so wie ich sie das erste mal eingegeben habe. 
Ich zeichne sie schnell wieder ein. Ist ja keiner großer aufwand :-)
Jakka (2022-05-11 19:25:12+00:00): Cette tagging n'est pas complet
access=private OK il manque type highway=* path/track
timetrap (2022-01-07 21:49:47+00:00): Der Hinweis sagt: "Im falschen Gebäude".

Warum löscht du einfach den Punkt?
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2022-01-14 17:12:54+00:00): تم عكس هذه التغييرات الغير صحيحة وأتمنى أن تحرر بشكل صحيح وصحي ولا تحذف أماكن صحيحة وتضيف أماكن باسمك لأجل أن تظهر في خرائط سناب شات
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2022-01-14 17:12:58+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116156051
ivanbranco (2022-01-08 11:51:43+00:00): Hi Jmartinez23,

welcome to OSM.
But please don't upload test changeset, see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing

OSM tags are by convention in english. Take a look at the wiki for info about the most used tags.
user_5359 (2022-01-08 17:31:36+00:00): This change set was completed reverted.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2022-01-14 16:45:58+00:00): مرحبا، لماذا قمت بإزالة اسم قرية المجيصه؟
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2022-01-14 16:59:34+00:00): هذا المكان يعرف بقرية المجيصه لماذا تصر على تغيير هذا المكان وحذف هذا الاسم؟
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2022-01-14 17:07:10+00:00): تم عكس هذا التغيير:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116155860
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2022-01-14 17:06:57+00:00): تم عكس هذا التغيير في:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116155860
benoitdd (2022-01-10 14:20:38+00:00): Hi Arden Tunç. I had to correct your changes: one highway existed already, you didn't align the imagery to existing data, and you connected one road to an electric line instead of the nearby road. Please be careful.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2022-01-14 17:04:54+00:00): تم عكس هذا التغيير لعدم صحته :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116155778
eggie (2022-01-07 18:30:22+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback name:nl	=P.W. Hoofdstraat hoeft niet oegevoegd te worden. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
BCNorwich (2022-01-07 19:23:59+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

As there was a gate barring the way through you shouldn't have been routed through here. Your cycling routing app is probably at fault and will mislead you in similar circumstances. You ought to inform the cycle app compliers.

Anyway, your tagging was OK but there is obviously private access here so a better tag is access=private. I've amended the tags to suit this. I also added the second gate, tagging them both access=private.

Regards Bernard.
EdMoore (2022-01-07 19:45:07+00:00): Hey Bernard, thanks for your help and advice.
Dodko (2022-01-07 20:37:20+00:00): Ak ste pridali semafory https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6820311193 potom fixme=overit semafory trebalo odstrániť.
monooo (2022-10-10 15:25:06+00:00): Hello the changes over
 Carrera 37 (1015741724, v2) is not real, this path not is car way, it is stairs.

Carrera 37 is a dead end street, equal for Calle 64.

I walk every day on this place.

I don know how edit that change, if  @Pegasus21 or anyone can change it tankyou.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1015741724#map=19/6.25457/-75.55228
Pegasus21 (2022-10-10 16:12:17+00:00): Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have edited the area in question. Please let me know if it is not accurate. Thanks again, Pegasus21
monooo (2022-10-10 16:30:31+00:00): Thanks for you quick response.

I know one of all the changes is not accurate because you put this path as higway instead a footway.

The item is 1015741724 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1015741724)
Pegasus21 (2022-10-10 17:48:45+00:00): Hi monooo, I made the changes that you suggested but if you are using ID editor those changes may not show up for a day or so. Let me know if anything looks incorrect after tomorrow or the next day. 
Thanks, Pegasus21
monooo (2022-10-10 19:10:33+00:00): I see it well.
Thanks Pegasus21 for changes.
Mariusz256 (2022-01-10 13:11:42+00:00): już nie ma tej filli na Ogólnej? na stronie biblioteki ciągle jest https://bibliotekaelblaska.pl/filie/
mot saw (2022-01-10 13:14:58+00:00): Nie ma. Z ciekawości przeszedłem się tamtędy w sobotę.
Pink Duck (2022-01-08 17:54:18+00:00): The eastern end of St Giles Street has a bit of a disconnected spur, by the way.
fotoscout (2022-01-09 19:24:53+00:00): War kein Vandalasimus, wurde mit Tudacs auf sehr positive Weise geklärt.
tudacs (2022-01-09 15:36:26+00:00): Stellvertretend für die anderen Changesets als Ergänzung: Es handelt sich bei den durch mich zuvor vorgenommenen Änderungen *nicht* um Vandalismus. Ich verwehre mich explizit gegen den Vorwurf. Fotoscout und ich haben das auch wenige Minuten nach diesen Changesets per Nachrichten geklärt.

Ich hatte im Einklang mit dem Wiki Tagging aktualisiert - das ist auch aus den Änderungen sichtbar.

Die vorgenommenen Ergänzungen (historic=*) begrüße ich sehr und sehe darin ebenfalls eine Verbesserung der Datenbasis.
fotoscout (2022-01-09 19:20:21+00:00): Da gebe ich Tudacs vollkommen Recht, kein Vandalismus. Der Begriff fiel in einer ersten Verärgerung meinerseits, bevor wir in Kontakt kamen, sorry für die Wortwahl. Tudacs und ich haben das im Nachgang gut und positiv lösungsorientiert geklärt und bleiben da sicher weiter am Ball.
Jakka (2022-01-08 09:03:58+00:00): This oneway is for all transportation mode bicycle mofa ....
gscholz (2022-01-10 05:44:36+00:00): HI alan_grunitzki,
your recent changesets have created several erros in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-52.41150&lat=-26.86528&zoom=14

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=115888344

Can you please fix this? My impression is also you did not really understand the concept of boundary relations. Can you confirm this and read the corresponding wiki chapter:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary

Kind regards
Guido
Luzandro (2024-12-25 07:57:44+00:00): s. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/strassen-namen-in-orten-mit-konskriptionsnummern/106538/9
ivanbranco (2022-01-07 23:51:08+00:00): Hi Yiozora,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46391034/history

there's no need to add extra wikipedia tag when the wiki pages are connected via interlanguage links.

See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikipedia#Secondary_languages
Larmax (2022-01-07 20:33:41+00:00): Hi, I don't think that's the correct usage of the addr:housename tag. It should only be used when the name of the house acts as the address which isn't really used in Finland anymore and even then pretty much only in the countryside.
SafetyIng (2022-01-23 20:00:52+00:00): Hey, ich habe mal ein paar Fragen:

Warum lädst du jedes Gebäude mit einem eigenen Changeset hoch? :D
Und dann finde ich deine Changesetkommentare etwas unaussagend. Z.B. "Gebäude hinzugefügt" würde doch reichen?

Und dann Bezüglich Quelle: Was möchtest du denn mit "researched" beschreiben?
parsd51 (2022-01-07 23:27:43+00:00): Will you please explain what you’re trying to achieve with access tagging (access=no, bicycle=no etc.) and cycleway no?
parsd51 (2022-01-12 15:11:20+00:00): Since I don’t know your motivation behind the changes I’ll have to guess.

﻿In my opinion no sane router (navigator) will ever take someone through there, with either a motorway in front or after. 

Look at the surroundings i.e. Mapillary, no pedestrians or bike riders are guided along the roads and I don’t see any official signs preventing foot or bicycle either.

So I intend to remove the access tagging.
durrin (2022-01-12 15:32:46+00:00): I am trying to indicate that Amagermotorvejen doesn't allow foot, horse, or bicycle traffic. I actually live close by and know that these roads do not allow bicycles.
parsd51 (2022-01-12 16:46:49+00:00): Thanks for your response

Motorways don’t allow foot, bicycle etc.

The roads leading upto the roads in discussion are already tagget with foot and bicycle no.

﻿So it’s overkill to have access no on a major road and all kinds of tags and exception. I especially don’t like the access no tag used like this. Worst case is that some navigation systems avoids the roads completely. 

I still intend to remove them unless you have a clear argument to keep them.

PS: I don’t see any footway or bicycle route on to the roads and no signs prohibiting foot and bicycle on Mapillary.
durrin (2022-01-12 20:12:52+00:00): There _are_ signs prohibiting bicycle and pedestrian use. I have seen an application that assumes one can ride on this road because it isn't tagged as non-rideable.
parsd51 (2022-01-12 21:09:26+00:00): Please document the signs prohibiting foot and bicycle on the roads, e.g. from Mapillary.

If the application is overlooking basic already “existing tagging”* for bicycles and foot, why should this overkill tagging help?

Applications need to check this, this is NOT an openstreetmap error.

Even without “existing tagging”* it’s still a faulty application directing foot and bicycle on to the motorway.

*) Existing tagging:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/422789572
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/694100112
durrin (2022-01-13 13:14:39+00:00): it sounds like you are arguing on two fronts: 1: tagging as bicycle:no is superfluous, 2: maybe bicycling is allowed.
for 2: no, bicycling is not allowed, I know this because I live here. The motorway signage at the start of the motorway means no foot, bicycle, or other non-motor traffic. (for example: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.640994804032&lng=12.55925553852&z=17&pKey=293975468856903&focus=photo). That is Danish law.
as to 1: I don't know what to say: shouldn't a bicycle:no tag be there if bicycling isn't allowed? Or are you saying because there are nearby roads where the tag is on it isn't needed on these road-segments?
parsd51 (2022-01-13 15:19:04+00:00): I’m trying to get a complete picture with the facts and stating my facts, and what I think based on those. That’s why I’m asking, because I might have overlooked something.

I don’t mind tagging ways in order to help the routing, but I mind tagging to please errors that belong in the router, tagging without added value and misleading tagging.

The motorway starts in 200m which strictly means foot and bicycle is allowed in the first 200m (the roads in question are not tagged as motorway for the same reason). There might be cases where foot/bicycling makes sense in the first “200m”. Speed limit is still not motorway limit. It doesn’t make sense here (but it’s not signed i.e. allowed) and tagging is also in place here to help the router, also from the Copenhagen City side. Tagging in the end of the motorway goes the same way.

In my opinion any routing application will back out when “hitting” a motorway and find another route, for foot, bicycle etc.

If an application is having a problem with routing here I suggest it is addressed with the application. 

So I don’t see any access tagging needed on the roads in question.
durrin (2022-01-13 19:05:24+00:00): One would think that the important thing is that _it is illegal to ride a bicycle on these roads_. The motorway sign means that non-motor traffic is disallowed, so it _is_ signed.
osmviborg (2022-01-14 04:38:45+00:00): Hvor svært kan det være:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Highway_type_restrictions
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Denmark
parsd51 (2022-01-14 15:59:15+00:00): I have removed access no and cycleway no:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116152784
parsd51 (2022-01-14 16:11:13+00:00): Link to the "sub traffic sign" description (in danish):
https://koerekort-guiden.dk/undertavler/
letihu (2022-01-15 22:26:25+00:00): Wer braucht so eine Genauigkeit eines Flusses?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/161936499/history#map=17/49.86832/10.81635
Und warum sind dabei auch noch hunderte von leeren nodes entstanden?
Z. B.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9400570402/history#map=19/49.86791/10.81675
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9400570401/history#map=19/49.86791/10.81677
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9400570400/history#map=19/49.86790/10.81679
und noch Hunderte mehr.
Bei den Landflächen sieht es nicht besser aus. Sehr viel habe ich schon gefixt.
Paradine (2022-01-16 07:35:13+00:00): Hallo, 
warum diese Punkte entstehen kann ich nicht genau sagen, ist mir aber auch schon aufgefallen. Ich vermute, dass es mit JOSM zu tun hat. Ich bearbeite eine Gebiet über mehrere Tage und speichere die Stände immer zwischen. Seit dem tauchen diese Punkte auf.

Ich versuche das Problem zu beheben.

Alle weiteren zusätzlichen Nodes kann ich selbst gerne korrigieren und löschen, da sie durch einen Fehler von mir entstanden sind.
Paradine (2022-01-16 07:55:26+00:00): Hallo,

habe den Großteil meiner Bearbeitungen überarbeitet und die doppelten Punkte mittels JOSM korrigiert. Ich schaue nachher noch mal in den OSM-Inspector, ob noch mehr Fehler aufgetreten sind und korrigiere diese  dann.

Falls Ihnen noch etwas auffällt, mit bitte Bescheid geben. Ich setzt mich dann sofort ran.
letihu (2022-01-16 20:51:11+00:00): Sieht viel besser aus ;-)
ma-rt-in (2022-01-08 10:54:41+00:00): Hallo,
du brauchst wikidata und wikipedia nicht an die Bundesstraße zu mappen, da dies über die Relation bereits erfasst ist.

vg
◪ Jarv (2022-01-07 19:59:38+00:00): When aligning road please ensure that the imagery itself is also aligned. Here Bing needs to be offset by 4.93; -2.09. The roads were near enough perfectly aligned before, but now they are out by about 5 metres. Also ways 1019206367 & 1019206366 is not needed since there is no physical separation. Would you mind me reverting this back to how it was, whilst keeping the additional footway you added under the bridge?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115889852
literan (2022-01-09 17:12:01+00:00): "Качели" это не имя собственное
osmviborg (2022-01-09 06:18:58+00:00): Der gror ikke græs på vejen. Tegn græsområder hvor der er græs.
Oregonian3 (2022-01-10 22:33:05+00:00): I strongly disagree with this change. UT 9 is an extremely slow route over the mountains, and is basically just a back road to access the less-visited side of Zion. Nobody is ever going to use it as a through route. Please engage with us on the wiki page for UT highways, we'd love feedback there.
Oregonian3 (2022-01-10 22:37:23+00:00): I've reverted because I can't see any world, even one that considers almost every highway to be primary, as one where this road should be primary.
Joseph R P (2022-01-10 23:07:45+00:00): I retagged this to primary because it being secondary created a random dead end in the primary tags. Since trunk has been changed to be for long-haul routes, primary has been changed to also include other main roads. In this case this is the main road through Zion and is important for people travelling there from Arizona and New Mexico. A lot of these changes are the results of discussions in the Utah local and highway classification channels on the OSM US Slack.
Oregonian3 (2022-01-10 23:33:10+00:00): Quite frankly, a conversation on Slack means nothing as it's not something that any random mapper could see, and you gave no indication of that in the changeset comment. That's why I think the wiki is a much better tool for collaboration: anyone can see what's posted there without needing to join any Slack channel.

As to the route itself, UT 9 west of this point is the primary access point to Zion and serves a number of towns. These towns set it apart from the secondary routes that access other Utah national parks (the park access road for Arches, UT 313 and 211 for Canyonlands, and UT 63 for Bryce). I'd rather see this western section changed to secondary than the eastern section changed to primary; the other primary routes in the area like UT 17, UT 14, UT 18, and AZ 89A are clearly a cut above UT 9 in terms of connectivity and use outside of National Park access. I wouldn't call UT 9 a "main road" by any stretch of imagination, unlike the other primaries in the area.
Strubbl (2022-01-07 21:50:54+00:00): Gut beobachtet. Ich bin da schon seit längerer Zeit entgegen der scheinbar ehemaligen Einbahn gefahren und hatte nie ein Schild gesehen, dass das nicht okay wäre.

Von Süden her gibt es keinen Hinweis auf Einbahn: https://kartaview.org/details/3611233/528/track-info

und von Norden her auch nicht: https://kartaview.org/details/3614381/4904/track-info

Nur das Vorfahrtschild, was du beschreibst, kenne ich nicht.
JIDB (2022-01-07 22:18:05+00:00): Auf deinem ersten Link ist die Rückseite vom Vorfahrtschild am linken Rand vom Weg zu erkennen.
JIDB (2022-01-07 22:19:45+00:00): Das ist eigentlich ein "Vorfahrt gewähren"-Schild, die Autos haben da Vorfahrt, nicht die Radfahrer.
Strubbl (2022-01-07 23:17:54+00:00): Ach das meinst du. Ja, stimmt. Danke. Das sollte wirklich eindeutig dafür sein, dass dort kein Einbahnradweg mehr ist.
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-08 08:53:52+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115896999
Asteliks (2022-01-08 09:53:53+00:00): uważaj w ramach tej zmiany przesunąłeś drzwi ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9394517274 ) w niewłaściwe miejsce na mapie. Drzwi znajdują się pod przejściem a nie z boku ( https://goo.gl/maps/hDDtV5Ztijv1v8di6 ). Wiem że niby błędnym jest żeby wisiały w powietrzu z punktu widzenia walidacji ale dalej system interpretuje to poprawnie i poprawnie wyświetla. Niby można rozwiązać jedno i drugie tym: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings
syntex (2022-01-08 10:19:06+00:00): Tak się męczyłem z poprawianiem modelu 3D budynku Plac Konstytucji 5, że zapomniałem. Ale już jest ok
ov_079 (2022-01-10 16:21:07+00:00): 38 rijdt vanaf Hangaar 1 richting Leiden in een blokje om adressen 390 396 en 392 heen, staan ook "officiële" wegwijzer pijltjes van arriva voor hun chauffeurs daar. Weg is op dit moment niet verbonden in OSM, is dat in het echt wel.
A67-A67 (2022-01-11 19:36:39+00:00): Bedankt! Ik heb het aangepast. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/915706
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-08 08:53:20+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.

Just a test or what's the source of your mapping activity? Thanks.

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
blackboxlogic (2022-01-29 18:46:36+00:00): Just looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/11518217. You marked it as access private with means there's a "no trespassing" sign or a gate. I don't see any sign or gate but it looks like it might not be owned by the town (it's privately owned/maintained). It would be more appropriate to tag elements like this with "ownership=private", which was already tagged on this way. Tagging ways with "access=private" where it doesn't belong can have an adverse affect on routing and diminish the actual intent of that tag.
SherbetS (2022-04-22 15:19:50+00:00): hello RussNelson,

on this object
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9400759913

you used the tag man_made=communications_tower, when in reality the object is actually man_made=mast + tower:type=communication

I understand that this is likely due to the confusing nature of the JOSM plugin, but please use the correct tagging in the future.

thanks,
SherbetS
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-08 08:47:39+00:00): Hi EmiliusAuto, welcome to OSM.

Just a test or what's the source of your mapping activity? That was an import, correct? 

Full changeset information: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=115892020#14/-0.0029/-0.0008

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
EmiliusAuto (2022-01-08 19:23:25+00:00): Hi, Welcome to you too,

This changeset is a revert of changeset #115876253, which seemed to be some kind of failed experiment, not conducted by me.
SomeoneElse (2022-01-09 21:19:00+00:00): Hi EmiliusAuto,
Thanks for reverting this rubbish in the middle of the sea.
If the mapper who added it does something similar in the future I'll pick it up with a DWG hat on.
Best Regards,
Andy
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-14 04:50:19+00:00): Hi EmiliusAuto, 

thanks for your answer and thanks for the revert. Didn't see this in the at my first look.

Best,
Pascal
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-08 08:47:59+00:00): Hi EmiliusAuto, welcome to OSM.

Just a test or what's the source of your mapping activity? That was an import, correct? 

Full changeset information: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=115892044

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
pio2_122 (2022-01-07 21:26:33+00:00): Te nazwy powinny być użyte w tagu old_name:de, ponieważ obecnie chyba nikt już na co dzień nimi się nie posługuje.
Bartek93ZGL (2022-01-07 22:38:59+00:00): W Polsce raczej na pewno nikt się nimi nie posługuje. Ale do dziś są to oficjalne niemieckie odpowiedniki nazw tych miejscowości. Niemiec nie powie, że jedzie do Szczecina tylko do Stettin.
pio2_122 (2022-01-07 23:24:23+00:00): Aby na pewno są to oficjalne odpowiedniki? Jest jakieś niemieckie, urzędowe, źródło nazw geograficznych poza granicami tego kraju (coś na wzór Komisji Standaryzacji Nazw Geograficznych
poza Granicami Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej)?

Oczywiście, w przypadku nazw większych i bardziej rozpoznawalnych miejscowości niemieckie nazwy nadal funkcjonują i tu nazwy w name:de są OK. Jednak szczerze wątpię, aby Niemiec posługiwał się nazwą "Vw. Höfe rechts der Ihna" (swoją drogą, skróty w nazwach należy rozwijać), zamiast „Nadrzecze”. Szczególnie, że polska nazwa ma niezbyt wiele wspólnego z tą niemiecką. Czasami obecne nazwy miejscowości celowo, ze względu na ich niemieckie pochodzenie, nie mają nic wspólnego z poprzednią (np. Friedland in Oberschlesien – Korfantów). Dlatego, trzeba rozróżnić martwe nazwy małych miejscowości i nazwy, które nie mają nic wspólnego z obecnymi od tych, które są faktycznymi odpowiednikami (podobne/identyczne znaczenie lub podobny zapis nazwy polskiej i niemieckiej).
Bartek93ZGL (2022-01-08 17:58:14+00:00): Zacząłem zgłębiać ten temat i powiem sprawa jest bardziej skomplikowana. Oficjalnie Niemcy mają swoje nazwy miejscowości tylko do poziomu wiosek. Mniejsze osady, przysiółki i obecne części wsi używana jest nazwa tylko polska. Według prawa UE Nazwy w rodzimym języku są nad nazwami w językach innych krajów. W Polsce natomiast istnieje jeszcze ustawa o mniejszościach narodowych, gdzie np. w gminach gdzie jest mniejszość niemiecka używa się obu nazw miejscowości: polskiej i niemieckiej, (tylko nazwy niemieckie do roku 1932r. późniejsze zmiany za czasów Hitlera często były dyktowane usuwaniem nazw słowiańskich i ich germanizowanie). Nie wiem jak w tej chwili nazwy miejscowości są wyświetlane w niemieckiej wersji OSM, ale wszystkie powinny być tylko w języku polskim. 
Zbadam jeszcze tą sprawę i sprawdzę forum OSM jakie są zdania i wytyczne. 
Przez kilka dni wstrzymam się ze zmianami, ale wstępnie zmienię tagowanie na old_name:de w przypadku miejscowości mniejszych niż wsie.
ravipalev (2022-01-13 06:42:06+00:00): Wrong classification and incorrect one way here (23.7721641, 72.6135644)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115892415
Heinz_V (2022-01-13 12:00:29+00:00): The classification is correct. The NH168G has been declared 18.8.2021