piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2021-09-22 19:57:41+00:00): Dat maritiem mappen is een aparte tak van sport in OSM
Neus maar eens rond op openseamap
https://www.openseamap.org/index.php?id=openseamap&no_cache=1

Wat ik meestal doe is gewoon in het havengebied kijken hoe daar is getagd. Je hebt zoveel soorten meerpalen mer aparte functie. Die hebben allemaal hun eigen tagging.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap
en

hier alles wat bij een haven hoort

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Harbour

Genoeg leesvoer zo denk ik. 

Niet alles wordt zichtbaar op de standaardkaart. Op de openseamap natuurlijk wel.
Dat is de vaarkaart.
Hier je pile  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:seamark:type%3Dpile

Kijk ook even hier..
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:seamark:type%3Dmooring
Over mooring.. 
De kadastervlakken zet ik trouwens om in mooring=yes of private
en de regel building=houseboat verwijder ik . Dan teken ik in het adresvlak de ark en het Kadastervlak met adres is dan een transparant. 

Succes,
eggie
eggie (2021-09-22 20:30:04+00:00): In het havengebied van Vlissingen zie je de verschillende attributen gemapt om als voorbeeld te dienen.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.4466/3.5990
Wipflord (2021-09-22 19:26:56+00:00): Sorry, I got the comment mixed up: "La Quercia: road courses corrected and completed in the eastern part of the campsite." is the correct one.
EinKonstanzer (2021-09-23 13:09:22+00:00): Wären die 3 neuen Linien von dir Teile einer PLZ-Relation würde ich hier NICHT schreiben.
Die Linien sind aber Teile von Stadtteilgrenzen. Du schreibst im CS-Kommentar von postcode-Grenzen angepaßt. Da hätte ich Stadtteilgrenzen gerne unangetastet gesehen. 

Du bist ja nicht unerfahren... Ich meine ja nur...
Ropino (2021-09-24 09:09:20+00:00): Hallo,
Ich habe die Postcodegrenzen auf einem Teilstück separat geführt, da diese nicht zu 100% an politischen Grenzen verlaufen.
Dazu musste ich den bisherigen Way (245985302) 2fach aufteilen.
Damit entstand 1 neuer Way (985992808) mit den gleichen Relationen/Werten.
Der 2. neue Wegteil (985992807) dazwischen -östlich um Schlägelstraße 2- bekam die fast gleichen Relationen, 
jedoch ohne die Postcoderelationen. Diese wurden an den neuen Way (985992809) 'westlich' drangehangen.
Damit hat sich an Stadtteilgrenzen praktisch nichts verändert, außer das es (zwangsläufig) mehr Teilsegmente wurden.

Btw: Was ich im gleichen CS gemacht habe, ist eine Verschiebung von 2 Punkten (ca. um 15m) der Stadtteilgrenzen auf Basis von ALKIS.
Sorry, dies hatte ich im Kommentar nicht erwähnt.
PT-53 (2022-03-10 07:05:07+00:00): Hallo plexi32,
diese Linie 
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/985994065/history
hat noch keine Merkmale.
Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?
Fragende Grüße
PT-53 (2022-03-10 07:06:41+00:00): Das gleiche bei diesen Linien:
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/985994069/history
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/985994070/history
PT-53 (2022-03-10 07:08:59+00:00): Und noch eine:
-https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/985994078/history
PT-53 (2022-03-20 11:41:13+00:00): Hallo plexi32, 
schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?
Fragende Grüße
plexi32 (2022-03-20 12:05:23+00:00): Sorry dafür, schauer ich mir heute abend gerne mal an!
plexi32 (2022-03-20 21:14:51+00:00): alles erledigt :-)
martinst (2021-11-09 17:46:31+00:00): Hallo,
der von dir eingetragene Weg 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/985998858
wurde wieder gelöscht.
Wie gut ist der Weg denn sichtbar?
locked (2021-11-09 21:00:04+00:00): Ich hab die Sichtbarkeit des Wegs nur runtergedreht. An einer Seite sieht man noch, dass dort ein Ziehweg zuwächst - auf der anderen hab ich keinen Weg gesehen. Ich hab aber auch nicht weiter gesucht. -- Hab mich nur nicht komplett löschen getraut
Kehet (2021-09-23 13:23:32+00:00): road was blocked with stones when I visited there
Rom1 (2021-09-26 20:07:25+00:00): Bonjour, je suis contributeur tout près de cette zone. J'ai retiré les chemins issus seulement du cadastre ainsi que les tracés recalés sur le cadastre. En effet, le cadastre n'est pas une source fiable et suffisante pour le tracé des chemins. Au plaisir. Romain
xephos1one (2021-09-23 17:24:06+00:00): Bitte diesen Changeset nochmal überprüfen, es wurde auch etwas in der Türkei geändert
Wurde vergessen, die vorige Änderung in Vespucci zu speichern oder zu verwerfen?
bubeck (2021-09-24 06:51:48+00:00): Hui, gut aufgepasst. :)

Ja, der Changeset ist richtig und deine Vermutung auch. Ich hatte in Türkei vergessen zu speichern.
danbjoseph (2021-11-02 12:48:43+00:00): you traced a large area of agricultural land and tagged it as a building. please be more careful in your mapping.
Canal des Pangalanes (2021-09-22 20:12:48+00:00): Hi Murtagh,

building in such low fidelity are really not beneficial to anybody.
E de Wit (2021-09-22 20:29:46+00:00): Desbetreffend stukje water is wel degelijk aanwezig.

https://ibb.co/5xJk9kz

-E de Wit
threeof4 (2021-09-23 05:31:04+00:00): Dat klopt, maar er lag een los driehoekje over ander water heen. Dat driehoekje voegde dus niks toe want water van de Bolswardervaart lag er al.
mueschel (2021-10-02 09:39:17+00:00): Could you check these ways? They got a strange "cycleway:right:bu = both" tag.
Clarke22 (2021-10-21 00:19:05+00:00): Fixed, thanks
Friendly_Ghost (2022-05-17 12:24:51+00:00): Hello,

What is this beach here that you mapped? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/986033886

It doesn't show up on any imagery and the way has an invalid type=multipolygon tag.
JRH50 (2022-05-20 00:48:50+00:00): There is breakers visible on ESRI World Imagery (Clarity) Beta, Mapbox Satellite, and Maxar Premium Imagery.  No breakers but brown water visible on National Agriculture Imagery Program.  I changed the feature type to shoal and removed the multipolygon tag.  Thanks for the headsup.
Friendly_Ghost (2022-05-20 08:12:30+00:00): Thanks for editing it. Have a good day :)
SomeoneElse (2021-09-26 00:00:11+00:00): Hello,
On https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/977813230/history (similar to the previous example I commented on) you've explicitly removed bicyle, foot and horse access - are you saying that you know that there isn't bicycle, foor and horse access here?
If not, what is the path for?
Best Regards,
Andy
AlwynWellington (2021-09-28 23:43:54+00:00): Andy, hi again
I looked at the history display with some concern, at first.  That history display purports to show no access tags by several contributors.
Then I did a wee experiment.
I conclude an absence of access tags in that history display is in fact saying the standard access tags were in play for "highway=..."
Kia kaha, Alan
SomeoneElse (2021-10-02 13:32:10+00:00): Hello,
>  That history display purports to show no access tags by several contributors. 
Not sure I understand that?
To see how the tags have changed on that way you can look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/977813230/history , or to see a tabular display of the same data 
http://osm.mapki.com/history/way.php?id=977813230
Best Regards,
Andy
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-09-22 21:08:42+00:00):  In case of any doubt I would be happy to discuss it further in any discussion place used by local or global community.

See also https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=73887
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-09-22 21:12:19+00:00): I made this edit now, as I was waiting for response from fayor - I see that they edited now without responding to https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111407406 - so I assume that they become aware that their edits were in this case mistaken.
karson_ (2021-09-25 21:54:42+00:00): Hello j-clark3, welcome to OpenStreetMap. While you have successfully added features to Byron Hills GC, you have made some significant mistakes with your tagging. 

* You tagged every single feature with leisure=golf_course. Only the overall course gets this tag, you should remove it from everything else. 
* Features don't need a name=* tag. Ex. #13 fairway does not need a name.
* Each golf=hole does not need a name=*. You did a good job adding the ref=* tag. This stores the # of the hole.
karson_ (2021-09-25 21:55:18+00:00): If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. The QC is my home turf for mapping.
jumbanho (2021-11-18 15:38:23+00:00): Seems like it may be time to just clean up these messes rather than hope the mapper will...
AndersAndersson (2022-12-07 21:53:37+00:00): Hej!
Du har gjort ett jättejobb i Sandviken. Men allting är väldigt mycket förskjutet. Vet du vad det beror på?
Det syns om man jämför med flygfoton, men framför allt med "Trafikverkets vägnätverk" som man kan slå på i ID. Det visar nästan jämt väldigt exakt position för vägar.
Tekannan (2023-02-15 18:44:38+00:00): Hej, ursäkta för sen återkoppling. Det är så klart inte avsiktligt, blir snarare illa berörd av att man gjort så mycket 'fel'. När jag började kartlägga gjorde jag en jämförelse mellan alla flygfoton och kom fram till att MAXAR hade de senaste. Att de inte var korrekta gps-mässigt gick inte upp för mig då detta aldrig belystes i den nödtorftiga introduktionen man får innan man kan börja mappa. Om du har förslag på mer korrekta flygfoton är jag villig att byta till den genast.
AndersAndersson (2023-02-15 19:13:33+00:00): Hej!
Tack för återkopplingen.
Ok, då vet jag anledningen. Annars brukar flygfoton nuförtiden vara ganska okej (även om det alltid är mer eller mindre förskjutning), men tyvärr verkar det ha varit ovanligt stort fel i Sandviken.
Man kan inte allt när man börjar, utan man får lära sig på vägen. Jag lär mig fortfarande efter mer än 10 år.
Ett bra sätt som man kan kontrollera och ta bort förskjutningen på flygfoton är att man först väljer det flygfotot man vill ha och sedan scrollar ner lite längre och där bockar i "Trafikverkets vägnätverk". Sen drar man i den grå rektangeln ännu längre ner så att flygfotot stämmer med Trafikverkets data. karterar man över ett område större än några kvarter kan man få justera allt eftersom man karterar.

Din OSM-"karriär" har börjat jättebra. Hoppas du fortsätter på samma bra sätt!
archie (2023-02-15 19:14:24+00:00): Hej, trevligt att du hör av dig! Bli inte illa berörd av detta. Du anar inte hur dåligt jag själv ritade i början... Huvudsaken är att du inte utgår ifrån att tidigare inritade vägar nödvändigtvis är fel. 
Det finns en bättre källa. Låt mig återkomma.
archie (2023-02-15 19:18:55+00:00): Du kommer att kontaktas av någon som kommer att hjälpa dig. Låt dig inte avskräckas av det här.
archie (2023-02-15 19:33:02+00:00): förlåt, jag trodde det här var din återkoppling på mina kommentarer på dina edits i Västervik.
cserpell (2021-09-23 02:04:53+00:00): Estimado,

Has agregado varios elementos de salud duplicados que ya estaban anotados, por favor tener más cuidado. Recuerda que puedes unirte a la comunidad donde se resuelven dudas y se comparte sobre el mapa: Telegram @OSMcl y el facebook y lista de correos que se indica en https://www.openstreetmap.cl/
GoatoftheNorth (2021-09-22 22:20:41+00:00): Source used was actually ESRI World Imagery
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111564179
habi (2021-09-23 07:37:45+00:00): I https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/766094785 really passing *through* the building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/766094785 ?

If so, the relevant part of it could be tagged as 'building_passage' or simply as `covered=yes`.
ovruni (2021-09-22 22:44:17+00:00): Hola, aquí creo que debe de ir valores de wikidata y wikipedia del objeto, no de la persona.
Saludos
ovruni (2021-09-22 22:50:48+00:00): He cambiado las claves a "subject:wikidata" y "subject:wikipedia".
Dimusoika (2021-09-24 16:10:41+00:00): Entiendo. Acabo de revisar la wiki y me he percatado de cuáles son las etiquetas correctas. Muchas gracias.
Pt873 (2021-09-27 17:42:34+00:00): Olá, essa modificação está incorreta. A conversão permitida nesse trecho é apenas de quem vem da Avenida São Marçal para a Rua Cinco de Janeiro. Também não é permitido cruzar da Avenida Reis Perdigão para a Rua Cinco de Janeiro.
Baconcrisp (2021-09-27 21:13:49+00:00): Thank you for the insight on this intersection. I really appreciate it!
FasterTracker (2021-09-22 22:22:38+00:00): PTE. de LOUSA » Adcionada ponte e extendido rio
Glassman (2021-09-23 20:51:07+00:00): Maybe I missed it, but I would remove the section of bridge that was removed from the road. Even if the bridge wasn't ever mapped in OSM. Let me know if you need help.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111564584
wac_ (2021-09-24 04:45:18+00:00): You are correct that the bridge was not ever mapped in OSM. The change in the edit view seems to reflect the current state of affairs.

I split the line on each side of where the bridge used to be and then removed the segment in the middle. I see it in a few of the tile layers on the web, although it's not in the published cycling layer tiles yet.

Let me know if there is something I missed in the change or a better approach at doing this.
Glassman (2021-09-24 17:19:50+00:00): Look good! Thanks for fixing
Glassman (2021-09-23 20:42:57+00:00): A private road usually means that the owners are responsible for maintenance not a local government agency. If there is a no trespassing sign then access=private is appropriate. Can you review this edit to make sure it's correct?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111564629
wac_ (2021-09-24 04:36:36+00:00): Hi. Thanks for the double-check. This is posted as a private road on the county signs at the intersection with Fish Hatchery Road. County property records show that the road is part of one of the parcels along the road.
OldManCelli (2021-09-24 16:04:59+00:00): Hi Wac_, when posted as a private road that has public access it is best to use ownership=private. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ownership)
From the access=private wiki: "Privately owned road with public access may be tagged like any other road with public access - without access=* tag, or with the explicit access=permissive." 
Unless you are saying that this is ported with a "no access" or "no trespassing" sign?
mariotomo (2021-09-22 22:40:31+00:00): something that would be very appreciated, if you have the time, would be mapping the coral reefs!  don't forget the 4m tide in the area.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111564775
cserpell (2021-09-23 01:49:11+00:00): Estimado, gracias por los aportes. Una apreciación: la etiqueta "village" es para un pequeño poblado. En este caso la mejor etiqueta es "neighbourhood". Saludos,
felipeeugenio (2021-09-23 12:16:11+00:00): Hola.
Por favor poner atención en la categoría de los lugares. un condominio es, a los más, un neighbourhood, nunca un village si acaso están dentro de un área urbana. 
Otro mapero ya lo corrigió.

saludos
Carnildo (2021-09-22 23:05:59+00:00): The "description" field is intended for information that doesn't fit in the structured tags, such as what sort of real estate services are offered.  It's not a place to write a promotional blurb for your business.
Glassman (2021-09-23 20:46:44+00:00): You can also tag the service road as service=drive-through and typically they are oneway.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111565176
DressyPear4 (2021-09-23 13:09:01+00:00): Olá, não há necessidade de adicionar nomes genéricos, como 'residencia' 'mato' etc..
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111565296
Glassman (2021-09-23 20:49:14+00:00): #TIP: you can ignore all the TIGER tags. They are just there because that how they were imported many years ago. I often just delete them. Like in this case, you are the 12th edit to the road.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111565385
felipeeugenio (2021-09-23 12:18:18+00:00): Hola. Es Cesfam ya estaba puesto. y definitivamente no es un hospital. por favor consultar la wiki e incorporarse a la comunidad de OSM en el chat de Telegram usando el link en mi perfil. Saludos y muchas gracias por sus ediciones.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-03-09 22:56:08+00:00): Why are lines in this area jagged?
Kuatsystems (2022-03-09 23:13:49+00:00): good question, i had not noticed that
Kuatsystems (2022-03-09 23:16:26+00:00): good question, i will see if i can fix it
gyotoku810 (2021-09-23 07:59:42+00:00): 突然すみません。seichan1028さんの直近のいくつかの編集について伺いたいことがあります。いくつかの道路においてoneway:bicycle=noタグが削除されていますが、この編集の意図を教えていただけますか？私がMapillaryで確認したところ、蔵前小学校通りなど自転車が一方通行でない道路でoneway:bicycle=noタグが削除されている箇所が見つかりました。また、一部の国道にaccess=yesを付けている理由も教えてください。デフォルトでaccess=yesですから明示する必要がないように思います。
seichan1028 (2021-09-23 10:50:20+00:00): gyotoku810さん
oneway:bicycle=noタグの削除に関してですが、道路標識の一方通行の補助標識に自転車を除くと明記されているのは理解しております。しかし一方通行の道路では道路の設計上、逆方向に通行することをあまり考えていない箇所も多いです。危険箇所を理解している地域住民の方が自転車で通行する分には問題ないと思います。しかし、地図のルート探索サービスを利用する方は初めて通る方も多く、法的には問題なくても、あまり一方通行を逆方向に通行するのをOSMの地図を使用したルート探索サービス案内するのは好ましくないと考えています。勝手に削除してしまったことは大変申し訳ございません。

また一部の国道access=yesですがルート探索の際に自転車や歩行者では標準だと除外されてしまう為yesをつけていました。場所に応じてbicycle=yesなどとするのが望ましいのであれば今後はそのようにさせていただきます。
gyotoku810 (2021-09-23 11:11:43+00:00): seichan1028さん
oneway:bicycle=noの削除について、現地事情を考慮した編集であったこと承知いたしました。本来は標識通りにマッピングするのが望ましいですが、意図した編集であるということで良かったです。不用意な削除を疑ってしまい失礼いたしました。
国道が歩行者ルートで除外される件は把握しております。ルート探索を意図したものであれば確かにaccess=yesは誤りではありませんので付けていただいて大丈夫です。
П3тр0виЧъ (2021-09-24 11:01:18+00:00): Откат.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111566556
user_5359 (2021-09-23 08:35:30+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/986081482. This area doesn't have any definied OSM key: What is the meaning of this keys? Please explain the source of this information!
Steven Barnhart (2021-09-23 13:08:13+00:00): My apologies, those nodes must have been left over from the Auditor shape file or unintentionally added. I deleted them.
Leonardo Gutierrez (2021-09-24 19:52:32+00:00): Andres, puedes copiar la misma entrada hasta el terminal de salitre de la ruta 13217723 Duitama - Bogota.  Todos los buses lo hacen.
AngocA (2022-09-27 04:59:12+00:00): Gracias Leo!!
wireguy (2021-09-23 12:22:43+00:00): Hi Cass0902.  Thanks for making corrections!   Don't map the roof peaks, you should be mapping the footprint of the building.  Think what the base of the building would look like without the building structure.
Quick tip,  pressing the 'Q' key when you have a building selected will sQuare the corners on a rectangular building.  Makes it more accurate, and looks better.
Adam Franco (2021-09-23 17:15:44+00:00): See comments on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111570311
rthik007 (2021-09-24 06:48:05+00:00): "Hi Jasminikki,
Fixed the alignment as building polygons are overlapping with roads
364964019
537471443
755568704
755568706
Kindly check with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111630139.
Thank you"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111568287
Adam Franco (2021-09-23 17:15:54+00:00): See comments on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111570311
marczoutendijk (2021-12-11 19:46:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114828622 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of incorrect edits to the map due to the use of incorrect tags.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:22:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-07 13:21:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127151699, 127148293 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert (on request from the community) due to the wrong use of tags related to trees and the naming of trees
Adam Franco (2021-09-23 17:15:16+00:00): Hi tcarlisle, welcome to mapping in Open Street Map! I've reviewed a number of your change-sets and see that you're adding a lot of great detail to the map. Thanks for all of the good contributions! 

I want to flag an issue with this and several other similar change-sets that you might not be aware of. In this change-set you added landuse=retail and highway=pedestrian areas to "paint" end-zones, lettering, and symbols on a sports field. This is a practice known as "Tagging for the renderer" and something we want to avoid in OSM. See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

When mapping in OSM we want to be both precise and accurate. In the case of these sports fields, there aren't actually commercial areas or pedestrian areas on this field, so we shouldn't add these fake areas in an attempt to represent paint colors. There are many many different systems that use OSM data in addition to the map-renderings shown on openstreetmap.org, and by adding fake data to get a certain effect in one map we potentially confuse other users of the data, such as a data-user comparing the density of residential to commercial areas in a city.

To fix these fields I recommend removing these fake areas that represent paint colors.

If you have more questions about this or other mapping topics you're welcome to reply here or join other mappers discussing all sorts of topics on the OSM-US Slack channel at https://slack.openstreetmap.us/ .

Best,
Adam
Allison P (2021-09-24 04:05:19+00:00): Seems like the island should be tagged place=island based on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dislet
h551w (2021-09-24 05:05:16+00:00): Good catch, I've gone and fixed it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111627012
E de Wit (2021-09-23 07:20:09+00:00): De botenhelling is het afgelopen jaar vernieuwd.

Gelieve geen recente wijzigingen corrigeren met verouderde brongeving / zonder survey.

https://ibb.co/mvprzYW

-E de Wit
eggie (2021-09-23 07:54:34+00:00): Oude 'nieuwe' situatie hersteld.. bron quick ortho HR 2021
gr eggie
eggie (2021-09-23 08:26:44+00:00): De bedoeling zal vast goed zijn.. 
nieuwe oude  situatie is nu weer de oude nieuwe ...  Een soort heen en weer helling  :)
Zal even een PB sturen naar 3of4. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111577548
gr eggie
rthik007 (2021-09-24 06:31:48+00:00): "Hi JohnBarrios,
Kindly check
246570774
246570775
246570779
246570798
547849087
547849094
547849095
all above mentioned ways are overlapping with buildings, please validate and do the edits accordingly.
Thank you."
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111572407
Vinber-Pro (2021-09-23 10:26:46+00:00): bonjour, je vois que vous faites passer un à un les tags de facebook à contact:facebook, peut-être est-il préférable de faire un edit plus large non ?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111572688
LudovicG (2021-09-25 12:04:21+00:00): Bonjour,
Oui, j'imagine que c'est pas très malin ma méthode mais cela me permet de corriger d'autres choses au passage. Par ailleurs, c'est un petit plaisir de "voyager" virtuellement, prendre le temps de découvrir les centres-villes de telle ou telle ville, etc.
J'espère que je n'enfreins aucune règle de bonnes pratiques ou autre, j'avais compris qu'il était déconseillé de faire des modifications de masse en aveugle (et j'avoue que techniquement, je ne saurais pas faire, trop peur de mal faire, j'imagine qu'il faut JOSM ?) et le tag contact:facebook semble être le majoritaire à appliquer (en Allemagne, le ménage semblait déjà avoir été fait).
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111572688