piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2021-09-29 12:52:37+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and  mapped.
Please pay more attention on accurate mapping.
 Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111839421
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:27:04+00:00): MOMBA
skyper (2021-10-15 14:03:39+00:00): Hi MVMBA
Welcome to OSM.
I have several remarks and tips.
First the general ones:
* Please, always add a comment to your changeset as info or short description what your changes are about.
* Please, always add your sources to the changeset, like "survey" or the names of the imagery used.
* In the upload dialog there is a check box to request review, which is wisely checked by beginners.

Now comming back to your JOSM ticket, I noticed two primary problems:
* The geometry looks strange. Did you import a gpx file? You need to clean up a gpx trace that it makes sense for OSM. Clean up includes removing peaks and prettifying curves, plus straightening.
Additionally, OSM ways only need to be split into parts for a reason and can have lots of segments. So many of the short ways should be combined to a single one.
* Finding and using the correct tags is the next quest:
Sorry, I am not 100% familar with the tagging system in the US. Especially, cycle-way tagging varies a bit. But what I can tell is that you always need the key `highway` to define any kind of path/trail/road, that `bicycle_road=*` is a special tag only used in Germany and only an additional tag not defining any trail. `ele=*` is usually used only for nodes and areas but not for open ways. It looks like you are trying to add mountain bike trails, which I would map as `highway=path` or `highway=track` but never as cycleway.
Please, read the wiki. This might be one starting point for tagging: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking

Sorry, for the long comment. If you have further questions please look at:
* https://help.openstreetmap.org/
*  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact_channels

Regards
skyper
Frans S (2021-09-29 12:50:46+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Please pay attention on these points. 
Square each building you map.

FYI Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111839668
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:36:31+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:36:12+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:35:51+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:35:13+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
CurlingMan13 (2023-07-05 22:58:21+00:00): These shouldn't all be mapped as tiny individual ways.  Also, each node doesn't need to have 
bicycle_road=yes

I have gone ahead and cleaned it up.
Frans S (2021-09-29 12:49:24+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Please pay attention on these points. 
PLease square each building. You did not square any building here.

FYI Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111839851
Frans S (2021-09-29 12:47:28+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Please pay attention on these points. 
Square the buildings.
You mapped a yard ad a building next to a building (construction i quess)

FYI Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111839886
NieWnen (2021-09-30 13:25:31+00:00): Wygenerowałeś bardzo dużo ostrzeżeń/błędów w Osmose dodając te linie średniego napięcia.
Brakuje głównie słupów.
A tagowanie raczej jest błędne, bo jeśli to jest średniego napięcia to nie power=line, a power=minor_line

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:power%3Dminor_line

Staty/błędy osmose:
https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?tomzyl

https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/byuser/tomzyl?level=3

A tutaj na mapce: 
https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/pl/map/#item=7xxx&zoom=15&lat=52.17168&lon=20.84035&level=1%2C2%2C3&tags=&fixable=


Ogólnie nie wiem czy to dobry pomysł dodawania tych linii (niższych napięć niż "wysokie", albo "strategicznie" istotnych – takich większych między powiatami jak np. ta: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29098410) do OSM, choć pewnie będą i tacy co się ze mną w tym nie zgodzą.
Dawid2849 (2021-09-30 14:07:36+00:00): Nie zgadzam się w tym z Tobą.
Dawid2849 (2021-09-30 14:08:14+00:00): :P

A tak poważnie to wszystko co jest w prawdziwym życiu można i powinno się mapować imo.
woodpeck_repair (2023-01-03 12:16:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 130822479, 130823603, 130822659, 130821821, 130822156, 130821684, 130823808, 130823423, 130823995, 130823041, 130821981, 130818753, 130822310, 130822822, 130823241 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by Designer1 because they often damaged existing non-golf infrastructure and individually reverting only the problematic edits would have been too much work
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:34:56+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:34:43+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:34:18+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:34:04+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:33:50+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:33:37+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:33:24+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
woodpeck_repair (2023-01-03 12:15:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 130822479, 130823603, 130822659, 130821821, 130822156, 130821684, 130823808, 130823423, 130823995, 130823041, 130821981, 130818753, 130822310, 130822822, 130823241 where the changeset comment is: revert all edits by Designer1 because they often damaged existing non-golf infrastructure and individually reverting only the problematic edits would have been too much work
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:32:37+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:31:45+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:32:10+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:31:59+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:31:22+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:31:12+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:31:01+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:30:48+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:30:38+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:30:26+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:30:09+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:29:53+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:29:40+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:29:28+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:29:12+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
ndm (2021-09-29 10:42:26+00:00): Is this really being constructed now?
Falsernet (2021-09-30 14:29:58+00:00): Satellite imagery suggested to me that it is but reading more up on the subject, even recent articles suggest that some property business is battling it out with the council (and maybe Highways England too?) over who is responsible for building the road. Beats me. Now that this dumb fiasco has my attention I'll change it back and watch for any updates so I can accurately say it's under construction
ndm (2021-09-29 10:44:21+00:00): This is miles from Avonmouth, seems an unlikely misleading name.
Falsernet (2021-10-18 08:42:04+00:00): Tell that to national highways. https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/south-west/m49-avonmouth-junction/
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:27:40+00:00): MOMBA
Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:26:27+00:00): MOMBA
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:28:47+00:00): Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:25:51+00:00): MOMBA
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:28:27+00:00): Source: Strava GPX
keithonearth (2021-11-01 21:11:36+00:00): Thanks for making the tagging of this construction area more detailed. I am wondering if the `level`, `layer`, and `underground` tags. As the construction continues right to the surface, I feel that it would be more accurate with these tags removed from the station construction sites. 

What do you think 3ngineer?
3ngineer (2021-11-02 00:25:14+00:00): I agree, I removed the tags to see how it looks. I was worried the area may render over the roadways in some renderers.
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:22:33+00:00): MOMBA
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:28:11+00:00): Source: Strava GPX
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:23:11+00:00): MOMBA
MVMBA (2021-10-15 22:27:56+00:00): Source: Strava GPX
skyper (2021-10-18 10:09:12+00:00): Hi MVMBA

First I thought, you use your own gpx traces but now I fear you use some traces found on the internet.
Is the license of the source inline with the OSM licenses (ODbL)? What is the license of the source?

Best regards,
skyper

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility
SomeoneElse (2021-09-29 00:02:10+00:00): Bits and pieces around York, from survey 31/8/2021, tr8110b
Frans S (2021-09-29 12:42:21+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most buildings and  mapped. Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111841019
skquinn (2021-09-29 05:04:16+00:00): Please do not combine changesets for the United States and Egypt in the same changeset. This makes it much more difficult to see where changes are actually being made.
Filip009 (2021-11-08 09:53:03+00:00): Dobrý deň, pri dopĺňaní telefónnych čísiel je potrebné pridávať ich v medzinárodnom formáte +421 XXX XXX XXX https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone
Dodko (2021-11-08 23:36:10+00:00): Ak už je adresa uložená v budove https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93956605 tak ju netreba opakovať aj do bodu prevádzky.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9130840768
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9130840407
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9130840408

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/623530813
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7903716141
ID10T_Chris (2021-09-29 01:21:45+00:00): Oops, meant Oneida, not Oneonta. :(
Frans S (2021-10-13 12:02:49+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Please pay attention on these points:
Be more accurate in mapping. Do not overlap buildings and square each rectangular building.

FYI Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111842126
DressyPear4 (2021-09-29 15:47:45+00:00): Olá, building corresponde apenas a parte edificada, no conjunto use landuse.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111842472
ElliottPlack (2021-10-14 15:23:46+00:00): Hey there, There are some edits to bicycle infrastructure in this changeset that are non-standard and should be adjusted. I'm a huge cyclist and advocate, so I'm all about bike edits but it should follow the best practices outline in the wiki and elsewhere. PeopleForBikes has a great explainer for all this here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1isc9M9_c-QL4Oy8_MxAyogZ6ocs1F6PeEn_Y1p0WZp8/edit

The main issue here is that bike lanes that not physically separated should not be tagged as independent cycleway ways. The only time you should add a separate cycleway is for an off street path (like in a park) that is a cycleway, or a protected bicycle lane. Protected, in the US, tends to mean parked cars or bollards separating the lane. Otherwise, the cycleway tags are added directly to the roadway.
ElliottPlack (2021-10-14 17:33:20+00:00): Wanted to update and say I fixed the offending cycleways along 4th St SW. Most of the ones I came across in the area are good though. The protected lanes should always merge back to the roadway wherever the separation ends. All set here but keep in mind for future.
wkdgs (2021-09-29 08:01:47+00:00): Hi,

erstmal Danke, dass du dabei hilfst die Karte zu verbessern.

Das aktuelle Mapping ist wahrscheinlich nicht korrekt. Ich bin mir aber auch nicht sicher wie man das am besten einträgt. Könntest du dafür einen Diskussion im deutschen OpenStreetMap-Forum (https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=14) starten? Da gibt es bestimmt jemanden, der weiterhelfen kann.

Was du schon mal ändenr kannst ist der "name"-Tag. Der ist nur für Eigennamen gedacht. Kurze Beschreibungen sollten mit dem "description" angegeben werden. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:name

LG
winkeldings
SebastianHelm (2021-09-29 09:52:45+00:00): Danke für deine Antwort. Ich nehme an, dass du mit „Das aktuelle Mapping“ die Kennzeichnung mit dem ''Tag'' ‘amenity=place_of_worship’ meinst, die ich zuerst eingegeben habe. Inzwischen habe ich das ''Tag'' in ‘historic=monument’ geändert, wovon zumindest der ''Key'' passt. Wie ich aber gerade auf https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic=monument?uselang=en#Warnings lese, stimmt der ''Value'' aber immer noch nicht. Jene Seite empfiehlt stattdessen zwei Möglichkeiten, von denen mir “historic=yes” am besten gefällt. Würdest du mir dabei zustimmen oder meinst du, das muss noch im weiteren Kreis diskutiert werden? 

Den Namen werde ich löschen, da das mit den Eigennamen Sinn macht. Allerdings sehe ich viele Fälle, wo Namen vergeben wurden, die keine Eigennamen sind. Dafür ist dies hier natürlich nicht der richtige Diskussionsort; wollen wir das per privater Message oder an anderer Stelle besprechen?
wkdgs (2021-09-29 11:44:34+00:00): Stimmt, ich hatte nur "amenity=place_of_worship" gesehen. Den Tag "historic" finde ich schon besser. "historic=yes" und eine passende Beschreibungen hört sich nach einer guten ersten Lösung an. Aber, ob es nicht doch was passenderes gibt, kann ich nicht sagen. Ich würde da doch nochmal im Forum nachfragen. Kann ich auch gerne übernehmen.
SebastianHelm (2021-09-29 14:29:02+00:00): Danke! Nachdem du da wohl mehr Gesprächsbedarf siehst, ist es wahrscheinlich praktischer, wenn du die Frage im Forum initiierst.

Ich kann jetzt übrigens auch verstehen, warum für so etwas ein Forum sinnvoller ist; wenn man hier die Diskussion anschaut, wird ja noch der alte Stand - also vor meiner 2. Änderung - angezeigt.
wkdgs (2021-09-29 14:53:39+00:00): https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=842389#p842389
Владимир К (2021-12-26 16:28:27+00:00): Добрый день.
Зачем вы слепили общими точками квартал ко всем пересекающим его дорожками, деревьям? В этом какая-то задумка? разлепляю обратно
Владимир К (2021-12-26 16:29:09+00:00): речь про микрорайоны в Эжве
d1sr4n (2021-12-27 02:22:17+00:00): Добрый. Внимательнее изучите историю правок.
d1sr4n (2021-12-27 02:23:23+00:00): Микрорайоны с дорогами соединенные - это беда, надо чинить.
Владимир К (2021-12-27 08:02:48+00:00): https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=111845094
вот внимательно смотрю на первые версии точек созданные в этом пакете на пересечении микрорайонов 3, 3А, 5А с дорогами, лесом, травой.
вот даже остались https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9131050550 некоторые. 

видимо ошибка, исправлю
d1sr4n (2021-12-27 13:51:58+00:00): Понятно. Вот как раз с лесом и травой я их и соединял, плюс помню приводил названия к общему виду. А так, творчество не мое. 

Обычно я стараюсь сохранить историю объекта, но видимо этим объектам не повезло.
Владимир К (2022-01-04 11:36:51+00:00): Вообще говоря, мне ничего не понятно. зачем соединять с лесом и травой? и чем эти точки с лесом и травой отличаются от точек с дорогами?  точно такие же точки и с дорогой , первой версии
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9131050607

в линиях, тоже, было 5 точек, стало 21
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/747820625/history

я не понимаю, куда мне надо смотреть историю изменений, чтобы понять что произошло
d1sr4n (2022-07-18 17:02:55+00:00): Что зачем соединять с чем? Площадные объекты residential c площадными объектами natural?

Потому что это площадные объекты.
Mahdi Nameghi (2021-10-02 07:49:52+00:00): هدف تون از گذاشتن تگ access روی این جاده چی بوده؟
syntex (2021-10-24 21:40:00+00:00): Reverted
syntex (2021-10-24 21:40:22+00:00): Reverted
syntex (2021-10-24 21:40:36+00:00): Reverted
syntex (2021-10-24 21:40:57+00:00): Reverted
syntex (2021-10-24 21:41:13+00:00): Reverted
syntex (2021-10-24 21:41:28+00:00): Reverted
syntex (2021-10-24 21:41:55+00:00): Reverted
syntex (2021-10-24 21:42:22+00:00): Reverted
syntex (2021-10-24 21:44:48+00:00): If these objects have wrong names feel free to provide the correct ones. But you only delete objects. This changeset has been reverted.
RobTheCoder (2021-09-29 05:22:13+00:00): First proposed edit to OSM! Please let me know if I've made any mistakes.
Glassman (2021-09-29 17:51:23+00:00): The edit looks good. If the bus stop is gone, it is appropriate to remove it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111846012
impiaaa (2021-10-09 00:09:32+00:00): This, or another one of your changesets, seems to have broken the continuity of the San Jose border, at least in Overpass. Can you fix it? I don't have a validator on hand to tell what's wrong but I did notice that way ID 777559010 sticks out, and might double back on itself as well.
eagle_aac (2021-10-11 06:27:58+00:00): Way 77755910 is correct in routing (at least, I didn't edit the routing so I assume it's correct).  I think there are two boundary lines on top of each other - one for Milpitas (the way in question) and another for San Jose, and I may have erroneously added the San Jose Admin Boundary as a relation in the Milpitas way.  If this is correct, I'll delete the San Jose relation from way 777559010.  Thanks for the note
eagle_aac (2021-10-11 06:42:27+00:00): I believe I've corrected the two changes that could have caused problems.  Both were caused by assigning the additional relationship San Jose Admin Border to the existing Milpitas Admin border.  San Jose already had an existing border way below the Milpitas one.  The ways in question were 777559010 and 987880360.  Of course, this begs the question of why shared borders have two separate lines on top of each other, instead of sharing one line, but that's an argument for another day.
wireguy (2021-12-07 19:52:00+00:00): eagle_acc, there is another relation that you created, relation 13272772, Central San Jose.  It is only partially there.  maybe it can be deleted?
jmty8 (2021-12-01 13:10:44+00:00): Hello Topcats69, can you explain why did you remove so many roads?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111847111
jmty8 (2021-12-02 14:03:06+00:00): Hello Topcats69, I've reverted this changeset due to huge removal and no answer from you. Please, be more careful. Best ragards.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111847111
waldhans (2021-09-30 13:33:22+00:00): Bitte das source-tag bei den Gebäuden setzen, nicht nur im changeset!

Und bitte einen kurzen Blick auf die Gebäude, du malst über bestehende Objekte! Der korrekte Weg ist:

neue Geometrie eingeben

alter und neue Geometrie auswählen (Shift-Click)

und dann CRTL-SHIFT-G (replace Geometry)

Damit wird der alte Umriss gelöscht, die Geschichte bleibt aber erhalten.

mfg Kurt Waldhans
Znaika (2021-09-29 07:19:07+00:00): Hey! Warum hast du die Häuser entfernt?
steelcroissant (2021-09-29 07:41:45+00:00): Hi, meiner Kenntnis nach existieren dort keine Gebäude. Kann das aber gerne auch rückgängig machen.
steelcroissant (2021-09-29 07:44:37+00:00): Falls die Gebäude da sind sag am besten hier kurz ob ich die wiederherstellen soll oder du das machst!
Znaika (2021-09-29 07:51:29+00:00): Hallo. Gebäude sind definitiv auf den aktuellsten Sattelittenbildern zu sehen. Ich war vor Ort und konnte es auch von der Straße im Hinterhof sehen. Bitte wiederhersten!
SekeRob (2021-09-29 07:36:38+00:00): Hi, suspect you saw this in the new/latest keys report as normally I would have seen it in the Osmose flag list which has been broken for the last 24 hours. At least you curing it, I've seen others bluntly deleting keys with typos.

Thanks for fixing.
wkdgs (2021-09-30 15:17:49+00:00): Hi,

hast du die Adresse aus Versehen gelöscht oder hat das Gebäude tatsächlich keine Adresse?

LG
winkeldings
NicoSa (2021-09-30 16:59:00+00:00): Hi Winkeldings, dass kann leider passiert sein.
wkdgs (2022-02-09 13:17:47+00:00): Hi,

ich hab nochmal reingeschaut. Der Punkt mit der Hausnummer 22C ist beim Bearbeiten wahrscheinlich verrutscht. Er befindet sich jetzt beim Haus mit der Hausnummer 27. Kannst du den wieder zurückschieben?

Wenn du dem Link unten folgst, kannst du dir ansehen wohin der Punkt verrutscht ist.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111849559
Diacritic (2021-10-04 22:52:31+00:00): Hi! Thanks for contributing. :)

It looks like there are already two areas here for the construction of the New Footscray Hospital. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/818272392 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/820385657

Would you have any objections if I merged the two?
ccCreativeSpace (2021-10-06 05:12:49+00:00): Not at all, it was still showing up as a carpark for me for some reason. Thanks
ScottWalkerAU (2021-09-29 07:38:33+00:00): Looks good!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111850229