piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mavl (2019-03-14 16:21:47+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
DD1GJ (2016-03-07 22:18:01+00:00): Hallo baslil, an den von Dir gelöschten Punkten waren durchaus Informationen dran wie Bushaltestelle, Blumengeschäft, Friseur, Schule, Wartehäuschen Briefkasten und Parkplatz. Ich habe alles wieder hergestellt.
flohoff (2016-03-07 18:25:58+00:00): Hi,
es wäre schön wenn du für deine Änderungen eine Kurzbeschreibung eingeben würdest. Das dient der besseren zusammenarbeit. Ich habe jetzt hier 20 Changesets von dir und alle ohne beschreibung was du gemacht hast.

Flo
glglgl (2016-04-04 21:26:58+00:00): Auch hier gingen einige Straßenabschnitte des Tags ref="L 253" verlustig. Da die Straße aber zumindest noch so ausgeschildert ist, stelle ich die Tags bis auf Weiteres mal wieder her.

Statt "(kein Kommentar)" wäre vielleicht ein aussagekräftigerer Änderungssatzkommentar hilfreich gewesen…
eric_ (2016-03-08 11:02:34+00:00): In this edit, you deleted 4 polygons which represented 4 different neighbourhoods -- Ravelston (way 256067287), Drum Brae (way 256067261), Clerwood (way 256067252) and Carrick Knowe (way 256067249) -- and decided to keep and to update the 4 nodes representing these places. Even if the polygons weren't mapped perfectly (each mapper has its own conception of the limits of a neighbourhood), they were at least giving a spatial idea of the extent of these neighbourhoods (which nodes can't give), which is quite useful. You may also consider here that some OSM contributors spent some time in the past mapping them. So in this context, why did you decide to delete them on your own? As Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse), on behalf of OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group, mentioned to you the other day, "OSM is a collaborative community, and we have to work together to create the best map. Sometimes there's no problem - we can just add unmapped stuff. However, when changing the status of something existing it can be tricky - different points of view may need to be discussed". So please really consider discussing further changes of this kind on the talk-scotland (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-scotland/) or talk-gb OSM mailing lists. Otherwise, other OSM contributors can be discouraged to see that all their efforts have been reduced to nothing by another person who just deleted their edits. By the way, you're more than welcome to the next OSM pub meeting in Edinburgh which will be  next Tuesday at 7pm as indicated here (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Edinburgh#Upcoming_Pub_Meetings).

But in any case, thanks a lot for your contributions and edits, and please be in touch.
smeòrach (2016-03-09 03:34:04+00:00): Hi - I didn't even realise I'd deleted them! Is it possible to recover them from a previous edit? :/
eric_ (2016-03-09 10:42:57+00:00): Hi, thanks for your answer. Rather than reverting your entire edit, I retrieved these neighbourhoods from the OSM history using the overpass turbo api and re-added them to the map (http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37704841).
A revert process would have been easier here and clearer as well as it would have kept the history (versioning) of these objects. But because most of the time, your edits are made on a very large area, a revert can't be achieved. To help the local OSM community, would you mind in your future edits, to focus on small areas (even if you have to do more edits/uploads) and use comments which describe more precisely what your edits are about.
But once again, thanks very much for your contributions and hope to see you next Tuesday at the pub meeting at 7pm at the Guildford Arms.
Best. Eric
SomeoneElse (2016-03-10 16:32:05+00:00): As an aside, as well as being useful to humans having places defined as areas makes it much easier for anything else processing the data too.  Here's an enhancement request that I logged with Nominatim about the issue there:

https://github.com/twain47/Nominatim/issues/231
vramirez122000 (2016-03-08 20:49:28+00:00): Tremendo. ¡Gracias pos las contribuciones!
GerdP (2016-03-11 06:37:49+00:00): Hi there!
You changed a way from highway=unclassified to the invalid
highway="unclassified;residential"
What was intended ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/215307797
mavl (2019-03-14 16:21:50+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
Alecs01 (2016-03-07 19:51:44+00:00): Hi, are you sure those roads are open to traffic? http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402204191 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402205323 have you been there recently? The underground station is still under construction AFAIK. Thanks
SomeoneElse (2017-02-18 12:28:27+00:00): Hi Will,
A question about the Y1 bus:
Is the Langley Mill / Eastwood stretch of this https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4578631#map=14/53.0159/-1.3311 the same as the Derby / Heanor service?  I've only ever used the latter part.  the H1 (which this is a partial duplicate of - Yourbus have designed a service that arrives 5 minutes at all stops before the H1) goes from Derby to Heanor and then Heanor to Alfreton; I'll keep an eye open for Y1s further north.
Best Regards,
Andy
will_p (2017-02-19 16:07:57+00:00): Hi Andy,

When I added the Y1 route information I certainly assumed the Langley Mill / Eastwood stretch was part of the same route as the Derby / Heanor section. It was surveyed by photographing the bus stops rather than using the bus.

I mostly added the Eastwood part of the route in 2015 and Heanor in early 2016. Yourbus do chop and change their routes a lot, so possibly things have changed since then. I will try to check next time I'm up that way.

Best Regards,
Will
SomeoneElse (2017-02-20 17:07:49+00:00): Thanks Will,
I'll stick the Derby-Heanor bit into the same relation for now and update it if anything seems different.
Best Regards,
Andy
JJJWegdam (2016-03-08 12:22:23+00:00): Beste van Rees,

bedankt voor de oplettendheid. Het implementeren van deze batch spoorgeometrie duurde inderdaad langer dan de in de wijzigingenset aangegeven 6 maart. Echter was ik nog wel gewoon bezig om de lijnen naar Delfzijl en Eemshaven af te ronden, dus ik zou graag de lijnen opnieuw importeren en verder verwerken. Aangezien ik dit vrij systematisch doe de volgende vraag:
welke dubbele lijnen zijn verwijderd en welke dubbele lijnen zijn samengevoegd met bestaande ways?

Mvg,
Jeroen Wegdam
Student spoorbouw, TU Delft
van Rees (2016-03-08 12:31:40+00:00): Whoops Sorry Jeroen Wegdam, Ik had niet door dat er iemand mee bezig was. Ik heb de bestaande lijnen tussen station Appingedam en Delfzijl verwijderd en vervangen door de, naar ik vermoed, nieuwe lijnen (omgezet naar type Rails). Mijn wijzigingen zijn ingegeven door het feit dat ze in Delfzijl bezig zijn om de emplacement te verkleinen / verwijderen. De rails die al weg zijn heb ik voorlopig als abandoned aan gemerkt. Ik heb geen dubbele lijnen samengevoegd (ik zou niet weten hoe ik dat zou moeten doen). Nogmaals Sorry.
JJJWegdam (2016-03-08 13:34:12+00:00): Geen probleem hoor. Het opnieuw importeren is vrij weinig werk. Ik ben vooral blij dat je op deze manier hebt laten weten welke rails niet meer bestaan; de shapes van ProRail zijn uit 2013 namelijk en ik kan niet voor heel Nederland zien waar gewerkt wordt. Ik zal abandoned wel even omtaggen naar razed, maar dat is een klein detail.
Bedankt voor je snelle reactie
Jean-Marc Liotier (2017-03-27 21:11:38+00:00): This left ways crossing half of the peninsula, over the whole street grid. Why ? Anyway, this is now cleanly repaired - I even left the three valid ways this changeset created: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47212778
ninafanya_kazi (2017-03-27 22:10:52+00:00): Hi Jean,

The changeset you linked me too looks like this:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=37672333

I did not draw crossing ways across the peninsula? Can you please explain more on what seemed to be the issue?
Jean-Marc Liotier (2017-03-28 07:23:29+00:00): My apologies if I came through as aggressive. If you look at https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=47212778 you'll see for example way 402206795 which I deleted and whose previous version was creation by you. You may have created it inadvertently, for example a small slip of the mouse at a low zoom level may have dragged some nodes away from the Hann zoo where you added correct ways.
ninafanya_kazi (2017-03-28 15:04:12+00:00): Thank you for the clarification. Sorry for confusion. It does look like this user: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/momar35 actually made those node changes on the ways which I created?

Can you take another look at that changeset in Achavi? Click on the nodes at the bottom and look at who last moved
Jean-Marc Liotier (2017-03-28 15:54:06+00:00): You are right - I had looked at the way but not at the nodes... And it is node displacement by momar35 that created the errant geometry: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4046256707/history - and here is the changeset: https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=46078063

I'll send him a (gentle) message.

I'll look at the nodes next time...

Thanks hand have a nice day !
SomeoneElse_Revert (2017-09-24 20:24:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52338424 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names copied from Google in Brazil
David Crochet (2016-03-07 20:22:14+00:00): Pourquoi avoir supprimé les surfaces herbacées ?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2017-09-24 20:24:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 52338424 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some names copied from Google in Brazil
Algebre gama (2016-03-07 20:43:22+00:00): good
Reclus (2016-03-07 22:52:05+00:00): Ich bin vorhin daran vorbeigegangen. Zumindest das Haupstraße 83 steht noch, höchstwahrscheinlich auch Hauptstraße 83a. Baumaschinen nicht in Sicht. Vielleicht werden die Gebäude jetzt auch im Zusammenhang mit Flüchtlingen gebraucht und stehen noch zehn Jahre. Wer weiß?
newsdesigner (2016-03-08 02:04:18+00:00): Da hätte ich gerne ein Beweisfoto mit Hausnummer. Ich habe einige Bilder vom Abriss des Gebäudes. 

Lesen bildet:
http://www.derwesten.de/staedte/witten/unterstuetzer-fuer-erstes-wittener-hospiz-gesucht-id11033515.html

http://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/staedte/witten/Wittens-erstes-Hospiz-Einrichtung-entsteht-auf-Gelaende-des-Pfarrzentrums-St-Marien;art939,2443653
Reclus (2016-03-08 02:22:38+00:00): Die Zeitungsartikel sagen ja nur etwas über die Planung aus, nicht über den realen Zustand. Die Planung war mir auch (aus genau diesen Zeitungsartikeln) bekannt. Aber ja, inzwischen sind mir auch selbst Zweifel gekommen, da ich im Dunkeln dran vorbeigegangen bin und nicht darauf geachtet habe. Ich werde nach Möglichkeit morgen nochmal hingehen. Von welchem Gebäude meinst du Bilder vom Abriss zu haben? Du hast ja in OSM zwei Gebäude ausgetragen.
newsdesigner (2016-03-08 11:05:15+00:00): Ich verstehe, dass es Menschen gibt, die die Zerstörung des Plans schützen wollen. Wenn Du aber jedoch mit einer Lüge die Diskussion anfängst, sehe ich keine Grundlage für eine Diskussion. Es ist schade, dass Menschen die sich dem Schutz des Systems verschrieben haben, mit solchen Mitteln arbeiten. Noch mehr würde ich gute Stadtkenntnisse erwarten, um Veränderungen im Straßenbild zu erkennen. Ich würde sogar behaupten, Du warst in den letzten 3 Monaten nicht dort, denn sonst wären dir, die Veränderungen aufgefallen. Du bezichtigst mich einer Lüge, wie kommst Du dazu?
Reclus (2016-03-08 13:57:42+00:00): Was soll dieser Quatsch? Ich bin gestern Abend dort vorbeigegangen und war sogar kurz im Café Credo. Im Nachhinein habe ich mir zuerst gedacht, wenn dort ein Haus fehlen würde, wäre mir das sicher aufgefallen. Später war ich dann nicht mehr sicher. Wie geschrieben, werde ich versuchen, dort heute nochmal vorbeizugehen.
newsdesigner (2016-03-08 14:23:19+00:00): Noch letzte Woche stand da ein Bauzaun. Zwischen Café Credo und dem Bäcker steht kein Haus mehr. Es kommt aber eins hin, allerdings weiter auf dem Hof. In dem Pfarrbrief der St. Marien Gemeinde gibt es einen Plan, auf dem die alten und die neuen Gebäude eingezeichnet sind (Seite 24):
http://marien-witten.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Weihnachtspfarrbrief-2015int..pdf
Reclus (2016-03-08 22:08:46+00:00): Ich bin vorhin nochmal die Hauptstraße entlang gegangen und habe mich davon überzeugt, dass das Haus 83 tatsächlich abgerissen ist. Tut mir Leid!
vramirez122000 (2016-03-14 19:50:27+00:00): Tremendo trabajo! Mándale saludos a Mariano
Klumbumbus (2016-10-22 13:35:12+00:00): Hallo,
hier ist bisschen was schief gegangen mit den Gebäuden an der Reitbahnstraße. Die ergänzten Erker sind nicht mehr vorhanden, stattdessen die Punkte einzeln unverbunden. Es wurde wohl auch schon weiter bearbeitet. Magst du da nochmal drüber schauen?
Vgl:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=37675357

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=38801058

http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?schema=101&zoom=17&lat=50.82814&lon=12.92674&layers=B0T&ch=0%2C70&show_ign=1&show_tmpign=1
SvenQ (2016-10-24 08:30:52+00:00): Hallo zurück und danke für den Hinweis. Bei dem fraglichen Änderungssatz hat mein JOSM gar wurndersame Dinge getan. Hab's jetzt ausgebügelt.
hobbesvsboyle (2016-03-07 22:10:40+00:00): Apologies, auto-complete messed up changeset comment. Should have been: Added hiking trail and parking lot in Schoenberg Marsh
Mateusz Konieczny (2016-03-08 07:58:14+00:00): Jedno mi tylko nie pasuje - czy nazwą powinno być "Gorczański Park Narodowy (kompleks główny)"? Chyba raczej bez "(kompleks główny)"?
kocio (2016-03-08 09:26:34+00:00): Już nie pamiętam czemu tak było, a nawet czy to ja naniosłem, bo to dawna edycja, ale myślę, że masz rację, więc usunąłem. Dzięki za czujność! =}
Mateusz Konieczny (2016-03-08 10:16:24+00:00): Super, teraz zostało tylko spędzenie kilku tygodni na wymapowanie granic lasu :)

Kilka dni temu naiwnie myślałem iż w kilka godzin to zrobię ale nawet nie wiedziałem ile polan jest w Gorcach.
kocio (2016-03-08 10:22:43+00:00): Nie miała baba kłopotu, zaczęła mapować polany... =D
FvGordon (2016-03-25 17:10:19+00:00): Wurde die Richtung der Einbahnstraße "Am Alten Posthaus" in den letzten Monaten umgekehrt? Ich kenne es vom letzten Jahr so, dass man dort nur Richtung Norden fahren darf. Auch die Buslinie 261 kommt in Relation 6034004 von Süden und würde hier entgegen der Einbahn fahren, wenn man hier nur Richtung Süden fahren dürfte.
Franz
Yabba (2016-03-25 20:50:04+00:00): Soweit mir bekannt, wurde die Fahrtrichtung der Einbahnstraße geändert, als die Polizeistation dorthin zog und das ist schon einige Jahre so. Folglich muß auch die Einbahnstraßenfahrtrichtung brichtigt werden. Ich habe eben auch noch einmal beim HVV die Fahrstrecke "Streckenverlauf" des Busses 261überprüft und die verläuft von Bf. Wandsbek aus kommend, von Süden zum Busbahnhof Wandsbek.
Yabba (2016-03-25 21:02:59+00:00): Ergänzung: Ich bin am 19.3. die Schloßstraße entlang am Wandbeker Radhaus entlanggefahren. Die Einbahnstraße führt von Süden nach Norden zur Schloßstraße hin. Ich habe im Zweifel einen Photobeweis mit Bus im Bild. ;)
"Einsatzfahrzeuge frei" von der Schloßstraße aus.
FvGordon (2016-03-26 10:28:15+00:00): Danke - nun stimmt die Richtung wieder.
Franz
Jean-Marc Liotier (2016-03-08 10:15:22+00:00): Bonjour, merci pour cette contribution. J'ai néanmoins quelques commentaires... Pensez à saisir les noms complets et à respecter leur capitalisation - en début de phrase et aux noms propres. Par exemple, "dispensaire de pire" doit être noté "Dispensaire de Pire Gourey". En outre, une mairie est amenity=townhall. J'ai effectué ces quelques corrections dans http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37683131
Jean-Marc Liotier (2016-03-08 09:57:26+00:00): Bonjour, merci pour cette contribution. J'ai néanmoins quelques commentaires...
"highway=pedestrian" signifie littérallement "rue piétonne" et il est donc inutile de préciser "rue piétonne", surtout dans le name=* qui doit contenir un nom et non une description. Erreur corrigée à http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37682753
Jean-Marc Liotier (2016-03-08 09:59:31+00:00): En outre, une partie des bâtiments sont tracés sur le toit du bâtiment et non sur la base comme il est expliqué à https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-sn/2016-February/000436.html - votre tracé est donc décalé par rapport à la réalité.
GOwin (2016-03-08 01:23:48+00:00): Please don't tag this route as a highway. Temporary events shouldn't be put on the map this way.

Consider umap.openstreetmap.fr www.bikemap.net/en/ for this purpose.
GOwin (2016-03-08 01:25:28+00:00): That's https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/ or http://www.bikemap.net/en/
Viajero Perdido (2016-03-12 18:02:14+00:00): Hi alester.

With this change, it stop rendering on the main OSM map and others I've tried.  That wasn't the intent, was it?

The wiki page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed would seem to suggest:
leisure=proposed
proposed=nature_reserve

On a quick scan, I couldn't find a wiki reference to the syntax you used.

Regards,
VP
Viajero Perdido (2016-03-12 19:03:01+00:00): Ah, I see now, the wiki page I linked mentions both types of syntax.  Seems confused.

But note, that page says the "proposed" key is for "any road, railway or route", and that usage on relations is unspecified.  So of course it won't render.
Viajero Perdido (2016-03-12 19:12:37+00:00): The area is in the database as "PP (PNT)", which is government-speak for Kootenay-Cline Provincial Park Reservation.  I would use that name if you don't like (proposed).
alester (2016-03-12 21:15:32+00:00): Hi VP,
Whether it renders or not is secondary to having the data be as accurate as possible. As tagged before, it was indicated as an active nature reserve, which contradicts the proposed status that implies that it doesn't yet exist. Until the park is officially dedicated, there's really nothing that needs to be shown on any map yet. If you have a license-compatible source that shows the area is a park reserve with a different name, I'd support changing it back to leisure=nature_reserve with that name.
Andrew
Viajero Perdido (2016-03-12 21:24:58+00:00): I didn't think "Kootenay-Cline PP (PNT)" would be all that meaningful to regular people.  That's the name in the official source I referenced.

It's a toss-up whether it SHOULD be mapped.  Roads etc. sometimes are, and there's a syntax for it.  A grey area, no?
Totor (2016-03-08 04:31:53+00:00): Hi,
Why did you name it "close road" ?
If this is a private owned road, you can add the tag access=private
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access)
If there are barriers at the entrances, you can add one node/point not far from the intersection with the tag "barrier=gate/wall...".
Check here which type is best:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Barrier

Cheers,
totor
Peter Dobratz (2016-04-13 00:55:12+00:00): What's the intention of adding sidewalk_1=both where sidewalk=both already exists, such as: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/402292726 ?

I'm not sure what sidewalk_1 would actually be used for.
GOwin (2016-03-08 03:25:42+00:00): For planning and visualization, please use sites like http://umap.openstreetmap.fr or http://www.bikemap.net/en/

The basemap is still OpenStreetMap, and you don't have to modify the data in any way that will affect the live data sets.

If you need assistance, ping us at http://is.gd/osmphchat
Totor (2016-03-08 04:37:06+00:00): For the refilling station, you could add:
amenity=drinking_water
bottle=yes 
fee=yes
Baloo Uriza (2018-04-03 02:36:06+00:00): With this ending on a surface route, I'd be more inclined to call this segment a "trunk", as it's really just a built up limited access part of Airport Road and less a proper freeway in it's own sense.  Particularly with the lack of runout room before 59th Street.  Kind of a similar situation as with the Gilcrease Expressway or LL Tisdale Parkway in Tulsa or the Milwaukie Expressway in Oregon.
Baloo Uriza (2018-04-03 02:40:18+00:00): Or, for that matter, Portland International Airport's Airport Way.
SK53 (2016-03-15 09:35:38+00:00): Using Google Maps is not permissible for adding data to OpenStreetMap. I note that many of your boundary changes elsewhere in the world have been erroneous. I would be very surprised if you have expertise on the minutae of the boundaries of San Francisco, New Territories & the City of London as they are so far apart. Furthermore as these are large populated places with many OpenStreetMap contributors I would also be surprised that the boundaries existing before your changes were accurate (as is certainly the case for the City of London). 

As you note Google as a source I must revert this edit.
PlaneMad (2016-03-08 05:31:16+00:00): Nice work! Noticed some disconnected junctions and fixed them.
PlaneMad (2016-03-08 05:31:38+00:00): You should update the map data in JOSM to avoid any conflict.
SM@Edit (2016-03-16 12:56:30+00:00): Thanks. I will check properly and update. In the recent edits I made sure that all the junctions are connected.
Seandebasti (2022-08-02 17:46:30+00:00): I think RU-MOW for Tula is not correct, right? I deleted this key/value
manings (2016-03-08 15:17:56+00:00): Hi Aksheyta, please trace individual buildings here.  Thanks!
Totor (2016-03-09 04:31:54+00:00): Yes, this is ok now.
I just improved the shape a little to follow the coastline.
JosueFilipinohomes (2016-03-08 10:27:06+00:00): will you do this part sir? so that I can get how. I read your email and still it is hard to do same on the picture as example.
Totor (2016-03-09 04:17:32+00:00): Hi,
I removed your line, and replaced it with just one point.
PS: I can not know you made a comment for me on your own changeset. Only comments on my comments are sent to my inbox.
inas (2016-03-29 12:39:36+00:00): I notice this changeset changed Crookwell from a GNB town to a GNB locality.  This isn't the case - Crookwell is still a GNB  town.  There is also a locality Crookwell.  Was this a scripted change?
TheSwavu (2016-03-29 22:05:41+00:00): No this was a manual edit. I did a comparison between all of the place nodes in NSW tagged with ref:nswgnb and checked to make sure that their place:nswgnb were still correct. These are all the places that needed their place:nswgnb changed to "LOCALITY".

In the case of Crookwell the place node has a GNB reference number 82907 which is a "LOCALITY". The "TOWN" is reference number 15064, which is not in OSM yet.

There are currently just over 3000 places in the NSW GNB database that don't have their corresponding  ref:nswgnb tag or aren't in OSM yet. It's going to take me a little while to finish this little project.
inas (2016-03-29 22:21:00+00:00): I'm really sceptical that GNB are changing towns to localities in their database - especially for places like Crookwell.  Perhaps we need to understand the changes actually being made to reflect these in OSM.
CloCkWeRX (2016-06-21 14:28:44+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/113764320 is still marked as a village, but it doesn't really look too inhabited - is it better tagged as place=locality?
TheSwavu (2016-06-22 00:38:52+00:00): I didn't change the place tags on any of these only the place:nswgnb:

http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=113764320

Personally if a place doesn't make it onto the list of UCLs:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/05773C1D8C9F2022CA257A98001399F7?opendocument

I'd tag locality.

Can I assume that you're fixing these:

http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/unmapped#7/-33.551/146.096

?
CloCkWeRX (2016-06-22 00:48:22+00:00): Yup, that prompted it
TheSwavu (2016-06-22 04:48:28+00:00): Good-O. I won't bother then.
Totor (2016-03-09 04:41:28+00:00): Hi, it is ok now. I just added back the building tag, since it looks like there is a building...
Totor (2016-03-09 04:43:46+00:00): Building are not mandatory ^_^
manings (2016-03-14 12:34:57+00:00): Hi Jvaish, You have created duplicated buildings here.  Many of them were already added by a previous user.  Please fix them soon.
DD1GJ (2016-03-08 10:23:03+00:00): Änderung zurückgesetzt. Straße wird wegen mittiger Staßenbahnschienen und Haltestelle als zwei Einbahnstraßen modelliert.