piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Marcos_Itba_Kaart (2021-05-06 23:24:38+00:00): Olá,

a restrição de conversão:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11270379

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11270380

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11270380

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11270382

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11270383

(Proibido retornar na mesma via / no_u_turn) são restrições sinalizadas (possuem uma placa fisica no "mundo real")? 

Restrições do tipo proibido retornar na mesma via são desnecessárias, a menos que estejam sinalizadas em campo.

Restrições desnecessárias criam diversos problemas, como dificuldades de edição dos membros e renderização incorreta de nomes no mapa devido à microsegmentações, entre outros.

Para entender melhor, veja essa discussão sobre o tema:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2527

E os alertas logo no inicío da Wiki de restrições de conversão:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction
BCNorwich (2020-07-06 09:46:52+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've made quite a lot of amendments here. You changed a power line to a path. made several path line that didn't quite look right. Rather than try to explain them it was easier for me to make corrections as best I could. Please have a look and see if I've done anything wrong. 
I couldn't determine how the paths cross under the M5, perhaps you can look at that.

Regards Bernard.
eggie (2020-07-04 16:15:39+00:00): Alle gebouwen zijn directe import vanuit het Kadaster. Die gebouwen zijn precies ingemeten. 
Wanneer je naar het dak kijkt .. is dat niet de plaats waar een gebouw staat.
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2020-07-04 16:17:54+00:00): reverted by changeset  #87535462

Je edits zijn teruggedraaid. 
Daar staat geen gebouw. 
wanneer jenog vragen hebt stel ze gerust.
Gr Eggie
simon_geovelo (2020-08-04 13:20:53+00:00): Bonjour hugo,

Je viens de remettre la rue dans le bon sens, tu avais inversé le sens de rue sans changer le tag oneway ;-)

Simon
hu9o (2020-08-10 08:43:59+00:00): Oh quelle boulette! merci de la correction et du message
Lokai (2020-07-04 15:26:31+00:00): Hallo. Willkommen bei OSM.

Der Straßenname Wanderweg Buchwald liest sich nach Eigenschaft und nicht nach Name. Lies bitte
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Names#name_ist_nur_der_Name

Prüfe ob eine Relation in der Umgebung besteht, in der du den Weg unterbringen kannst.

MfG

W.
osm-snippets (2020-07-14 00:51:45+00:00): Hallo W,,
den Namen hatte ich so von einem Schild vor Ort abgelesen, von daher gehe ich von korrekter Benamsung aus.
Gibt es weitere/konkrete Indizien die eine falsche Angabe für den Namen begründen?

MfG,

O.
Lokai (2020-07-21 10:28:07+00:00): Hallo,

ja. Dort existiert eine Routenrelation "Wanderweg 13 ...". Es schaut so aus, dass es ein Wegweiser sein könnte, der auf eine Lokalität Buchenwald verweist. Meist ist läuft ein Wegweiser spitz zu.

Gruß von

W
ma-rt-in (2021-02-01 18:26:22+00:00): Hallo,
ich würde dich bitten landuse´s oä. nicht mit Wegen zu verbinden. Es ist völlig in Ordnung wenn zwischen Hecke und Straße ein kleiner weiser Fleck ist. Siehe : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/822871473
vg
Rainero (2020-07-06 20:53:18+00:00): Hallo olh,
bist du sicher, daß die Adresse hier Richtersgraben 20 ist? Die Straße Richtersgraben liegt doch in Cadolzburg. Zautendorf scheint keine Straßennamen zu haben und müßte daher nicht addr:street, sondern addr:place=Zautendorf bekommen.
Das betrifft dann alle Adressen hier in Zautendorf. Du hast ja für jede Adresse einen eigenen Änderungssatz gemacht, daher kommentiere ich hier exemplarisch.

Servus,
Rainer
olh (2020-07-12 14:19:35+00:00): Das war der Vorschlag von Vespucci.
olh (2020-08-26 15:30:09+00:00): Werde es korrigieren, sofern noch nicht geschehen.
dval (2020-07-08 15:36:12+00:00): Hi, Георгий Гришин! Здесь вы удалили домик, который был нарисован до вас. А разве нельзя было просто его отредактировать? Получается так, как будто данного вклада OlehV не существовало. Не думаю, что это правильно.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87533216
mueschel (2020-08-15 10:39:04+00:00): Hi,
you used the key 'ref:urpn' here on four buildings. I guess this should be 'ref:GB:uprn'?
pigsonthewing (2020-08-15 15:00:03+00:00): Has that been agred as standard? It was still being debated, last time I looked.
mueschel (2020-08-15 15:11:07+00:00): At least there is a proposal for it. And it makes sense to add the country code. According to the usage count it's used a lot more than anything else: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=uprn
In any case, 'urpn' seems to be a spelling mistake.
Leo Slager (2020-07-06 09:18:48+00:00): Dag Niels,
in deze changeset heb je een multipolygoon achtergelaten die op meerdere plaatsen beschadigd was.
De drie landuse=grass samenvoegen in 1 multipolygoon is een ingewikkeld karwei.
En iD is ook niet de editor die dat makkelijk mogelijk maakt.
Als gevolg van de fouten blijft het gebied op de standaard kaart dus blanco.
Hier is de foutmelding te zien:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=4.92547&lat=52.69379&zoom=16&opacity=0.85
ik pas het even aan.
De mp bestaat nu uit 5 met elkaar verbonden outers en 2 inners.
Leo Slager (2020-07-06 09:25:53+00:00): Als je serieus verder wilt gaan met meer ingewikkelde zaken dan adviseer ik je om over te stappen naar de editor JOSM.
Het is even wennen, maar daarna kun je dit soort wijzigingen ook correct en veel makkelijker doorvoeren.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710
BeKri (2020-07-06 08:35:23+00:00): Servus,
Cap-Arcona-Weg Name angepaßt ...
An was ?
Welche Quelle ?
Was ist mit dem nördlichen Teil ?
Was ist mit den Adressen/Hausnum. ?
Gruss derBeKri
angys (2020-07-05 17:11:40+00:00): Copy from Google?
Edmond Yap (2020-07-05 17:30:29+00:00): I run a website that helps people list what they want to sell to their neighbours. He lives in this area. The main reason why I added section 4, is 2 fold. 

First is that Jalan Camar 4/1 keeps showing that it is in this place called Gugusan Siantan. It's not, and I had to show that it's in Kota Damansara. 

The second is that Kota Damansara is referenced by sections in property websites as well. Yes, I did see what Google had to say, but that's just part of the research.
angys (2020-07-05 18:25:47+00:00): Again, please dont simply copy from Google Maps or Waze, it is PROHIBITED and if you want to make it legit, just adding some source tag e.g. SOURCE:NAME, SOURCE:TAG and other. Please have a discussion at here.https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=793387#p793387
angys (2020-07-05 18:26:21+00:00): I am not angry with you but just a little bit frust, hope you can knwo about this. Dealing with this are not funny
Johnny Carlsen (2020-12-20 04:53:25+00:00): Hi Johan,

The name tag is for the name in the local language. In Thailand that is Thai. Please don't replace name tags that are already correct.
Frans S (2020-07-10 09:34:39+00:00): Thanks for your mapping efforts on this project.
One of by tasks of validator is to review at random mappings of a mapper to check if the mappings are in accordance to the HOTSM quality standards.
From the 61 buildings you mapped on several tasks 57 were reported as inaccurate mapped and squared.
A further look learned me that your mappings are a bit sloppy and oversized.
This frustrates the job of validators who have to correct all these mappings. It cost so much more time to correct them rather than map them correct in 1 session.

An urgent recommendation: 
Please map each building accurate and square it (rectangular) with the Q key in the editor. Keep the building selected during pressing the Q key
Most buildings are good rectangular and the mappings should reflect that.
A hand drawn building is mostly not correct rectangular. Therefore use the Q key after mark it a building and the object is still selected. 
Be aware that this will not work when the deviation to a square corner is to big. Then you have to adjust the building manually . After that you can square it again.


Never let a node of a building connect to other features, like highways, other buildings  or residential areas.
To avoid that , In iDeditor keep the Alt key down while drawing the building. In JOSM keep the Ctrl key down

Map each building individually. do not cluster buildings and call it 1 building

Please pay also attention on the issue triangle on the right-hand menu 
It alerts you on warnings and errors.

Please (try to)solve these before uploading your work.

Best regards and keep mapping !
Frans S (2020-07-10 09:43:33+00:00): Hello
Thanks for your mapping efforts on this project.
One of by tasks of validator is to review at random mappings of a mapper to check if the mappings are in accordance to the HOTSM quality standards.
From the 37 buildings you mapped on several tasks 36 were reported as inaccurate mapped .

This frustrates the job of validators who have to correct all these mappings. It cost so much more time to correct them rather than map them correct in 1 session.
An urgent recommendation: 
Please map each building accurate and square it (rectangular) with the Q key in the editor. Keep the building selected during pressing the Q key
Most buildings are good rectangular and the mappings should reflect that.
A hand drawn building is mostly not correct rectangular. Therefore use the Q key after mark it a building and the object is still selected. 
Be aware that this will not work when the deviation to a square corner is to big. Then you have to adjust the building manually . After that you can square it again.


Never let a node of a building connect to other features, like highways, other buildings  or residential areas.
To avoid that , In iDeditor keep the Alt key down while drawing the building. In JOSM keep the Ctrl key down

Map each building individually. do not cluster buildings and call it 1 building

Please pay also attention on the issue triangle on the right-hand menu 
It alerts you on warnings and errors.

Please (try to)solve these before uploading your work.

Best regards and keep mapping !
eggie (2020-07-04 16:20:59+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
ndm (2020-07-04 18:31:43+00:00): Please don't do this unless you can guarantee all routers will route through pedestrian areas.
spark (2020-07-04 21:48:45+00:00): I  can't guarantee all, but some routers work with pedestrian areas! The ways I deleted don't actually exist on the ground, and it's not recommended to map purely for the renderer/router.
ndm (2020-07-05 23:32:56+00:00): Area routing is not clearly defined in the wiki. There are at least two interpretations -- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AreasTab suggests that the area is freely routable -- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Highways_as_Areas suggests that routing may only occur around the perimeter of the area.
spark (2020-07-07 16:16:14+00:00): I agree that the routers are do not all handle areas the same, but I don't think justifies creating extra ways that don't exist on the ground (and it certainly looks better with them removed). However, I don't feel so strongly about it so if you wish, I will revert the change.
geri-oc (2020-08-28 13:02:23+00:00): Du hast hier Flächen als "Parkplatz" ausgewiesen. Tragen sie das offizielle Verkehrszeichen? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Parking

Wenn nicht sind es einfache Flächen - wie es eingetragen war.
Ich habe jetzt nicht alles kontrolliert, du erinnerst dich sicher noch besser, wie es vor zwei Monaten aussah.
Gruß Gerd
geri-oc (2020-08-28 13:28:32+00:00): https://www.keepright.at/report_map.php?schema=101&error=120831008
Yaron (2020-08-28 14:06:00+00:00): Mapillary zeigt für alle drei Parkplätze das eckige, blaue P-Schild:
- Unten: http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/IimoYvPbnDlsxQuXyu5Mdg/photo
- Mitte und Oben: http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jZtXskEUi6TrcA-elUoIhw/photo
geri-oc (2020-08-28 15:53:05+00:00): Super -war lange nicht dort.
Und mapillary hätte ich nicht vermutet. Habe es gerade ergänzt / geandert. Man kann ja aus einem Foto einige Minuten mappen. Gruß Gerd aus Freital
ronery-mapper (2020-08-12 09:33:59+00:00): Why have you remove *:en tags from objects here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=56.96531&lon=24.14289
SomeoneElse (2020-09-05 12:06:02+00:00): Hello ronery-mapper,
Which objects were it that have "*:en" tags removed?  You've linked to a query in the middle of Riga, but it'd be much easier if you could link one of the objects themselves.
Best Regards,
Andy
richlv (2022-03-08 08:55:17+00:00): Heya, šajā izmaiņu kopā ir ievietoti objekti no VZD ēku kontūrām.
To īsti nevajadzētu darīt, jo atbilstība reālajai situācijai daudz kur ir diezgan slikta - piemērs no šīm izmaiņām: https://imgur.com/a/NKWHZze .
Pie tam, šeit tas acīmredzot ir noticis pirms VZD datu atvēršanas.
Flynn Marquardt (2020-07-08 13:09:52+00:00): Hi,
a border must close to be used e.g. for reverse geocoding.

Before your edit, this border was closed, but your change broke it.

Can you please fix it?

If you do not know what to do:
- load this relation in JOSM
- press the check button
- zoom to the errors

Some points are very close, but do not touch.

P.S.: the same problem is in Egypt and Israel.
zstadler (2020-07-08 17:03:45+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for letting me know. I believe all the relations below are OK now.

If there are any other relations I may have missed, please let me know their id numbers.

Best Regards,
Zeev
Flynn Marquardt (2020-07-08 19:50:24+00:00): Thank you for your quick fix, looks good now.

Flynn
b-jazz (2020-07-05 00:46:55+00:00): Hello KneeKnocker. Can you fix up the relation for this golf course? The course shouldn't use things like sandtraps and cartpaths as "inner" relations. It's like you are saying everything there is the golf course EXCEPT sand traps, those aren't part of the golf course. If you need some help with understanding inner relations better, let me know.
KneeKnocker808 (2020-07-05 01:34:35+00:00): Yeah no problem, some confusion on my part there, thanks for bringing it up!
marczoutendijk (2020-07-04 16:21:28+00:00): Again I deleted quite a few of the original imported tracks because it was faster to draw them again than to try to move all the wrong nodes from the import.
Nmxosm (2020-07-05 06:35:56+00:00): Hallo jchnbckr,

vielen Dank für deine Änderungen.

Wenn es das Restaurant so nicht mehr gibt, dann ist es sinnvoll, die Node auch vollständig zu löschen. Ob das direkt in OSMAnd geht oder du dazu einen anderen Editor bemühen musst, kann ich dir leider nicht sagen. 
Alternativ empfiehlt sich das Lifecycle-Schema (https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/DE:Lifecycle_prefix).
Auch wenn du die Schließung bedauerst, ist OSM meiner Meinung nach die falsche Plattform, um dies kundzutun. Geeigneter wäre eine E-Mail oder Postkarte. 

Zum Überblick sind die folgenden Seiten sicher hilfreich:
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/DE:Beginners%27_guide
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/DE:How_to_map_a
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice

Bei Fragen melde dich bitte einfach als Antwort hier, schreib unter https://forum.osm.org/ oder einer der zahlreichen Mailinglisten (z.B. http://lists.osm.org/mailman/listinfo/talk-de) oder erstelle eine Note (https://osm.org/note/new)

Ich hoffe, ich konnte dir erstmal weiterhelfen.

Viele Grüße
Nmxosm
Nmxosm (2020-09-27 07:01:53+00:00): Vielen Dank für die Korrektur.

Viele Grüße
Nmxosm
Cascafico (2020-07-04 20:01:35+00:00): Come ti avevo già scritto, se devi aggiustare una strada importante è molto meno rischioso se sposti i vertici preesistenti piuttosto che cancellare e  relazioni di trade importanti, come è successo in questo caso.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87535962
user_11166885 (2020-07-05 09:45:14+00:00): Io ho spostato i punti senza cancellare e rifare. In più ho aggiunto una stradina che si vede dalle immagini satellitari.
Cascafico (2020-07-06 09:50:31+00:00): Questle nuove way che hai creato: 822902067, 822902069, 822902068. Ho dovuto inserirle della relazione SR352var che hai interrotto.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87535962
mosstreet (2020-07-05 10:55:02+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:military%3Dcheckpoint Это правильный тег и на карте здание есть
denismerenkov (2020-07-05 14:50:32+00:00): видимо в масштабе не отразилось. сейчас вот вижу. как удалить мою poi?
mosstreet (2020-07-05 17:40:31+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=87535982#map=19/68.12701/33.41807 через браузер, так же для объединения точек, точку + здание, нажимаете на объект Shift  не отпуская кнопку, на вашу точку, правая кнопка меню увидите, нажимаете +
Vinber (2020-07-06 07:37:47+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue dans OpenStreetMap,

un petit mot ici pour faciliter votre arrivée : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:WikiProject_France/bienvenue

Dans tous les cas, n'hésitez pas à répondre, poser des questions, ...

Vincent

PS : 2 liens souvent utiles : 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bonnes_pratiques#N.27utilisez_pas_de_tag_name_pour_d.C3.A9crire_des_choses.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bonnes_pratiques#Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications
Vinber (2020-07-06 07:41:19+00:00): Ce n'est peut-être pas un quartier au sens de suburb (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:place%3Dsuburb) mais néanmoins c'est utilisé, peut-être utiliser ceci https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:place%3Dneighbourhood (et ne pas perdre l'info néanmoins !)
ACarlotti (2020-07-05 12:01:34+00:00): Nice work - there are a few things here that I now realise I knew about but didn't notice or got wrong. For one thing, I now see that I misidentified a farm access as Scotland Drove, which explains why I couldn't find the features I was mapping in relation to.

A few minor issues I've noticed:
1. The mapping of the cycleways around the roundabout near Oakington suggests a more irregular layout than exists in practice - I think the mapping should be more symmetric and regular, with the current irregularity probably just an artifact of your GPS trace.
2. There are a few places where you've tweaked the cycleway alongside the A1307 to match your GPS trace, whilst not moving the carriageway, leaving an inconsistent spacing between them. The most obvious example is just east of the Swavesey junction. It would probably be good to make these match up again.
3. There's an administrative boundary running along the line of the A14 near Swavesey that was edited in this changeset. That was probably due to it accidentally sharing a node with a way. This ought to be reverted by removing any such nodes (you might need to check older history if the incorrect intersection has been around for a while).
4. I think the current tagging of the end of the cycleway near Girton will give weird routing for inbound cyclists (and possibly for outbound too) because the access and oneway restrictions force them to doubleback. I do think this is a slightly awkward area to map, and that this is a relection of this currently being an awkward area to actually cycle - hopefully we can get some better joined-up infrastructure here in the near future.
I might have a look at fixing some of these points myself later, but I don't have the time to do so right now.
Ben Harris (2020-07-05 13:40:01+00:00): 1: There were indeed some gratuitous GPS artifacts, and I've corrected those.  However my photos do indicate that paths aren't entirely symmetric.  For instance, the outer crossing of the Bar Hill exit has a strange cut-out from one corner that's missing from the others. I don't think we can do much better without aerials.
Ben Harris (2020-07-05 13:48:36+00:00): 2: I've dealt with the divergence around Buckingway Business Park.  I corrected another one yesterday.
Ben Harris (2020-07-05 13:54:59+00:00): 4: Yes; what's on the ground is currently pretty incoherent, and the map data reflects that. It might be reasonable to remap the farm entrance as a public connection between that carriageway and the cycle path, but it didn't seem appropriate to do that if that wasn't how it was meant to be used.
Ben Harris (2020-07-05 14:04:36+00:00): 3: It looks like you accidentally attached the boundary #114454952 to node #6876513590 in changeset #75637329. I've detached it again.
ACarlotti (2020-07-09 22:43:18+00:00): 3: Oh, oops. Good investigating - when I fixed two issues with that boundary in May, but somehow missed the one I introduced myself in October (probably because I didn't look at the history of the split apart of the way).
1: I guess I must have oversimplified it in my memory - despite having looked at plans of the layout in the Northstowe planning documents only the day before. I think your subsequent changes are probably an improvement, but this is probably an example of where using a way to approximate an area is difficult.
4: That might help to reflect how it can actually be used in the current layout. I just had another look at the plans, and the ones on the website unhelpfully have a label covering this location. The other ones I can find just show it coming to a dead stop, as if they were expecting someone else to fill in the gap (as is happening near Northstowe).
Hjart (2020-07-06 10:56:37+00:00): There's a path between the 2 roads, so adding a gap between them was equally incorrect
wodorfer (2020-07-07 09:35:42+00:00): Hello Hjart, thanks for fixing! I am a learner...

wodorfer
eggie (2020-07-04 17:22:09+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
maposm (2020-07-04 21:05:03+00:00): Hallo Humpelfuss2000!
Du hast um einen Review dieses Changesets gebeten, also möchte ich dir (ohne eigene Ortskenntnis) Rückmeldungen zu deinen Änderungen geben:
So würde ich die Baustellen-Fläche [1] nicht C-förmig um das im Bau befindende Gebäude legen, sondern das Gebäude auf/innerhalb eines (in diesem Falle nahezu) quadratischen construction-landuse platzieren.

Und zum Neubau [2] selbst: das hast du aktuell als building=university markiert. Solange das Gebäude noch im Bau ist, wäre hier auch ein building=construction sowie construction=university angebracht. Das müsste dann nach der Fertigstellung wieder geändert werden (und das landuse=construction dann ja auch entfernt werden)

Ich hoffe mal, dass dir meine Anmerkungen geholfen haben. Sonst melde dich gerne.

Viele Grüße
maposm

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/822910713
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23029677
eggie (2020-07-04 17:29:55+00:00): Beste Jeffrey   Op een trunkroad  (autoweg) zijn foot, bicycle  al per default niet toegestaan. Je hoeft dat niet toe te voegen. Het zal zonder je tags ook niet routeren
Zie https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Netherlands

MVG,
Eggie
Adam_Piszczek (2021-07-25 20:03:27+00:00): Wał gotowy,nawierzchnia gravel aż do wału z asfaltem,pozmieniałem dane.Do wyrysowania pozostałe drogi co są obok,nie wjeżdżałem na nie z gps.
Zatigem (2020-07-05 08:45:41+00:00): Salut et merci pour tes contributions !
Lorsque tu fais des modifications dans un même quartier, pas besoin de cliquer à chaque fois sur "modifier" et "envoyer" pour chaque point modifié (ici un passage piéton). Tu aurais pu modifier tous les points autour de cette zone et envoyer les modification après. Cela permet aux habitants de vérifier plus facilement les contributions. Merci :)
Razvan96 (2020-10-14 16:03:30+00:00): Status update:26%
Leo Slager (2020-07-05 12:21:49+00:00): Dag boototter,
Je werkt zo onnauwkeurig dat De Gouden Leeuw nu niet meer zichtbaar is op de kaart.
Hier kun je je changeset zien:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=87537240
Als je inzoomt zie je dat de landuse voortdurend de outline van het gebouw kruist. De outline van het gebouw kruist ook zichzelf en daarmee verdwijnt het gebouw van de kaart.
ik pas het even aan.
Leo Slager (2020-07-05 12:24:29+00:00): En hier zie je de foutmelding die dan volgt:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=4.97451&lat=52.32476&zoom=18&opacity=0.83