piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mitidi (2015-05-10 17:18:33+00:00): Sim, foi um erro meu. Pensei estar apagando uma área e apaguei outra, muito maior sem querer. Quando me dei conta, tentei refazê-la, mas já parei de mexer a pedido do Alexandre, que é o criador da área apagada. Ele está tentando recuperá-la. Se não for possível a recuperação, contem comigo para ajudar a consertar o estrago. Desculpe o inconveniente pelo retrabalho.
Ricardo
Hjart (2015-05-04 07:36:30+00:00): Her ville jeg mene at der under bilvejen er tale om en (stor) rørunderføring (culvert) mere end en bro. Jeg er enig i at lave en bro på cykelstien.
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2015-05-04 11:21:12+00:00): enig, har ændret det.
rene78 (2015-05-27 11:01:38+00:00): hi larry,

great job, you are doing in penang area! just one hint though: the tag "ele" doesn't need units (e.g. "m"). meters are automatically assumed, else the height will not be rendered.

cheers
rene
Jiří Komárek (2015-05-04 12:37:20+00:00): Ahoj, díky za neustálou aktualizaci hranic. Tady u té se akorát objevil menší problém: oblast se přestala renderovat jako nebezpečná. Přemýšlel jsem čím to je - všechny části polygonu byly v relaci, ovšem pak mne napadlo srovnat je hezky do pořadí jak jdou za sebou... a opět se to začalo hezky vykreslovat červeně pruhovaně. V JOSM to děláme pomocí "Sort the relation members" v okně relace, jak to jde v Merkaartoru, který používáš, netuším. Přemýšlím, jestli je to vlastně tvoje "chyba" nebo jestli to nenahlásit jako bug těm co dělají defaultní renderovací styl pro osm.org
xificurk (2015-05-04 12:55:41+00:00): Ahoj, to nebude tím...
Samotná aktualizace hranic (dělaná pod účtem czechreg) z opatrnosti radši nemění geometrii jiných prvků než hraničních čar. Pokud se cesta hranice používá ještě v jiné relaci (nebo má nějaké další tagy), tak ji ponechává na původním místě. Díky tomu může občas vzniknout "díra" v nějakém jiném multipolygonu. Tyhle konfliktní případy procházím a řeším ručně, a většinou chybky v databázi nezůstanou déle jak pár desítek minut, ale i to stačí na to, aby se občas někde přerenderovala část dlaždic, na kterých něco chybí.
Ve skutečnosti chybu, která způsobovala nevykreslování danger_area, opravoval už tento můj changeset. Tvoje další změna už byla "zbytečná"... ale je možné, že vynutila překreslení dlaždic, takže to na pohled vypadalo, že zabrala až tvoje oprava.
Jiří Komárek (2015-05-04 13:01:43+00:00): OK, díky za info. Dlaždice jsem se snažil aktualizovat ručně, ale je pravda, že napoprvé to nešlo (respektive i tam, kde ještě červené šrafování bylo, se přestávalo vykreslovat), tak jsem to dal za vrub právě tvému changesetu. Pak jsem provedl ten svůj (který změnil celou relaci, takže asi byl větší důvod vykreslovat znovu, i když jsem stále aktualizoval dlaždice ručně) a už se to začalo lepšit. Tak se omlouvám za křivé nařčení a přeji hodně sil do dalšího mapování! :-)
xificurk (2015-05-04 13:04:29+00:00): V pohodě... ;) Po pravdě taky nejsem úplně spokojen s tímhle ručním "dotahováním" importu, ale zatím jsem nevymyslel nic lepšího. Radši se držím opatrnějšího přístupu a projdu to ručně, než aby automat převoral kde co.
muralito (2015-05-04 10:53:54+00:00): Cambio revertido. No corresponde ni conviene agregar datos personales (en domicilios particulares se puede poner nombre de calle y numero de puerta, pero no quien vive ni el telefono)
woodpeck_repair (2015-05-05 06:27:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted in changeset 30798236 because it represents an un-discussed (and quintuple) import
rickmastfan67 (2015-06-01 03:36:14+00:00): Are there any signs posted restricting these movements?  If not, then it's a flaw in the router you were using and should be reported to them.
foxox (2015-06-01 04:15:44+00:00): I'm pretty sure I only added restrictions here based on road law or physical impossibility
4rch (2015-05-04 09:23:54+00:00): Hello Pujan Poudyal, I've noticed that you've uploaded some administrative boundaries. What is the source of those boundaries?
wambacher (2015-05-04 22:08:58+00:00): and my question: WHY do you add these Boundaries Five Times? Please stop it right now.
woodpeck_repair (2015-05-05 06:27:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted in changeset 30798236 because it represents an un-discussed (and quintuple) import
4rch (2015-05-05 08:34:42+00:00): Hello, Pujan Poudyal, you've uploaded some new boundaries again. As source you've mentioned "OCHA Nepal". I assume that you mean the following dataset: https://data.hdx.rwlabs.org/dataset/nepal-admin-level-4-administrative-boundaries-cod

This dataset has license requirements and can't be imported into the OpenStreetMap database without further permission by the owner. Please follow the import guidelines [1] before you upload any dataset.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
rickmastfan67 (2015-08-10 02:17:40+00:00): Please don't add 'historic' routes unless they are fully posted with shields and the 'Historic' banner.  This is what the 'old_ref' tag is for.  This is in reference to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/11836736 and a few other 'Historic' routes you've added in the State College area.  PennDOT has never posted a 'Historic' bannered route that I know of anywhere in the state.
rickmastfan67 (2015-08-10 04:46:20+00:00): That and please don't add the quadrant routes along routes that have primary numbers like US-322 Business in State College.  That can, and does confuse drivers when the routing apps mention a highway that can't be noticed 99 out of 100 times.  I was along most of US 322 Business at the beginning of the month (Aug '15), and even I was hard pressed to even 'notice' a single one of the small reference signs that PennDOT uses for quadrant routes (since I know what to look for unlike 99% of the drivers in the state) as they were very well hidden.  The ONLY shields noticeable where the US-322 Business ones.  And that route IS THE ONLY one that should be in the ref tag since it's the only route that has the shields posted.  IF you feel you MUST add the quadrant routes (which are reference routes for PennDOT, not for routing!) along another POSTED route, please add them via the 'ref:penndot' tag instead.  After discussion on [talk-us] by the community in January '15 (which I invited you to join in on several times so people could hear your side as to why you though they needed to be in the 'ref' tag), the 'ref:penndot' tag was agreed upon for use with all quadrant routes in PA, since they are, and always will be, just reference routes, and not meant for use by the public for routing because that's what the Keystone (+ US and Interstate) route shields are for (routes 1-999).  Anything 1000+ should always be in the 'ref:penndot' tag since the are reference routes.
berndw (2015-05-10 10:20:31+00:00): Was ist das?

bitte besser taggen, ansonsten einen OSM-Note erstelleb
user_5359 (2015-05-05 04:26:10+00:00): Autor ist angeschrieben, was er mit der Änderung bezweckt.
geohacker (2015-05-20 11:11:53+00:00): Hey Murali! Looks like you copied the blocks over to the next street here. This doesn't conform to the building footprints. Can you fix this? Thanks and amazing work!
Steve_32 (2015-05-11 12:51:02+00:00): amenity=place_of_worship, religion=christian - Это всё правильные теги, не надо их удалять.
J_Doe (2015-05-12 07:18:45+00:00): Вот тебе на... А ведь я эти теги не удалял. Похоже, они удалились сами при смене типа объекта с "Церковь" на "Церковь, Храм". Если Вам не трудно, подскажите, пожалуйста, в каком случае нужно использовать тип "Церковь, Храм", а в каком "Церковь"?
jumbanho (2015-07-01 16:54:24+00:00): Bike and foot paths really should be connected to the streets they cross and dead end into.  This allows routers to properly recommend routes that go on and off streets.
5m4u9 (2015-05-05 02:25:44+00:00): Gracias por añadir datos de la SIB en OSM.
 
Mejoré la edición añadiendo datos desde su página web... acá un enlace para ver cómo quedó -> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3498325959
Jojo4u (2015-08-14 12:23:26+00:00): Hi, one small question: Why unclassified on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133605821 ? This way seems to be rather insignifcant, I would prefer highway=service. Do you have local knowledge - is it important?

Regards, Joachim
MelioraCogito (2015-08-18 03:10:18+00:00): Hi Jojo4u, it's a return route for regular traffic leaving the terminal that may wish to return to either the passenger terminal or into the vehicle terminal. It's not a service road. That is why it is an 'unclassified' way (it's not residential, nor is it a tertiary route).
Jojo4u (2015-08-18 08:36:40+00:00): Thanks for your reply!
Most of the ways at this terminal have been service for years, so this didn't seem seem to fit. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/324545419/history (should this one be trunk?)
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51785798/history (service seems to fit here since this is basically an area no road)
Jojo4u (2015-08-18 12:18:21+00:00): I thought about this a bit longer. Why it's not a service road? To me it's either trunk_link oder service. If it's used often I'd classify it as trunk_link. If it's used rarely trunk_link seems overblown. 
Unclassified does not fit since it's only a short which depends on the other roads it connects.
Jojo4u (2015-08-18 12:24:17+00:00): I'm also unhappy with http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51790188 It's a service road leading to parking, dropin/-off and bus stops. Nobody takes this way to get somwhere else, it's not part of the "interconnecting grid network" (see Wiki [1]) It's no full highway, so trunk does not fit. Unclassified just looks nice - like a wider service, but that shouldn't be the reason.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
MelioraCogito (2015-08-23 00:44:36+00:00): Hi Joachim,

Lets step back a moment. 

Yes, I am familiar with this terminal and the route—I live on southern Vancouver Island and take this route regularly.

Re: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/324545419/history
The portion of this [service] way up to the terminal (toll) booth could be considered part of the ‘trunk’ route or more precisely a “trunk_link” route from the traffic light intersection just outside the terminal area. Beyond that (inside the terminal area) there is nothing but [service] drive isles to temporary parking for waiting traffic to board the ferries. 
In fact, I would classify all of Hwy 17 between the terminal and the interchange at South Fraser Perimeter Road as being a “primary_highway”, not a “trunk_highway”. But that’s a discussion for another time.

Re: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51790188 
This way is 'unclassified' because it is a primary public access road to and from the walk-on/walk-off passenger terminal—for both private motor vehicles and public transit. 
Part of the reasoning for this [my] classification is the visual representation it provides on the map for the route. There are lots of other service roads and drive isles surrounding this route and it would seem reasonable that we should illustrate its primary function without minimizing its use (i.e. losing its importance in a sea of service roads).
We cannot classify it as ‘residential’ because it is not. 
We cannot classify it as ‘tertiary’ because it is not. 
So I was left with ‘unclassified.’ As such, it holds a higher priority of use than a ‘service’ road would. The same goes for the return bend which initiated this exchange.

Finally, I notice you’re using Bing imagery when making your changes. 
Are you aware of the British Columbia Mosaic imagery (available in the background settings for the iD browser editor or stand alone JOSM editor) for Greater Vancouver (what we call the GVRD – Greater Vancouver Regional District)? 
While it may not be the most up-to-date as the Bing imagery, its resolution is far better and it is the primary imagery used by most contributors doing work in the GVRD—though you may find you have to switch back-and-forth between the two imagery sets to get an updated view of some [minor] areas, but I do recommend using the BCM as your primary coordinate reference frame and image set.

Cheers, Brett
Jojo4u (2015-10-03 15:48:24+00:00): Thanks for your long explanation. Indeed, as long as http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51790188 is unclassified, we can leave the return bend as is.

I opened http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/445397 for the trunk/primary.

Regards, Joachim
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-05-04 11:26:53+00:00): Bardzo proszę o poprawne tagowanie adresów. Schemat tagowania adresów jest wyjaśniony w tym wątku: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=210760#p210760
Ten adres nie wyglądał na poprawny: http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=3432323328
EugenyN (2015-05-04 14:17:59+00:00): привет keder, стройка на динамо идёт во всю. особенно где зелёный театр. был там сегодня. и вообще парк заметно приобразился, есть что порисовать.
keder (2015-05-05 07:02:00+00:00): Я был там позавчера, основная же часть уже закончена, осталась парковка. А там стройка на всей территории была.
keder (2015-05-05 07:04:57+00:00): Сделал стройплощадки на парковке и зелёном театре. Кстати, а как обозначить эти красивые колонны на входе?
EugenyN (2015-05-05 09:55:48+00:00): сложно сказать. барьером это вроде не является. скорее декоративное строение. возможно просто building. как   Бранденбургские ворота https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B1%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B3%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B0
bkil (2016-11-19 14:56:30+00:00): Hi. I'm delighted to see that you are also using the lunch tag. I have extended the wiki page. Would you be interested in giving some feedback on the discussion page?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lunch
hlam-2008 (2015-05-04 11:15:15+00:00): для чего прорисовывать все подъезды к воде?
teddyfox78 (2015-05-04 11:18:08+00:00): Объясните, они вам что, мешают?? Вы такой раздрадительный? Они нужны людям,, рыбакам и мне в том числе!
teddyfox78 (2015-05-04 11:26:32+00:00): Как можно удалять дороги, по которым рыбаки ездят на рыбалку, (и не по одному в день) и тропинки по которым ходят люди каждую минуту на остановку автобуса!??
Nearo (2015-05-05 00:19:53+00:00): Hoi RikC,

Leuk om te zien dat je met OSM bezig bent. Om je verder op weg te helpen even wat korte tips.
De tag 'name' wordt gebruikt voor de naam van een object. Niet voor een beschrijving. 'Village is gone' is niet nodig. Wil je toch een notitie toevoegen, gebruik dan 'note' ipv 'name'.
Verder is de taak die je nu gekozen hebt voornamelijk voor wat meer ervaren gebruikers. Je kunt ook kijken naar taak 1018 ( http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/1018 ). Deze is goed geschikt voor beginners. Lees vooral ook even de instructies door op die pagina.
stephan75 (2015-10-31 21:44:04+00:00): Hallo Nicolaus,

ich bin mir nicht sicher ob ich dich schon mal wegen folgendem kontaktiert hatte:

In diesem Changeset Nr, 30775607 hattest du viele Gebäude mit Hausnummern in Welver hinzugefügt, also mit addr:housenumber, aber OHNE addr:street ...

Die Angabe zum Straßennamen ist aber für alle OSM-basierten Programme sehr wichtig, wenn man Adressen auswerten möchte.

schau mal unter
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=addresses&lon=7.95707&lat=51.61628&zoom=14&opacity=0.94&overlays=no_addr_street

oder http://osm.lyrk.de/address/#15/51.6182/7.9587 ... da die roten Marker.

Hast du da vielleicht nochmal Zeit und Muße, die addr:street-Merkmale nachzutragen, wo diese fehlen?

Da du ja mit JOSM arbeitest, würde ich auch noch den dortigen Kartenstil Coloured-Streets empfehlen, siehe
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/De%3AStyles/Coloured_Streets

Gruß, Stephan
nicolaus1977 (2015-11-05 15:03:05+00:00): Hallo Stephan, 

ich gestehe, dass ich in letzter Zeit bei OSM sehr faul geworden bin. 

Ich weiß schon, wie man Adressen korrekt, inklusive der Relationen hinzufügt.
Zusammen mit Belecker habe ich große Teile der Adressen im Stadtgebiet Warstein und Soest angelegt.

In letzter Zeit konnte ich mich nur nicht aufraffen. :-)

Durch deine Nachrichten hatte ich zumindest wieder gute Vorsätze, aber jetzt ist mir M_Kucha "zuvorgekommen". :-D

Schönen Gruß

nicolaus1977
Guyj2010 (2016-06-01 08:40:06+00:00): Cunningtons closed over a year ago - Moved to Sutton in Ashfield
teddyfox78 (2015-05-04 11:57:07+00:00): Спасибо большое, добрый человек.. Рад, что все благополучно разрешилось. Спасибо. Будет дружить и работать дальше. :D:)
teddyfox78 (2015-05-04 12:01:39+00:00): Надеюсь, вы не будете возражать, если я вдруг еще найду какую-нибудь более-менее важную дорогу и нарисую ее.. Но это наврятли. Я жосьаточно проводился со всем этим и вроде уже все ок.:D.
jotpe (2015-05-04 20:09:16+00:00): Schade, hätte gerne noch gesehen wie sich die Änderung von Sarah ausgewirkt hätte:
https://github.com/twain47/Nominatim/issues/273#issuecomment-98416049
GeorgFausB (2015-05-05 09:26:29+00:00): Entschuldige, habe ich nicht bedacht, wollte genau das Gegenteil testen.
Habe den CS mal zurückgenommen, interessiert mich auch..
Kann man ja jederzeit wieder ändern.
DaveF (2019-05-18 00:01:50+00:00): Hi
Do you remember why you amended this to a siding. AFAIK, it's in use by London Overground
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64841360
flierfy (2019-05-21 10:23:08+00:00): Hello,
there can only be two continuous main tracks in Overground/Underground station which are marked usage=main. The discontinuous tracks receive the service=siding tagging instead as it is described in here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Tracks
With regards, Stephan
DaveF (2019-05-21 12:52:21+00:00): hello

a) It's not a "continuous" track
b} At stations, lines split into multiple tracks to allow passengers of multiple trains to alight/embark. They're 'usage' is still 'main'.  
c) 'main lines' can have numerous tracks. They are not restricted to two.
d) Just because a line may not be 'main', It doesn't automatically make it a siding.

I believe you've misinterpreted the wiki page.
tyr_asd (2015-05-05 11:43:28+00:00): Hier scheint etwas schief gelaufen zu sein. Was sollen die Adress-Informationen auf unbeteiligten Objekten wie Wegen (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/341570712) oder Gebäudeumriss-Knoten (http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3497048380)?
geoeki (2015-05-05 13:23:44+00:00): sorry, bin noch ganz neu bei OSM...gut möglich, dass da noch nicht so alles geklappt hat, wie ich das gern wollte. Habe jetzt mit JOSM über die Suche nach type:node alle addr-Tags in der gesamten Gemeinde Krumau entfernt. Kannst bitte mal kurz schauen, ob das so jetzt passt?

Ich hab keine Ahnung, warum JOSM die addr-tags nicht nur für die buildings, sondern auch für die nodes anwendet...
tyr_asd (2015-05-05 13:35:35+00:00): Hmmm. Jetzt sind aber auch Adressen weg, die vorher drin und in Ordnung waren: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/88817419/history

Ich schau mal, ob ich das besser revertiert bekomme. Könnte durch die schiere Menge an geänderten Daten aber etwas aufwändiger werden.
geoeki (2015-05-05 13:39:27+00:00): Oh, jetzt sind alle Adressen weg...am besten meine vorherigen Änderungen reverten (wenn das geht) - möglich, dass ich einmal nicht nur die nodes, sondern alles markiert habe. Sorry für die Umstände, habe zuvor noch nie mit einem CA à la JOSM gearbeitet.
zimba (2015-06-30 21:03:24+00:00): Bitte nicht daten doppelt eintragen, das EI war bereits 1A drin.

lg
ukasiu (2016-01-29 17:33:42+00:00): Hej, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263184492#map=18/49.87594/19.50236&layers=D czemu to przesunąłeś tak, że zachodzi na drogę. Lotnicze często nie są aktualne, więc jak jest już narysowane, to zostaw.
JIDB (2016-11-21 21:00:09+00:00): Hallo,
ich habe mich erlaubt ohne Nachfrage, bei der Baldestraße "cycleway:left=opposite"  in "cycleway=opposite" zu ändern, weil es sowas nur links geben kann. So wird es auch unter https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle empfohlen (siehe S1) und so ist die Straße wie ähnliche Straßen in der Umgebung getaggt. Das sollte außerdem das schöne Nebeneffekt haben, dass es auf OpenCycleMap richtig gerendert wird. Ich hoffe, es ist in Ordnung.
zarl (2016-11-22 08:33:34+00:00): Danke für die Korrektur. Aber verwende doch bitte in dem Fall nicht die englische Seite, denn hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren wird die Situation in Deutschland zugrunde gelegt.

Etwas weiter unten https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren#Einbahnstra.C3.9Fe_mit_Erlaubnis_f.C3.BCr_Radfahrer_in_Gegenrichtung ist dieser Fall (jetzt?) auch gut erklärt.

Gruss,
Zarl
JIDB (2016-11-22 21:39:29+00:00): Ach ja, danke für den Link. In der deutschen Version sind die Details auf einer Unterseite versteckt, sodass ich sogar dachte, dass die detaillierte Erklärung in der deutsche Fassung gar noch vorhanden ist... ist sie aber doch.
chnav (2015-05-05 05:29:15+00:00): Сетка дорог рисуется отдельными линиями, а не восьмёрками: продольные отдельно, поперечные отдельно.
JoL (2015-05-05 19:21:45+00:00): Wat is dit nu weer : "superfluous nodes" ????? Paden lopen wel degelijk ongeveer zoals ik ze gezet had. Luchtfoto is helemaal niet up to date, dit is een nieuw ontwikkeld gebied  !!!! "Bedankt" om mijn werk wéér eens te verknoeien.
M!dgard (2015-05-05 19:26:26+00:00): Ik heb een paar nodes verwijderd die niets bijdroegen aan de geometrie van de weg, aan henzelf heb ik niets gedaan. Het was helemaal niet zichtbaar op de renders. Als je werk verknoeid is, dan is dat door iemand anders gebeurd.
M!dgard (2015-05-05 19:31:49+00:00): For your information: er is een nieuwe mapper die je paadjes waarschijnlijk heeft vertrappeld als ze nu niet meer juist staan: osm.org/user/hanscardoen/history
Drie dagen geleden heeft hij changesets aan het park gedaan. Ik patrouilleer een beetje over de nieuwe mappers in Blankenberge en Gent en verbeter de data als ze beginnersfouten maken. Vandaar dat ik hier ook gewerkt heb.
M!dgard (2015-05-05 19:41:41+00:00): Zag het er zo uit? http://ruben.janmaes.com/files/parkbos.png
Ik heb al hanscardoen's changesets daar eens ge-revert (maar nog niet geüpload). Als je zegt dat het er zo uitzag en dat dat klopt met de echte situatie, upload ik de terugdraaiing.
JoL (2015-05-06 11:25:48+00:00): Sorry dat ik jou valselijk beschuldigde... Jouw screenshot geeft niet de originele structuur weer, maar als ik nu op de map kijk ziet het er weer min of meer als vroeger uit. Let wel : perfect is het zeker niet, maar de paden die er nu op staan zijn wel degelijk aanwezig.
JoL (2015-05-06 11:33:31+00:00): Ik zou het ongeveer zo laten dus. Ik denk dat het sowieso beter is te wachten op nieuwe luchtfoto's.
jeka p (2016-10-02 14:55:21+00:00): Hi! There is a more exact way to mark destination using destination:ref / int_ref / country / symbol:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Destination_details

I've adjusted it here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4395807

BR,
Jeka
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-10-26 17:19:13+00:00): Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3414280 ?
joost schouppe (2016-07-19 07:21:17+00:00): Hi,
It seems you introduced the name:be="Grotte routepaden GR5" in this changeset. But that doesn't look like it's in Belarusian, and it's not Dutch eiher. Do you remember what you were trying to do?
vindert (2016-07-19 18:41:49+00:00): Hello,

I thought BE was for Belgium. "Grote Routepaden" is a term used in Flanders.
You can remove and just use the dutch description, if the is no possibility for Flemish description (nl_BE locale).
joost schouppe (2016-07-20 07:27:58+00:00): OK, it was the combination with the typo in "Grote" that made it complicated. The name:XX is for language codes, not country codes.
There is no need for both a Dutch and a Flemish name, as Flemish isn't a real language. It sounds differently from Dutch from the Netherlands, but there is a common ruleset of what is correct and what is not.
Thanks for the clarification, I'll make the changes.
maraf24 (2015-05-10 20:15:58+00:00): Wycofane. 
public_transport=platform to prawidłowe tagowanie
0leg-ch (2015-05-04 18:41:55+00:00): О, совсем другое дело ;-))) Только названия улиц надо поправить в соответствии с http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:ВикиПроект_Россия/Соглашение_об_именовании_дорог

Т.е. "улица Некрасова" (и т.п.), а не так, как сейчас.