piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Liegeflitzer (2021-10-08 21:03:14+00:00): Hallo PT-53,
zum Thema access:conditionel hatte ich nur die Seite gefunden: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Conditional_restrictions

und da gab es kein Beispiel für eine dauerhafte Sperrung durch eine Baustelle, deshalb das Highway=construction. 
Tja, wie lange die konkret an der Straße noch bauen, keine Ahnung. Das gesamte Bauvorhaben der Gleiserweiterung wird sicher noch mehr als neun Monate benötigen.

Grüße
Liegeflitzer
PT-53 (2021-10-09 06:18:38+00:00): Hallo Liegeflitzer, 
bei einer Baustellensperrung von mehr als 9 Monate ist  highway=construction
voll in Ordnung.
Grüße
erickdeoliveiraleal (2021-10-07 17:29:03+00:00): nesta edição, voce excluiu os novos acessos que foram construidos aqui: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9124951972 por favor volte ao que era!
francians (2021-09-27 04:51:16+00:00): Ciao Marco,

"Non specificato" non è un valore ammissibile per la chiave access. Per default è "yes", se hai dubbi, puoi mettere l'etichetta fixme=access, ma il valore attuale, va rimosso.

Grazie e buon mapping
Francesco
Marcov70 (2021-09-27 09:05:45+00:00): Ciao,
scusa i miei errori ma alcune regole nella mappatura non le capisco. Io volevo semplicemente indicare che la strada che passa nel cortile è stata sbarrata da un cancello e che quella che io ho indicato in alternativa è comunque chiusa da sbarre più tronchi a terra. Chi come me in mtb prende la strada a monte, dove non c'è nessun cartello di divieto, sarebbe giusto sapere che, arrivato in fondo potrebbe trovarsi a fare discussioni con i proprietari. Grazie per una tua valutazione
francians (2021-09-27 16:46:06+00:00): Ciao Marco,

grazie per il riscontro.
In corrispondenza del cancello metti pure un nodo sul percorso (deve essere collegato e non solo sopra) e aggiungi barrier=gate (o barrier=lift_gate), vedi:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier

Per il tag più idoneo.
In particolare, in questo modo il navigatore non ti proporrà più di passare da quella strada in quanto "chiusa".
Per l'altro percorso, ricordo che durante una discussione con altri mappatori, avevamo deciso di non mappare gli alberi caduti, dando per scontato che la strada esiste ed è mantenuta da qualcuno (con più probabilità di un tag su OSM), verrà ripristinata. Se però è una situazione che difficilmente verrà sanata, metti pure:

obstacle=fallen_tree (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obstacle#Values_for_key_obstacle.3D.2A)
su un nodo in corrispondenza dell'ostacolo, come per il cancello. Anche se non verrà renderizzato, l'indicazione è sul db di openstreetmap, non so se viene letta tuttavia

A presto
Francesco
Marcov70 (2021-09-27 19:19:15+00:00): Ciao, 
provo a modificare come da te indicato. Per gli alberi voglio evidenziare che NON sono caduti ma messi volutamente per impedire il passaggio anche dal sentiero da me aggiunto. se ritieni sia meglio lo elimino
francians (2021-09-28 05:28:13+00:00): In generale, meglio non eliminare nulla...
Se lo elimini qualcuno potrebbe reinserirlo, dai pure l'informazione con il tag:

obstacle=yes
description:it=alberi disposti in modo da impedire il passaggio

Ho visto la modifica per il cancello, va bene.
Hai usato access=no, mi sentirei di sconsigliarlo in favore di access=private. Non è necessario che lo cambi, solo per il futuro.

Francesco
francians (2021-09-28 05:30:04+00:00): P.S. eventualmente invece di obstacle essendo una cosa voluta, va bene anche barrier=yes (così il navigatore correttamente non ti fa passare)
SHARCRASH (2021-10-11 00:14:35+00:00): Bonjour, vous avez littéralement effacé beaucoup d'éléments au lieu de les corriger et si vous avez modifié le tag, vous avez créée des aberrations tel que https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/825410951 càd une piste dans une piste... En plus pourtant cet élément porte le nom de "STADE A.S. Cheminots". tout comme d'autres éléments qui portent le nom "Stade..." et me semblent avoir des gradins et assez grands pour accueillir beaucoup de public tel que https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150186166 
voir 
https://www.google.lu/maps/place/Stade+Omnisports+de+Guentrange/@49.3667633,6.1394011,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipMFcjjOiEBBOgNFNj6YbVpiD9Xg-HioADiGAD8!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMFcjjOiEBBOgNFNj6YbVpiD9Xg-HioADiGAD8%3Dw203-h114-k-no!7i4195!8i2360!4m13!1m6!3m5!1s0x47953ab4930cc22d:0x6fa36a08a59bffad!2sStade+Omnisports+de+Guentrange!8m2!3d49.3667633!4d6.1394011!3m5!1s0x47953ab4930cc22d:0x6fa36a08a59bffad!8m2!3d49.3667633!4d6.1394011!15sChNTdGFkZSBkZSBHdWVudHJhbmdlkgEOc3BvcnRzX2NvbXBsZXg?hl=fr#
Bref vos changements ne me semblent pas respecter la fidélité de la réalité... 
De toute façon de telles modifications aussi nombreuses doit passer à travers une discussion en communauté selon les règles d'OSM. L'avez-vous fait? Si oui, le lien internet svp...
LucGommans (2021-09-27 10:22:26+00:00): Hey, thanks for adding the restaurant! Question, though: is there any reason you didn't add the tags to the node that already contains the address? Now the icon competes with the address for being displayed on maps, and finding the address programmatically is more complex. But that's just my perspective, I don't know if there was a specific reason you structured it this way.
tux67 (2021-09-27 10:49:47+00:00): Hi Luc,
over time, I switched to add POIs on individual Nodes (the Address here is documented at the Building as a way btw.) in most cases, where the building could have more than one purpose. 
I see the concern with the Address information, but I would be  fine to add the address as well to the node, even if many renderers and Apps seem not to struggle to identify the Address of a node within a building (Osmand for example works).
If the address Data is really mapped as a node within the building, I would nevertheless add a separate node for the POI to prevent some experts removing the whole node incl. the Address once the POI is closed.
Does that help to explain?

BR
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111738887
LucGommans (2021-09-29 20:19:31+00:00): "the Address here is documented at the Building as a way btw"

Oh, damn actually I missed that. Mapping in the netherlands a lot in the past, I'm used to it being all separate nodes from the government address import. Makes sense then, thanks!
Jordi MF (2022-07-26 16:48:41+00:00): Hola Josepvc,
He revisado este punto presencialmente y creo que no debería anotarse como puerto de montaña ni como collado. En primero lugar, no hay ninguna señal que indique que este lugar se llama Coll del Peiró. Tampoco, en ninguno de los mapas oficiales o publicados por editoriales aparece marcado. Por tanto, ¿podrías indicar la fuente del topónimo? Por último, habiendo realizado esta carretera en coche y en bicicleta, este tampoco sería un puerto de montaña como ya que no es el punto más elevado de la carretera. De hecho, está situado en un punto bastante llano o, como mucho, diría que se trata de un repechón. Yo lo eliminaría. ¿Qué opinas?
Saludos,
Jordi MF
Jordi MF (2022-08-08 07:27:28+00:00): Al no recibir respuesta, elimino este punto ya que no llega a categoría de puerto o collado: en ambas direcciones, la carretera aumenta varios metros de altitud.
Josepvc (2022-08-12 14:23:54+00:00): En el mapa de ICV aparece como Peiró del Coll y si subes desde la Vaillibona aunque no haya paleta que lo delimite está bastante claro que es un puerto. 
Es más te invito a que lo subas a ver qué te parece si es un collado o que es.
Jordi MF (2022-08-12 15:33:06+00:00): Hola,
Es que justamente lo subí desde Vallibona y no lo consideré puerto de montaña. Llanea mucho, incluso vienes de bajada desde els Corrals de Santa Àgueda (1164 m). El Peiró del Coll está a 1004 m. Y si continúas hacia el Port de Querol, tienes que seguir subiendo un poco más.

Por otra parte, el topónimo 'Coll' se repite en diversos accidentes geográficos dispersos de la zona: Muntanyes del Coll, Mas del Coll, Corralissa del Coll, Carrascal del Coll, els Plans del Coll, Dena del Coll, Era del Coll... Algunos de esos topónimos llegan hasta el puerto de Querol. Me da la impresión que todos esos topónimos hacen referencia a aquel. Además, todas las editoriales que han publicado mapas de la zona (Tossal Cartografies, Piolet o el ICV) no tienen referencias a ese Coll del Peiró.
Jordi MF (2022-09-02 19:46:14+00:00): Pasadas tres semanas sin respuesta, a pesar de que el usuario sigue editando, esperaré una semana más antes de eliminar este supuesto puerto de montaña collado) ya que no se ajusta a las características típicas.
Josepvc (2022-09-08 20:14:13+00:00): Hay muchos puertos de montaña y collados que no tiene referencia en los mapas oficiales y señales en la cima y se les considera puertos o collados por los ciclistas, Castellón está plagado de ellos... no sé qué diferencia a este de otros como el collado de Artana, Ahin, Ibola o la nevera que en los mapas del ICV viene marcado como collado de la Alcudia..

Que como lo actualizo yo no te perece bien....
Jordi MF (2022-09-08 20:37:31+00:00): Como explico tres mensajes más arriba, ese punto no es la cota más alta de esa carretera. De hecho, hacia al este,la cota de la carretera es más alta. E incluso hacia el oeste, el Puerto de Querol también está a una mayor altitud. Por eso no entiendo que te empeñes en marcarlo como puerto. Los demás puertos o collados que indicas sí que cumplen la característica de ser la cota más alta de la carretera o como pasos entre montañas.

Si digo lo de los mapas, es para remarcar que este punto nunca ha sido considerado puerto. En caso de que así hubiese sido en el pasado, alguno de estos mapas, después del trabajo bibliográfico y de campo que hacen sus autores, indicaría algún topónimo como collado.
tordans (2021-09-27 05:01:49+00:00): Hallo! Kann es wirklich sein, dass eine Verkehrsstraße in Berlin nicht beleuchtet ist? VG
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111739290
TinaBo (2021-09-30 14:48:10+00:00): Hallo,
Yes it's (often) possible in Berlin.
But in this street, in the app StreetComplete, there were too many light to validate... It seems to me that was too much. Maybe someone else will count again and better than me...
skorasaurus (2021-10-28 19:34:58+00:00): welcome to openstreetmap, and thanks for the edit; I was going to add the axis at ansel, but you already had; great job on it! 

regards, 
will in cleveland
ma-rt-in (2021-09-28 16:35:33+00:00): Hallo,

Frage zu Weg: 987212061
Worauf bezieht sich das ref? Wo findet man den den Namen, vor ort?

vg
outcast5 (2021-09-28 20:45:40+00:00): Hallo,
das ref 7 wurde nicht von mir eingefügt, sondern war bereits Bestandteil des Weges, den ich für eine teilweise Änderung der Oberfläche geteilt habe. 
Es könnte sich um den Namen "Hupperather Schneise" handeln. Der ist allen Teilen des Weges mit dem Zusatz "ref 7" zugeordnet, der vor Ort aber kaum ersichtlich ist.
Der Weg ist jetzt Teil des überörtlichen "Eifel-Pilger-Radweges", diese Zuordnung werde ich nach und nach ergänzen.
VG
ma-rt-in (2021-09-30 06:42:02+00:00): Danke für die Rückmeldung
noelbov (2021-09-27 10:51:26+00:00): Kan u mij laten weten of de enkelrichting in dit stukje Ralisweg ook geldt voor fietsers?
Dat zou betekenen dat die een andere weg moeten volgen dan aangegeven op https://www.vlaanderen-fietsland.be/nl/routeplanner of op https://www.fietsnet.be/routeplanner/default.aspx
Dank voor antwoord.
felipeeugenio (2021-09-27 11:33:29+00:00): Hola. El tag ref es totalmente para otra cosa.
Si algo es una terraza por favor usar el valor apropiado para el tag building (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building).

por otra parte, tampoco usar nombres genéricos para denominar las cosas.
A veces simplemente OSM no tiene tag para lo que  queremos expresar, pero no hay que inventarlos.

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111739923
SHARCRASH (2021-10-28 18:18:02+00:00): Bonjour! Il y a une différence fondamentale entre brownfield et greenfield: on utilise brownfield lorsqu'il est prévu de reconvertir un terrain qui a déjà été urbanisé/industrialisé/etc avec infrastructures, structures... or on sait bien que cette zone était industrialisée (voir aussi les deux cheminées héritées), alors que greenfield c'est plutôt pour un terrain naturel, tel un champ, foret, etc. En plus, le greenfield est plutôt un tag situationnel en stand-by car en l'état du terrain du moment il est plus pertinent d'utiliser le tag correspond. De toute façon pour landuse=meadow, landuse=forest, landuse=grass, etc qui sont des matières naturelles avec une fonctionnalité spécifique ils entreraient en conflit, deux "landuse" ne peuvent être utilisés pour le même élément. J'ai donc remis en brownfield. Merci de faire attention aux tags.
DressyPear4 (2021-09-26 22:46:04+00:00): Olá, adicione um comentário em suas edições para que outros possam entender o que você está adicionando ou modificando,
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111740153
Frans S (2021-09-27 12:36:49+00:00): Hello. You requested a review.
I have some doubts about f.i the round traces you mapped as buildings.
Always look for shadows, which proofs that a trace is above groundlevel. traces of human activity, like a yard,(lighter in colour around a house) and paths .
Yes, some traces can be mapped as a building. Some not.
Please check this changset and use also the Maxar P imagery to compare
Best regards
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111740359
PaoloLombardi (2021-09-27 14:26:17+00:00): Buondì
Ieri ho corretto quella che è denominata Strada provinciale 183 (da abbreviare in SP183). Se posso suggerire ricordati di collegare le strade che disegni a quelle già esistenti e nel punto giusto perché ho visto altri percorsi che hai disegnato ma scollegati da altri già esistenti.
Warin61 (2021-09-27 08:28:33+00:00): Hi,
Welcome to OSM.

The Wianamatta Regional Park boundary was broken - leaving a gap. And it did not follow the DCS Base Map - you  cannot rely on imagery here. 

Fixed. (I hope - we'll see tomorrow when the QA tools run tonight.)
While your changeset comments are good .. the "imagery used" statement is not so good. You can edit it - don't stick to what the computer generates if it does not indicate the truth.
cheatach (2021-09-26 21:35:58+00:00): opis to oczywiście same "poprawki"
nevw (2021-09-27 04:23:57+00:00): Hi
did you mean to add a bridge to the entire Karuk Trail or did you intend to split the trail at the creek crossing and map a smaller bridge over the creek?
nevw (2021-10-01 06:26:08+00:00): no response from mapper so removed bridge from Karuk Trail. From satellite imagery there appears to be no bridge.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2021-10-05 06:16:01+00:00): تم عكس جميع تغييراتك ونرجوا منك عدم إضافة أماكن عشوائية وغير صحيحة
flohoff (2021-09-28 14:44:22+00:00): Moin,
nur weil ich den changeset gerade sehe. Vielleicht macht es sinn hier ein man_made=works drumherum zu machen und da das Wiltmann drauf zu versenken.

Flo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111741711
DeFra85 (2021-09-28 15:40:34+00:00): Ich hab bei dem Changeset das WiltmannGmbH ins landuse=industrial mit aufgenommen und nur bei dem eigentlichen Bürokomplex im Norden noch gelassen.
man_made=works könnte man ja auch noch neben dem landuse im Polygon mit aufnehmen?
flohoff (2021-09-29 08:30:10+00:00): 
Das auf den landuse=industrial zu packen hat für mich immer was davon das das "Industriegebiet" so heisst. Ich weiss das 1:1 mapping haben wir in OSM nicht, aber so fühlt es sich für mich an. Wenn ich also einen "Firmenkomplex" einen Namen geben würde würde ich das eher über ein man_made=works machen. 

Ich hab das in der vergangenheit auch schonmal über landuses gemacht aber das ist eigentlich unschön.

Ich würde das man_made=works auch seperat vom landuse=industrial machen - also keine geshareten nodes und das landuse= ohne name und das man_made=works mit namen - Oder irgendwie so.

Vielleicht auch overkill.

Flo
5m4u9 (2021-09-28 04:26:49+00:00): Bien, En el nombre establecemos el nombre que dice en las plaquetas de las casas o de las esquinas...
G_P_J (2022-02-16 14:31:21+00:00): Proszę o podanie źródła informacji o skwerze ks. Tworkowskiego. W Geoportalu taka nazwa nie występuje.
kasztelan111 (2022-03-04 13:59:29+00:00): Uchwała nr XL/282/2017 Rady Gminy Kadzidło z dnia 15 listopada 2017 r. w sprawie nadania nazwy placowi położonemu na terenie wsi Kadzidło.
Timmy_Tesseract (2021-10-09 15:35:52+00:00): Hello Bryan. 

If a settlement already has a place node there's no need to add a place tag and the duplicated name to the outline of the settlement. You can just use landuse=residential instead.

Also please have a look at the page about the ford tag on OSM wiki. This tag should only be applied where a road crosses a waterway. Here you added the tag on a 10 km long section of highway.
Nonexhudlix (2022-04-10 08:20:05+00:00): Du hast die bestehenden destinations überschrieben, und sie entsprechen jetzt leider nicht mehr den Ausschilderungen.
Nonexhudlix (2022-04-10 09:13:14+00:00): Noch ein Hinweis: Bei der Verwendung von Ziel je Spur solltest Du destination:lanes verwenden. Du hast mehrmals destination=a;b|c;d verwendet. Ich glaube nicht dass das dem Schema entspricht. Zumindest konnte ich im Wiki nichts finden.
Nonexhudlix (2022-04-10 09:13:52+00:00): ich habe den bereich jetzt etwas überarbeitet und mir erlaubt dabei einige Deiner Änderungen nochmal abzuändern.
Kannst ja nochmal drüber schauen.
ticki_52 (2022-04-12 08:46:33+00:00): Hallo, es ist mir durchaus bekannt, dass fürs Taggen von Destinations nach Fahrbahnspuren destination:lanes verwendet werden muss. Dein Hinweis, die Kreuzungsbereiche nochmal zu checken hätte genügt, denn nur selbst korrigierte durch Fehler lernt man. Danke trotzdem fürs Korrigieren. Grüße ticki_52
GinaroZ (2021-09-27 14:02:44+00:00): Hi, does this path connect to the one on the other side of the trees, and how does it go through the fence?
Esteth (2021-09-27 14:14:09+00:00): It does connect to the path through the trees. The path passes between the fences of two houses. There is no fence in the way, the fences for the properties on each side both side onto the path
GinaroZ (2021-09-28 22:20:51+00:00): Thanks, I've extended the path through the trees and adjusted the fences, hopefully that matches what's on the ground. Feel free to add any of the house numbers around here if you know them :)
keithonearth (2026-06-23 19:23:38+00:00): Whitaker Way is tagged with `maxspeed=0`, which doesn't make much sense to me, what's the intended meaning?
MichaelKrieger (2026-06-23 20:05:58+00:00): Per notes: “Closed to vehicle traffic. Pedestrian street. Barriers preventing vehicle access.”  Also any navigation is going to go through one of the other streets where parking is available.
П3тр0виЧъ (2021-09-27 10:13:01+00:00): revert
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111743754
Wilmer Osario (2021-09-27 02:19:51+00:00): Why did you remove the wikidata?
howtech (2021-09-27 03:35:53+00:00): Apologies, it was an error, fixing it now.
Thank you for noticing it!
mike140 (2021-10-16 14:01:32+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/94231630#map=14/43.2528/27.8371, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/775742215#map=15/43.2378/27.8164, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/692518598 - this is the result of your edit
mike140 (2021-10-16 14:04:56+00:00): when moving something, select only the necessary objects
mike140 (2021-10-16 14:13:19+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/267380431#map=14/43.1628/27.7036, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97971297#map=14/43.1414/27.7866, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11259928#map=13/43.1223/27.8528 and many others. I think this changeset should be completely rolled back.
user_177389 (2021-10-17 09:12:42+00:00): Rolling back would break more because changes are already corrected.

@ suricactus1:
Please only move nodes if you have made sure that other ways/areas are not used by them!
suricactus1 (2021-11-11 21:38:48+00:00): hey, just saw your messages here. My appologies for the troubles I caused.

It was my bad that I have not downloaded all the parents of the points I had to edit, which caused the errors, I guess some funky polygins.

I think there is a general problem with sharing the administrative borderss with natural borders, which makes updating the admin borders extremely painful and error-prone (as I proved with this changeset) activity.

Thanks for the patience and apologies again for the caused problems.
Devdatta (2022-11-28 07:24:24+00:00): Hi Olyon,
I see that you have tagged these wards with admin_level="16.3"
Can you help me understand what this means, since it is not documented, and does not follow the tagging scheme given here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India/Local_Government_Boundaries
Olyon (2022-11-28 18:22:51+00:00): Hi Devdatta,
It's not me who add admin_level="16.3" , it existed before I made my modification. Me, I added "outer" roles to the members of the relation who didn't have any.
Devdatta (2022-11-29 03:46:07+00:00): ok.. got it.
Thanks for the prompt respone.
nmombo12 (2021-09-27 12:16:56+00:00): Hello! I recently edited the schools on the Key Elementary/Oak Park Prep Campus to match the new landuse schema for multiple schools on a single campus. Instead of using amenity=school for the whole schoolground way, a node with amenity=school is placed inside each building and landuse=education is used for the schoolground. It doesn't render yellow yet, but I assume it'll be added in a future Carto update. 

Reference link https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Amenity_school_usage_example_complex_-_Proposal.svg
lmum (2021-09-27 13:22:23+00:00): Thanks for the update! If you haven't, please do revert my edit.
nmombo12 (2021-09-27 13:50:54+00:00): I will change the school now! Thanks for the land use updates in the area. I've been working on land use in SE Oakland County too. If you edit in JOSM let me know because I have some nice imagery from the county from MiSAIL.
nmombo12 (2021-09-27 13:53:08+00:00): Revised https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111770419
nevw (2021-09-27 04:16:51+00:00): I have added highway=service plus service=driveway
This way is tagged as private access already so is not a public access road.
This will be correctly rendered on the OpenStreetMap shortly by other maps you may use may take weeks to months to update.
nmombo12 (2021-09-27 12:20:34+00:00): Hello Ian,

Changes to the fairways to not overlap the greens look good. The addition of golf=pin to the greens is uncommon because they move every day, but it's not wrong to mark them according to imagery. My only concern is that the row of boxes due west of the clubhouse should all be golf=tee instead of golf=pin because they are tee boxes for the driving range. 

-Noah
Ze0zohk1 (2021-10-03 13:31:04+00:00): Could you please create smaller changesets?
JesseFTW (2021-10-03 21:42:55+00:00): Yes, as soon as I entered this I realized it was far, far too large. I've done better going forward -- appreciate the ping.
Ale_Zena_IT (2021-09-27 16:35:02+00:00): Please, avoid to create changeset that span over the Continents
Lee Carré (2021-09-27 20:34:45+00:00): Seconding Ale_Zena_IT.

At least the changeset comment was descriptive.
JesseFTW (2021-09-28 00:44:10+00:00): Yeah, as soon as I made it I winced -- should have split it into smaller pieces. Sorry about that!
nevw (2021-09-27 04:29:59+00:00): I have corrected the building shape to suit the tagging. You may prefer to also add the fence lines of the property.
Исраилжан (2021-09-27 04:05:18+00:00): Уштобе
Исраилжан (2021-09-27 04:05:02+00:00): Прошу прощения город Уштобе
Dodko (2023-01-02 19:10:40+00:00): Vymyzali ste budovy a potom ich obnovili. Naozaj tam existujú?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/275059423/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/275059422/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/275059404/history