piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-08-23 14:33:24+00:00): 您好！贵州地区的编辑者！您可能发现您的地级市或县级市的名称发生了变化，英文或者拼音的名称被去掉了，英文部分也仅保留了名称而去掉了通名。这是按照中文OSM社区的多语言标注规则进行的，望您谅解。
更多内容请查看：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#China
wolfbert (2023-11-13 16:27:19+00:00): Lt. Basemap sind das zwei Gebäude, daher kein Multipolygon nötig (das hier auch nicht funktioniert: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=15.63188&lat=48.20446&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_segment)
wolfbert (2023-11-15 08:57:51+00:00): Ich habe das jetz mal auf ein Gebäude geändert und das MP entfernt. Funktioniert so auch.
eteb3 (2021-08-26 10:29:51+00:00): Hi

Re your tag on the floodgate motor_vehicle=designated, I'm guessing this may have resolved the issue noted here https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2706799 

Do you know if the absence of access tags for foot, bike, horse are a problem? Graphopper will set a bike route through there, but possibly other apps wouldn't?

idk: mainly asking to learn. Thanks
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-08-23 14:40:32+00:00): 您好！贵州地区的编辑者！您可能发现您的地级市或县级市的名称发生了变化，英文或者拼音的名称被去掉了，英文部分也仅保留了名称而去掉了通名。这是按照中文OSM社区的多语言标注规则进行的，望您谅解。
更多内容请查看：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#China
trial (2021-08-23 20:07:35+00:00): Activité 	Fabrication d'appareils de climatisation
Adresse 	rue des Caseyeurs - ZA de Keranna - 29360 Clohars-Carnoët
Nom 	LTB (La Thermodynamique de Bretagne)
Site web 	www.ltb.fr

Tout est bon pour la poubelle en effet :
la clé c'est website et doit comporter le protocole (https:// sans doute).
le nom c'est name et l'abréviation c'est short_name.
Si l'adresse est à renseigner c'est ici dans address:full
Quant à l'activité man_made=works product=machinery est sans doute le plus proche

Je dis "pour la poubelle" cas si une machine n'est pas capable d'exploiter vos compléments, ils ne servent à rien.
habi (2021-08-24 07:55:33+00:00): Ciao all
I fixed the tags, so they are machine-readable now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9029009999
Have a good day,
habi

PS: I came here from https://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htm
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-08-23 14:44:49+00:00): 您好！贵州地区的编辑者！您可能发现您的地级市或县级市的名称发生了变化，英文或者拼音的名称被去掉了，英文部分也仅保留了名称而去掉了通名。这是按照中文OSM社区的多语言标注规则进行的，望您谅解。
更多内容请查看：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#China
ma-rt-in (2021-08-25 18:39:03+00:00): Hallo,
wenn die Schienen vor Ort abgebaut worden sind, aber auf einem Luftbild noch zu sehen sind, dann bitte mit razed:*=* gekennzeichen, so wird ein erneutes mappen der Schienen verhindert.

vg
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-08-23 14:47:58+00:00): 您好！贵州地区的编辑者！您可能发现您的地级市或县级市的名称发生了变化，英文或者拼音的名称被去掉了，英文部分也仅保留了名称而去掉了通名。这是按照中文OSM社区的多语言标注规则进行的，望您谅解。
更多内容请查看：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#China
timmito (2021-08-23 15:21:23+00:00): Hallo TaunusWichtel, Danke für die Ergänzung.

width=1 deutet darauf hin, dass es sich eher um einen highway=path handelt. Als highway=track sollten nur Wege erfasst werden, die breit genug für ein Auto oder Traktor sind. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway=track?uselang=de#highway.3Dtrack_oder_highway.3Dpath.3F

Handelt es sich bei diesem Weg um den vor zehn Tagen von Anonym als fehlenden Weg gemeldet wurde? Wenn ja, dann könnte der Hinweis auf erledigt gesetzt werden. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2802190
TaunusWichtel (2021-08-23 17:35:54+00:00): Hallo timmito, danke für den Hinweis! Ja, das betrifft genau diesen Weg, den Kommentar hatte ich allerdings gar nicht gesehen, mir war das Problem vorhin selbst aufgefallen... Ich habe den Hinweis auf Erledigt gesetzt.
LG TaunusWichtel
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-08-23 14:51:21+00:00): 您好！贵州地区的编辑者！您可能发现您的地级市或县级市的名称发生了变化，英文或者拼音的名称被去掉了，英文部分也仅保留了名称而去掉了通名。这是按照中文OSM社区的多语言标注规则进行的，望您谅解。
更多内容请查看：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#China
ToniE (2021-08-23 15:08:18+00:00): Hi Ravira43,

your edit is nearly perfect.

But instead of

temporary = "access:conditional = no @ (2021 Aug 16- 2021 Sep 03)"

the correct tagging is

access:conditional = "no @ (2021 Aug 16- 2021 Sep 03)"

Br
Toni
ToniE (2021-08-23 15:09:07+00:00): Hi,

same here:

access:conditional = "no @ (2021 Aug 16- 2021 Sep 03)"

BR
Toni
trial (2021-08-23 19:53:59+00:00): Bonjour, bienvenue à OpenStreetMap.
Ici c'est limite entre hameau et habitat isolé. Dans tous les cas c'est la terminologie britannique qui doit être utilisée (place=hamlet ou place=isolated_dwelling).
Peut-être même une ferme.
De plus Kergariou Bihan étant un nom propre, Bihan doit comporter une majuscule.

https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/byuser/Olliem64 vous permettra de suivre vos modifications.
MatthieuMartin (2022-02-20 17:20:47+00:00): Bonjour,

J'ai corrigé avec le tag place=isolated_dwelling, à modifier si besoin.

Bonne carto !
habi (2021-08-24 08:12:36+00:00): Ciao Monica
In this changeset you've added lots of buildings with a (wrong) tag `biulding`.
I corrected this to `building` in changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110156173
Have a good day,
habi
ivanbranco (2021-08-26 17:59:57+00:00): Ciao aldoct,

il tag autore=aldoct oltre a non essere un tag valido non serve, il tuo nome è già associato all'oggetto tramite la history.
aldoct (2021-08-27 10:06:56+00:00): Hai ragione! Il mio intento era quello di dare un riferimento sull'autore della relazione: alcune volte vorrei chiedere qualche delucidazione ma non so a chi rivolgermi (es. le relazioni del CAI). Allora ho pensato di inserire il nome dell'autore, supponendo di inserire un dato forse superfluo, ma non dannoso. Se l'inserimento comporta qualche problema lo rimuovo. La history spesso mi restituisce dati non veritieri e soprattutto si riferisce al singolo oggetto ma non alla relazione (forse sbaglio qualcosa). Piuttosto: visto che ti trovo disponibile e civile (spesso trovo utenti estremamente suscettibili!), vorrei chiederti se posso porti qualche questione. Intanto ti dico la prima: nelle chiavi della relazione se inserisco "osmc:symbol=ecc.ecc." il risultato non è quello atteso, anzi il più delle volte è nullo; soprattutto nelle relazioni MTB. Hai un spiegazione? Saluti, Aldo
ivanbranco (2021-08-27 16:29:43+00:00): La history non può restituire dati non veritieri, probabilmente stai guardando la history del membro della relazione e non della relazione stessa.

Per esempio questa relazione ha questa history, e tu risulti: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13115110/history

Non sono un esperto di osmc:symbol, ma hai un esempio di relazione che non ti ha dato il valore sperato?
aldoct (2021-08-27 21:14:31+00:00): Utilizzando JOSM visualizzo la history andando su "vista>cronologia". Succede frequentemente che degli oggetti sui quali ho sicuramente lavorato riportino solo il nome di un utente (sempre lo stesso) che ha il pallino di cambiare qualcosa; non potendo così confrontare i cambiamenti. Forse li cancella e li reinserisce. Che tu sappia esiste un "cimitero" degli elementi cancellati? Per quanto riguarda osmc:symbol guarda qui 
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/help/rendering/osmc
Per quanto cambi le combinazioni non ottengo mai il risultato sperato. Saluti
archie (2021-08-23 19:05:40+00:00): You have made this "poorly matched road" even more poorly matched by this cs. You have to justify your backgroundpicture in order to get it right. Do as is advised in: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_Imagery#ID
ejens (2021-08-24 04:58:06+00:00): The crossing, Vitsippsgatan - Karl-Johansgatan still looks offset to me according to Bing, and Lantmäteriet Topographic Map but I leave it to you.
I have adjusted the bike/walk path to Lantmäteriet since the gps track was offset.
archie (2021-08-24 06:47:45+00:00): Thanks for your comments. Could you have a look again. Acc to trafikverket Vitsippsgatan and Karl-Johansgatan dosn't connect at all. Vitsipsgatan ends in a dead-end to the north. It's a foot/cycle-path that leads along both streets and connects to the path which you have adjusted.
ejens (2021-08-24 16:30:32+00:00): I think you are right. Even though I've passed by a few times I didn't reflect on that connection. They connect the paths ("Vitsippsgatan" and the added path) which doesn't feel right. The "connection" between them, along Karl-Johansgatan, is just a regular sidewalk. Don't know if it is correct to draw that as a dedicated bike/walkpath?
ejens (2021-08-24 16:35:43+00:00): I see now. They connect them to show a continuous ride/walk path instead of scattered segments. Makes sense.
Good job!
BCNorwich (2021-08-24 06:47:02+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Just adding a point to make it easier to find is not allowed in OSM. You should add and correctly tag something physical, on the ground, and verifiable.

What is a post guard (pos jaga)?

Could you please remove this point, tag it as per OSM practice (a name only is not enough), or covert it to a verifiable object? 

Need any help please just ask.
Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2021-08-30 13:13:32+00:00): No response to this comment so I've remove the name only POI.
Ser9ei (2021-08-24 10:08:15+00:00): Не надо использовать highway=road там, где явно видна колея. road используется там, где совсем непонятно, что это: тропа, проезд или шоссе. Актуально для снимков с очень плохим разрешением. Сейчас почти везде доступны снимки Maxar Premium, на которых можно легко отличить тропу от автомобильного проезда.

В населённых пунктах следует использовать: residential или service

Вне населённых пунктов: unclassified

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:highway%3Droad
eggie (2021-08-23 18:04:21+00:00): Dag Rexbas.. Denk eraan. Maak altijd een verbinding wanneer een weg een andere weg kruistHer zal anders niet goed kunnen routeren.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-08-23 18:09:06+00:00): Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=110123021
eggie (2021-08-23 18:13:21+00:00): solved crossing ways
Rexbas (2021-08-23 18:29:52+00:00): Bedankt. Ik zal er voortaan op letten.
Vinber-Pro (2022-11-14 10:36:22+00:00): Salut,
sais-tu si les travaux sont terminés ?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/128883697

Par avance merci
Nakaner (2021-08-24 08:40:16+00:00): Gründe für den Revert:

Bei der genaueren Betrachtung der Beiträge bestehen erhebliche Zweifel daran, dass diese der Realität vor Ort entsprechen und ausreichend von persönlichen, rechtlich nicht gedeckten Wünschen bzgl. der Nichtnutzung bestimmter Wege getrennt sind.

1. Das Landesforstgesetz NRW und das Landesnaturschutzgesetz NRW gewähren ein Betretungsrecht auf die Wege in der freien Feldflur und im Wald. Dieses schließt auch das Radfahren mit ein. Eine öffentliche Widmung der Wege ist nicht von Bedeutung.

2. Verkehrszeichen 250 wird in OpenStreetMap in vielen Fällen wie Zeichen 260 interpretiert, weil es regelmäßig anstelle von Zeichen 260 angeordnet oder gewidmet wird. Im vorliegenden Fall des Holperdorp (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/603995031) widerspricht es dem Betretungsrecht, das sich aus § 57 ff. Landesnaturschutzgesetz NRW ergibt.

3. Ein Teil der gesperrten Wege ist Bestandteil markierter Wanderwege, was die Glaubwürdigkeit der Änderungen mangels detaillierter Ausführungen und fotografischer Belege erheblich schmälert. Beispielsweise ist https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/38099230/history Teil der "Teutoschleife Holperdorper" (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8420437).

4. Zahlreiche Änderungssätze von IG MTBg Lile proNatura haben keinen aussagekräftigen Änderungssatzkommentar, obwohl sie destruktiver Natur sind. Sie sind somit unbegründet. Der Gemeinschaftsgedanke des OpenStreetMap-Projekts gebietet die Verwendung aussagekräftiger Änderungssatzkommentare.

5. Die Änderungen beider Benutzer wurden von verschiedenen Nutzern teilweise manuell rückgängig gemacht bzw. mittels Remapping wiederhergestellt. Beispiele: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37372552/history (Benutzer TombaLaBomba vs. Joser5837), https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/974802661/history (Radelspass vs. IG MTBg Lile proNatura). TombaLaBomba hat die Betretungsverbote umgekehrt, Radelspass hat an Stellen, wo Wege gelöscht wurden, die Wege neu eingezeichnet.

6. IG MTBg Lile proNatura hat Wege auf dem freien Feld gelöscht, die auf dem amtlichen Orthophoto klar erkennbar sind (deutlicher als eine einfache Fahrspur in der Wiese). Manche waren sogar laut OSM-Tags geschottert. Das vorsätzliche Löschen von Wegen ist Vandalismus und widerspricht dem Grundprinzip, dass wir erfassen, was vor Ort ist. Beispiel: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/60963145/history

7. Joser5837 hat die Gebäude eines gesamten landwirtschaftlichen Anwesens mit dem Kommentar "privat" gelöscht. Diese Löschung hatte DD1GJ mittlerweile schon rückgängig gemacht. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/102946612

Diese Änderungen wurden deshalb vollständig rückgängig gemacht.
Nakaner (2021-08-24 08:50:55+00:00): Noch ein Grund, wenn auch nicht wirklich entscheidend: Wege mit dem Namen "Privat" und "Privatgrundstück" zu versehen, obwohl das Tag für Eigennamen vorgesesehen ist, sagt viel über die Qualität der Beiträge aus.
JJIglesias (2021-08-23 18:13:21+00:00): Yo are making dozens of changes to a track, deleting one by one some nodes. Could you please explain that behaviour and what is the intention.?

The track as such have not changed at all.
gpserror (2021-08-23 18:23:03+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Destination_details - not sure if this got totally finalized or not, may have to revert as I did duplicate text...
gpserror (2021-08-24 07:15:09+00:00): reverted in 110152891 - decided it was not a data problem rather software problem.
user_11435438 (2021-08-25 06:25:06+00:00): Please do not change xx街道 from place=town to place=suburb. Although literally suburb is more meaningful, but there is a specific method for tagging for places in China. Reference Administrative divisions of China in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/China.

What's more, if you want to change names, it's better to upload your name changes ONLY in one changeset.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110125075
NFZANMNIM (2021-08-25 06:36:37+00:00): oh I see, sure. Doesn't make sense to me and doesn't match what I have done and seen in other countries, but sure. This is the first work of such scale and nature I'm doing in China, so thanks for bearing with me and checking such things.
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2021-08-25 09:16:20+00:00): Hey brother, it looks like you are not malicious, but maybe you really don't understand China's administrative divisions, which are more complicated than what Key:place in OSM can provide, so we use the Key:china_class to improve administrative divisions. If you have paid attention to the guide in Key:admin_level, it will also remind you to refer to the Chinese document first.
In order to better repair the previous data, please suspend the modification of administrative jurisdiction in Western China. Thank you very much for your understanding, and thanks for your knowledge in local language.
SekeRob (2021-08-23 16:13:46+00:00): Hi there and welcome to your first injection if OSM OCD, at 10 shots you're hooked for life.

All your tracks have caused a grand sum 22 warnings, see above, and since you used iD 2.20.0 the strong suggestion is you hit the ignore button multiple times. There's a poster for that in large capital letters: DONT DO THAT. When you see a warning, keep the edit set open, research why the warning occurs and correct before saving. The mapping community will thank you.

cheers
Luzandro (2021-08-24 06:20:16+00:00): Besides that, please use separate changesets for different locations. The bounding box of this changeset covers half of the world and you show up in the feeds of people on multiple continents, who are looking for changes in their region.
ivanbranco (2021-08-24 15:23:41+00:00): Can you check this node please?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9029199124
VLD146 (2021-08-25 03:06:12+00:00): Hi ivanbranco,

Thank you for bringing it to my notice! Data is corrected now.
Thank you :)
osmviborg (2021-08-24 08:08:47+00:00): Vil du ikke godt stoppe med at bruge skolen som sandkasse, dine redigeringer genererer ufattelig mange fejl. Jeg ved ikke hvor meget, eller lidt, du har læst på teorien omkring det du gerne vil lave, måske du skulle læse på det igen.
life0911 (2021-08-24 08:37:38+00:00): Undskyld jeg skulle måske ikke gøre så avancerede redigeringer da jeg stadig væk er rimelig ny til osm, jeg har kun fånet denne wiki side på ind dørs kortlægning https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indoor_Mapping men jeg synes ikke den siger meget om redigering men jeg kan have over set noget. Jeg brugte bygnings brand kort for at se hvor lokalerne var.
osmviborg (2021-08-24 09:41:17+00:00): Du skal ikke undskylde noget. Kombinationen af indoor kortlægning og udbredt brug af multipolygoner gør det til en lidt svær diciplin. De ydre multipolygoner har jeg rettet, dine indoor forsøg står tilbage, men det ser ikke rigtigt ud.
life0911 (2021-08-24 10:14:00+00:00): jeg har set pdf'en up på Google drive https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-4C4ju2-wMrpBWmYG_0DVwFpjXMkjR8o/view?usp=sharing
life0911 (2021-08-24 10:20:07+00:00): (Pdf af brand kort)
eggie (2021-08-23 18:20:39+00:00): Dag Oezie.. In het vervolg kun je beter een BAG update via het forum aanvragen. dan komen de juiste gegevens mee.
Draadje verzoek BAG update
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12
gr eggie
FrankOverman (2021-08-23 19:09:41+00:00): Dan krijg je zoiets als:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=110133746
eggie (2021-08-23 19:18:07+00:00): Frank.. Bedankt weer voor de updates.
gr eggie
ivanbranco (2021-08-24 05:37:21+00:00): Hi Frank692000, why you keep editing the same way over and over?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110126528
impiaaa (2021-08-23 22:20:31+00:00): Perhaps it's technically related in that it's still a wooded area, but I still don't like that way 39641899 and all of its nodes were relocated from somewhere else. An easy way to fix it without damaging data would have been to use JOSM's "Join overlapping areas" feature, then drawing the new wooded area separately.
mueschel (2021-08-24 08:38:21+00:00): Hi,
please check these edits. All the buildings have several foreign tags on them that shouldn't be in OSM, e.g.:

GEOREF_ID=empty
NATUR_CODE=BAT
NATUR_DESC=Habitation
TECH_LEVE=Dérivé (construit)
JuliusOne (2021-08-24 11:56:44+00:00): Hi,
Thanks for the feedback, those are tags from the PICC shapefiles.  I forgot to remove them before submitting the changes.
I just removed them in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110170163
Nakaner-repair (2021-08-24 07:59:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 110155383 where the changeset comment is: Revert of all changesets by &quot;IG MTBg Lile proNatura&quot; uploaded yesterday. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110123245 for details.
Nakaner-repair (2021-08-24 07:59:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 110155383 where the changeset comment is: Revert of all changesets by &quot;IG MTBg Lile proNatura&quot; uploaded yesterday. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110123245 for details.
johnnyw03 (2021-08-23 16:47:23+00:00): Haha, I guess I must of created two accounts at some point and signed into the wrong one in JOSM today
Nakaner-repair (2021-08-24 07:59:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 110155383 where the changeset comment is: Revert of all changesets by &quot;IG MTBg Lile proNatura&quot; uploaded yesterday. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110123245 for details.
Frans S (2021-08-24 10:00:52+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this task.
Your mappings are rather irregular
Most buildings are strictly rectangular
And:
Each rectangular building needs to be squared. See the task instructions.
Please square all rectangular buildings with the Q key of the iDeditor.
Most of the buildings are strickt rectangular.
 A remark here. When your corners are not close enough to the 90 degrees angle the Issue triangle on the right hand menu don't react so try to map more precise and close to the 90 degrees corners
When parts of a building are hidden by trees, extrapolate the rooflines rather than following the treelines.

See this picture (example) Review own work in iDeditor.jpg

Did you have seen these pages ?
https://learnosm.org/en/hot-tips/

Best regards and success with future mappings
kuhni74 (2023-09-22 10:17:22+00:00): ist hier ein sac_scale bekannt?
ggrab (2023-09-29 15:11:20+00:00): Habe ich nun in Erfahrung bringen können und gleich eingetragen (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141917801): Bis zur Muhrscharte "mountain_hiking", danach "demanding_mountain_hiking".
kuhni74 (2023-09-29 15:15:31+00:00): vielen Dank, klingt plausibel!
jcarlson (2021-08-23 21:32:46+00:00): Hi there! Why did you delete and re-add various sport pitches? And why delete the fences? They're definitely visible in imagery.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110128738
Hevy Upon Ye (2021-08-24 23:16:39+00:00): The true size of the pitches were inaccurate, and I used copy/paste to keep the sizes consistent among them. The fences were marked as a building (which was an oversight when I was editing this earlier). I might add them back in as line elements.
jcarlson (2021-08-25 02:51:23+00:00): 1. I digitized them from hi-res imagery (~3in. pixels) so I think they were pretty well mapped, but I am doing this from a ways west of here, not in person. If you feel you are improving them, then by all means do so, but just edit the existing feature.
2. I thought I removed the building tag from the fences, my mistake.
pio2_122 (2021-08-23 18:58:57+00:00): "Increasing shore visibility" by changing the geometry of the administrative boundary?

Definitely unjustified and bad idea. The lake area and the border are two independent objects!

I have repaired to official geometry.
HeinrichDerSeefahrer (2021-08-23 20:10:28+00:00): "Official geometry" can be found in the community district border statement, which says: "It follows the western border of lake niecemino"...
so to see ;-)
pio2_122 (2021-08-23 20:40:07+00:00): Would you please give me a link to this 'statement'? This is just a general description of the location of the community (most likely prepared for tourists)....

Anyway, do you think that boundaries are established on the basis of descriptive 'statements' rather than specific geographical coordinates? That would not be very accurate....

The only official source of official boundaries in Poland is the State Register of Boundaries and Areas of the Territorial Divisions of the Country.
Legal basis: Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 16 July 2021 on the state register of boundaries and areas of territorial divisions of the country.

It was this source that I used to repair this boundary.
HeinrichDerSeefahrer (2021-08-23 20:49:48+00:00): I completely accept your arguments, and am happy with the outcome, but I doubt the coordinates measurement accuracy of the time they were taken as geographic location.
I guess, the coordinates of the borderline were made because of the fishing rights, which gives the lake completely to gmina Polanow.
Marmanvii (2021-08-23 18:06:13+00:00): Also improved Mercado de Talca
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110129477
DeFra85 (2021-09-18 19:41:40+00:00): Dieser Weg existiert noch und ist OFFIZIELLER BESTANDTEIL des Hermannweges!
DeFra85 (2021-09-18 19:40:45+00:00): What the fuck means: "FB.JB." ???