piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
pio2_122 (2020-11-02 21:35:57+00:00): Żabka to nie sklep (wyłącznie) sklep monopolowy, a Lewiatan to nie (wyłącznie) warzywniak. W edytorze jest opcja utworzenia uwagi, gdzie można opisać błędną kategorię POI...
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93438769
Gazer75 (2020-11-03 14:13:48+00:00): Thank you. No idea how I managed to delete the tag on the part 5 of the import work. I'll check the entire municipality for errors with OSM Inspector or similar when its all done.
marc__marc (2020-11-03 15:18:54+00:00): Hello,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1488972369
the correct key for wikimedia is wikimedia_commons :)
Regards,
Marc
Dani CS (2020-11-02 20:22:07+00:00): Hi, do you have any source that shows the names of the entrance road, house and swimming pool?

Also, if this is a private swimming pool you could go with leisure=swimming_pool instead, and probably tag it as access=private.
Karlbooklover (2020-11-02 20:27:14+00:00): Hi, yes I do have images I just haven't yet figured out how to upload them like on Google Maps. Is that possible here?
The swimming pool is public by the way, I will update it with leisure=swimming_pool
Dani CS (2020-11-02 20:54:34+00:00): You can contribute images to OpenStreetCam or Mapillary
itineris (2020-11-03 14:38:37+00:00): Szia!

Eközben az Angol utcánál és a Kert utcánál szétbontottad a lakóövezet és a telepített erdő poligonját. Kérlek, legközelebb figyelj jobban!

Üdv:
Ákos
gileri (2020-11-02 22:29:06+00:00): Merci pour les sources :)
eggie (2020-11-02 21:14:13+00:00): Yep.. nu rendert t wel.
Diacritic (2022-01-16 11:07:07+00:00): Partial Revert of boundary nodes in (116209290), see 93359799 comment
!bm (2020-11-02 22:31:45+00:00): Oh, dafür gibt es sogar bereits ein Tagging.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93440339
nevw (2020-11-02 22:31:52+00:00): Hi
Welcome to the osm.
You need to add the access=private to the roadways for it to be effective. You have instead added the tag to an individual node on the road.
nevw (2020-11-02 22:45:25+00:00): You may need to split the roads at the points where they become privately accessible then select those ways and add the tag
northodox (2020-11-03 11:43:04+00:00): Thanks, nevw. I see what you mean.
My apologies, this was my very first update. I will read more doco before attempting any more updates. I appreciate the feedback!
aharvey (2020-11-03 22:16:33+00:00): Ideally you'd do both, split the way and mark the section of road as private and if there is a physical barrier like a gate then add barrier=* with access=* on the node.
Müszi (2020-12-08 13:03:02+00:00): Szia!

Attól félek, a Nagy úton elcsúsztak a házszámok: a Smaragd Vendégház a facebook-on is megtalálható szórólapjuk alapján a 45-ös házszám alatt található, a te számozásod szerint viszont a 43-as. Azt vettem észre, hogy a 39 és a 41 között van egy ház, lehet, hogy ott a hiba?

A vendégház koordinátáit GPS alapján határoztam meg, 2020.08.08.-án jártam arra, nagyon jó volt a vétel, és két GPS is ugyanazt a pozíciót mutatta, szóval az valószínűleg helyes.

-- 
Szia: Zsolt (Müszi)
Andre68 (2020-11-03 15:43:35+00:00): Your changes in this area are very close to vandalism...
rempshaener (2020-11-03 05:01:11+00:00): Bauhaus Allerheiligen: Du hast die nicht überdachten Außenbereiche, die ich erst kürzlich per Multipolygon eingerichtet habe, gelöscht und gegen barrier=wall ersetzt. Das halte ich für falsch. Die "Außenwände" sind Gebäudebestandteil und Bestandteil des äußeren Umrisses und sicherlich keine "Barrier".
Ich möchte dich bitten, deine Änderung zurückzunehmen.
mstriewe (2020-11-03 19:22:43+00:00): Hallo. Bestandteil des äußeren Umrisses sind sie auch weiterhin, da sie auf der Linie des shop-Polygons (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37287853) liegen. Dadurch wurde das Multipolygon verzichtbar und für das tatsächlich überdachte Gebäude bleibt ein einfaches Polygon übrig, das größtenteils, aber nicht vollständig mit dem shop-Polygon übereinstimmt. Da es sich - wie du selbst sagst - um "Außenwände" handelt, halte ich darüber hinaus "barrier=wall" für inhaltlich angemessen. Von der baulichen Struktur her halte ich die beiden Bereich für nahezu identisch mit den beiden eingezäunten Bereichen (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/863572960 und https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/863572959) bei dem du auch mit barrier gearbeitet hast (freilich fence statt wall, aber das macht in meinen Augen strukturell keinen Unterschied). Ich wäre eher dafür, diese beiden Bereich noch mit ins shop-Polygon einzubeziehen, zumindest soweit sie für Kunden zugänglich/relevant sind.
rempshaener (2020-11-04 19:27:24+00:00): Hallo zurück. Das Shop-Polygon hat erst einmal nichts mit dem Gebäude zu tun. Schon bei diesem Objekt, aber auch bei vergleichbaren Konstellationen, ist es m.E. durchaus vertretbar, das shop- oder office-Polygon nicht an das Gebäude, sondern an das Gelände zu hängen. Spätestens dann hat das Polygon definitiv nichts mehr mit dem Gebäude zu tun. Ich halte eine barrier einfach für falsch; gäbe es so was wie building:part=wall, wäre das was anderes. So steht da aber, es handele sich um eine Barriere in Gestalt einer Mauer. Das ist so nicht richtig. An dieser Stelle fehlt einfach nur das Dach. Ansonsten gehört der Bereich zum Gebäude, inklusive Fundament, Versorgungsleitungen, Sicherheitseinrichtungen usw. Eventuell ist er sogar unterkellert. Das ließe sich bestimmt noch weiter fortsetzen. Die beiden eingezäunten Bereiche sind übrigens eingezäunte Außenlager (einmal zugänglich, einmal nicht zugänglich) mit ehemals befahrbarem Untergrund und haben mit dem Gebäude technisch nichts zu tun. Der für Kunden zugängliche Außenbereich ist hinsichtlich der Bauhöhe nicht einmal halb so hoch wie der Rest des Gebäudes (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/wb5V-W9oGr6rmiMPgkcTKQ, rechter Bildrand). Es stellen sich weitere Fragen: z.B. wie breit darf barrier=wall sein, dass es noch als solche gilt?
Mit den derzeitigen Möglichkeiten halte ich ein Multipolygon für die bessere Variante. Warum etwas vereinfachen, wenn die etwas „kompliziertere“ Variante eindeutiger ist?
mstriewe (2020-11-04 19:43:17+00:00): Ich kann deine Argumentation nahezu komplett nachvollziehen und sehe das fast genauso. Nur haben wir dann ein Problem, das wir beide mit unseren Lösungen nicht korrekt lösen: Wenn die beiden Bereiche ohne Dach zum Gebäude gehören, dann ist meine Lösung falsch, aber ein Multipolygon ebenso - denn ein "inner" in einem Multipolygon sagt ja eben, dass der Inhalt des inner nicht zum Rest dazu gehört. DIe komplexere Variante mit Multipolygon ist dann also zumindest auch nicht eindeutiger. Was wir stattdessen brauchen ist das building-Polygon außen rum und darin ein building:part für "Innenliegender Gebäudeteil ohne Dach", aber sowas kenne ich zumindest nicht. Wir könnten höchstens "building:part=yes + building:levels=0" nehmen. Wäre das deiner Meinung nach sachlich korrekt?
rempshaener (2020-11-05 16:10:17+00:00): Ja okay. Das sieht im Rendering dann vermutlich wie ein "Gesamtgebäude" aus, ist aber sicherlich die sauberste Lösung. Ich versuche es mal.
mstriewe (2020-11-05 19:32:23+00:00): Sieht gut aus, finde ich. In 3D sieht es auf jeden Fall schon sehr ähnlich zu dem aus, wie es sein sollte: https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=51.1456665&lon=6.7549626&zoom=19

Ist es Absicht, dass bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/867466260 die kurze Wand im Süden nicht mit drin ist?

In der Nord-Ost-Ecke habe ich die beiden niedrigeren Gebäudeteile gerade noch als separate parts eingetragen. Macht zwar mangels Höhenangaben derzeit keinen Unterschied, aber die können ja noch kommen. (Warum die in der 3D-Ansicht sogar höher als der Rest dargestellt werden, verstehe ich nicht.)
rempshaener (2020-11-05 20:53:41+00:00): War keine Absicht, habe es gerade korrigiert.
Warin61 (2020-11-05 06:24:25+00:00): Hi

Buildings don't go inside other buildings .. at least not in OSM. What is needed is building:part! See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part

Please change C39, C40, C41, C42 and any others I have missed.
Immortal Boredom (2020-11-05 08:09:39+00:00): Hey Warin,

Apologies for that; I’ll attempt to fix those now. Thanks for notifying me. :)
Frans S (2020-11-03 15:55:18+00:00): Hello. 

Thank you for mapping on this project.
The quality standards of HOTOSM are rather high. This means that a mapping must be an accurate representation of a building.

Your mappings do not always comply with that criteria. Your mappings are not accurate enough and not squared.


Most buildings here have a rectangular pattern. Please follow the outlines precisely and square each of them with the Q key in the editor

Here are some tips and hints which might be helpful to improve your skills

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit?usp=sharing

High buildings need to be mapped in a different  way.
You can see both the roof and a side of a building.
Don't map everything you see.
Map only the roof surface.
Then move this object to where it touches the ground. (the groundplan)
 See as an example this video
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13RTwH7sChRWrG5bIjysF2ripBgh3F5l4/view?usp=sharing

A more extensive video can be find here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPiGntG6fs&t=308s

success with mapping and 
Best regards
Fizzie-DWG (2024-01-04 05:15:24+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145864422
kartler175 (2020-11-04 17:30:02+00:00): Please be careful deleting ways, they might be members of relations!
Ways 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/855399681
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/667694530
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/667694529
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/667694526
were members of boundary relations
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9285594#map=13/43.7551/-79.4793
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9285595#map=14/43.7786/-79.4097
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9285592
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9285591
which now are broken.
pyrog (2021-02-05 10:16:17+00:00): Bonjour,

Le tag type=associatedStreet se met uniquement sur la relation.

Par exemple : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/866443978
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/870827735

Cordialement,

Yves
Alex_457 (2020-11-07 13:40:46+00:00): source: bustimes.org
Greg_Rose (2021-08-02 19:14:15+00:00): Jelovšček ali Jelovščak?
gscholz (2021-01-23 08:16:05+00:00): Hi danctc,
here is another example of missused relation roles.
Guido
Frans S (2020-11-03 08:49:06+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project
High buildings need to be mapped in a different  way.
You can see both the roof and a side of a building.
Don't map everything you see.
Map only the roof surface.
Then move this object to where it touches the ground. (the groundplan)
 See as an example this video
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13RTwH7sChRWrG5bIjysF2ripBgh3F5l4/view?usp=sharing

A more extensive video can be find here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPiGntG6fs&t=308s

success with mapping
eggie (2020-11-03 06:46:54+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
toyotagps (2020-11-14 05:15:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 94095200 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93443155
Mathias_ADAV (2021-05-04 13:39:55+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai une question concernant le type de highway utilisé pour qualifier une voie de bus, ne serait il pas plus pertinent d'utiliser highway = service ? en effet unclassified est plutôt utilisé pour les petites routes de campagne. C'est ce qui est utilisé pour le BHNS de Dunkerque https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/816956840
DaCor (2020-11-04 10:44:26+00:00): Hi, just wanted to say thanks for adding this info to the map. Address info such as this is incredibly important for OSM so if you have any other info you would like to add please do so, thanks again, Dave
Firemix (2020-11-02 22:54:58+00:00): If everybody does the mechanical changesets he thinks of being useful OSM would quickly become a mess (and a battleground).
DaveF (2020-11-02 23:04:28+00:00): In what way do you believe this changeset reduces the quality of the OSM database?
lakedistrict (2020-11-02 23:45:27+00:00): Hi, please can you check the tags you have added to nodes such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5688084971 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5688084972. This may need to be reverted if it's a widespread issue. Thanks :)
DaveF (2020-11-03 16:32:17+00:00): @lakedistrict
Thanks for noticing & pointing it out (Forgot to set the correct JOSM filter) It looks to be fixed now.

@Firemix 
What was your previous user name?
b-jazz (2020-11-02 23:32:27+00:00): Oops. Got sloppy and reused previous changeset description. Ignore this. There are no hydrants to see out here.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-11-03 00:03:32+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 72165797, 72166101, 72169906, 72170102, 72371313, 72371378, 72371464, 72371880, 72372046, 72372122, 72372422.
datamongers (2020-12-18 00:56:32+00:00): The ravalli county airport in hamilton mt is currently under renovation, and the changes you have made there are no longer accurate.
Mack_john (2020-11-03 01:10:17+00:00): How do I up delete/restore node 2438986088, its a locality name Tobergal
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93445700
Carnildo (2020-11-03 18:30:13+00:00): I noticed you added a bunch of nodes with nothing but an elevation tag.  Was this intentional?
TokyoJoe (2020-11-03 21:55:44+00:00): They are not isolated nodes - they are part of ways such as waterways, ridges and highways. The elevation tag is intended to be a spot height along the stream, road or ridgeway.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-02-16 20:24:47+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93446323
gscholz (2021-01-23 08:14:29+00:00): Hi danctc,
your recent changesets have added dozens of errors to the OSM database regarding wrong roles of relation items:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-35.04318&lat=-7.96983&zoom=13

It seems to me you do not know what "outer" and "inner" means. Can you please read the documentation to learn what this is about:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Can you please fix your errors?

I also like to recommend to switch to josm as your prefered OSM editor, as it shows errors when you try to upload messy relations.

Kind Regards
Guido
eggie (2020-11-03 07:00:07+00:00): Hi Ali.. Why adding duplicated buildings on top of buildings?
I deleted your contribution.
Greetz,
eggie
user_5359 (2020-11-29 15:02:16+00:00): Hello! You add a very short access value p. Did you mean private or permissive or public? Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/866491690
Kathyaus (2020-11-29 21:03:51+00:00): Hi - thanks for  picking this up. I mean private.  Regards, Kathy
Frans S (2020-11-03 14:48:48+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project
High buildings need to be mapped in a different  way.
You can see both the roof and a side of a building.
Don't map everything you see.
Map only the roof surface.
Then move this object to where it touches the ground. (the groundplan)
 See as an example this video
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13RTwH7sChRWrG5bIjysF2ripBgh3F5l4/view?usp=sharing

A more extensive video can be find here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPiGntG6fs&t=308s
This is task 1703. Would you be so kind to adjust your mappings to the methode as described?
success with mapping
praeteritum (2023-07-26 05:59:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 139018685.
praeteritum (2023-07-26 05:47:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 139018350.
aweech (2020-11-03 14:38:53+00:00): Hi,
Please do not delete the output and source tags from active power plants. Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dplant for recommended tagging of power plants.
cfmccormick (2020-11-03 20:26:49+00:00): Hi, thanks for the guidance on tagging. However, I did not intentionally delete those tags. Perhaps they were deleted when I changed Feature Type to Power Station Grounds? Unfortunately, I cannot find any guidance at the link you provided about when to use Power Station Grounds vs. Coal-Fired Power Plant (the former seems more correct/general since many coal-fired power plants are retrofitted to also burn natural gas and/or oil). Do you have any suggestions/guidance on this?
aweech (2020-11-03 20:53:02+00:00): I opened a bug report in iD since you say that it wasn't intentional.

Regarding when to use Power Station Grounds vs. Coal-Fired Power Plant, only use the Power Station Grounds when you do not know any of the sources the plant uses. It does not matter that the plant may be retrofitted in the future, only what it burns today. If a plant does burn other kinds of fuel alongside coal, then you can add those other fuels to the plant:source tag, as explained in the Wiki. In OpenStreetMap, the most specific tagging is the most correct, not the most general.

Merrimack Station and many of the other power plants you edited recently only burn coal.
Frans S (2020-11-03 10:06:19+00:00): Hi Bill. I review all your mapping if you don't mind. Where it cost more time to correct the mappings, I will remove them so they have to be mapped again from scratch . (this is common use when validating and much adjustements are needed)
Here  you mapped the buildings quite correct, but did not square the rectangular buildings.
Please read this message as well (std)
The quality standards of HOTOSM are rather high. This means that a mapping must be an accurate representation of a building.

Your mappings do not always comply with that criteria.
meaning not squared buildings
Most buildings here have a rectangular pattern. Please follow the outlines precisely and square each of them with the Q key in the editor

Here are some tips and hints which might be helpful to improve your skills

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit?usp=sharing
Best regards and keep mapping
Warin61 (2020-11-05 06:14:18+00:00): Hi,

The relation for Porky Beach Conservation Area was broken by some of this changeset so it is in part reverted.
TheMoneyTour (2020-12-15 20:30:14+00:00): Thanks for clearing up my mess. I'm extremely sorry. New to OSM. I get it now.
ralley (2020-11-03 08:06:59+00:00): Is this a sign posted business visible from the road?  Do you have a source for this edit as I can find no record of such a business.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93451880
Caleb Milne (2020-11-03 08:21:12+00:00): Hello sir,
I am not totally sure how to answer your question but, no there is no sign which is visible from the road. However, this is a business which brews from home and trades it’s good so therefore is obviously a business of some sort, and there’s no reason it can’t have publicity to trade more alcohol as demand for it increases.
Caleb Milne (2020-11-03 08:21:43+00:00): Hello sir,
I am not totally sure how to answer your question but, no there is no sign which is visible from the road. However, this is a business which brews from home and trades it’s good so therefore is obviously a business of some sort, and there’s no reason it can’t have publicity to trade more alcohol as demand for it increases.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93451880
ralley (2020-12-16 01:45:04+00:00): Can you please point out an additional source (online, photo, business registration etc) that confirms this business name and location?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93451880
Diógenes de Sinope (2020-11-03 21:35:45+00:00): Hallo thetornado76, 

Hi thetornado76, ich habe mir dieses Changeset angesehen, das du zu OpenStreetMap beigesteuert hast. Ich wollte nur erwähnen, dass die folgende Straße offiziell 2 Spuren hat, obwohl Autos normalerweise auf beiden Seiten der Straße in der Nähe des Bordsteins geparkt werden, eine schmale Öffnung in der Mitte der Straße für Autos zu lassen

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/159652463

[ https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=EnwjZ3YAC0nEO8zzUwqGaQ&focus=photo ]
thetornado76 (2020-11-04 10:44:40+00:00): Hallo,
ich bin durch Osmose auf diesen Weg aufmerksam geworden.
Mein Vorschlag wäre lanes=2 zu ergänzen?
TagaSanPedroAko (2020-11-03 05:34:50+00:00): Correction: "Yaman" should be "Yamaha" (editing from tablet)
tekim (2021-06-17 12:44:59+00:00): Hi, great to see Amazon making contributions to OSM!  Generally driveways should not be tagged highway=track, but rather highway=service, service=driveway.  You can add surface=unpaved if that is the case.
bhiy (2021-06-18 06:42:29+00:00): Hi, 
Thank you for providing the information and correcting the edit. Apologies for the incorrect road classification.
Going ahead, I'll ensure to tag driveways as highway=service, service=driveway. 
Looking forward to learn more from you. 

Regards,
bhiy
naveenpf (2020-11-03 06:12:04+00:00): Welcome to OSM Kerala.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kerala/Members

To join OSM Kerala Telegram click on. 
https://t.me/osmkerala
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93456822
Frans S (2020-11-03 11:41:49+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project
High buildings need to be mapped in a different  way.
You can see both the roof and a side of a building.
Don't map everything you see.
Map only the roof surface.
Then move this object to where it touches the ground. (the groundplan)
 See as an example this video
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13RTwH7sChRWrG5bIjysF2ripBgh3F5l4/view?usp=sharing

A more extensive video can be find here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPiGntG6fs&t=308s

success with mapping
rogue1386 (2020-11-03 18:37:28+00:00): Thank you Frans S for the helpful tip and links, I will use this method for future mapping.
Glassman (2020-11-03 14:24:55+00:00): Tip: You had it correct before. The unit number should be in the tag addr:unit and the housenumber should not include the unit number.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93458645
Supaplex (2021-04-16 16:42:46+00:00): 恭喜您完成第一次的地圖編輯！ 歡迎加入開放街圖，群眾共同參與，繪製生活週遭大家關心事物的共編地圖。以下是相關的參考資料，歡迎隨時指教與提問。

編輯須知
台灣的標示依循準則可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taiwan
常見的圖徵標示方式可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features
給Pokemon Go玩家的建議：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers
組織性編輯指南：https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

台灣社群網站
台灣 OpenStreetMap 網站 https://osm.tw/
臉書粉絲頁OpenStreetMap台灣 https://www.facebook.com/openstreetmaptaiwan/
台灣社群Facebook社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Telegram OpenStreetMap Taiwan https://t.me/joinchat/Aqu2IgnTuIidMfREdNmomQ
Telegram OpenStreetMap Asia https://t.me/OpenStreetMapAsia
Slack https://osm-tw.signup.team/

Happy Mapping!
Kovoschiz (2020-11-03 11:34:09+00:00): It's an official perhaps-tentative name for the interchange.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93460790
Kovoschiz (2020-11-03 11:35:10+00:00): Almost nothing is ever useless.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/93460790
happychanbb (2020-11-03 14:39:33+00:00): @Kovoschiz
You can find many Fanling Higway Interchage,
Do you think each of Y-interchange need a name ?
Kovoschiz (2020-11-03 22:27:58+00:00): Please actually do your research on this subject before committing to edits yourself.