piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
k127 (2020-05-09 23:49:15+00:00): Hi,
just two comments from my side since I noticed that you have been active in this area:

Did you know that if you press [Q] in JOSM while a building is selected, you can make it rectangular?

And, for something else: Bing aerial images seem pretty outdated for this area – you might want to cross check other imagery, i.e. Maxar Premium Imagery (Beta), which is newer.

Cheers
Klaus
hüggelzwerg (2020-05-10 11:10:13+00:00): Maybe it helps you. 
https://www.langstreckentouren.de/osm/takst_sjaelland.html
Best regards.
mikkolukas (2020-05-10 15:02:15+00:00): Yes, but that is not the transport network.
The network is Movia.
hüggelzwerg (2020-05-10 17:35:36+00:00): An other possibility would be:
network:bus=Movia
mikkolukas (2020-05-10 23:22:05+00:00): Takst Sjælland is only the name of the ticket price system, but does not include anything else.

Movia is the name of the network, including subcontracting, customer service, etc.

Example of other networks are:
DSB (nationwide) [Danish State Railways]
Metro (Copenhagen only)
Flixbus
...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movia_(transit_agency)

btw. I also speak danish if preferred  :)
mikkolukas (2020-05-10 23:22:41+00:00): Can you give a concrete example (nodes, ways, relations) where you see the problem?
mikkolukas (2020-05-10 23:30:23+00:00): Btw. I can always be difficult to read emotions and intentions on text, so to clarify:

My goal is to find a common ground that makes sense, and perhaps that one or both of us learn something new along the way :)
mariotomo (2020-11-03 17:29:10+00:00): no se entiende porqué haces esto.
Alvarado2510 (2021-02-14 05:28:19+00:00): Saludos revisare con la imagen de Maxar y corregiré, gracias por la observación.
mariotomo (2020-11-03 17:30:13+00:00): mapeaste una, la copiaste en el centro de las demás, sin mirar a la forma.  qué sentido tiene?
mariotomo (2021-04-02 21:10:44+00:00): reverted
Mashin (2020-05-12 20:51:51+00:00): These are undiscussed and unapproved mass changes. Please revert back to previous state.
stevea (2020-05-12 22:04:43+00:00): Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, as while the number of ways seems large, this is only some modest tagging distinctions (according to our wiki and consensus) across two small states, none of the actual boundaries were changed. (If many of the boundaries were changed, that might be "mass changes," but it wasn't, so this isn't).
Mashin (2020-05-14 02:17:34+00:00): Status quo is counties at admin_level=6, as they were for last 10 years. And COGs as admin_level=5 as I originally created those data. If not I will have to escalate this issue.
stevea (2020-05-14 02:57:08+00:00): When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.
EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where I live) might be (I posited it as "might" not "is," as you did) an admin_level=5. It was determined not to be and I and OSM accepted that. You seem bent on not accepting that, yet it is documented to be true.

Escalate away.
Mashin (2020-05-14 05:12:45+00:00): Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG.
Mashin (2020-05-12 20:51:29+00:00): These are undiscussed and unapproved mass changes. Please revert back to previous state.
stevea (2020-05-12 21:59:25+00:00): Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best.  They are not "mass" changes, they are changes to nine relations, and only some modest tagging distinctions (according to our wiki and consensus), none of the actual boundaries were changed.  (If many of the boundaries were changed, that might be "mass changes," but it wasn't, so this isn't).
Mashin (2020-05-14 02:17:39+00:00): Status quo is counties at admin_level=6, as they were for last 10 years. And COGs as admin_level=5 as I originally created those data. If not I will have to escalate this issue.
stevea (2020-05-14 02:58:23+00:00): When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.

EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where I live) might be (I posited it as "might" not "is," as you did) an admin_level=5. It was determined not to be and I and OSM accepted that. You seem bent on not accepting that, yet it is documented to be true.

Escalate away.
Mashin (2020-05-14 05:12:54+00:00): Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG.
Mashin (2020-05-12 20:51:33+00:00): These are undiscussed and unapproved mass changes. Please revert back to previous state.
stevea (2020-05-12 22:01:05+00:00): Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, they are changes to nine relations, and only some modest tagging distinctions (according to our wiki and consensus), none of the actual boundaries were changed. (If many of the boundaries were changed, that might be "mass changes," but it wasn't, so this isn't).
Mashin (2020-05-14 02:18:00+00:00): Status quo is counties at admin_level=6, as they were for last 10 years. And COGs as admin_level=5 as I originally created those data. If not I will have to escalate this issue.
stevea (2020-05-14 02:59:04+00:00): When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.

EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where I live) might be (I posited it as "might" not "is," as you did) an admin_level=5. It was determined not to be and I and OSM accepted that. You seem bent on not accepting that, yet it is documented to be true.

Escalate away.
Mashin (2020-05-14 05:13:00+00:00): Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG.
Mashin (2020-05-12 20:51:37+00:00): These are undiscussed and unapproved mass changes. Please revert back to previous state.
stevea (2020-05-12 22:01:37+00:00): Unless and until there is recent consensus on what it is best to change these boundaries TO, leaving them at a "status quo as agreed to in 2017" seems best. They are not "mass" changes, they are changes to nine relations, and only some modest tagging distinctions (according to our wiki and consensus), none of the actual boundaries were changed. (If many of the boundaries were changed, that might be "mass changes," but it wasn't, so this isn't).
Mashin (2020-05-14 02:18:07+00:00): Status quo is counties at admin_level=6, as they were for last 10 years. And COGs as admin_level=5 as I originally created those data. If not I will have to escalate this issue.
stevea (2020-05-14 02:59:23+00:00): When a county has little or no administration, as in Rhode Island (absolutely) and Connecticut (as in "only the judiciary"), then these counties being tagged without a boundary=administrative tag is correct.

EIGHT years ago, I myself suggested that a COG-like thing in California (where I live) might be (I posited it as "might" not "is," as you did) an admin_level=5. It was determined not to be and I and OSM accepted that. You seem bent on not accepting that, yet it is documented to be true.

Escalate away.
Mashin (2020-05-14 05:13:21+00:00): Even if that would be true, you have no right to change other user’s data. No tags are forbidden even deprecated. And you were not acting from power of DWG.
Kovoschiz (2020-05-09 11:02:43+00:00): Please don't remove `highway=give_way`, or change `crossing=uncontrolled` to `crossing=unmarked`
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84923486
Supaplex (2020-06-18 16:30:27+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!
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-05-21 09:25:57+00:00): Is this automatic edit discussed anywhere?

Is it following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct ?
user_5359 (2020-05-09 06:39:06+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please carry the whole area of the park and not just one node.
ralley (2020-05-09 05:12:35+00:00): Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits.  Most houses in NZ consist mainly of 90 degree corners.  In the Id editor you can "square" a polygon to use 90 degree corners with the 'Q' shortcut.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84924482
MikeN (2020-05-09 11:41:46+00:00): Please save changes before moving to a new area to avoid making changesets that span the country.
hobbesvsboyle (2023-10-21 23:51:38+00:00): I was out biking near Albany today and my router led me on the track between Peckham and Atkinson Rd that you added in this changeset. At least from the Atkinson Rd end I did not see anything resembling a track. Do you have local knowledge about there being a track? Otherwise I'd remove it. Thanks.
chachafish (2020-05-10 02:00:08+00:00): Howdy :) Thanks for your edits in the Denver area. However, you deleted some paths in Globeville Landing Park that actually exist. You might want to make sure you're using the latest imagery when you do this. Also, there are quite a few Mapillary images available if you want to check them. I'll replace the paths. Cheers https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=hgO8qh1bJXx2yXrrVzEqMQ&focus=photo&lat=39.777146944444446&lng=-104.97728388888889&z=17
chachafish (2020-05-10 02:08:22+00:00): Oh, I forgot to ask...the "name" you gave to the trail from East 47th Avenue to the Platte River Trail. Is this a name or a description? If it's a description, it wouldn't really be something to be placed in the name field. Or do you have a source for the name? Thanks :)
Carto'Cité (2020-06-17 15:14:31+00:00): Bonjour.

Ces modifications ont un peu endommagé la gare de Versailles-Chantiers, notamment ses espaces indoor qui ont été déformés (des pièces rectangula, plus préciseires ont pris une forme de trapèze) ou la topologie surfacique qui a été perdue, créant une discontinuité entre l'intérieur et l'extérieur de la gare. 

Peut-être que GoMap ne permet pas de visualiser et éditer correctement ce type de données. Je note également l'utilisation de Bing Map : la BD Ortho est ici plus précise et permet de mieux tracer les bâtiments.

J'ai effectué les corrections nécessaires, n'hésitez pas à me contacter pour toute information.

Cordialement,
Antoine de Carto’Cité, projet #CartoTransilien
pantufla (2020-05-18 11:25:46+00:00): Hello, thank you for registering all the languages. 

I see you changed the local name from spanish to english. Can we agree on leaving it in spanish for historical reasons? It's just like Trinidad is not named Trinity and San Fernando is not named Saint Ferdinand. It would be in consonance with it.

What do you think?
mueschel (2020-05-11 17:32:19+00:00): Hi,
you added 4 ways here without common tags, could you check that?
E.g. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/801842171
user_5359 (2020-05-10 06:05:30+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please don't mark the whole property as building. Only mark the building as building.
Glassman (2020-05-12 22:54:05+00:00): Can you fix your edit?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84926505
Supaplex (2020-06-18 16:35:25+00:00): 抱歉，您誤把個人地點書籤發布到公眾使用的開放街圖資料庫中了！如果您想要紀錄某個私人的地點，請使用「加入書籤」功能，而非「新增一個地點」。「新增一個地點」會直接反饋到公開圖資中。

Maps.Me App 採用開放街圖的地理資料，由社群而非商業公司建置的地理資料庫。Maps.me 與開放街圖合作，讓地圖使用者可以回饋最新的路況與地點資料到開放街圖社群，在下一次更新的時候，就會自動發布到所有人的手機系統上。

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!
phidauex (2020-05-09 18:51:54+00:00): Thanks for your additions, but I think you made these off of old imagery - in this area Mapbox and Esri Clarity are over 10 years old now, even though they look nice. Check the area again with Maxar or Bing, you'll see the parking and sidewalk areas have been reconfigured quite a bit. Thanks!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84926939
Bluebear (2020-11-01 18:15:36+00:00): Die Kirche wurde um viele Ecken ergänzt, die sie nicht hat! WArum werden Datenpakete zwerstört, die von Einwohnern kontrolliert eingezeichnet werden!
Die Häuser wurden lieblos ergänzt und sind zum Teil nur halb vorhanden!!
DeBigC (2022-01-29 23:10:13+00:00): `The back lane (north of Dunluce Road, and south of Furry Park Rd has two versions. One version is a hammerhead arrangement which I don't think is correct. Seems like the garages all along the back lots would need access.... worth a quick review
4004 (2021-11-16 10:19:55+00:00): что за орляк?
aharvey (2020-05-10 10:47:24+00:00): The section at https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/OGNWdJkgd0Pk3viFIxjHnA only looks like shared lane heading west, heading east it's one of those doorzone cyclelanes. I've updated the tag, but if this has changed since my mapillary capture just shout out.
Tom Brennan (2020-05-11 04:17:28+00:00): Thanks, I obviously let that one slip through. Though I've noticed that councils do appear to be progressivly removing the doorzone lanes, espcially in flat/downhill sections. Keeping them on the steeper uphill sections where cyclists are moving slowly.
Bluebear (2020-11-01 18:11:28+00:00): Von Ihnen wurden alle Teile des Anbaus mit einem Flachdach entfernt!
Nur die 2 sichtbaren Reihen Ziegeln wurden von Ihnen als seperates Gebäude eingezeichnet!
hmkaiser (2020-11-02 08:32:51+00:00): Aua: Da muss ich mich entschuldigen. Ich habe - wie ich eben leider feststellen musste - die Struktur des DGH-Gebäudes völlig falsch interpretiert.
stevea (2020-05-31 23:50:28+00:00): This is not an ncn.  Please remove it after reading https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/United_States/Bicycle_Networks and discovering what ARE such routes.  I don't think it is even a network=rcn or even an lcn, it is so widely scattered.  It appears to be an almost random collection of routes with no connectivity.
patman37 (2020-06-01 10:11:41+00:00): Hello, thank you for your feedback and the information. I deleted the tag network=ncn.
regards
stevea (2020-06-01 11:04:21+00:00): You are welcome.  However, simply removing the network=ncn tag, while accurate, is not sufficient to correct the problem of the data being aggregated into OSM.  This is not a superrroute, it is merely a collection of relations which have nothing to do with one another.

{Please delete the relation.
patman37 (2020-06-01 12:13:52+00:00): You may be right, however I am not in a position to judge that. You could ask brbrbr_nl who created the superroute in August 2019.
stevea (2020-06-01 16:03:40+00:00): Thank you, I'll do that.
abakus_uploader (2020-05-09 22:30:52+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
BCNorwich (2020-05-10 07:27:15+00:00): Hello Kyran, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

In case you were not aware the is guidance on golf course tagging here :-https://tinyurl.com/yamksxc4

There is a problem with how you've mapped the water features, please see here :-https://tinyurl.com/y7cb88yh
It looks like you tried to draw areas in a linear fashion. This results in the problem of self intersection. 

If the water hazard is an area (pond, lake) it should be mapped as a polygon and tagged natural=pond or lake. Tag as golf=water_hazard or golf=lateral_water_hazard, I think now both tags mean the same thing, please see :-https://tinyurl.com/ydcjhxhz

If the water is a narrow stream, ditch or drain it's mapped as a single line, (linear feature) and tagged to suit, waterway=stream or ditch. Please have regard to the direction of water flow. Even though a linear feature this can be tagged golf=water_hazard or golf=lateral_water_hazard

The wiki also advises tagging grass as surface=grass rather than landuse=grass. 

If you need help amending the self intersections please just ask.
Regards Bernard.
◪ Jarv (2020-05-11 17:34:53+00:00): Description of paths/footways should be under the "description" tag, and not the "name" tag.
Luuuddooo (2020-05-09 17:34:47+00:00): Bonjour,
Est-ce que ce changement global a été préalablement discuté ?
J'ai l'impression que vous avez rajouté des magasins à tous les nœuds de tous des bâtiments: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1093085360/history
baptistemm (2020-05-10 10:17:37+00:00): oui je confirme ce que Luuuddooo vient de dire.
Merci de corriger.
Vinber (2020-05-10 13:16:54+00:00): Pareillement, enfin pourquoi avez vous fait cela, sans discussion ?
les règles d'éditions massives !

Ou avez vous renseignez vos modifications ?
Vinber (2020-05-10 13:25:59+00:00): Et en plus vous avez tagué tous les noeuds !
Vinber (2020-05-10 13:28:45+00:00): normalement j'ai annulé
Vinber (2020-05-10 13:33:31+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84971885
SomeoneElse (2020-05-10 13:47:57+00:00): @vinber - thanks for fixing, so that each corner of a shop such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7456615671/history isn't a shop in its own right!
@cabinetcourbi If you want to globally change the tagging on items such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/82256000 please ensure that you follow https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Code_de_conduite_des_modifications_automatis%C3%A9es
Vinber (2020-05-10 13:59:30+00:00): @SomeoneElse, i like wine but it was too much :D
SomeoneElse (2020-05-10 14:04:14+00:00): :)
gucii (2020-05-19 22:56:39+00:00): 34E
gucii (2020-05-19 22:58:17+00:00): Sorry, its 34 j
user_2066394 (2020-05-09 09:59:52+00:00): statt löschen besser mit disused: markieren, dann bleibt der ort nachvollziehbar
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:disused:
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84931121
Britzz (2020-05-09 18:16:09+00:00): Bienvenue dans OpenStreetMap.
Vous avez "souhaité que quelqu'un vérifie vos modifications" : c'est tout bon.
Mais préférez un libellé plus clair pour vos modifications, exemple "Modifications personnelles" => "Précision sur rue, bâtiment et 2 commerces".

Pour bien démarrer : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:WikiProject_France/bienvenue
N'hésitez pas à poser des questions à la suite de ce commentaires ou rejoindre les autres canaux de discussion (cf. lien supra).
Bonne poursuite, prenez plaisir à contribuer à OSM !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/84931299
Galbinus (2020-05-30 10:44:57+00:00): Hallo Webdruide, wieso hast Du bereits zum zweitenmal dieses Waldgebiet in ein Naturschutzgebiet umdeklariert? Zum zweiten mal war damit das Waldgebiet aus allen Karten verschwunden. Das Naturschutzgebiet ist nicht deckungsgleich mit dem Waldgebiet sondern umfasst nur einen Teil davon. Ich erinnere an meine Kommentare zu https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78893222 - Ich habe jetzt den Wald wieder zu Wald gemacht.
Galbinus (2020-05-30 10:49:47+00:00): Wenn Du Wert darauf legst, dass die Waldstücke innerhalb des Naturschutzgebiets zu natural=wood werden (was ich nicht für richtig halte, da es nach meiner Ortskenntnis weiterhin eine eingeschränkte forstwirtschaftliche Nutzung dort gibt), dann müsste man die Waldrelation auftrennen und die Waldstücke außerhalb des Naturschutzgebietes als landuse=forest eintragen, die innerhalb als natural=wood.
Aber auch dann muss die Nutzungsart (natural=wood) als Extra-Fläche eingetragen bleiben. Eine Landnutzungsfläche die Wald-Neben-Attribute zu lassen (Blattzyklus etc.) aber das Hauptattribut landuse=forest durch Naturschutzgebiet zu ersetzen, zerschießt den Wald und lässt ihn aus allen Kartenanzeigen verschwinden.
highflyer74 (2020-05-31 14:12:12+00:00): @Galbinus: ich habe ihn jetzt mal per PN angeschrieben, da er auf keinen CS-Kommentar jemals geantwortet hat, aber trotzdem noch gemappt hat. Vielleicht meldet er sich ja.
DeFra85 (2024-04-25 19:10:33+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7500458251

Und was soll das hier sein? Ich vermute die SCHILDER, die vor Ort stehen. Aber das ist ja nur ein Schild und nicht DAS Naturschutzgebiet
Galbinus (2024-04-26 14:21:37+00:00): Der Benutzer "webdruide" war seit mehr als 2 Jahren nicht mehr aktiv. Ich denke nicht, dass er auf diese Rückfrage angworten wird.
Ich denke auch, dass er hier das Schild "Naturschutzgebiet" eintragen wollte. Doch da es für dieses Verkehrszeichen keine Nummer gibt, wüsste ich keine sinnvolle Möglichkeit, dieses einzutragen. Wozu auch, das Naturschutzgebiet wird in OSM durch die eingetragenen Grenzen ausreichend dargestellt... Ich bin für Löschen.
adamculpepper (2020-05-09 10:36:35+00:00): I'd like more information on why this was closed without edit. I live within walking distance of this place and I can confirm there's nothing there.
Connecticut (2020-05-09 10:55:10+00:00): No Map or App will show or use this node anymore.
This POI will disapear on osm.org in some hours / some days.
eggie (2020-05-09 13:28:39+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Almtesh (2021-06-15 21:06:57+00:00): Pardon de revenir sur de vieux dossier, mais pourquoi tu as supprimé Gelaquitaine ? Ça existe toujours, d'après ce que je vois.
user_2066394 (2020-05-09 10:26:16+00:00): packstation bräuchte noch mehr details
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Packstation