piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Glassman (2022-01-29 18:22:53+00:00): #TIP: When removing a business - just remove the business but leave the address. It's likely to be reused.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116726587
cyton (2022-01-29 01:31:23+00:00): interesting, did you find one misspelling and decide to chek for more? or how did you go about this?
are there other wrong spellings?
Binnette (2022-01-29 06:04:44+00:00): Hi cyton. This misspelling was my fault. I made a maproulette challenge that include this misspelling. So I had to fix the damages done by my bad maproulette challenge. Have a nice day.
ALu68 (2022-01-29 12:19:00+00:00): Hello cyton, please check taginfo for statistic: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/junction#values

e.g.:
roud	1
round	2
roundabout	711529
roundabout␣exchange	1
roundabout;yes	1
roundabout_exchange	5	
roundabout_link	20
roundaboutmm	1
James Derrick (2022-01-29 08:54:55+00:00): Hi Mountain Monkey,
Can I ask that as well as splitting forest relations, that you also check heath relations as well please?

This change removed a chunk of relation 13417952 in the NE corner near Rowantee Hill ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116734954#map=14/55.3243/-3.0160&layers=N) , meaning a large area disappeared:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13417952/history#map=11/55.2439/-2.8715&layers=N

The relation will now show as continuous as I've created a new way and added it to the heath relation, and JOSM shows the outer role as being a full loop again:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116734954#map=14/55.3243/-3.0160&layers=N

Unfortunately, given the number of HUGE landcover relations in this area, and the way they are intertwined, this is ridiculously difficult to avoid.
I know - I've fallen foul of similar excessively large relations, and it took me a couple of days to find, split into (slightly) smaller relations, and fix. :-(
Happy Mapping,

James
user_5359 (2022-02-01 15:54:34+00:00): Hello!  Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9456853590. What is the meaning of the tag fooNO = crossing?
voschix (2022-02-02 10:05:38+00:00): Thanks - fixed!
JJIglesias (2022-01-29 01:47:28+00:00): El 90% de los Lagos (Lake) que pusiste NO SON LAGOS. son Cuencas (Basin) Artificiales.
Favor Remitete a la Wiki para la definicion de Lake, y Basin. Sino encaja entonces se pone unicamente como natural=water, pero NO water=Lake pues NO SON LAGOS...
rodolfovargas (2022-01-29 15:45:55+00:00): Ok.
Ray29 (2022-01-28 23:51:25+00:00): added wrong comment
Ray29 (2022-01-28 23:52:12+00:00): ment to say parking spaces that are probably too big #parking #tagging https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/24141
JJIglesias (2022-01-29 01:47:53+00:00): El 90% de los Lagos (Lake) que pusiste NO SON LAGOS. son Cuencas (Basin) Artificiales.
Favor Remitete a la Wiki para la definicion de Lake, y Basin. Sino encaja entonces se pone unicamente como natural=water, pero NO water=Lake pues NO SON LAGOS...
rodolfovargas (2022-01-29 15:46:11+00:00): Ok.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-02-06 23:23:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117097348, 117094894 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for creating fake edits and vandalising OSM.
magol (2022-01-30 16:43:13+00:00): Hej. Du lade till plattform 38 i Nils Ericson terminal samt lade till en byggnad kopplad till plattformen. Jättebra att gå genom informationen om plattformarna, men just dessa finns inte längre kvar p.g.a. bygget av Västlänken.
archie (2022-01-30 18:59:39+00:00): Stor tack för detta påpekande. Svårt att veta vad som finns kvar på denna jätte byggarbetsplats. Bäst att plocka bort det igen.
magol (2022-01-30 19:27:45+00:00): Jag förstår dig verkligen. Det är komplicerat runt centralstationen med alla byggen. Jag brukar ta en promenad dör omkring nån gång i månaden för att hålla kartan uppdaterad med alla ändringar hela tiden, och det är alltid något som behövs ändras. :-)
Tomas Straupis (2022-01-29 06:40:25+00:00): JOSM'e, kai jau atsiųsti tiek vidiniai, tiek išoriniai multipoligono (pastato) žiedai, galima du kartus pele spausti bet kur ant pastato ploto - JOSM pažymės pastatą (ryšį) - ir bus galima keisti jo savybes.

Kitas variantas (mažiau patogus), pažymėti bet kurį vidinį ar išorinį žiedą ir tada ir spausti „Keisti“ parinkus ryšį, kuriam priklauso tas žiedas. Irgi bus galima keisti ryšio savybes, tik ne taip patogiai kaip pirmu atveju.
alyaa_hossam (2022-01-31 12:17:55+00:00): Hello Life-is-the-truth,
I noticed you added many ways that didn't match any satellite images and changed the classification for ways, could you provide us with the source you edited?
like:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025707723
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/726173821/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025707730
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025707725
Regards
alyaa_hossam
ratrun (2022-01-31 18:28:56+00:00): Additionaly the new motorways are not connected correctly and the highway classification as highway=motorway for the links is incorrect.
marczoutendijk (2022-02-06 21:00:56+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5665

Marc Zoutendijk
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-02-06 23:23:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117097348, 117094894 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for creating fake edits and vandalising OSM.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-01-29 14:48:54+00:00): bom dia, que bom que está ajudando o mapa a ficar melhor, mas percebi alguns erros na edição, como remover vias que existem, mas só porque são muito ruins não devem ser removidas, mas trocadas seu tipo, como é o caso desta que reverti sua edição: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/549552805
BCNorwich (2022-01-30 09:56:07+00:00): Hi, You're making quite a few duplicated sections of footway. I've removed those that I can see on OSMInspector.

Regards Bernard.
alyaa_hossam (2022-01-31 12:13:31+00:00): Hello Life-is-the-truth,
I noticed you added many ways that didn't match any satellite images and changed the classification for ways, could you provide us with the source you edited?
like:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025718326
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025718318
Regards
alyaa_hossam
marczoutendijk (2022-02-06 21:00:48+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5665

Marc Zoutendijk
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-02-06 23:23:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117097348, 117094894 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for creating fake edits and vandalising OSM.
喵耳引力波 (2022-01-29 03:38:36+00:00): [out:xml][timeout:50];{{geocodeArea:张家口}}->.searchArea;(nwr["natural"="heath"](area.searchArea););out meta;>;out meta qt;
EP_Repair (2022-02-26 01:26:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117858450, 117866896 where the changeset comment is: reverting highway classification edits where Fluffy downgraded trunk/motorway roads without either discussing with local communities or following 2021 Highways Classification wiki. Fluffy is now blocked from classifying highways.
喵耳引力波 (2022-01-29 04:17:12+00:00): [out:xml][timeout:50];{{geocodeArea:瓦房店市}}->.searchArea;(nwr["natural"="heath"](area.searchArea););out meta;>;out meta qt;
喵耳引力波 (2022-01-29 04:17:47+00:00): [out:xml][timeout:50];{{geocodeArea:丹东}}->.searchArea;(nwr["natural"="heath"](area.searchArea););out meta;>;out meta qt;
喵耳引力波 (2022-01-29 04:19:06+00:00): [out:xml][timeout:50];{{geocodeArea:驻马店}}->.searchArea;(nwr["natural"="heath"](area.searchArea););out meta;>;out meta qt;
喵耳引力波 (2022-01-29 04:22:47+00:00): [out:xml][timeout:50];{{geocodeArea:海口}}->.searchArea;(nwr["natural"="heath"](area.searchArea););out meta;>;out meta qt;
喵耳引力波 (2022-01-29 04:25:44+00:00): [out:xml][timeout:50];{{geocodeArea:海南}}->.searchArea;(nwr["natural"="heath"](area.searchArea););out meta;>;out meta qt;
喵耳引力波 (2022-01-29 04:26:48+00:00): [out:xml][timeout:50];{{geocodeArea:郑州}}->.searchArea;(nwr["natural"="heath"](area.searchArea););out meta;>;out meta qt;
aceman444 (2022-01-29 19:43:32+00:00): Hi, why are you converting to unapproved tags?

Also, the challenge link does not point to anything about corridors.
gpserror (2022-02-02 19:25:18+00:00): I think I might have made an error here, I noticed some issues in osmi that I haven't figured out how to fix... were there any specifics that were problematic?
gpserror (2022-02-02 19:31:51+00:00): BTW the original issue is that some of these ways were marked as indoor=corridor and the requirement is that this should be a closed area instead of a way.  Based on the locations of the shops this couldn't be an area so I thought this was the best way to tag them.  Is there a better way?
aceman444 (2022-04-03 22:04:36+00:00): The whole change is problematic. There is no reason for the ways to be areas. The highway=corridor is an unapproved tag, where as the indoor=corridor mapping is much more widespread (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:indoor). So as such this changeset will be reverted and if you got such a task from maproulette it seems bogus as a whole and you should report it to the authors.
gpserror (2022-04-05 00:20:21+00:00): In that webpage indor=corridor says it should be an area.  So should the wiki documentation need to be changed too?
gpserror (2022-04-05 00:28:13+00:00): Also want to note that iD also added 

resolved:mismatched_geometry:area_as_line

indicating that someone wrote in the validators that I did correct an outstanding issue, so we have a serious disconnect here.  I still believe the documentation is incorrect and the sole "correct" way is to use the older tagging system as long as we don't know the actual area to do the indoor tagging.

If you have an example of another indoor=corridor mapping in some other mall or whatnot, please show me and let me see if there are any validator errors on that, and I'll see how to match it if it does not give validator errors.
gpserror (2022-04-05 00:29:26+00:00): typo in previous comment - apply the regexp replace:

s/documentation is incorrect/documentation is the incorrect tagging method/
aceman444 (2022-04-05 19:43:17+00:00): Yes, if indoor=corridor should be an area, and we do not have an arrea here, the correct fix would be to change it to indoor=yes, which can be on an unclosed way.

You can also notice whole 'indoor' key status is only 'de facto' and was never approved, it is just one possible way to map indoor corridors. As such, the iD editor and map roulette have no business proposing any changes to or from it as any such suggestion is invalid. Unvoted/unapproved tag wiki page cannot be decided if it is incorrect. It is just someones random opinion on a tag and how it should be used. There must not exist any automatic corrections or tasks (maproulette) based on this wiki page, especially suggesting conversions to even less popular tags (highway=corridor).

iD editor is known to make wrong suggestions and even damaging automatic corrections. Please don't ever use it for automated mass changes.
aceman444 (2022-04-05 19:49:36+00:00): We don't use indoor=corridor in the city, it was probably just an experiment from me to add a more precise value instead of indoor=yes. I did not notice it should be an area, even though as I said, that unapproved wiki page has no saying in this matter. I will convert the ways to indoor=yes so that they do not attract any more invalid conversions. It seems map roulette only identifies possible problems, it did not suggest you to change it to highway=corridor. That sees to be your decision and that is what I dispute. Because that tag is even less popular than indoor.
gpserror (2022-04-07 00:42:13+00:00): Well with the unclear documentation and validators agreeing with me even if it's unpopular, if you're really that adamant to tagging in a way that's also not clear, that's fine with me.  Still think there's nothing wrong based on the available and unclear documentation.  Even https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcorridor does not say it's "wrong" - the wiki would indicate it should NOT be used.  Also popularity does not mean correctness, especially since OSM indoor mapping itself isn't very popular - especially with the fact that multilevel corridors is not well defined especially with points that lay on top of each other but should not be connected due to floor numbers.
Next time please be clear as to exactly what tag you have a problem with.  Again I'm ambivalent to either method due to the indoor mapping deficiencies of OSM - even mapping the building mapping of parking garages is poorly if not impossible to define.
aceman444 (2022-04-10 09:45:17+00:00): Of course, when there are 2 concurrent tagging proposals, none of them will say it is wrong. But as none of them is approved, there is no point in converting one to the other.

Yes, indoor mapping is problematic in OSM yet.
gpserror (2022-04-11 01:11:34+00:00): But you do have to admit:
At least since indoor=corridor should be a closed area, and highway=corridor should be a way, one of the two better fits the situation... not to mention there are validation tools that enforce indoor=corridor to be an area.
aceman444 (2022-07-09 18:28:14+00:00): It may be so, but those validation tools are invalid. Both tags are unapproved yet. Thus you cannot say indoor=corridor must be an area, just because someone wrote it into the wiki from his own opinion. People can use it in any way, until it is approved. And the approval should be based on the ways people use it.
gpserror (2022-07-11 20:35:28+00:00): You have a circular and a straw man argument there.  Note that there's a person/persons behind validation tool writing and someone who wrote a wiki, and these people are in agreement with each other, and thus it's the ways multiple people do things... and by your argument, it should be approved, even if it disagrees with your view of how things should be done.

Do as you please if it floats your boat,  as currently I see only one person thinking your way is the only way to do things.
喵耳引力波 (2022-01-29 04:31:55+00:00): [out:xml][timeout:50];{{geocodeArea:洛阳}}->.searchArea;(nwr["natural"="heath"](area.searchArea););out meta;>;out meta qt;
alyaa_hossam (2022-01-31 11:01:35+00:00): Hello Life-is-the-truth,
I noticed you added many ways that didn't match any satellite images and changed the classification for ways, could you provide us with the source you edited?
like:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025728397
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025728471
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025728443
Regards
alyaa_hossam
marczoutendijk (2022-02-06 21:00:42+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5665

Marc Zoutendijk
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-02-06 23:23:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117097348, 117094894 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for creating fake edits and vandalising OSM.
喵耳引力波 (2022-01-29 04:37:25+00:00): [out:xml][timeout:50];{{geocodeArea:宿迁市}}->.searchArea;(nwr["natural"="heath"](area.searchArea););out meta;>;out meta qt;
Dimacn (2022-01-29 05:56:54+00:00): Не надо удалять существующие объекты на карте, чтобы на этом же месте нарисовать новый! Нужно существующие объекты редактировать и изменять до актуального состояния.
alyaa_hossam (2022-01-31 10:57:55+00:00): Hello Life-is-the-truth,
I noticed you added many ways that didn't match any satellite images and changed the classification for ways, could you provide us with the source you edited?
like:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025729719
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025729716
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025729714
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025729722/history
Regards
alyaa_hossam
marczoutendijk (2022-02-06 21:00:36+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5665

Marc Zoutendijk
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
喵耳引力波 (2022-01-29 04:53:38+00:00): [out:xml][timeout:50];{{geocodeArea:无锡}}->.searchArea;(nwr["natural"="heath"](area.searchArea););out meta;>;out meta qt;
喵耳引力波 (2022-01-29 04:59:20+00:00): [out:xml][timeout:50];{{geocodeArea:南京}}->.searchArea;(nwr["natural"="heath"](area.searchArea););out meta;>;out meta qt;
喵耳引力波 (2022-01-29 05:07:03+00:00): [out:xml][timeout:50];{{geocodeArea:成都}}->.searchArea;(nwr["natural"="heath"](area.searchArea););out meta;>;out meta qt;
gpserror (2022-01-29 05:12:29+00:00): oops didn't realize they were so far apart....
MikeN (2022-01-29 12:03:34+00:00): Hi, why are highways tagged as cart paths?
cfrazer66 (2022-01-30 01:47:21+00:00): Thanks for pointing this out, done on accident while splining golf course.  Thanks again and apologies.  I have corrected the tags.
Kovoschiz (2022-01-29 16:45:15+00:00): Please check the syntax. It's `motor_vehicle=no` in most times + `motor_vehicle:forward:conditional=yes @ (*)` at other times.
DamianV (2022-01-30 10:53:20+00:00): @Kovoschiz, I realised my previous mistake in setting motor_vehicle=no to yes and changed it to permit in a subsequent update. Emergency vehicles are allowed to utilise Caine road at any time, so I felt permit (which emergency vehicles would have) is more appropriate than "no". Otherwise with routing engines for an emergency vehicle use case, they would not be able to route to old bailey street/chancery lane etc
tsp15 (2022-02-10 18:46:27+00:00): To nie są śluzy rowerowe. Śluzą rowerową jest specjalnie wyznaczony obszar na jezdni, na którym rowerzysta może się zatrzymać.
Kovoschiz (2022-01-29 16:46:06+00:00): You should report this to the router. There's no problem here.
MoistTangerine2 (2022-01-29 11:41:05+00:00): 此处道路已根据《重庆市城乡总体规划(2007-2020年)2014年深化-都市区道路网规划图》确定，为城市次干道。
berndw (2022-01-29 09:12:51+00:00): Hallo

Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap
Dammi erkennbar und nachvollziehbar ist, warum Du etwas geändert hast wäre es besser, Du würdest einen aussagekräftigen Kommentar  verwenden. JOSM hat Dich darauf hingewiesen, solche Meldungen bitte nicht ignorieren.

Hier eine Anleitung dazu
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments

Bernd
Emmanuel-201901 (2022-02-23 09:38:57+00:00): Bonjour

N'enlevez pas SVP les connexions entre deux voies parallèles (ici la piste cyclable et le boulevard Bourgeois) car sinon les routeurs ne peuvent emprunter la piste cyclable que pour la prendre en entier. Ce qui limite fortement le fait qu'un routeur piéton ou vélo propose d'emprunter la piste cyclable.

Exemple :
Vous arrivez de la rue du gazel et vous voulez aller vers les rues en face de la piste cyclable (Gallieni ou Trésor), si ce n'est pas relié, le GPS vélo vous fera prendre le boulevard alors qu'il y a une piste cy. à côté pour vous y rendre.
C'est pour ça que je relie au maximum qd il y a 2 voies parallèles avec des passages piétons, des entrées de garage en route d'accès par ex., vu qu'il y a un bateau pour y accéder en voiture, on peut prendre tout ça en vélo et c'est plus sympa de prendre la piste cy. jusqu'à l'endroit où on doit tourner.

Autres exemples :
- autour chemin des droits de l'homme
- piste cyclable blvd P. Mendès France
- ...

Cordialement,
BCNorwich (2022-01-29 08:28:49+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Are you sure that's not a local name for the wide section of the river?

Regards Bernard.
qwertyuio_name (2022-01-29 10:01:17+00:00): Hey Bernard

This is not a name I've heard of, or seen recorded anywhere else.
I'm guessing it has been added, as this is a section of the river popular for swimming (or dive bombing)…

The river slightly widens here after the bridge - but the size and shape implied by the polygon are completely wrong. 

Thanks!
HirschKauz (2022-01-29 19:51:45+00:00): hi Josef73, Meintest Du nicht [disused:] ? [unused:] lese ich zum ersten Mal und finde ich auch nicht im Wiki ;-)
Grüße
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116733349
Josef73 (2022-01-30 14:37:10+00:00): Danke für die Info. Habs geändert.
daganzdaanda (2022-01-29 22:34:09+00:00): Hi Hayden, 
sorry, but we can not use Google Maps (or most other existing maps) as a source for anything, because of copyright / legal issues. Also Google aerial images and Streetview are a complete no-go. Google has money and lawyers... they could really harm OSM if we break their copyright.
See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Google
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_don.27t_you_just_use_Google_Maps.2Fwhoever_for_your_data.3F
So I will remove this entry now.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116733389
user_5359 (2022-01-30 13:41:32+00:00): Hello! Please have look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025742185. What is the meaning of the tag 東回廊 = 楼門 ?
user_5359 (2022-01-30 13:43:44+00:00): Heelo (again)! Please have alos a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025742183. What ist the meaning of 西回廊 = 楼門 ?
Frans S (2022-02-04 12:01:44+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Your mappings are not always accurate mapped and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention on these points:
E: Rectangular Buildings not always squared. They are mostly strickt rectangular.
You overlooked many round buildings.



Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116734680
jodd (2022-07-07 06:52:53+00:00): Hallo,
mir ist aufgefallen, dass du diese Abbiegebeschränkung eingetragen hast: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13734636
Diese Beschränkung erzwingt das Rechtsabbiegen in die Konrad-Adenauer-Straße und führt auch dazu, dass der Linienbus nicht in die parallele Straßenbahn/Bustrasse fahren kann, obwohl er es laut Beschilderung darf. Die Beschränkung ist meiner Meinung auch überflüssig, weil man wegen der gemappten Einbahnstraße sowieso nicht scharf links abbiegen kann. 

Können wir deine Relation löschen? 

VG jodd
ozgurakyazi (2022-07-07 08:41:32+00:00): Hallo,
ich habe jetzt noch mal gecheckt. Sie haben Recht! Aber ich habe eine Frage. Können nur die Busse gerade/parallel fahren? Wenn es die Lage ist, sollen wir diese nur für die ermöglichen?

Danke :)
jodd (2022-07-07 09:48:09+00:00): Hallo,
danke für die schnelle Rückmeldung!
Ja, an dieser Stelle können nur die Linienbusse gerade/parallel fahren. Das wird aber schon dadurch sichergestellt, dass der way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/166703480 und der weitere Verlauf der Bustrasse nur für Linienbusse zugelassen ist (access=no, psv=yes). Deswegen wird die Abbiegebeschränkung meiner Meinung nach nocht benötigt.

psv=yes sollte bei der Gelegenheit auf bus=yes geändert werden.
ozgurakyazi (2022-07-07 14:46:49+00:00): Ja verstanden. Hier ist das Update: 123323761
jodd (2022-07-07 19:18:52+00:00): Vielen Dank für die schnelle Korrektur!
Danysan95 (2022-01-30 13:20:19+00:00): L'elemento "Latin Border" ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1025761987 ) è stato marcato come building=yes quindi risulta come un intero edificio. Al suo interno però sono marcati altri edifici e guardando le immagini satellitari sembra che solo quelli siano edifici. Se è così bissogna togliere building=yes dall'elemento.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116734719
MoistTangerine2 (2022-01-29 11:45:38+00:00): 请按照规划信息对道路等级进行修改，而不是根据车道数量。
Jesús Gómez (2022-01-30 12:14:23+00:00): Hola 5R-MFT.  He visto que has añadido la etiqueta dogs=no pero consultando la web de Naves de Gamazo indican  "Somos un espacio dog friendly: puedes acceder al centro con tu perro." ¿Es correcto esto?. Un saludo y gracias por tu contribución.
5R-MFT (2022-01-30 12:31:57+00:00): Hola, uiiihhhh quise poner dog=allowed como lo ví en la página web y lo puse en el comment. Ya lo he corregido. Gracias por la info.
Jesús Gómez (2022-01-30 12:44:01+00:00): Gracias por tus aportes. Un saludo.
Emilius123 (2022-02-09 15:14:30+00:00): Praktisch alle von mir eingetragen... Danke.