piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Minh Nguyen (2021-07-28 04:58:54+00:00): Take a look at the syntax that the Overpass turbo query wizard generates for the “in” operator <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_turbo/Wizard#Location_Filters> or, more directly for JOSM, the area filter in the raw query language <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_QL#By_area_.28area.29>.

The contiguous U.S. has 51 state-level administrative boundaries to query within. If you prefer, you could batch up a few of the more compact states. This is quite a reasonable alternative to either extreme of a single changeset or thousands of them.
Minh Nguyen (2021-07-28 04:59:50+00:00): (Embarrassingly, I miscounted the number of boundaries above, but you get the idea.)
Friendly_Ghost (2021-07-28 09:56:32+00:00): Hello Minh Nguyen

It's an interesting thought and I've already considered it. What you propose means that I have to check the same tags 50 times, which is an awful lot of extra work, and people would still complain that my changesets cover entire states while the clusters are in cities. My workflow would be slowed by a factor 50 and nothing would be gained from it. 

These changes are very simple to scale up and uploading them in one changeset means that everyone only has to look at the changes once. Considering how many more of these tags exist globally, scaling up the only feasible way to do much-needed updates like this. 

Best regards

Casper
Lee Carré (2021-07-28 23:37:12+00:00): This BS continues elsewhere, wonderful.

There's way too much nonsense to even begin addressing.

Casper; at this rate you're gonna end up being reported for vandalism, disruption, or similar. I doubt that admins will be quite so patient with you before dropping the banhammer.
Best of luck with that.

For a student (according to your profile) you don't seem to do so well with the listening & learning thing.
Or, is it that you lecture your professors on how water management (and teaching) should be done?

The planet(.osm) doesn't revolve around you.

Sad to see that even OSM in infected with trouble-makers. Tiresome.
BCNorwich (2021-07-26 06:35:17+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap, you asked for feedback in your diary entry, here goes.

You can easily square up buildings, (or other features), with the iD editor. Select the building, (Shift+Ctrl to select multiple buildings), right mouse click (while cursor is over the outline), click the square icon, all are squared up. They should look much neater.

Regards Bernard.
Messinian (2024-03-09 02:48:19+00:00): A bit late on my response, but thanks Bernard. Much appreciated.
Leo Slager (2021-07-26 09:44:37+00:00): Dag Hendrikklaas,
Kun je nog eens naar deze changeset kijken.
Er liggen daar drie stukjes grasland door en over elkaar. Maar ook het omringende gebied is blanco op de kaart omdat de landuse ontbreekt.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/51.7942/3.9091
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=108548979&zoom=18&lat=51.79547&lon=3.90887&layers=B0TTTFT
Leo Slager (2021-07-26 09:46:40+00:00): http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=3.90917&lat=51.79531&zoom=18&opacity=0.80
eggie (2021-08-22 10:42:27+00:00): Dag Hendrikklaas.. Bij de Val (Ouddorp) heb ik de landuse hersteld. Die MP klopte daar niet en de landuse ontbrak.
HG
Eggie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-24 23:45:36+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changeset .
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-07-24 23:53:02+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 101937847, 102144037, 102152817, 102153010, 102219044, 102219101, 102352852, 102360391, 102362052, 102434695, 102582784, 102585676, 102586634, 102593964, 102594943, 102666513, 102675133, 102815309, 102821839, 102890143, 103084788, 103085255, 103085259, 103120712, 103120861, 103148305, 103153684, 103155256, 103218038, 103503452, 103503848, 103505058, 103512611, 103546343, 103548095, 103589198, 103591026, 103663079, 103664476, 103726806, 103732042, 103807609, 103869059, 103877102, 103879891, 103966442, 103974605, 103975108, 104010591, 104072139, 104072489, 104072734, 104134578, 104140912, 104144823, 104146058, 104338040, 104343471, 104344510, 104344586, 104383449, 104409405, 104412559, 104464289, 104469093, 104469215, 104470816, 104480133, 104533872, 104534184, 104703315, 104788060, 104788435, 104794824, 104841763, 104903999, 104912669, 104916552, 104916818, 104985062, 104988487, 104989003, 105050350, 105050487, 105050674, 105052586, 105053103, 105099268, 105099658, 105104201, 105257116, 105257375, 105257826, 105260625, 105311526, 105316499, 105318128, 105318218, 105322114.
SomeoneElse (2021-07-25 15:29:12+00:00): Oops - the split in Coppergate was deliberat.  The Minster Way apparently goes down Castlegate before heading down to the river.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1903816#map=19/53.95761/-1.08140 for info.  Now there's a little extra spur to the Nessgate junction.
Cheers,
Andy
Alec Coates (2021-07-26 23:39:43+00:00): Ah, sorry, the small section of Coppergate was missing a contraflow bike lane tag, and figured it must have been missed because of the split.

Should be fixed now.
SomeoneElse (2021-07-26 23:53:11+00:00): Thanks
Serbian OSM Lint bot (2021-08-23 22:59:26+00:00): I ovom i narednim changesetovima si izbacio Vrutce i prebacio si ih u MZ. Popravio sam u https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110139926
Glassman (2021-07-25 02:24:16+00:00): Steve - I don't understand route=railway without either a railway or a razed railway.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108549948
stevea (2021-07-25 02:33:59+00:00): Hi Clifford:  Both relations in this changeset DO have rail elements:  the NP Wahluke Branch has railway=disused elements and Lordsburg Sub is full of railway=rail.  The two old relations were deleted (being replaced with these).

What, exactly is the question?  I'm happy to change something so it is "fixed," better or more conforming to OSM standards, but I am not clear on what you are pointing out is wrong here.
Glassman (2021-07-25 02:45:59+00:00): Sorry - I didn't look at the way, just the relation. I see the razed way now.
stevea (2021-07-25 02:49:20+00:00): Not a problem, they do put erasers on the ends of pencils; I have goofed up plenty of times!
Hans Thompson (2021-07-28 20:05:21+00:00): Nice additions but why did you remove the woods along Campbell creek between Minnesota and Arctic?
OscarEchoAlpha (2021-07-30 07:38:45+00:00): I didn't catch those deletions when submitting this changeset. I think it was related to my browser getting hung up a couple of times while making edits (and me hitting the delete key too many times while troubleshooting). I was able to retrieve the areas you added via JOSM and re-uploaded them. My sincere apologies for this!
felipeeugenio (2021-07-25 13:35:27+00:00): Hola Andrés
Gracias por tu aporte. Pero no se borran caminos. Si es privado se usa access=private

Lo voy a reponer cuando pueda

Una duda. El lugar donde lo cortaste tiene un portón? Se puede agregar también
Saludos
Andres99889 (2021-07-26 15:34:54+00:00): Hola Felipe, gracias por la aclaración. Creo que ya hice el cambio y deje esa parte del camino privada. En cuanto a tu duda, si, en ese punto hay un portón, pero no encontré la opción como ponerlo. Te agradecería si me indicas como hacerlo por favor.
felipeeugenio (2021-07-26 16:12:07+00:00): Hola.
gracias por tu tiempo.
Ya agregué el camino y el portón. te lo agradezco.
saludos
mariotomo (2021-07-25 17:12:38+00:00): I'm curious, I already asked, still curious: you're a very experienced mapper, how do you manage to create and upload unclosed buildings from JOSM?  I can't imagine you're ignoring the thick error message.  maybe your configuration is somehow broken?  did you consider the buildings_tools plugin?
tekim (2021-07-25 03:42:29+00:00): Nice job!  Thanks for the edits!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108551391
cityofgod (2021-07-25 03:57:51+00:00): The source here should read local knowledge, but I forgot to change it.
os-emmer (2024-08-30 14:56:33+00:00): Hallo quickstep,
du hast hier wege als gesperrt gekennzeichnet. Sind diese Wege auf Grund von Regeln (z.B. Verbotsschilder) für alle gesperrt oder sind sie nicht (mehr) nutzbar? Ist vor Ort noch etwas von diesen Wegen erkennbar?
quickstep (2024-08-30 19:21:13+00:00): Wildentwicklungsgebiet heisst "Ruhe halten - nicht betreten" Entsprechende Schilder stehen an den Resten der Wege, die im NICHTS enden.
os-emmer (2024-08-31 07:47:21+00:00): Danke für die Rückmeldung. Ich habe jetzt den Namen mal angepasst und ein access=no dran gesetzt, damit die Wege auch als gesperrt erkennbar sind. So wie hier auch schon angeregt:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4409423
jeslop (2021-08-10 15:10:44+00:00): Reverted changeset for copyright infringement
Jesús López 
OpenStreetMap Foundation 
Data Working Group
mueschel (2021-07-30 12:53:58+00:00): Hi,
please check these edits, the nodes all have a strange 'Vértice' tag.
BikeRoad (2021-08-02 00:59:06+00:00): Hi. I have deleted the strange nodes. Thanks for advising
CoyKoi (2021-07-26 00:56:13+00:00): Looks great, nice work
CurlingMan13 (2023-03-06 02:54:07+00:00): These aren't even buildings...  These are just random nodes.
CurlingMan13 (2023-03-06 03:47:45+00:00): Reverted in:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133347075
CurlingMan13 (2023-03-01 00:43:13+00:00): This changeset should be reverted due to it being a low quality "import".  The buildings are not square and do not align with the buildings themselves on aerial imagery (rotated) and/or do not match the shape of the house.  It is clear that this import was not manually reviewed as stated in the note, and likely was not discussed beforehand.
zluuzki (2023-03-01 16:46:47+00:00): Where exactly are the bad buildings which justify to revert the edit (where I certainly reviewed most of it)?
CurlingMan13 (2023-03-06 16:18:23+00:00): I'm not going to go through and list every single one...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/967154977
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/967154193
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/967154845
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/967154204
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/967154832
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/250757730
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/967154267

It's suffice to say, these were not manually reviewed...
Spanholz (2021-08-09 07:33:02+00:00): Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob wir derart kurze Straßensperrungen eintragen wollen und sollten. OsmAnd und Organic Maps ziehen nur einmal pro Monat neue Kartendaten. Die Sperrung war nicht mal 3 Wochen. Längerfristige Sanierungen machen Sinn, hier aber überweigen imho die Nachteile
mardiz (2021-08-09 08:18:42+00:00): Die Sperrung war recht umfangreich, es sah nach einer längeren Maßnahme aus
ravali_78 (2021-07-26 03:40:39+00:00): Hi Thế Bảo
I have fixed the classification gaps and incorrectly tagged ways,made alignment/geometry changes based on the ground truth and removed extra roads as they are not supporting in any image.Kindly check with way 967161185,way 967421829,way 896926779,way 967161189,way 967161194,https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/108585626.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108552582
olo81 (2024-01-31 17:57:32+00:00): Nie nazywamy dróg dojazdowych.
C2oc4 (2024-02-07 07:23:52+00:00): ale często drogi dojazdowe stanowią własność gminy np. ulica odkrywkowa w będzinie posiada odnogi które posiadają znak informujący o jej nazwie i o numerach budynków które się na tych odnogach znajdują co wtedy ?
olo81 (2024-02-07 12:11:23+00:00): Własność nie ma nic do rzeczy. Często mylisz własność z dostępnością. I tak samo nazwy. Tabliczki z numerami budynków i nazwą ulicy to nie to samo co znaki przy drodze z nazwą ulicy. Tak samo bezmyślnie wprowadzasz drogi które nawet nie istnieją bo są nazwane w geoportalu.
C2oc4 (2025-04-05 06:23:21+00:00): A geoportal nie jest wyżej niż mapy osm jeśli chodzi o nazwy gdyż jest to państwowy portal?
grzegorz75jan (2025-04-05 06:39:12+00:00): Nie wiem jak jest konkretnie tu b o nawet tego nie otwierałem i nie znam tego terenu ale warto sobie trochę poczytać o nazwach, drogach, ulicach na Wiki z poziomu pomocy edytora. 
Przeczesanie forum też jest niegłupim pomysłem https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/pl/40

Ogólnie w wielu przypadkach OSM ma swoje prawidła pod wieloma względami.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTgtPjgzssHzsgAqYbi2QfRoRk1S9ioX5
mariotomo (2021-07-27 20:41:51+00:00): JOSM no te avisa "warning" de las way sin etiquetar?
Nakaner (2021-07-26 07:53:47+00:00): Hallo,

war die Ansage im Forum nicht deutlich genug, dass wir uns mit dem Umtaggen von Gebäuden erst einmal zurückhalten?

Wenn du den großen Drang verspürst, sesselzumappen, dann geh doch einfach vorübergehend woanders hin!

Viele Grüße

Michael
Hb- (2021-07-26 12:36:50+00:00): Geändert auf Ruine.
user_12625593 (2021-07-25 19:26:22+00:00): Hoi, je hebt nu het gebouw verwijderd maar het adrespunt (Campus 2H) staat er nog. Dat bestaat volgens het Kadaster (BAG) ook niet meer, evenals het verbindingsstuk met gebouw G. Zie https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/#?searchQuery=campus%20zwolle&resultOffset=0&objectId=0193200000101257&geometry.x=202221.61&geometry.y=501625.401&zoomlevel=6&detailsObjectId=0193010000101128
user_12625593 (2021-07-25 19:27:58+00:00): Daar zie ik de twee kleine gebouwtjes met adressen 4R-1 en 4T-1 ook niet meer, eveneens gesloopt?
Sneeuwmanneke (2021-07-26 06:17:54+00:00): Het verbindingsstuk tussen G en H is inderdaad ook weg. Afgelopen week stonden de gebouwen 4T-1 en 4R-1 er nog. 4R-1 blijft sowieso.  4T-1 weet ik niet zeker, of deze alsnog verdwijnt (ik meen van wel).
user_12625593 (2021-07-26 06:47:30+00:00): Ok, die gebouwtjes zijn ook niet relevant hier. Haal je het verbindingsstuk en adres nog even weg?
Sneeuwmanneke (2021-07-26 06:56:48+00:00): Ja, ik heb het nu gedaan, volgens mij. Ik krijg in de bewerkmodus overigens allemaal meldingen PDOK foutief request als soort van layer over de kaart heen.
user_12625593 (2021-07-26 07:12:35+00:00): Klopt, ik heb zelf nog even de ingang die op het verbindingsstuk zat weggehaald.

Ja, de link naar de PDOK luchtfoto's in de iD editor is 'dood'. Daar is een work-around voor: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=835259#p835259.
user_12625593 (2021-07-26 07:25:42+00:00): Voor de twee gebouwtjes heb ik een terugmelding via Kadaster bij de gemeente Zwolle gedaan.
mavl (2021-07-26 06:28:57+00:00): Здравствуйте.  
Это пакет правок немного испортил карту и был отменён.
tordans (2021-07-25 09:02:32+00:00): Danke
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108554780
Supaplex (2021-07-25 08:10:51+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/516045476
這應該不是全部是建築吧？
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108555097
balping (2021-07-29 03:12:57+00:00): Fasorok valóban szükségesek?
zsolt d (2021-08-20 11:40:19+00:00): 
Igen. Hát persze.
De hát ott vannak, nem?

Erről javaslom konzultálj magukkal az Entekkel! (Gyűrűk Ura ;  wikipedia=hu:Entek)
Nagy Zoárd, a Lépkedő Fenyőfa szerint pedig egyáltalán nem udvarias dolog kivágni egy fát (Lázár Ervin)

Ahol beérett fasorok vannak, az utcán a kánikulában 5-8 fokkal hűvösebb van. Volt is OSM levlistán egy diskurzus korábban, hogyan lehetne jelölni a járdákon, hogy árnyas, hűs gyalogjáró, vagy tűzforró égető kánikulai járdáról van-e szó.

Olyan országokban, ahol évente 10-5cm pontosságú friss ortofotók állnak az OSM közösség rendelkezésére, rendre befázzák a városokat,  ráadásul a fasorokat darabonként. (ld több német városban)

Én az olyan facsoportokat, fasorokat, vagy feltűnőbb fákat szoktam berajzolni, amik:
- segítenek a helyszínen való tájékozódásban, autóval/gyalog/kerékpárral ott közlekedve, bóklászva is jól beazonosítható „tereptárgyak” (pl jelentősebb városi fasor, nagyobb egyedülálló fa, vagy a mezőkön a szélvédő fasorban egy csoport, vagy éppen egy feltűnő hézag, hiány a fasorban.)
- a település zöldfelületi rendszerének már jelentősebb, jól beazonosítható részét, lomb-tömegét képezik.

A Wekerle telepen gyakorlatilag minden utca többé kevésbé fásított. Én azokat a fasorokat rajzoltam be, amik beérett komoly fák, nagy lombtömegük van az utcába befordulva és a légifotókon is láthatóan. Megjegyzem, az ilyenek általában jellemzően helyi védett fasorok szoktak lenni.
Adatolásban persze lehetne mélyebbre menni, kikeresni a védettséget elrendelő jogszabály számát, és „ref”-be, vagy megjegyzésbe beírogatni.

Üdv
Zsolt
balping (2021-08-24 17:52:59+00:00): Köszönöm a kimerítő választ, meggyőztél!
Tomas Straupis (2021-07-25 11:59:11+00:00): Nėmiau neteisingai pridėtus adresus namams, kurie neturi adresų: Kelmės Kooperacijos 31B ir Kooperacijos 31A. Adresų pildymo misiją siūlyčiau išsiimti iš StreetComplete.
Jurkis (2021-07-26 05:33:57+00:00): Adresus sudėjau pagal faktą. Ten tik dar reiktų nuo ūkinių pastatų adresus nuimti.
ToniE (2021-07-30 10:11:45+00:00): Great work and I did sort and fix gaps in the route - a pain in the ... with iD (the browser based editor).

BTW: is there a way back, i.e. many cycleway alongside a road are oneway for bicyle. So for the way from A - M, cyclists should use the opposite cycleway of the road

Did you check the License and Copyright issue? "Kostenlos" does not mean: "OSM can use it". Could you check for copyright notes on the source-URL, and Baynernets, ...

The creator is http://www.outdooractive.com/r/42450051

Worst case: we have to delete the data/relation

Br
Toni
ToniE (2021-07-30 10:14:25+00:00): ... except: you did the tour by bicycle, following the guideposts along the trip.

I.e. "ground-truth", you have been there and seen all the stuff.
elbotho (2021-07-30 10:35:40+00:00): Thank you very much for the feedback and closing gaps! 
I should probably go for JOSM then?

I only rode part of it so far, so yes I relied on the GPX track on https://www.lra-ffb.de/mobilitaet-sicherheit/radln-im-landkreis/radtourismus/radwandern/muenchen-augsburg-radweg-mar 
which does not state a license.
I was pretty confident since I consider a recorded GPX track not reaching the threshold of originality and many other Radlland Bayern/Baynernets routes are on OSM already. 
To make sure I'd have to get them to license it under a free license, yes?
Might be easier to ride it completely :D

You are correct, there is also "a way back" that probably differs. I'll have to look into the relevant tags for that.
ToniE (2021-07-30 11:16:24+00:00): > I should probably go for JOSM then?

mid- and long-term, I'd suggest using JOSM. This has some learning curve though.

> To make sure I'd have to get them to license it under a free license, yes? 

Yes, always make sure, we have the right to use the data ...
Information from e.g. Bayernatlas.de must not be used at all ... except their "Bayern (80 cm)" aerial images as background for editing.

If in doubt about the license: don't use a source.

OSM allows using our data for any purpose (commercial or not), only requires to state the origin of the data.

Many "open data" sources (CC-BY-*) require the same, but this cannot be supported by OSM.
We would habe to put their names into the e.g. right bottom corner of e.g. osm.org ... which would fill half of the screen - not good.

> I'll have to look into the relevant tags for that.

At "Odeonsplatz, Munich" there is short stretch for both directions ... using 'role' = 'forward' for the particular ways. 
Best edited with JOSM though, it has a small graphical part in the relation-editor which shows gaps, ...

I can give a short online-intro into that, sharing my screen on Jitsi server of FOSSGIS (the German chapter of OSM).
Jens-Uwe_Hagenah (2021-09-18 21:30:59+00:00): Hallo,
den Radwegweiser einfach zu löschen und nicht umzuhängen war keine gute Idee, so meine ich. Bitte den Wegweiser mit den Daten an neuer Stelle wieder eintragen
jens-Uwe
ckramer-hl (2021-09-19 07:09:03+00:00): Hallo Jens-Uwe,
der Wegweiser HL-131a war bisher doppelt vorhanden, daher habe ich diesen gelöscht. Den weiter bestehenden findest du hier:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2123183639
Herzlichen Gruß
Carsten
Zachflange (2022-07-19 14:18:15+00:00): Is this really a "biergarten"? You have to be allowed to bring your own food. It has to be seperate from the Wirtshaus as well. Maybe delete this point and add "outdoor_seating=yes" to "Wirtshaus Zur Pfaueninsel"?
Ze0zohk1 (2021-07-28 14:12:31+00:00): hier hast du building=yes vergessen :-(
Reinhard12 (2021-11-07 20:51:03+00:00): Hallo j1252072,
der Förderturm Fürst Leopold Schacht 2 wird nicht mehr auf den OSM-Standard-Karten angezeigt. Liegt es an disused=yes? Natürlich wird er nicht mehr als Förderturm genutzt, aber vorher war er als building=industrial sichtbar.
Kannst du dir das mal ansehen?
Gruß Reinhard
danieldegroot2 (2021-08-06 09:05:22+00:00): Hey Olyon,

To verify, I would like to ask the following;
Under what license is this dataset, or are you otherwise permitted to use this dataset for OpenStreetMap?
Did you consult the local community?

See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import

As far as I could see, this dataset is not under a compatible license, nor does a mailing list entry exist.

Regards,

Daniel
Nakaner (2023-12-07 10:42:45+00:00): Hi,

we use route=railway to model the route of a timetable sheet (Kursbuchtabelle in Germany/Fahrplanfeld in Swiss German) and route=tracks for the route from infrastructure point of view. Unfortunately, you chose the wrong tag. I corrected this for you.

Best regards

Michael
Winzigweich (2021-07-25 17:52:54+00:00): Ok, Merci für den Hinweis
SomeoneElse (2021-07-25 11:51:41+00:00): I fogot to close with a comment before it auto-closed.  Comment would have been:
Undoing some allegedly google-source changes. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/105322114
Lee Carré (2021-07-27 11:59:34+00:00): 40 lashes for setting a bad example; all those in favour? 😁

Seriously, though; thanks for all the diligent clean-up work I oft notice you doing. Unglamorous, often thankless, but necessary.
Nakaner (2021-07-26 07:46:29+00:00): Hallo,

ich habe diesen und vergleichbare Änderungssätze rückgängig gemacht. Wir erfassen in OpenStreetMap keine Objekte vorübergehender Natur. Deshalb hat die deutsche OSM-Community entschieden, im Ahrtal und Umgebung bis auf Weiteres sich auf die Schäden an Verkehrswegen zu beschränken. Siehe auch https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=73292

OpenStreetMap ist keine Karte, sondern eine Geodatenbank. Unsere Daten werden von unzähligen Diensten genutzt. Nur wenige Nutzer aktualisieren ihre Daten regelmäßig. Deshalb sind wir beim Einpflegen vorübergehender Änderungen sehr zurückhaltend.

Für persönliche Karten mit Informationen, die nicht in die öffentliche OpenStreetMap-Datenbank gehören, sei umap.openstreetmap.de empfohlen.

Viele Grüße

Michael
gyotoku810 (2021-07-25 09:48:01+00:00): Thank you for fixing my typo, but it is supposed to use "addr:block_number" for a block number in Japanese community, so I'll refix it.
mueschel (2021-07-25 09:51:14+00:00): You're right, sorry for the mistake!
Michael712 (2021-08-23 13:11:11+00:00): Hallo, 
du hast hier einen neuen Weg über einen bestehenden Weg drübergezeichnet, das sollte so vermutlich nicht sein. Zudem hat der "access"-Tag hat einen ungewöhnlichen Wert, vermutlich sollte es "private" o.ä. heißen, so wie auch die angrenzenden Wege.
Es wäre super, wenn du das prüfen und korrigieren könntest. 
Viele Grüße
Michael
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/108557976
Nakaner (2021-08-23 15:25:01+00:00): Hallo,

dieser Änderungssatz und alle anderen Änderungssätze von IG MTBg Lile proNatura wurden vorläufig rückgängig gemacht, da erhebliche Zweifel an der Zuverlässigkeit und landesrechtlichen Zulässigkeit bestehen. Weitere Informationen folgen.

@IG MTBg Lile proNatura Bitte verzichte bis auf Weiteres auf Bearbeitungen in OSM.

Beschwerden gegen diese Entscheidung können bei der Data Working Group <data@osmfoundation.org> vorgebracht werden.

Viele Grüße

Michael
user_2066394 (2021-07-25 10:18:04+00:00): Was ist mit dem Wasserrad passiert?