piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Leo Slager (2022-01-24 12:06:18+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=51.87209%2C4.37943%3B51.87217%2C4.37249#map=17/51.87153/4.37539
aharvey (2022-01-25 04:22:45+00:00): Hi could you please confirm the situation with these tracks, did they ever exist on the ground, or are they just closed but still visible? Or are they mostly overgrown and restored?
Guy Hodgson (2022-01-25 04:44:27+00:00): Hi AHarvey,
I believe they represented the GPS tracklog of someone traversing the landscape whilst not using any formed/maintained walking tracks to do so. As such I was tasked with removing them, as the Parks Service does not want these promoted.
Guy Hodgson (2022-01-25 04:52:49+00:00): Hi again AHarvey,
I've now read the comments and links and realize that a different approach may be required. Can you please restore the GPS track logs that I attempted to delete.
aharvey (2022-01-25 05:42:50+00:00): If it is off-track bushbashing with no visible path on the ground then they can be deleted, but if there is a visible path on the ground but just not an official walking track or maintained track then we can still tag that as informal=yes. If access is legally forbidden then we can mark it as access=no. Doing this helps let people who build maps with OpenStreetMap data make their maps more accurate and useful.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks
mrpulley (2022-01-26 09:24:43+00:00): Regarding the two deleted ways - I had been thinking about deleting them when I was there three years ago (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63140199) but left them alone. I didn't see those tracks at the time, but left them in case I had missed them.
mrpulley (2022-04-18 12:03:44+00:00): I reviewed these ways a month ago - have just uploaded the change now (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/119854924) - path near cliff is there, so I've marked it as informal=yes. I found traces of the one further from the cliff, but with the recent heavy rains the grass was very long, so I couldn't do a complete survey - I've marked it as informal=yes, trail_visibility=bad.
Firefishy (2023-09-18 23:47:25+00:00): Update. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service informally asked if these informal bushbashing tracks could be removed. I removed them in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141445146
mrpulley (2023-09-19 06:06:10+00:00): Were those tracks officially closed, or are they still informal? I had thought the consensus was to leave the path on OSM, marked as informal=yes. If it has been recently closed, might be better to leave it in, marked as abandoned:highway=* or disused:highway=* (otherwise someone might come along later and add it back in). (I'm too far away to go back there to re-survey in-person.)
aharvey (2023-09-19 10:46:12+00:00): Agree with @mrpulley here. If just not officially marked, then informal=yes, and if closed then use the lifecycle prefix if there's still some evidence on the ground.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths
Stephen Stenberg (2023-09-20 01:19:22+00:00): @mrpulley. From NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. These tracks per our request have been removed. Please do not add them back on.
mrpulley (2023-09-20 09:36:58+00:00): It's probably better to have something present on OSM, rather than deleting it. Otherwise, someone else could come along later and add it back in, not knowing there's been an issue. If the path has been formally closed, then access=no is an alternate tag to use. (This was used in a similar situation last year in another national park, when a new user deleted a path without discussion.) This might need another survey to clarify.
mrpulley (2023-09-20 09:38:10+00:00): Also, has there been a formal request directly to OSM 'behind the scenes' from NPWS regarding these paths, that I am not aware of?
Stephen Stenberg (2023-09-20 23:45:17+00:00): @mrpulley. The NPWS staff managing Aspley Falls asked for this track to be removed from OSM. My role within NPWS is Maps and Data and my team asked for these tracks to be removed.
mrpulley (2023-09-21 10:55:06+00:00): I've just sent an email to the talk-au mailing list to get a consensus on this. Way 29415025 was overgrown at my 2022 survey, so it's quite likely gone by now. The other three ways (29415022, 630040313, 1052666246) were present on the ground in 2022.
aharvey (2023-09-21 12:05:53+00:00): Based on your survey mrpulley, at least in the latter 3 cases it sounds like there would be something on the ground, so in my view we should restore these under the lifecycle prefix with access=no to indicate the closure.

To avoid an edit war, @Firefishy can you comment on if that would be problematic from your side?
Firefishy (2023-09-21 13:12:16+00:00): It is a tough one. The local staff really don't want the tracks displayed, they are fading on the ground and/or becoming overgrown. The one on the western side look just about noticeable on aerial imagery. The eastern tracks do not seem to be visible/defined on the ground. Having them tagged and dare I say rendered on the map (regardless of access=no) still means people will explore them which the local staff clearly would prefer them to fade away. There is lots of other Australia to map ;-)
aharvey (2023-09-21 13:33:57+00:00): Not wanting something to show on the map is not a sufficient reason to not include it. I wouldn't rely on aerial imagery, many tracks which do exist won't show up as the imagery is not clear or there is simply too much vegetation cover. The lifecycle prefix is in my view the ideal solution, the tracks won't show up on most maps/routers, but the data still exists in the OSM database. Yes some people may still find this and explore them, but we've done out part by tagging them in a way that best reflects what's actually on the ground.
aharvey (2023-09-23 13:42:12+00:00): Some good discussion ongoing about this on talk-au https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2023-September/thread.html I'd encourage NPWS staff to chime in to the thread.
mrpulley (2024-02-13 12:16:20+00:00): Partial reversion done, as per discussion on talk-au mailing list. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147406352
mariotomo (2022-01-24 23:49:59+00:00): hola. te lo menciono nada más pues mapear distritos y límites administrativos sea tu enfoque. el nombre correcto, según la Wikipedia en español, sería Ñürüm (donde 'u' ≠ 'ü'), quizás quieras revisar esta sugerencia y si acaso mejorar el mapa, o corregir la Wikipedia.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116519229
Alvarado2510 (2022-02-16 15:20:18+00:00): Buenos días Mario, saludos, entiendo tu punto, con ese tema, pero quiero dejarte claro que no es español, el nombre está dado en el lenguaje indígena, de los Ngabe Bugle, la pronunciación en realidad no es U, tu lo lees en español como tal, por que conoces el idioma, ahora en español la U y Ü tiene el mismo sonido de pronunciación, pero para los indígenas no.
mariotomo (2022-02-16 15:33:47+00:00): por supuesto, y por eso te digo. Pusiste "Ñurum" como valor del "official_name", y me parece que tu comentario argumente el revés de lo que hiciste.  (sé qué es una shwa, que los indígenas de por aquí reprensentan con la ü.)
mariotomo (2022-04-18 22:37:12+00:00): mira, tengo la impresión que utilizaste el campo "official_name" para poner un nombre incompleto y con grafía incorrecta.  qué hacemos?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116519229
Alvarado2510 (2022-08-16 15:00:38+00:00): Buenos días Mario, me tome la molestia de hacer un histórico, con el tema del nombre de Ñurum, yo no modifique el nombre, mas bien fue la clave, en su momento en el uso de Osmose, notificaba el uso de la clave obsoleta Alt_name_1, que uso el usuario anterior "1_money", tiene razón ya estaba mal escrito el nombre, quizás solo me enfoque en corregir la clave, si caer en cuenta que el nombre también esta mal escrito, voy a proceder a escribirlo como debe ser, agradezco tu comentario.
VictorIE (2022-01-25 15:44:50+00:00): Thanks for all the transformers! :)
MisterCartes (2022-01-24 11:16:41+00:00): Horaires:
Tous les jours de 5h00 jusqu'à plus de pain.
Que du pain "standard" à 1,40€ et des viennoiseries (pain au chocolat feuilleté, croissant et pain aux raisins brioché)
Nikolai E (2022-01-24 02:44:02+00:00): 证据：
“在今年卫戍区一师六团（丰台高立庄）全区民兵训练中……”

http://www.bjmtg.gov.cn/mtg11J202/gzzj53/200806/e2ab78146cae48b2bc85643ba6fb101a.shtml
SomeoneElse (2022-02-08 10:26:28+00:00): Hello,
In this changeset you've added https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/181280803 as a large private building, which it obviously isn't, from looking at the imagery.  Can you explain why it was that you added these tags to it?
Best Regards,
Andy
datendelphin (2022-01-30 20:56:49+00:00): Hallo WAM_SNZ144_ZCH
Willkommen bei OSM. Ich sehe hier ein paar gravierende Qualitätsmängel bei dienen Beiträgen.

In diesem Beispiel hier scheint der Polizeiposten bereits erfasst.

Bitte keine Abkürzungen verwenden wie LuPo. Man kann natürlich unterschiedlicher Meinung sein, was überhaupt alles in den namen rein muss.

immer nur "neu erfasst" als changeset kommentar ist nicht hilfreich. Beschreibe besser, was du mappen möchtest. Polizeiposten des Kantons Luzern oder so etwas ähnliches.

Ich habe den Eindruck, dass da sehr gezielt eine Liste abgearbeitet wird. In diesem Falle erwarten wir mindestens eine Quellenangabe, besser noch eine Ankündigung z.B. auf der Schweizer mailingliste. http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch Falls du dies im Auftrag machst, dann sollte auch der Auftraggeber offengelegt werden.

Vielen Dank für deine Beiträge, und ich hoffe wir können die Probleme einfach ausräumen. Bei Fragen stehe ich und andere aus der community gerne zur Verfügung
Michael
nevw (2022-01-24 02:52:34+00:00): Hi
You deleted many remote hiking ways, some of which were recently added by the mappers through survey.
Instead of being deleted it would be likely be better to discuss with the mappers first or change the characteristics of the tags using description, visibility, etc, or adding lifecycle tags like disused:highway, etc. so that other more adventurous hikers can use the mapped ways.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
nevw (2022-01-24 02:59:40+00:00): Another tag that could be used is 'informal'
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:informal
Guy Hodgson (2022-01-24 04:37:36+00:00): Thanks for your feedback nevw,

I received a request to remove these tracks from OpenStreetMap from the Ranger for Macquarie Pass National Park. The message to me is as follows:
"As Ranger of Macquarie Pass National Park (New South Wales, Australia) I am writing to advise that these tracks either do not exist or are illegal tracks, which have been closed based on a risk assessment and legal advice following a serious incident. 
Illegal tracks are also causing significant environmental degradation and impacts to threatened species and are not suitable for use".

We do not have, or maintain, any formed tracks where the deleted tracks were mapped.
As per  wiki.openstreetmap  these would be defined as  trail_visibility=no
It appears that these routes may have been traversed/mapped by Park visitors whilst not using our formed tracks, and NPWS does not want these promoted.

Cheers,
Guy Hodgson
Park Systems Officer
Policy and Engagement Branch
New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)
nevw (2022-01-24 05:09:27+00:00): Thanks Guy.
Nev
Ds5rUy (2022-01-24 05:45:50+00:00): Hi Guy,

there has been a lengthy discussion about this a few months ago on the talk-au mailing list, see the thread starting at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/015242.html

My reading of that thread is that there is a general consensus that such paths, if they exist on the ground, should remain mapped (for various reasons laid out on the thread) but should be clearly tagged to reflect their nature. (informal, visibility, smoothness, access=no IF there is no legal right to walk them, ....) 

Please have a look at the linked thread.
tastrax (2022-01-24 06:31:55+00:00): I personally dont think there is a general consensus (as I have said many times). I have also laid out what could be a process going forward. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-October/015243.html
tonyf1 (2022-01-24 06:32:40+00:00): Hi Guy, welcome to OSM. Through no fault of your own you have landed in a very controversial place. Please join in the talk-au discussion at https://lists.openstreetmap.org 
Its a difficult discussion but I think worth the effort for both Parks services and OSM.
aharvey (2022-01-25 04:16:26+00:00): Based on a comment at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2022-January/015551.html that the tracks do exist and based on the fact that these were all surveyed recently I'll restore them as existing on the ground. Where they have been officially closed this can be tagged as such, see examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Walking_Tracks#Tagging_Examples.

If the track is not officially closed, just not an officially formed or maintained track, then we can use informal=yes to tag it as such.

Keen to work together on ensuring OpenStreetMap data here is an accurate reflection of the ground situation.
Guy Hodgson (2022-01-25 04:50:16+00:00): Thanks for restoring them AHarvey,
I've now read the comments and links and realize that a different approach may be required.
mrpulley (2022-01-26 09:47:42+00:00): These ways definitely exist (the fire trail and the access to some private houses): 238041069, 773692685, 773692684, 347707476. The short trail 439443961 and the short stairway 773692681 definitely exist. The remaining way 347707596 was there on survey in early 2020. Just looked at the National Parks web site - this path is now listed as closed.
PopeyePopcord (2022-04-17 22:41:53+00:00): Please add indigenous name, They call themselves Tagé Cho Hudän (Big River People) in Northern Tutchone.
Viajero Perdido (2022-04-18 00:14:21+00:00): What is the name:: suffix for that?

If doing multiple languages,  you'd want:
name::cr  (assuming Cree)
name:en (English),
name (local name by convention, may include both.)
skquinn (2022-01-24 02:50:58+00:00): Also web searches/web site for sources
jmapb (2022-01-27 01:35:29+00:00): Back to mapping... I went by this building yesterday and the name was "J & S Auto Repairs": https://i.imgur.com/oEZygDM.jpg

I couldn't see any trace of  "Gotham Auto Body Collision" except for *maybe* some white graffiti that reads "goth 666" (only the "goth" part is visible in the picture.)

Normally I'd just assume the business had changed or rebranded, but because your changeset is so recent I thought I should check to make sure I'm not missing anything.

Cheers, J
MxxCon (2022-01-27 01:44:50+00:00): I simply combined node (which had wrong street name) with the building of the same street address.
Looking at google's streetview history, seems like this location changed businesses twice since. :)
I'll fix it based on your photo. 👍
jmapb (2022-01-28 22:37:31+00:00): Well that explains your commit comment! Thanks. Let's hope J&S sticks around a while
NetWormKido (2022-02-04 09:40:48+00:00): Добрый день, вы рисуете дороги поверх уже существующих, чем создаёте дубликаты рутингового графа. + не используйте в теге surface кириллицу, ознакомьтесь в wiki со значениями этого ключа.
opendcc (2022-01-24 06:29:51+00:00): Hello,
please restrict your changeset to smaller areas. Thank you.
Warin61 (2022-01-25 22:50:15+00:00): Hi,

There are errors created by this changeset. 

See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=144.38099&lat=-38.15914&zoom=17

JOSM validator reports Errors (3)
Duplicated way nodes (1)
[tester=org.openstreetmap.josm.data.validation.tests.DuplicatedWayNodes@51b67348, code=501, message=Duplicated way nodes]
Highway duplicated nodes (2)
[tester=org.openstreetmap.josm.data.validation.tests.DuplicateNode@11b671d0, code=12, message=Highway duplicated nodes]
[tester=org.openstreetmap.josm.data.validation.tests.DuplicateNode@11b671d0, code=12, message=Highway duplicated nodes]
Warnings (5)
Crossing highways (1)
Self crossing ways (2)
Self-intersecting ways (1)
Sharp angle (1)


I expect https://tools.geofabrik.de will catch all of the errors eventually but JOSM has them now.
tastrax (2022-02-01 22:43:53+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
SafetyIng (2022-01-24 09:24:33+00:00): Hey, ich weiß zwar nicht, was du hier gemacht hast, aber irgendwie lief das ganz schön schief.
1. Das Gebäude hat ein amenity=parking bekommen? Wie soll denn das Bürogebäude ein Parkplatz sein?
2. das Landesstudienkolleg ist keine amenity=school im Sinne von OSM! Es bietet keine Bildung der Schulbildung (Grundschule, Sek I oder Sek II) an.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-03-01 18:36:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 117961003, 117970393, 117965218, 117980733 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint about invalid edits, and a lack of decent reply (see https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=414659 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Max_Kritic/blocks ) reverting changesets where _only_ osmose was used.
kucai (2022-03-26 16:04:22+00:00): Stop adding streets where they don't exist!
Erberdy (2023-05-14 19:17:41+00:00): Where did you find Did-Marelis Seri? I'm working on peaks in that region and that peak is nameless on every map I can find.
-Utiashvili (2023-05-14 20:04:04+00:00): Please see the link:
https://www.easyzoom.com/imageaccess/89c4fb1777a9440b93f8ab942e519c10?fbclid=IwAR3YzmO8c13i-_j_XuJ35RsmvcHkKM-VUMrDqByFwuL5Ce3PNG7YAP0jrZk
jcr83 (2022-01-24 15:17:01+00:00): Salut,
Je ne comprends pas pourquoi tu as enlevé service=parking_aisle sur le chemin https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/701311673
Peux-tu m'expliquer ?
Patchi (2022-01-24 19:38:22+00:00): Bonjour jcr83,

Voir le Wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:amenity%3Dparking : "Les routes menant ou sortant d'un parking devraient être marquées en tant que highway=service". Ceci implique qu'il y ait toujours au moins une voie d'accès pour rentrer et une pour sortir d'un parking. Le service=parking_aisle est plutôt utilisé pour relier les rangées dans un plus grand parking aux accès principaux de celui-ci.

Vu qu'il n'y a qu'une seule et unique voie entrante et sortante, il s'agit à mon humble avis plutôt d'une voie d'accès sans service=parking_aisle.

De plus cette voie dessert un accès à une propriété avec la voie https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1024135180. 

Bonne continuation,

Patchi.
mavl (2022-01-25 13:52:10+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок добавляет дорогу с названием "Подъезд к котельной". "Подъезд к котельной" - это не название дороги, а её описание. В тег name нужно добавлять только названия объектов.  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F  
  
Также смотрите, пожалуйста, статью об используемых статусах дорог.  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:highway  
  
Это название будет удалено с карты.
Patr1k_P (2022-01-25 15:19:53+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1024136547

takto nejak by mala vyzerat adresa...vies si skontrolovat aj tu 

https://zbgis.skgeodesy.sk/mkzbgis/sk/zakladna-mapa/detail/ra_adresne_body/0/14039855?pos=49.128395,18.342674,18

...okrem toho aj pri vytvarani building by sa mal uvadzat zdroj, podla coho si to robil....a pri samostatnej budove by sa malo davat building=detached

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abuilding%3Ddetached
Rado209 (2022-01-26 06:27:02+00:00): Dík za reakciu, bežne tu tieto zmeny nerobím ale všimol som si nedostatku....
Jo, overoval som si to na zgbis pred pridaním. Prečo sa tam udáva kapor2? a nie kapor?

Pred zmenou som si pozrel wiki ale moc mi nenapovedala, pri rozhodovaní či building:yes, house alebo detached vo wiki to všetko prislúcha v našich pomeroch normálnemu domu.

Nedočítal som sa ani že sa dáva súpisné aj house number.
Ostatné domy okolo sú pridávané nejak hromadne z iných podkladov? keď toto všetko nemajú vyplnené a aj tak sa zobrazuje ich číslo domu v mape?
Patr1k_P (2022-01-26 17:00:00+00:00): neviem preco to tak pomenovali, to by snad vedeli ti, co boli pri zrode kapora :)

o budovach alebo adresach ti toho nepoviem omnoho viac nez je na wiki...

building=yes......nespecifikovana budova= oznac vtedy ak vies ze to nie je rodinny dom a skratka ju nevies blizsie specifikovat

building=detached ....samostatne stojaci dom, v ktorom zvycajne niekot byva

building=house.....to su dva domy vedla seba, ktore maju spolocnu stenu

...u nas aj v cesku je myslim rovnaky adresny system a okrem housenumber sa dava aj conscription, lebo samotne house je nedostacujuce...tych adresnych tagov byva aj viac, napr. ked existuju aj rozne casti miest + ulice atd....a zasa, skus si pozriet wiki nepoviem ti toho viac :) skus treba tu

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:%C4%8Cesko/Syst%C3%A9m_adres

...neviem ktore ostatne myslis, no ak nemaju vyplnene, tak obsahuju asi adresu formou bodu, to znamena nie su vpisane na budove...lepsie je to vsak davat do budovy, lahsie sa to aj neskor aktualizuje, ked sa zmeni adresa alebo zanikne
Rado209 (2022-01-27 06:15:32+00:00): Dík za trochu výkladu ;)

Myslel som tú dvojku za kapor"2" nie samotný kapor, všade sa pri domoch udáva kapor2. wat...

OK, budem dávať detached, až ma raz kvôli tomu niekto bude chcieť odstreliť poviem, to Klerik7 :D ...srandujem

Domy okolo som myslel aj hneď oproti. Majú len building=yes a source=kapor2
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/166107273
..a na mapy.cz majú svoje čísla domov, pritom na SK berú podklady len z OSM.
https://sk.mapy.cz/zakladni?x=18.3432576&y=49.1280107&z=19
Patr1k_P (2022-01-27 06:50:47+00:00): Však som ti aj písal že tiež neviem prečo kapor2... Keby mal niekto námietky, daj mu pekne odkaz na wiki :)

Aha.. Som nevedel že myslíš na mapy.cz.... No všimol som si že síce berú podklady z OSM ale pri týchto číslach to až tak neplatí a používajú aj pravdepodobne svoj zdroj.... Myslím že to nejako kombinujú, tak kde OSM nemá čísla, používajú ako keby svoj zdroj a keď pribudnú do OSM, alebo sa nejaké opravia tak používajú tie z OSM... Aspoň takto nejako mi to pripadá
Rado209 (2022-01-27 08:04:07+00:00): jo wiki ;) ale aj v iných dedinách keď hľadám tak to tam píšu obdobne + pridávajú sem tam aj country alebo aj source, source:conscriptionnumber.

Asi to bude kombináciou tých máp ako vravíš, už som to tu poupravoval.. prvú som kolonku po kolonke poprepisoval a popridával ale potom som si všimol ikonky kde sa to dá elegantne skopčiť všetko ako text.
Patr1k_P (2022-01-27 08:21:35+00:00): Country aj postcode sú už podľa mňa ďalšie doplňujúce tagy ale v tomto prípade taký ten hlavný adresný základ, ktorý by mal byť je


addr:city	
addr:conscriptionnumber
addr:housenumber
addr:place

... Ano môžeš tie tagy len kopírovať a vždy len upravíš conscription a house... Ale pokiaľ sa ti s tým nechce trápiť, tak povedz kde chceš doplniť čísla a ja alebo užívateľ Dodko ich hromadne pridáme, je to o dosť jednoduchšie ako to takto robiť
Rado209 (2022-01-27 08:24:14+00:00): jo, OK dík
Dodko (2022-01-27 09:09:08+00:00): Mapy.cz prešli na zdroj dát z OSM pre Slovensko okolo 6/2020 a vtedy zmizlo z ich máp veľa adries ktoré dovtedy mali. Potom adresy začali kombinovať z OSM aj vlastnej DB.

Odpoveď 6/2020.
Co se adres týče, vyhledáváme na mapy.cz více adres, než má OSM (kombinujeme s naší historickou DB), ale zatím je neumíme všechny zobrazovat. Musíme to nějak vymyslet, aby se v mapě objevily všechna čísla domů, jimiž disponujeme. Zároveň vím, že na plošném doplňování adresních bodů pracuje také OSM komunita, tak i z této strany lze očekávat zlepšení.