piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Bilykralik16 (2026-07-22 13:31:37+00:00): Ahoj, aktuální dopravní a návěstní předpis je k dispozici tady: https://provoz.spravazeleznic.cz/Portal/ViewDirective.aspx?oid=2255429
Konkrétně označování návěstidel se řeší od článku 85 dále, ale je tam i dost jiných zajímavých záležitostí, jen je to hodně dlouhé.
Co se týče těch podtržítek, nemyslel jsem to tak, že by tam mělo být jen "L", ale připadalo by mi praktičtější, kdyby to označení nebylo vyplněné vůbec. Ale to byl jen spíš takový můj postřeh. :)
HaPe-CZ (2026-07-22 16:51:05+00:00): Nj, o mezeře se tam nepíše, ale už nějakou dobu to u nových popisů stejně nepíši.
Být či nebýt prázdné nebo částečně vyplněné, toť otázka. Když není ref (L/S/Se) vyplněn, tak to zase vypadá, že návěstidlo není vůbec popsáno a zbytečně se to proklikává. Těžká volba.
Dimitar155 (2026-03-18 17:15:42+00:00): You are in the right direction! it is quite simple.

1. The traffic light node goes at the stop line
2. The crossing nodes get highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals

I've updated it accordingly.
SLMapper (2026-03-18 20:05:51+00:00): thank you! oh I see, you placed the pedestrian traffic signals on separate nodes and making them distinct nodes, resolves ambiguity.

The wiki also mentions to tag crossing=no on the vehicle traffic lights (likely to not get repeated calculation / warnings of traffic lights). So I added those just now https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180077366

By the way (you may know this): For the vehicle traffic lights, wiki also says that direction can be omitted on oneways (but also it does not hurt).
rodolfovargas (2026-03-18 23:56:44+00:00): Buenos aportes. Considere aplicar ESCUADRAR (tecla Q) para mejorar la geometría de los edificios. Continue con sus aportes.
onterof (2026-03-19 13:36:03+00:00): Hallo,
durch die veränderte Geometrie am kleinen Kreisel haben nun alle Bus-Routen, die dadurch führen Lücken oder überflüssige Stummel.
Magst die Teilstücke im Kreisel noch an die Aus/Einfahrten anpassen?
Grüße
Gaessje (2026-03-23 13:44:55+00:00): Hallo,
ich weiß nicht genau was du meinst. Ich dachte eigentlich, ich hätte den Kreisel nur an die tatsächliche Position verschoben und die Zufahrten angepasst. Wenn ich dabei einen Fehler gemacht habe, wäre es nett, wenn du ihn korrigierst. 
Gruß Gässje
onterof (2026-03-23 13:49:07+00:00): Hat sich schon erledigt, da war jemand sehr flott.
changeset/180123197
Grüße
MappingMore (2026-03-20 00:56:49+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:180134519
eggie (2026-03-18 15:33:32+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Emdier (2026-03-25 19:40:25+00:00): Please provide the evidence that this military area is no longer valid.
Robert Beasley (2026-04-04 16:18:08+00:00): /recorded God bless you
jayaddison (2026-03-20 11:48:06+00:00): Hi - thanks for contributing to the map; I think your edit might have reduced the routability of this path for pedestrians, though.  I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember this being a relatively wide section of pedestrian-access path that leads to a trail up to the Wallace Monument -- so I'm not sure that retagging as highway=service is ideal.  Please could you check?

I've also opened a note for other mappers at: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/216949700
Zaneo (2026-03-27 17:08:35+00:00): I visited this location and that part is for the service bus that comes down the hill. There was explicitly a no entry sign.
jayaddison (2026-03-27 22:16:10+00:00): Ok, thanks - I'll trust you on this.  If you know whether there is a good/clear pedestrian path to the beginning of the trail from the bus stop on Hillfoots Road, that could help - but don't worry.  I do remember the service buses up to the monument (white, multi-passenger golf-cart style buses if I remember correctly).
Zaneo (2026-03-28 03:20:01+00:00): I had to walk along through the parking lot, I guess it would be best if somebody could confirm the sign. Unfortunately I didn't think to take a picture.
agilenewt21 (2026-03-18 15:22:21+00:00): This was an erroneous update, I've since undone the changes.
I misidentified the building at a distance, I think I was looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/415533313
agilenewt21 (2026-03-18 15:24:04+00:00): Sorry for the confusion.
Jk488 (2026-03-18 15:02:56+00:00): Please leave comments in English or Georgian so other local editors can understand your changes
Langlaeufer (2026-03-21 12:05:09+00:00): foot=customers wäre besser. 
access=customers würde theoretisch alle Verkehrsarten für die Kunden zulassen.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180063620
Mike Steglich (2026-03-24 10:22:12+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Ich arbeite es um.
Antonino_Faro (2026-03-18 19:13:31+00:00): Ciao, occhio che hai intersecato gli edifici tra loro e collegato alla strada uno di questi
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180063775
rodolfovargas (2026-03-18 23:40:22+00:00): Muy buenos aportes. Lo único, aplicar ESCUADRAR en edificios geométricos. 
Continua con tus aportes.
Szymson (2026-03-19 16:16:35+00:00): Co to za wesoła twórczość? Od kiedy znak początku drogi ekspresowej oznacza, że na łącznicy można jechać 90 km/h? Skąd akurat taka wartość maxspeed, np. o tutaj?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1263473217
Szymson (2026-03-19 16:35:38+00:00): Poza tym co to dokładnie za źródło "streetlevel imagery". Proszę doprecyzować.
PouLS_PL (2026-03-23 15:12:36+00:00): Jaka wesoła twórczość? Znak początku drogi ekspresowaj nie oznacza 90 km/h. PL:D-43 to koniec obszaru zabudowanego, nie początek drogi ekspresowej. Wystarczy wygooglować, zajmuje to max 5 sekund. maxspeed=90 wynika z art. 20. ust. 3 pkt 1 Prawa o ruchu drogowym.

Kliknąłem „streetlevel imagery” jako źródło bo było jednym z „gotowców” w edytorze, więc myślałem że będzie ok. Jako źródła użyłem najnowszych zdjęć Google Street View ( https://www.google.pl/maps ) które były dostępne w czasie edytowania.
Szymson (2026-03-23 19:23:50+00:00): Google Street View nie jest dozwolonym źródłem dla edycji w OpenStreetMap z uwagi na prawa autorskie.
AndersAndersson (2026-03-28 23:36:30+00:00): Hej!
Varför satte du det som alternativt namn?
fluffycupcakes (2026-03-18 15:25:46+00:00): Hello, thank you for your edits. I believe in this case the part of the building that you drew with a diagonal line was actually a straight vertical line just like in the rest of the building, correct me if I am wrong. The building footprint also should've been moved towards the building base for better precision.
I adjusted building geometry and moved it to its based in my changeset
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180064026
kingkingHK (2026-03-19 02:01:47+00:00): I doubt it's a `=primary_link`. It could be seen as a normal road, not a link/ramp of any kind.
vectorial8192 (2026-03-19 14:35:02+00:00): Well, looking at the OSM history, safe to say it shouldn't be "tertiary" (first version), and shouldn't be "driveway" (my mistake).

The idea is, because Nullah Road is forced to enter PER, this can be considered a link away from PER so to reach Tung Choi Street. It just so happens to also be a driveway. Also see small section of Fa Yuen Street also being a primary_link.
kingkingHK (2026-03-20 02:44:53+00:00): Slippery slope: if any road that branches away from `=*` can be considered a `=*_link`, then almost every road can be considered a link.

Would `=unclassified` work?
vectorial8192 (2026-03-22 04:50:12+00:00): Not slippery. At minimum, street names must match to have a chance to be "=*_link". Here, it is still called "Prince Edward Road West", it is a component of PER (currently "=primary") and we can give it "=*_link".

imo the segment does not feel like "internal road", because it brings traffic from outside the block to inside it. (True "internal roads" see east side frontage road of PER.) But if it is "internal road" then yeah do "=unclassified" or below.
kingkingHK (2026-03-22 05:57:20+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Frontage_road

> Do not use a `highway=*_link` tag for the frontage road. Simply use one of the normal `highway=*` tags.
vectorial8192 (2026-03-23 05:12:30+00:00): I have never heard of any frontage road that exists not on the far side, but on the opposite side of a road. It may not be fully accurate to classify them as "frontage road" but hopefully you get my point. The examples here do not collect traffic back to the main westbound PER; they are "internal only".
007Transformer (2026-03-19 07:32:05+00:00): Revert of 180039017
LorenzoPesci (2026-03-19 10:49:01+00:00): l'area è solo dismessa o ospita un cantiere di costruzione?
NeisBot (2026-03-18 15:15:45+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13658985264 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Loftküche"
---
Zum Beispiel könnte eine neutralere und sachlichere Version deines Textes lauten: "Loftküche"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-26 17:33:05+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180465935
(Delete spam tags. First version)
rodolfovargas (2026-03-19 00:08:57+00:00): Buenos aportes. Continua con la misma motivación.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-23 17:51:49+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/301378547/history - why you deleted half of a building?

Is it intentional or result of a careless editing?

Found it via https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mass-deletion-of-buildings-roads-and-pois-in-gaza-strip/142540
MappingMore (2026-03-20 01:29:23+00:00): Revert of 180063884
OlasMapy (2026-03-20 17:20:57+00:00): Hallo. Diese Namen auf Polisch, die ich auf alt_name geandert habe (z.b. Tylża, Wystruć), wird benutzt haufiger als die russischen Namen dieselber Orte (z.b. Sowieck). Warum haben Sie meine Anderung vollstandig ruckgangig gemacht?
MappingMore (2026-05-28 09:37:52+00:00): Hi OlasMapy,
Thank you for reaching out. A DWG mapper reverted your changes as they were considered incorrect. My only action was adding a link to the fixing changeset for reference.
If you have any questions, I recommend reaching out to mapper woodpeck_repair.
Thank You!
woodpeck (2026-05-28 12:19:03+00:00): OlasMapy, in this changeset you changed some "name:de" tags that had only just been reverted by DWG. For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/766484436 had been changed to "name:de=Krylowo" on 18 March and you changed it back to "name:de=Nordenburg" three hours later. Therefore I reverted your whole changeset. If you would like to make modifications to Polish names then that's ok but please don't touch the German names.
OlasMapy (2026-05-30 17:09:00+00:00): Nordenburg is actually the listed German name in both Polish and German Wikipedia, same as Nordenbork in Polish. Also, in changeset/182034590 I reverted the polish names in accordance with the KSNG (except for of course Królewiec which has been used exclusively).
LiudmilaBareika (2026-05-11 09:13:36+00:00): Hi, Paul Berry! There is a duplicate road at this location (Way 1490246125). Could you please clarify the reason for adding a duplicate road? Best regards, Liudmila.
Paul Berry (2026-05-11 09:22:02+00:00): This was left over from a prepared changeset. Thanks for noticing it. I've now fixed it on osm.org/changeset/182501816.
LiudmilaBareika (2026-05-11 12:41:05+00:00): Thanks a lot for your feedback and the fix!
agilenewt21 (2026-03-18 15:23:04+00:00): I was probably looking at this building instead:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/415533313
agilenewt21 (2026-03-18 15:23:41+00:00): Sorry for confusion!
scai (2026-03-28 08:29:53+00:00): Hi,

this looks broken. The building outline needs a building=* tag. Currently the building isn't rendered anymore. Can you fix it? Thanks.

Regards
Alex
Optiml (2026-03-30 06:28:40+00:00): Hi Alex,
Just added the missing labels for the two buildings. Thanks for the hint!
Best wishes
scai (2026-03-30 06:42:32+00:00): Thanks!

Unfortunately it looks like the building is still not rendered. Neither on openstreetmap.org nor in OsmAnd. I wonder if a relation with type=building and building=yes is really supported. I also don't quite understand why this relation is necessary. I think a building outline with building=yes should be enough.
Optiml (2026-03-30 07:26:59+00:00): Should be fine now
scai (2026-03-30 07:50:57+00:00): Hi,

there is still a problem: Now the inner area also gets rendered as a building.

I think I fixed this by:
- deleting the building outline
- deleting the building relation
- removing building:part from the individual buildings and adding building=* instead

I think this should still allow to have each building rendered differently in 3D. It also improves the data since these are individual buildings with different architectures, grouping together as one large building=* isn't quite correct.

I hope it is fixed now and your 3D building tags work as expected.

Regards
Alex
Optiml (2026-03-30 08:23:20+00:00): Thanks, Alex. It looks good to me.
eggie (2026-03-18 15:37:16+00:00): Dag Jippe.. Ik heb motor_vehicle=no verwijderd. Dat hoort niet op een paaltje.

MVG
eggie
silversurfer83 (2026-03-18 20:08:45+00:00): Hi :)

falls du mal am Sportgelände vorbei kommst, könntest du mal gucken was mit dem Minigolf und dem Spielplatz ist. Auf den letzten Luftbildern ist da nämlich nichts mehr zu erkennen, was das angeht.

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180065213
rodolfovargas (2026-03-19 00:05:49+00:00): Buenos aportes. Elegiste una zona compleja de edificios. Dibuja con la mejor geometría los edificios. Continua con tus aportes.
fluffycupcakes (2026-03-18 15:48:02+00:00): Hello, thank you for your edits. Please square the buildings that you're drawing when they are actually rectangular. You can square buildings with "Q" button in iD. I fixed geometry for 3 of your buildings in my changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180066469)
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180065808
AndersAndersson (2026-03-28 23:46:06+00:00): Varför ska det vara ref och inte name?
AndersAndersson (2026-04-02 08:40:09+00:00): Hej!
Du får gärna svara när du får en fråga i en ändringsuppsättning.
Sen är det bra om beskrivningen är lite tydligare. T.ex. vad och varför något är ändrat.
LudvigLind (2026-04-02 09:09:36+00:00): Hej! 
Ber om ursäkt för sent svar. Jag hade missat ditt meddelande.
Jag ändrade som jag gjorde för att det ska vara konsekvent med hur man har gjort det i övrigt på sidan. Jag kan inte se att man brukar skriva bostadsrättsföreningar som namn på bostadsområden, men sedan ville jag inte heller att någon information skulle försvinna i onödan, vilket var varför jag satte den på ref.
AndersAndersson (2026-04-02 09:51:57+00:00): Hej! Tack för ett bra svar och för att du bidrar till OSM!
Ja, hur det ska namnges är lite oklart.
5m4u9 (2026-03-19 02:38:38+00:00): Hola, selecionaste erróneamente el tipo de área, debió ser "barrio", el que seleccionaste es uno propio del Reino Unido y no hay algo parecido en Bolivia.

Lo mejor es añadir un punto en el centro de todo el barrio. De todas formas ya lo arreglé.
silversurfer83 (2026-03-18 20:02:42+00:00): Moin :)

ich find da nicht so gut, wenn zwei Haupttags wie hier an ein Objekt kommen (barrier=fence + power=generator). One feature, one object spricht da eigentlich gegen.

Außerdem sollte aus dem großen generator ein power=plant werden, wenn du die Zellen einzeln erfasst. Alternativ die Zellen in einer site relation zusammenfassen.

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180066430
giggie (2026-03-18 20:38:38+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis zu den Haupttags. Tatsächlich schreibt auch das OSM-Wiki davon, dass barrier-Tags nicht auf Flächen angewendet werden sollen, das war mir so bislang nicht bekannt. Ich passe es entsprechend an.
Taya_S (2026-03-18 16:00:51+00:00): Please see: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20015

I very much doubt that bus lines near some random town are going to tell you much about German names in Kaliningrad.
iandees (2026-03-18 16:30:19+00:00): Hello! I noticed that node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12944669235 was moved a long distance in this changeset. This is a common mistake that happens when you click on a point and drag to move the map. The point moves with your mouse instead of the map.

I moved things back to where they were before in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180068712, so no harm done!

To avoid this in the future:
- Try to click on an empty part of the map when you want to move around
- If you see a point move by mistake, press Ctrl+Z (or Cmd+Z on Mac) to undo it

Happy mapping!
Sylabowy Kot (2026-03-26 06:42:04+00:00): Źródło informacji że budują?
Dino Michelini (2026-03-22 18:12:51+00:00): Altro errore che commettono i neofiti di OSM in particolare quelli che non consultano la wiki riguarda la correzione del posizionamento delle geometrie già disegnate da anni da utenti molto più esperti in cartografia numerica e satelitare. Per capire quanto sia complessa la materia del posizionamento delle immagini satellitari ed evitarti un inutile lavoro potresti studiare la pagina . Scoprirai che Bing non ha un posizionamento ed una mosaicatura precise (vedi il relativo paragrafo in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing_Maps) rispetto alle Esri per cui le immagini satellitari di Bing in OSM sono da riproiettare sul piano XY mediante uno scostamento tale da sovrapporle a quelle Esri; inoltre, nella nostra zona vi sono immagini satellitari Bing ripetute (copiate) più volte per migliaia di ettari.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-18 18:37:47+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1330726079/history - something went really wrong here, I will fix it
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-18 18:39:46+00:00): fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180074373
woodpeck (2026-03-18 18:51:32+00:00): Thank you and sorry for the mistake, it seems I wanted to manually repair the name:de and overwrote the name instead :facepalm:
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-18 18:57:50+00:00): and thanks for cleaning up that name:de !

I was unsure where to start with that one
NeisBot (2026-03-18 16:17:22+00:00): Hi gontnhtumo, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 1 highway(s)
- 13 landuse(s)
- 7 natural(s)
- 3 waterway(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=180067935
fluffycupcakes (2026-03-18 16:29:33+00:00): Hello, thank you for your edits. I noticed you're adding lots of unneccessary nodes to your buildings that don't change anything withint the building's geometry. Could you please explain why are you adding those excessive nodes?
Dino Michelini (2026-03-22 17:40:48+00:00): Ciao, come ogni neofita mappi in OSM senza prima studiare la wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page). Ti segnalo che l’oliveto che hai mappato è da rivedere. Anzitutto la geometria è molto imprecisa, disegni il perimetro dell’oliveto con Bing però stranamente sovrapponendosi ad una zona boschiva in forte pendenza: o  ‘è l’oliveto o c’è il bosco; quindi, la geometria deve essere corretta disegnando l’esatto perimetro dell’oliveto magari, con un po’ di studio della wiki, facendo ricorso al disegno di multipoligoni (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Relation:multipolygon).
Anche la classificazione di landuse è sbagliata: infatti, usi impropriamente farmland (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dfarmland) + crop (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crop?uselang=it) inventando in italiano un tag quando va invece usato orchard (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dorchard) + trees (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trees).
fluffycupcakes (2026-03-18 16:41:11+00:00): I reviewed your changeset, it looks fine
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/180068399
Dino Michelini (2026-03-22 18:16:40+00:00): Hai messo un ford=yes sul tutto il tratto del percorso 1490267251 mentre va utilizzato solo sul nodo in cui effettivamente esiste un guado (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:ford%3Dyes).
ratrun (2026-03-25 17:45:23+00:00): Hi,

this edit is of terrible quality. See Openstreetmap Inspector routing view https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-10.07353&lat=10.70356&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1

Please fix all these connectivity issues you introduced.
mbeyerle (2026-03-21 21:32:35+00:00): I am continually impressed with your attentiveness to detail. Saw this note and was going to add this weekend but you already did. Well done
jhaluska80 (2026-03-22 01:39:56+00:00): Thanks for noticing.  I try to map to the best of my abilities.  Hopefully it makes for a map people feel confident using and feel good contributing to.
rempshaener (2026-03-18 19:01:59+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.
Eine Anmerkung zu diesem Hydranten:
Das Feld "couplings" bleibt bei Unterflurhydranten normalerweise leer, da es sich um die „Angabe der vorhandenen Anzahl an Schlauchanschlüssen“ handelt, siehe osm.wiki/DE:Key:couplings?uselang=de. Unterflurhydranten haben in der Regel nur mit Standrohr eine Schlauchkupplung. 
Vielen Dank für deinen Beitrag und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen.
Viele Grüße
rempshaener (2026-03-18 19:02:44+00:00): Hallo,
hier passt das power=DN 100 nicht.
Viele Grüße
rempshaener (2026-03-18 19:05:31+00:00): Hallo,
hier wäre zu korrigieren.
- couplings
- power
- colour: entweder „red“ – oder nichts, weil Unterflurhydranten keine Farbe haben
Viele Grüße
NeisBot (2026-03-18 17:03:45+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/1490273776 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "tienda de accesorios de moto"
---
Por ejemplo, una versión más neutral y objetiva de tu texto podría ser: "tienda de accesorios de moto"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-26 17:33:08+00:00): 🗑️🤖 Element deleted by https://osm.org/changeset/180465937
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-18 18:40:42+00:00): thanks!
maxwellward (2026-03-18 17:22:39+00:00): Hi ntzm, can you please clarify what +fhrs means? I've noticed you've made a few changesets with this description now and am curious :)
ntzm (2026-03-19 16:59:31+00:00): Adding FHRS IDs from https://gregrs.dev.openstreetmap.org/fhodot/ This change also included some other changes that I forgot to mention though
maxwellward (2026-03-18 17:19:48+00:00): Hi Pawar1101, thanks for your contribution!

When adding buildings, it's generally best to "square" them after drawing using the Q key (in the iD editor). This fixes any slightly off angles and creates a cleaner and more accurate map.

Thanks!