piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
sembelst134 (2026-01-08 09:23:20+00:00): Hallo, du hast den "Tauchclub Luise" in Häslich editiert. Kannst du die Aktualität verifizieren, da der Standort in einem privaten Garten ist und die Website nicht mehr existiert.
Der Knoten hat seit der Existenz 2010 einen Tag, dass es unverifiziert ist und ggf. gelöscht werden soll.
note 5053115
ayxis (2026-01-08 10:33:48+00:00): Hi!
Da habe ich mich versehentlich bei dern Tags verklickt. Das ist ein aktiver Tauchspot, der zum Steinbruchsee Luise dazugehört.

Habe es aufgeräumt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176978157

Danke!
eggie (2025-12-18 13:18:53+00:00): Dag FC,

Hie kan nu een adresnode zomaar veranderen.
Procedure.. 
Wanneer een bedrijf verhuist dan de adresnode ontdoen van de bedrijfsinfo en vervolgens op de nieuwe locatie het bedrijf weer toevoegen. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-12-18 13:23:17+00:00): Het adres heb ik hersteld en het bedrijf op de nieuwe locatie toegevoegd.

MVG
eggie
woodpeck (2026-07-24 13:21:44+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1459545895 seems to not to match aerial imagery, can you check that? The space between the buildings there looks too small to accommodate vehicles. Can you clarify the process by which you created these roads? What led you to believe that there was a road there?
olaag (2026-07-25 12:39:40+00:00): for way/1459545895, as on ground truth evidence & based on local construction awareness i had added this way.
ChrissW-R1 (2025-12-22 09:53:34+00:00): Please check https://osm.org/note/5100860
Kovoschiz (2026-01-18 09:39:21+00:00): This is not a `=*_link` 
They are 2 branches. The opposite of a fork.
Hetisbakkerijdepinknietdegier (2025-12-18 20:06:15+00:00): Volgens de website die je hebt toegevoegd stond de Pieckepoort op het huidige Wilhelminaplein en niet in de Binnenstad
TrickyFoxy (2025-12-19 23:03:54+00:00): 👋 You added a point with coordinates 0,0, which is obviously an error
VLD0251 (2025-12-18 15:57:00+00:00): Hi Oussama A;
Your contributions are based on an old map (1889-1891). Some places have disappeared, changed names, or been relocated.
Furthermore, you have modified place names (name:kab) without citing a source.
Please prioritize recent and verifiable sources to reflect the current situation.
Oussama A (2025-12-23 22:41:15+00:00): Hi VLD0251,
Thank you for this remark. I usually double check using Google maps, local sources (social media), but you are right, I'll pay more attention to this in the fiture.

Regarding the "At", it's not commun in this area, locally, its "Ayt". Plus, its official name is "Béni Anane" (see https://www.joradp.dz/JO8499/1984/067/FP1484.pdf). I also added the tifinagh for "y".
VLD0251 (2025-12-25 10:33:30+00:00): It is strictly forbidden to use Google Maps to modify OpenStreetMap, as its data is protected by copyright. Furthermore, Google Maps sometimes contains errors related to advertising.
Always prioritize your observations on the ground, official social media, or authorized satellite imagery (Bing, Maxar). In short: use your local knowledge.
Regarding Beni Anane or Ait Anane, the name is At Ɛanan according to the Latin Tamazight Wikipedia: https://kab.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iderginen
Name (Main Name): At Ɛanan
Name:ber (Name in Tamazight - Tifinagh): ⴰⵜ ⵄⴰⵏⴰⵏ
Name:fr (Name in French): Ait Anane
Name:ar (Arabic Name): أيت عنان
Alternative Name: Beni Anane
joost schouppe (2026-01-05 14:08:54+00:00): Het is een edge case, maar volgens hoe de wiki het nu beschrijft, denk ik dat dit eerder toch een mall is. Zie de eerste alinea van https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dmall
jkorf (2026-01-06 09:14:01+00:00): 👍
NeisBot (2025-12-18 14:43:07+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 7 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1082387583 v2 | 7 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176094848
Rawaz (2026-01-16 12:35:38+00:00): Thank you!
voltairovicz (2025-12-18 13:32:20+00:00): https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kategorie-drog/57996/517
coatix (2025-12-18 13:35:06+00:00): see https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index/pull/11636
eggie (2025-12-18 15:28:06+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback  Wat je hier o.a. hebt gedaan is het kruispunt verschocen. Dat zal vast niet de bedoeling zijn. Wanneer de zuidelijke camera aan het gebouw zit dan is die nu geplaatst midden in de straat. Niet naar de daken op een schuingenomen luchtfoto kijken.

https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176095634#20/51.50279/3.88839

MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2025-12-18 15:29:49+00:00): Kruispunt hersteld
user_5359 (2025-12-19 16:52:11+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1459558395 (one of sixteen objetcs). I correct your nam:ru to name:ru. 

However, I am quite certain that the name only_right_turn is not Russian, and there is no object description such as (building=yes) to make the name meaningful. Could you please review your revision?
dingoy29 (2025-12-21 16:49:44+00:00): Hi! Yes, you're absolutely right. The name:ru=only_right_turn tag is definitely not needed there. It's my mistake. It should be there building=yes
MassCartog (2025-12-18 19:56:47+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. The features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, on OSM, we do not remove features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Even decommissioned trails should not be removed until they no longer exist. Removing features that exist is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that these features still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed to the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
Jackie Mauro (2025-12-18 20:18:27+00:00): Hi there,

I understand why you say this cannot be removed, but it is very important that this trail is removed from all online platforms. It goes through the City of Worcester’s drinking water supply land which is posted/no trespassing of any kind. While out working one day we ran into three separate groups of mountain bikers with dogs, had lots of recent hunting activity including a fresh deer kill that morning, and found human feces and toilet paper just a few feet off of one of these trespassed trails. I have reached out to around 10 separate mapping/trail applications about having this trail marked and they all pointed me back to OpenStreetMap as the main source of this trail. This trail should not exist in the first place. It was created overtime by trespassers trying to find a quicker way back to the parking area of The Cascades. None of the city owned land for the drinking water supply has any public access. Our property abuts land owned by the Greater Worcester Land Trust, who we have also been in contact with about this issue, and they are huge supports of public access and recreation. They are willing to work with us to help resolve this issue but adding signage and barricades are not that effective if the trail is still easily accessible online. It does not matter whether we mark the trail as private because we already have the whole area posted with no trespassing signs. It needs to not be accessible as public knowledge online. This a public drinking water supply we are talking about, not just a random homeowner’s property. I hope you can understand the severity of this issue and how quickly we need it resolved. OpenStreetMap is the root of our problem right now as it allows this trail to be visible on many other online platforms. Just because a trail is marked as private does not mean the public is going to respect that as we have already seen Adding signage and removing the trail from online maps is still just the beginning to this issue. We must find some way to completely erase the trail entirely. Allowing this trail to remain mapped is only going to allow our trespassing issue to continue. If there is no source/knowledge to access the trail to the public, they won’t be able to find it unless they are there in person. Please allow me to remove the trail or do it yourself on your end, but this trail should have never existed and been mapped in the first place. I would also recommend adding some source of property boundaries to OpenStreetMap because it will reduce the chances of problems like this arising in the future. 

Thanks,
Jackie Mauro
MassCartog (2025-12-18 22:18:08+00:00): I'm sorry you've had issues with trespassing. I'm not going to debate what you are seeing on the ground. But I don't believe putting up signs and barricades are ineffective because a map exists.

OpenStreetMap is a geospatial database about what exists on the ground, not what should exist. Countless private areas are mapped on OSM, including things like military bases, there are ways to keep people out without removing OSM data.

Having these features access tagged correctly lets people using these hiking apps know what's off limits. The trails don't disappear once removed from the map. I myself rely on correctly tagged trails to know what is private and public. 

This community has had this debate with countless other users, that is why consensus was put on that wiki page to help people understand how OSM has chosen to deal with its own data in these matters.

Here is one part of that:
One of OSM's foundational principles is the "on the ground" rule. In cases where mapping is disputed, the conflict is settled in favor of the actual conditions on the ground. That means that even a dangerous or illegal trail should remain on the OSM map, provided it is recognizable as a trail to the average person looking at it in person. This does not mean we consider such trails to be equivalent to authorized trails. Rather, we have attributes to indicate trails that are dangerous or illegal as such. Apps that use OSM trail data—like AllTrails, Komoot, Gaia GPS, and Caltopo—are expected to make responsible rendering decisions based on these attributes. 

That community consensus is outlined here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
rempshaener (2025-12-18 18:32:17+00:00): Hallo,
zu https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/962340701: Der Weg ist so weit (rund 25 m) von der Straße entfernt, dass „separate“ und use_sidepath hier nicht mehr greifen. (Da an dem Nebenweg Vz 240 ausgewiesen ist, müsste dann automatisch auch use_sidepath und cycleway:left=separate gesetzt werden.)
Ich habe es bereits wieder angepasst.
Viele Grüße
bartgron (2025-12-18 22:27:06+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
bartgron (2025-12-18 22:26:22+00:00): Nie dajemy reklam do opisów zestawów zmian ani do OSM w ogóle:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
bartgron (2025-12-18 22:26:02+00:00): Nie dajemy reklam do opisów zestawów zmian ani do OSM w ogóle:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
eggie (2025-12-18 15:32:35+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback  Niet iets beschrijben met de name-tag. Dus niet nama=huis name=bankje... en dus ook niet name=Beach pole (strandpaal)  agezien dat het ook nog eens een Engelse naam is.

Dit zal toch niet de naam van de paal zijn.  Gebruik van ref is wel oke. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2025-12-18 19:31:44+00:00): name=Beach pole verwijderd.
mcliquid (2025-12-18 19:57:06+00:00): Grüß dich! Ich bin mir unsicher, was ich von den Änderungen halten soll. Der Großteil der Punkte wurde vor über 15 Jahren angelegt oder sogar blind importiert und schwebt seither größtenteils unverifiziert umher. Deine Änderungen implizieren nun, dass anhand des neuen, von dir ergänzten Tagging-Schemas all diese Tauchspots auch wirklich existieren – das ist aber definitiv nicht bei allen der Fall. Hast du die Spots vorher manuell auf Existenz und Korrektheit überprüft?
ayxis (2025-12-19 08:28:18+00:00): Hi!
Jep, viele Punkte sind sehr alt. Ich wusste nicht, dass es sich um einen Blindimport handelt. 
Es hat mich gestört, dass überall sport=scuba_diving herumliegen, die Lagebedingt meistens Tauchspots sein müssen (im Gewässer, am Ufer), aber nicht näher spezifiziert sind. Manche Spots/Clubs/Tauchcenter konnte ich auf Tauchwebseiten recherchieren, aber nicht alle.
Ich hatte gehofft, dass durch meine Aktivität etwas Aufmerksamkeit auf die Tauchspots gelenkt wird.
Anonymous36863 (2026-02-09 11:43:06+00:00): I changed it to a living street because we couldn't agree whether it is a foot path or a service road.
Dimitar155 (2026-02-09 14:22:39+00:00): highway=living_street requires a road sign Д15 (https://avtoobuchenie.bg/patni-znaci/grupa-d/paten-znak-d-15-nachaloto-na-jilishtna-zona) which is likely not present. From Bing Streetside it looks like highway=service + service=driveway or service=alley.
Kharandesert (2026-02-10 04:10:12+00:00): Hello Anonymous36863. I had reclassified (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/330981764) to service since it seems to mainly access the buildings next to it and appears drivable. I agree with Dimitar155 that service=driveway or service=alley would be applicable here. Thanks!
Anonymous36863 (2026-02-12 15:52:03+00:00): This is not drivable because there is a curb in the beginning. It's just a wide path that might look like a road in the satelite imagery
Dimitar155 (2026-02-12 17:11:29+00:00): I can't see a curb from the street imagery from 2021 (see https://imgur.com/a/6iPjetX). Even the sidewalk curbs were aligned in a way which suggest cars (or maybe ambulances/fire engines in case of emergency) can use the alley for access.
Anonymous36863 (2026-02-14 11:39:49+00:00): Double-checked today, and it was a false memory. There is in fact, no curb, but it looked like a path because of the mixed surface.
dzamper (2025-12-18 16:55:07+00:00): Co to znaczy „usunięcie zbędnych oznaczeń”? Przecież te obiekty nadal istnieją?
norgis (2025-12-18 17:24:49+00:00): Hei, ser at du har endra bl.a. Kirkegata fra highway=secondary til highway=primary, hva er grunnen til det? Iht. wiki er fylkesveger med fire sifre secondary, kun de med to/tre sifre er primary (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Norway/Highways). Også; vennligst ikke slett veg når du legger inn sånn som rundkjøringa her, uten forbindelse med "kjørbar" veg vil alle rutere tro at det er umulig å kjøre der, selv om trafikken går "gjennom" rundkjøringa per i dag (har fiksa rundkjøringa).
BCNorwich (2025-12-20 07:32:56+00:00): Hi, I've removed the tracks Way: 1459514803, Way: 1459569939, Way: 1459569941 and Way: 1459514802 as they duplicated existing highways. Such duplications could disrupt routing so could you please check for duplications before uploading. smaller changesets areas would make checking easier for you and other mappers.

Regards Bernard.
literan (2025-12-18 20:02:10+00:00): Bad wikidata and wikipedia on Monument of Victory. Reverting this node
dypa (2025-12-19 07:05:49+00:00): Bad wikidata and wikipedia on Прорыв блокады Ленинграда, fixed https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176126368
eggie (2025-12-18 15:39:29+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback Volgens mij is niet alles goed gegaan. https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=176098972
Svp niet naar de dakranden kijken en dan gebouwen gaan aanpassen. Het zijn schuingenomen luchtfoto's.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
grzegorz75jan (2025-12-18 18:43:17+00:00): Lasy lasami jednak w tej edycji użyłeś podkładu Bing który bywa przesunięty więc i las trochę niedorobiony. Staraj się też rysować po pniach a nie po liściach.
W Polsce używamy podkładu geoportalu a pozostałe jako dodatkowy pogląd.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176099105
DeFra85 (2026-01-01 11:17:28+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1451299765#map=18/52.015712/8.422289

Und wieder ein Beispiel dafür vor Ort zu gucken und sich nicht aufs ALKIS zu verlassen! Das Gebäude wurde vor Wochen gebaut
wies1 (2026-01-02 14:26:24+00:00): Also ein neues Gebäude kann man weder in Alkis noch in den Luftbildern sehen.
DeFra85 (2026-01-02 14:42:19+00:00): Deshalb ist ja in OSM das Vor-Ort--Prinzip die Höchste Prämisse.
ALKIS und Luftbilder sind NUR nette und äußerst nützliche Hilfsmittel.
grzegorz75jan (2025-12-18 19:10:08+00:00): Do obrysów budynków wspomagaj się podkładem budynków ponieważ staramy się wykonywać obrysy po fundamentach a nie po dachu. 
Bywa, że podkład jest skopany i wtedy trzeba być mądrzejszym.

Przy dodawaniu adresów zwracaj uwagę na wielkość liter bo w twoim budynku adresie jest 211b a dane urzędowe wskazują 211B. Pytanie kto ma rację i nie podałeś źródła adresu. Po sąsiedzku jest też numer 211a a podkład podaje 211A. W tym przypadku edycja była wykonana parę lat temu więc może nastąpiła zmiana adresowa lub błędna edycja. Można się wspomóc jakimś lokalnym urzędowym Systemem Informacji Przestrzennej.

W poprzedniej edycji napisałem lasy lasami ponieważ są choćby tu ważniejsze rzeczy jak drogi i budynki. 
Nawet w tym zakątku są nowe budynki które nie mają obrysu, adresu oraz drogi dojazdowej. Warto to dodać.
Przykładowo ta droga polna/leśna przynajmniej na wysokości zabudowań powinna mieć kategorię residential https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/299573256
Ta https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/299573250
highway=service
service=driveway 

O tej już nie ma co wspominać https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/299573230 a tu się coś zmieniło.

Niestety te drogi polno leśne to zmora OSM tym bardziej, że nawigacje nie chcą prowadzić z automatu (i słusznie) samochodów po tego typu drogach a często są to dojazdy do pojedynczych domów lub wręcz ich skupisk.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-12-21 05:24:33+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1459579513

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
eggie (2025-12-18 15:41:20+00:00): Svp niet naar de dakranden kijken. Alle gebouwen zijn ingemeten geïmporteerd vanuit de BAG (Kadaster)

MVG
eggie
Roengoer (2025-12-18 15:47:45+00:00): duidelijk ik was er niet op uit om de dakranden aan te passen enkel de schuurtjes
eggie (2025-12-18 15:54:35+00:00): Yep,, Die aanbouwschuurtjes stonden nog niet in de BAG. Ik heb ze uitgelijnd. Ik heb een transparant van de BGT en BAG op de achtergrond. Tja en soms verandert er iets. Wanneer het niet klopt doorgeven aan het Kadaster.
Groet,
eggie
eggie (2025-12-18 15:58:08+00:00): Het lijkt dan 'verkeerd', maar het ligt juist goed.
DeFra85 (2025-12-31 22:25:37+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/319046934/history
Und wieder herzlichen Glückwunsch! Das Gebäude ist als demolished:building=yes getaggt, aber egal ALKIS sagt da steht eins.
DeFra85 (2025-12-31 22:29:00+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/949823413/history#map=19/52.017144/8.419939
und interessante landuse= Einzeichnung -> revert
DeFra85 (2025-12-31 22:32:23+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1459581050/history#map=19/52.017008/8.419674
und noch ein auferstandenes Gebäude
wies1 (2026-01-02 14:46:15+00:00): Ok, demolished 1 - ok, war so gekennzeichnet, hatte ich übersehen - auf Orthophoto sieht das Gebäude als vorhanden.
Das andere demolished, ein Carport war als solches für mich nicht erkennbar - in Orthophoto als Gebäude zu erkennen. Aber gut, wenn es nicht mehr da ist, dann muss es natuerlich weg,
DeFra85 (2026-01-02 16:01:46+00:00): Auf den neuesten Luftbildern (NRW iDOP) ist das Carport definitiv nicht mehr zu sehen und der Parkplatz auch komplett neu asphaltiert.
Und wenn jemand nach Jahren das Haus auf demolished:building setzt und die Umrisse 1:1 mit dem "Neuen" auf ALKIS passen, würde mir das doch zu denken geben und beim letzten Bearbeiter nachfragen. 

Wie gesagt: Vor-Ort-Prinzip
trigpoint (2026-04-03 11:34:26+00:00): What is the source of this edit?
kre777 (2026-02-24 16:26:13+00:00): Hallo Piene
Hier hat sich der Fehlerteufel eingeschlichen. 
Der way/464355899 hatte zuvor ein cycleway:left-track. Das war korrekt.
Folgende Straßenstücke haben nicht 'cycleway:both' sondern nur 'cycleway:right'
145311573 460602028 460805419 460805417 1059334511 1059334510
Und dieser way/33071879 hat nur 'cycleway:left' und nicht 'both'.
Bitte um Korrektur und/oder Kommentar.
Viele Grüße kre777
Frans S (2026-01-20 15:41:47+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Issues found on your mappings
A: Inaccurate mapping. ( mapped oversized)

G: Included the shadow of the building.
H: Included a yard of clearing.


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


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176100229
Frans S (2026-01-20 15:43:59+00:00): Check this webpage where I adjusted just a few buildings mapped by you.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=177481867
Rather oversized and not following the rooflines. Please strengthen your mapping skills.
Quality prevails above quantity.
Best regards
Jorik “GingerLionXx” Seisveld (2025-12-28 12:32:17+00:00): Dag Tebon, 
Ik zie dat jij alle leisure=garden in Den Ham hebt verwijderd. Op basis waarvan heb je dit verwijderd?

Ik ben het daar namelijk niet mee eens. Buiten dat je een aantal niet prive tuinen ook hebt verwijderd ben ik van mening dat dit wel toegestaan is. Over het feit of het wenselijk kan men nog discussiëren.

In deze forumpost hieronder en de wiki daaronder kan je zien dat het wel kan/mag.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/leisure-garden-voor-prive-voor-en-achter-tuinen/87316/101

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=garden

Groet Jorik
Jorik “GingerLionXx” Seisveld (2026-01-11 17:17:41+00:00): Dag Tebon,
Ik heb de wijzigingset ontdaan gemaakt. Als je nog verdere opmerkingen of vragen hebt voel je vrij om een berichtje te sturen
Jorik
Oxeelix (2025-12-18 15:31:12+00:00): References decision for this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4905230