piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
OttoR (2024-03-03 16:13:47+00:00): Heel eerlijk gezegd denk dat het uiteindelijk weer verdwijnt (de reden dat ze geen brug hebben geplaatst; een dam weggraven is goedkoper)

Als alle ontwikkeling in de buurt gedaan is; verwacht ik dat men de singel wil herstellen en de fietsers via de Terwogtweg of een andere route verder kunnen.
Kovoschiz (2024-03-02 16:35:13+00:00): Please don't draw a circle for `=mini_roundabout` . They are transversable.
volvo_b4 (2024-03-02 14:53:54+00:00): Byggnads typer "Delvis fristående hus"?  Tycker dom är väldigt fristående och är villor och ej ihopbyggda som radhus som beskrivs här:  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building=semidetached%20house?uselang=sv
archie (2024-03-02 15:06:53+00:00): Tycks mig vara typiska parhus med två entréer för vardera husenhet.
mapperue (2024-03-04 18:02:46+00:00): Hi, I noticed you use Japanese in tag like industrial=*. This is your edit with tag industrial=四国部品:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1256880840
It would be more appropriate to use English language. In Japan, for example, this object is mapped in this way.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/608807508
You can find values for the tag industrial=* here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Key:industrial
Using Japanese for tags such as name=* or description=* is of course fine.
literan (2024-03-10 17:06:20+00:00): согласно Соглашению о статусах дорог, статусы дорог назначаются исходя из их значимости. На перемычках на ул. Ак. Королева нет secondary-трафика.

Также, как и в Петербурге, многие статусы дорог являются предметом многолетнего консенсуса. Поэтому сначала обсуждайте с местным сообществом, потом производите подобные правки. Откачу.
aixbrick (2024-03-02 20:51:39+00:00): Hallo und willkommen bei OSM,
die Postfiliale ist offenbar ein Lotto- oder Zeitschriften-Geschäft, oder?
Dann wird das Geschäft eringetragen (shop=*) und die Postdienstleistung nur als Subkey.
Beispiel: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/116161251.
Gruß
user_21113111 (2024-03-05 11:08:51+00:00): Danke für deinen Hinweis. Ich bin noch neu bei OSM und habe keine Ahnung wie ich meinen Eintrag bezüglich der Postfiliale überarbeiten kann.
Ich sehe hier gar keinen Button mit "ändern" oder "bearbeiten".

Freundlicher Gruß
AachenRunner
berndw (2024-03-05 12:18:51+00:00): Klick auf dieser Seite unten auf den Node der Post, im dann folgenden Fenster oben links auf 'Bearbeiten' 
Dann wird der Node im Editor ausgewählt und du kannst ihn bearbeiten
eggie (2024-03-02 16:08:52+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback Een historic = monument is meestal een graftombe bv de Taj Mahal in India.
Moet het niet zijn historic=building en dan bijtaggen op de gebouwomtrek. Daar hoort de naam toch ook op. Die heb je nu verwijderd.

Wat bedoel je met company= Van Gendt Hallen ? Dat is geen valide tag. 




Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148134595

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-03-02 16:18:38+00:00): historic=building en naam toegevoegd. ...company= verwijderd.

MVG
eggie
Bastian Baas (2024-03-02 16:23:33+00:00): Hi Eggie, wat goed dat je reageert...nieuw hier dus misschien doe ik het niet goed. Ik doe de communicatie voor het Rijksmonument Van Gendt Hallen en de naam staat niet over goed geschreven dus dat probeer ik aan te passen. Op deze site vind je meer info: https://vangendthallen.nl/ laat je me weten wat ik kan doen? Ik de hallen komt een museum, duurzame bedrijfjes, horeca etc.
eggie (2024-03-02 16:35:03+00:00): Oke...    De naam staat er in ieder geval nu goed op. Wanneer je het nog verkeerd ziet even CTRL-f5  Je cache leegmaken.
De  verschillende bedrijfje kun je straks bijtaggen op de adresnodes. Daar kun je evt nog mee schuiven
Bv amenity=restaurant
name=.....
tourism=museum
name=
office=company
shop=?

Mocht je hulp nodig hebben laat maar weten.
Het is nu in ieder geval geen grafmonument meer. :)

Voor rijksmonumenten zijn nog speciale tags voorhanden met codes e.d. 
Wellicht even als voorbeeld naar monumentale panden kijken in A'dam hoe dat precies getagd staat. 

Groet
eggie
eggie (2024-03-02 16:36:45+00:00): Kijk anders even hier op het forum van OSM
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/key-ref-rce-wat-houdt-dat-in/94669

Daar kun je evt een vraag stellen.
Mapse
eggie
eggie (2024-03-02 16:37:51+00:00): en hier nog wat leesvoer hoe te taggen
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref:rce
Bastian Baas (2024-03-02 16:43:34+00:00): Hi Eggie, super fijn dankje! Gaan we tzt doen als we ook de andere bedrijfjes duidelijk hebben.
silversurfer83 (2024-03-02 15:33:26+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap

you asked for someone to review this changeset. Here goes:
this looks good :)
good changeset comment, good source, tagging looks alright. Keep it up

cheers
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148134879
topolusitania (2024-03-02 15:09:07+00:00): Muito obrigado pela correcção. Este nome vem desde o início do mapeamento, quando a Iberdrola iniciou a construção do projecto do Alto Tâmega e servia para lembrar que era um projecto em construção. Algumas tags foram evoluindo ao longo destes 4 anos, mas o nome da albufeira foi ficando... Quando houver fotos com a albufeira em NPA espero que alguém mova os pontos para os novos limites sem os apagar. Infelizmente há por aí jovens que gostam de apagar o trabalho dos outros.
Kovoschiz (2024-03-02 16:36:43+00:00): Please don't split when there is no raised physical separation.
silversurfer83 (2024-03-02 15:29:52+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap :)

You asked for someone to review your changeset. Here goes:
A barrier need to be a node (point) connected to the way that is impeded by said barrier. You can draw the gate as a line (way) but it needs to connect to the way so software knows this way is blocked.

Details can be found in our wiki at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier

It's always a good idea to take a look around the wiki.

In case of questions please reach out. There's always people ready to help :)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact_channels

happy mapping
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148135404
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
maraf24 (2024-04-20 11:39:36+00:00): A ja znalazłem tablicę z hostorią mostu i nazwami "Most Uniwersytecki" i "University Bridge".
mat (2024-03-02 15:30:54+00:00): Coché la case review_requested par erreur, désolé.
Kovoschiz (2024-03-02 16:39:13+00:00): Again, turning restrictions are indicated by `type=restriction` . Please check them carefully by clicking on the intersecting points. Physical layout has no raised sepation.
Kovoschiz (2024-03-02 16:55:20+00:00): 2. Also please don't delete casually. You didn't transfer all the info. Eg the `=traffic_signals`
olo81 (2024-03-04 00:00:07+00:00): Zestaw zmian wycofany w całości, ograniczenia prędkości bez znaków trzeba odpowiednio tagować. Notorycznie tego nie robisz mimo zwracania ci uwagi. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed
Jrachi (2024-10-19 11:01:17+00:00): Ciao.
Mentre facevo delle correzioni sui tag survey:date ho trovato questo tuo
survey:date=2017-20-18
Il formato corretto è:
AAAA-MM-GG
anno in 4 cifre trattino mese in due cifre trattino giorno in due cifre.
In questo caso non posso capire dov'è l'errore
Jrachi (2024-10-19 11:05:43+00:00): Ciao.
Mentre facevo delle correzioni sui tag survey:date ho trovato questo tuo
survey:date=2017-20-18
Il formato corretto è:
AAAA-MM-GG
anno in 4 cifre trattino mese in due cifre trattino giorno in due cifre.
In questo caso non posso capire dov'è l'errore
Frans S (2024-03-09 10:57:38+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)

Inaccurate mapped

Buildings not squared.

Clustered building

Included yard

Check for shadow of building. No shadow, No building.


Explanation can be found in this document what  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/148135914
Aim311_ (2024-08-05 14:29:41+00:00): W sumie ta linia nie powinna być oznaczana jako proposed, poprzednie oznaczenie railway=disused było wystarczające.
Jak na razie planowana nie ruszyła, nie została przeprowadzona jeszcze inwentaryzacja, tory są nadal okradane, mosty są zarośnięte drzewami, szyny kolejowe i podkłady w wielu miejscach nadal leżą.
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
Frans S (2024-03-12 17:56:31+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. However , you did not square a number of buildings.

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148136369
CurlingMan13 (2024-04-11 23:59:13+00:00): This is not how you add trees.

Changeset reverted
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2024-03-03 14:19:18+00:00): Hello CactiStaccingCrane, although I do not want the conflict between countries to extend to us mappers as standalone people, I feel it is necessary to remind you that some of your editors may have some discussions here

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148153365

Best wishes
NM$L (2024-03-03 15:20:58+00:00): Hello, I noticed that you have changed some controversial administrative relationships in 148136531, ~6722, ~6944, ~7209 changeset.

According to de-facto, administrative districts should be attributed according to actual control. You can add dispute-related content, which is reflective of reality; but a district without actual control should not be added to the relationship. Also, when adding dispute content, I think you can just add relevant tags to the existing relation like 6753150 instead of creating some another duplicate relations.

I would like to restore these changesets but keep these "dispute" related content. You are welcome to discuss this in changeset 148153365.

Best wishes
user_14538650 (2024-03-04 06:55:26+00:00): I think I would delink it from the "real" provinces then and leave the de jure districts in place. Would that be OK to you?
user_14538650 (2024-03-04 07:01:38+00:00): Plus, we do have ACTUAL control for some islands in the Spratly islands, so I think that the de facto relation of vietnamese control should be left in place.
NM$L (2024-03-04 14:46:34+00:00): 谢谢您回复嘞。

是的，如果我没有理解错误，您希望标识"dispute"来表示“全部声索区域”；标识"dispute"是正确的，因为先前您的编辑集中存在尝试将争议地区加入行政边界关系中的行为，这些编辑集才被留意到。

目前，我注意到您的“Tranh chấp chủ quyền Việt Nam của quần đảo Trường Sa”貌似包含了如南通礁等非越南声索区域，这貌似仍是错误的。

我认为可以有3种方案：

♦️ 第一种与现在的数据差不多。参考中国与印度也有争议地区，它被表示在 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12931502 中，我希望可以参考它进行标注，也就是：

1. 为西沙、南沙分别创建关系，包含西沙、南沙的所有边界，作为outer；
2. 创建一个最大的关系，包含所有中越争议地区的边界，并作为outer，再将西沙、南沙以subarea加入其中；

现在的数据大致与前文所述相符。不过这样子搞比较复杂，还有其他国家的争议地区。

♦️ 第二种则是为越南声索，但未实控的区域创建一个关系；最后再创建一个包含南海诸国所有争议区域的关系（而所有越南已经实控的和中国已经实控的可直接加入各自的boundary=administrative关系中）。因为南海不止中国和越南有争议，还有菲律宾、马来西亚等，他们并不是全部声索整个群岛，每个国家的范围不一样。这样标注可能会减少互相重叠的区域。

♦️ 第三种即每个国家都不创建此类关系，因为过于复杂。


Thanks for replying.

Yes, if I understand you correctly, you want to add "dispute" to indicate "all claim territory"; the using of "dispute" tag is correct. Those edits were noticed because there were attempts to add disputed areas to the boundary=administrative relation in your previous edits.

Currently, I notice that your "Tranh chấp chủ quyền Việt Nam của quần đảo Trường Sa" appears to include non-Vietnamese claimed areas such as Nantong Jiao (aka. Louisa Reef), which still appears to be wrong.

I suggest that there could be 3 possible solutions for us:

♦️ The first one makes minimal differ with current OSM data. Referenced to the fact that China also has disputed territory with India, which was mapped in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12931502, we can imitate its tagging method, so that we could:

1. Separately create relations for Xisha (Paracel Islands) and Nansha (Spratly Islands), containing all the boundaries of disputed islands in Xisha (Paracel Islands) and Nansha (Spratly Islands) as their outer;
2. Create a maximal relationship that contains all the boundaries of the disputed territory between Vietnam and China as outer, and then add Xisha (Paracel Islands) and Nansha (Spratly Islands) as subarea;

Current data situation is generally consistent with the above solution. If we apply this, we could just change a little to the data, but we need to think more about other countries' dispute in this area such as Malaysia or Philippine.

♦️ The second would be to create a relation for the territories that Vietnam claims, but does not actually control; and then finally create a relation that includes all these disputed areas for China South Sea (or may called South China Sea). While all territories already controlled by China and Vietnam, have been already added as member of "boundary=administrative" relation directly. This is because the China South Sea is not only disputed by China and Vietnam, but also by the Philippines, Malaysia, etc. They do not all claim the entire archipelago/islands, and each country has a different scope. Mapping in this way may reduce areas that overlap each other.

♦️ The third one is a "lazy solution" that both of us won't create any relation because of dealing with complex territorial disputes is too troublesome.
NM$L (2024-03-04 14:52:48+00:00): There is a short version for 3 solutions, but I can't guarantee the quality of the translation, so I put the original text here:

一个就是把每对儿国家之间所有有争议的放一个dispute里面，一对儿国家一个relation（可以有子分区）；

一个是把一个国家声索但是没实控的给每个国家放单独的dispute，一个国家一个relation；

一个是难得弄，就不弄。
user_14538650 (2024-03-04 15:28:13+00:00): In my opinion, option 1 is the best because data consumers in Vietnam would love to have an unifying relation for their own local maps (instead of mucking it out on their local maps, which is both time-comsuming and very complex). I'm all for making other relations for other countries disputing in the area as well. Also, as far as I know vietnam generally claims all of the spratly and paracel islands, and the vietnamese government has not made any specific claims regarding to what islands specifically do we want to claim (also see https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisa_(r%E1%BA%A1n_san_h%C3%B4), vietnam also dispute the louisa reef).
NM$L (2024-03-04 17:57:55+00:00): OK, I see.

I also agree with your opinion, so I will do option 1 later, which is just a little different from the data now.

For these southeast islands/reefs, it's true that there isn't a line on "claim", but I also have almost not found any material in other languages about Vietnam's claims to individual islands near Malaysia separately (including no mention of Vietnam's claims in Wikipedia in other languages). Of course if you are quite sure, then just keep it.
NM$L (2024-03-04 18:01:22+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148219213
NM$L (2024-03-04 18:08:14+00:00): Oh, yep, if you find any info in Vietnamese is wrong or inaccurate, please help correct it. I am not familiar with Vietnamese.
NM$L (2024-03-04 18:08:39+00:00): Thank you
user_14538650 (2024-03-05 01:50:58+00:00): Vietnam haven't published a whitepaper detailing specifically what islands it wants to claim, just the general area of the spratly and paracel islands. Sometimes it refers to the islands near the Phillipines as "west" or "south" of the spratly islands.

Anyways, thank you with your polite and civil response. To be honest I didn't expected any substantial discussion to come out from such a heated dispute, and I understand you have probably dealed with a bunch of Vietnamese people who has no idea about de facto control and such. I made this relation in order to help data consumers in Vietnam has an easier time complying with the authorities and that is essential for OSM Vietnam community growth in general.
user_14538650 (2024-03-05 01:58:59+00:00): Hey, maybe we should collaborate on mapping landcover near china-vietnam border. A good place to start is at the northernmost part of Vietnam (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/23.3877/105.3363) where some landcover has already been mapped.
mavl (2024-03-23 14:39:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-06 07:14:48+00:00): Hello!

Note that you do not need to add description of feature type as a name.
For example when mapping tree it is enough to specify that it is a tree, no need for putting that name of this specific tree is "Tree".

So for buildings it is not needed to put building as their name.

Or do you maybe know that this specific object mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1256895393 is specifically named with such name?

And if it was mistake - can you edit map to remove this name?
    
Do not worry too much about this issue - I made way worse mistakes when I was starting. Maybe some tool or explanation is confusing? Why you added this name? Note that I am asking as maybe something can be fixed to be less confusing.
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
NorthCrab_upload (2024-03-02 15:50:19+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9781439867
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7898244666
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7898244629
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9781439876
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/927112608
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/927112647
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/248008030
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/927112607

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
maro21 (2024-03-09 02:50:38+00:00): Most został nazwany i nazywa się Strachociński.
pavvv (2024-03-11 11:38:09+00:00): źródło?
maraf24 (2024-03-23 22:58:31+00:00): most drogowy to nie jest nazwa tylko rodzaj obiektu
katpatuka (2024-03-03 06:08:21+00:00): openstreetmap'ın ait olan verisi kurçalamadan uMap önerim: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/tr/

Kolay gelsin
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
AMETOVENA (2024-03-02 15:56:22+00:00): Par erreur j'ai pas ajouté de commentaire
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
Warin61 (2024-03-02 22:29:54+00:00): Relation 17296397 is NOT an island. Deleted. 

This area is already mapped with wetlands, rivers etc... Please do not harm work already done by others.
ManuelB701 (2024-03-03 10:02:00+00:00): Da man die Gebäude auf den gängingen Luftbildern noch sehen kann, habe ich diese als demolished:* wieder hergestellt.
dreua (2024-03-03 21:57:13+00:00): Ich danke euch beiden, solange dort nichts neues oder construction/brownfield getaggt werden kann finde ich demolished sehr sinnvoll.
okainov (2025-10-14 11:29:35+00:00): Are you sure the camping was free?
bxl-forever (2024-03-02 16:36:18+00:00): Hello,

In this changeset you changed the address for the whole building into housenumber 51.  However, it still shows as housenumber 55 in UrbIS, this is causing a discrepancy with official government data.

I saw they say "51" on their website but it might just be a mistake from their webmaster.  Do you confirm you surveyed the building and only saw signs that this building has number 51?  That way, I can report it and request a change in UrbIS.

Thanks.
olecky (2024-03-02 17:19:23+00:00): No, I remember I had a brief look for the address to double-check if it's really the same building, but I didn't see it, so I trusted the website. Probably UrbIS is more trustworthy. I'll change it back.
mavl (2024-03-23 14:38:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 149053741 where the changeset comment is: The
NorthCrab_upload (2024-03-02 16:20:48+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11685006004

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
G_P_J (2024-03-03 00:48:24+00:00): Poprawione.
Xvtn (2024-03-04 16:26:30+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Things look good overall, but there was a problem with a couple of your tags. Specifically, description= is for a concise description of a feature, not marketing ad space. (Looks like another mapper has already fixed things up!)
Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!
FraukeLeo (2025-06-21 05:34:30+00:00): Hallo bahnpirat, "Würgassen 380/220 kV" mag ja gern die betrieblich-operative Bezeichnung sein, aber als name=* würde ich "Umspannwerk W." (nach Beseitigung des Typos) doch bei Weitem bevorzugen. Weil es mit Sicherheit der gebräuchlichere Name ist. Oder sagen zwei Leute auf einem Aussichtspunkt hier wirklich "Da ist das Kernkraftwerk Würgassen, und links daneben siehst du Würgassen dreihundertachtzig zweihundertzwanzig Kavau"?

Ich hab das mal umgebaut und die von dir eingebaute Bezeichnung als official_name eingetragen. So stehts auch im OSM-Wiki unter "key:name": "If an official name is more unwieldy or obscure than another name for the same feature and fewer people use it in practice, even if it is signposted, it is better to put the official name in official_name=* or alt_name=* than to treat it as the primary name."

Die einzelnen Teile sind mit allen Daten noch da, ich hab zusätzlich ein landuse=industrial für die Gesamtfläche drumgezogen.
flohoff (2024-03-02 17:42:47+00:00): Moin,
diese änderung hat den Durchgangsverkehr von der Kreisstraße ins Wohngebiet gedrückt.

Rot Alt, Grün Neu

https://osm.zz.de/routeqa/?rid=700236,732981#52.06007,7.64165,17z

Ich gucke gleich mal was da genau zugeschlagen hat.

Flo
ainki (2024-04-15 18:03:11+00:00): Moi. Palautit Espoonväylän ja Kehä III lännestä tulevien rampin kevyenliikenttenväylän (ylityskohdan ) takaisin sellaiseksi kuin se oli yli 5 vuotta sitten. Otathan huomioon muutoksia tehdessäsi että käyttämäsi Helsinki region orthophoto on vuodelta 2017 ja osa kartoitetuista asioista tai saattaa olla uudempia kuin 2017 ilmakuvassa näkyy, kuten aikaisemminkin huomauttanut.
liljaadeliina (2024-11-20 10:12:22+00:00): Hei,

kiitos viestistäsi, pidän tämän mielessä kun kartoitan.
MxxCon (2024-03-07 01:17:51+00:00): Hello.
You made some massive modifications here without providing any sources for your changes.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148138276