piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
OlasMapy (2026-03-05 18:22:54+00:00): gusiew, mamonow byli zbrodniarzami a bagration to byla operacja zniewalajaca polske, dlatego te nazwy usunalem. po prostu nienawidzę tych komunistycznych nazw. według Słownika Królestwa Polskiego te miejscowości mają nazwy, na które zmieniłem. możemy porozmawiać na dc: olas.2011
OlasMapy (2026-03-05 18:31:51+00:00): dodam, że zrobiłem ten zestaw zmian z pobudek takich, że nie chcę, abyśmy używali rosyjskich nazw, tak samo, jak zrobiliśmy z królewcem. jak na przykład ktoś zmieni nazwę miasta/ulicy/miejsca na cześć zbrodniarza wojennego szkodzącego polakom np. Marszałka Focha -> Hermann-Goring-Strasse to mamy tej drugiej używać? Dla mnie po prostu to jest bez sensu używać tych transliteracji.
bartgron (2026-03-05 20:22:15+00:00): Nie można zmieniać takich rzeczy "bo chcę"
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-05 21:31:26+00:00): >  jak na przykład ktoś zmieni nazwę miasta/ulicy/miejsca na cześć zbrodniarza wojennego szkodzącego polakom np. Marszałka Focha -> Hermann-Goring-Strasse to mamy tej drugiej używać? 

mapujemy świat jakim jest nie jaki byśmy chcieli by był
NeisBot (2026-03-05 18:00:41+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 15 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1077489661 v10 | 9 crossings
https://osm.org/way/636757253 v10 | 6 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/2169662078 v4

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179409197
NeisReview (2026-03-14 05:33:09+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/179415432
kitsee (2026-03-06 22:24:01+00:00): Hi Garh,
Welcome to OSM and thank you for your contribution. I've done a little bit of a clean up here and mapped a handful of houses try and give a template to work from. Here's some feedback:

If a building has only one address then the building object should get the address and the entrance should be left blank. if it has multiple then the building should be blank and the entrances should have the addresses. 

`access=destination` is used for cases where a road has a "except for access" restriction sign on it. 

there isnt a need to link the house to the road, the address does that and `service=driveway` doesnt really fit here, all the parking spaces could be mapped as private street side parking with `amenity=parking parking=street_side access=private`. the wiki has some more information on this here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:parking%3Dstreet_side

If you have any questions please feel free to ask me or the forums or the discord. 

Kind regards,
Kits
NeisBot (2026-03-05 18:09:40+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 13 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/220409631 v3 | 11 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/2312302319 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179409608
MappingMore (2026-03-06 06:47:08+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179428799
Lyon-St-Clair (2026-03-09 20:15:32+00:00): CE NE SONT PAS DES LIGNES DE BUS !!!!!!! MERCI D'UTILISER "Itinéraire Piéton" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cascafico (2026-03-06 13:25:50+00:00): Hi. I'm inspecting the recent bombing sites. Which sources did you use to define the military landuses?
nickvet419 (2026-03-06 13:50:16+00:00): Just did a review of more reascent satellite imagery.
LumosityApplause (2026-03-12 17:29:45+00:00): Satellite imagery alone cannot identify military landuse. Please cite your sources.
nickvet419 (2026-03-12 18:12:48+00:00): The cuttent military are has 2 military guard tower in the corners, other privious towers were removed in the school, pharmacy, and cultural cener areas that were walled off. There are military style barricades at the entrances to the military areas.
OlasMapy (2026-03-05 18:24:09+00:00): od kiedy zmiana polskich nazw na te nierosyjskie to wandalizm
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-05 21:31:59+00:00): jest jeśli zmieniasz nazwy prawdziwe na takie jakie byś chciał by były
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-03-11 02:10:47+00:00): Reverted node drag of road's node just to add a SEO spam changeset comment

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179665358
Higashimado (2026-03-05 18:56:02+00:00): Hi katpatuka,

Thank you very much for your continued work in mapping these under‑mapped areas, we really appreciated that. But recently the China community have been discussing the proper use of the alt_name tag. According to the OSM wiki, alt_name is intended for “alternative names by which the feature is known in the local language,” so the values should be written in, and commonly used in, the local language.

With this in mind, we would be grateful if you could move English transliterations to alt_name:en instead. In addition, for Sino‑Tibetan languages, names typically use diphthongs or polysyllables. When only a single character remains after removing a generic suffix (for example, 恰 after removing 乡 from 恰乡), that form is generally not used as a name except as an acronym. In such cases, please avoid adding it to alt_name.
Higashimado (2026-03-05 19:10:08+00:00): By the way, we generally do not recommend adding transliterations of generic suffixes (such as xiang or zhen) as alt_name. This practice is not commonly used in other East Asian communities
 (for example, Japan: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/734876463  Taiwan:  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/60655866  Korea: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/415155962). We believe it is better to keep alt_name concise so that it reflects meaningful alternative names rather than structural or generic elements.
Higashimado (2026-03-05 19:14:47+00:00): (sorry, "names typically use disyllables or polysyllables", it's a typo
katpatuka (2026-03-06 13:34:16+00:00): Ok, acknowledged. ;)

I've updated mypresets.xml for use with josm to reflect the community's tagging standards.

Feel free to notify me for other things which the China community may not like.
Higashimado (2026-03-07 20:10:47+00:00): Thank you. 🤗
bartgron (2026-03-05 20:22:39+00:00): Zestaw zmian został wycofany.
Pozdrawiam
bartgron (2026-03-05 20:15:12+00:00): Podobno jest to pusty lokal na wynajem, co zostało sprawdzone wczoraj, wedle komentarza do zamkniętej uwagi tuż obok
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-05 22:32:11+00:00): skąd wiesz że ona istnieje?
OlasMapy (2026-03-06 13:14:58+00:00): wiedza lokalna
ajmat (2026-03-06 11:02:58+00:00): Revert of 179388579
OSM_RogerWilco (2026-03-06 10:09:50+00:00): Moin!
Dann wäre es vehicle=private statt access=private. Zu Fuß darf man dann durch.
Thomas Kaminski (2026-03-08 14:45:19+00:00): Darf ich da wirklich als Fußgänger durch? Es ist zwar nicht ausdrücklich verboten aber auch nicht ausdrücklich erlaubt. Ich habe auch ein Foto vom Schild gemacht.
Baloo Uriza (2026-03-11 13:56:50+00:00): County road numbers would be ref, not name, same as other highway numbers.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179410687
MappingMore (2026-03-06 08:39:46+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179432550
Langlaeufer (2026-03-06 15:00:11+00:00): Ist der Weg beschildert mit "Gehweg"+"Radverkehr frei"? dann nur bicycle=yes (siehe) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179411336
Thundafox (2026-03-07 17:17:19+00:00): Es ist folgende Kombination aus Schildern vorhanden. (https://trafficsigns.osm-verkehrswende.org/DE?q=rad&signs=DE:239,1022-10)
Langlaeufer (2026-03-07 18:00:28+00:00): Danke. Ich hab es angepasst
MappingMore (2026-03-08 03:42:13+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179517491
SpinOff (2026-03-05 21:56:24+00:00): There is no place for such thing in OSM. Remove it please.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-05 22:05:36+00:00): proszę, nie dodawaj fikcyjnych podziałów administracyjnych

please, do not add delusional administrative boundaries
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-05 22:30:49+00:00): deleted

fake micronation administartive areas should not be mapped as real
MappingMore (2026-03-06 09:31:05+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179435164
fluffycupcakes (2026-03-06 12:39:29+00:00): Hello! Thank you for your mapping efforts. I noticed you've been using Mapbox for mapping in Douglas Country. It's a completely fine source to use, but if you want to make your work easier, there is aerial imagery of much higher quality available in Esri World Imagery for this location. It offers 1-inch resolution with 0.86m absolute accuracy. 
If you have questions you can respond to this comment with them. 
Happy mapping!
jandar22 (2026-04-07 18:54:28+00:00): Hi! Commenting with some recommended edits on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1485785671. The wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=residential recommends against large wraparound areas that overlap other significant types of landuse. It's certainly a planned residential development area with a documented name, but the large area includes lots of other significant landuses, such as a school, parks, farmland, and industrial. I'd propose to separate out the named neighborhood tag as a point feature around the center, and break up the residential area way to more accurately show what's residential, what's farmland, etc. 

Ordinarily I just go ahead and make these changes myself, and I would be more than happy to take this on as a task, but since I see this is a recent addition and you're a very well-established mapper in this area I wanted to check first. Let me know your thoughts, thanks!
TheDutchMan13 (2026-04-07 19:42:51+00:00): I agree, i meant to just add a neighbor tag to the landuse. Didn't realize i added residential=landuse tag also. I just fixed it.
NeisBot (2026-03-05 19:30:40+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 9 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/392104128 v5 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/32546695 v8 | 3 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179412336
9_tab (2026-03-06 12:16:34+00:00): Can you explain what you are trying to do and what how this is reflected in your edit summary? 

Please also improve this in future edits.

The tag you are using doesn't appear to be helpful. For the address we have https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1369391702
TinPetreković (2026-03-09 09:19:19+00:00): The segments that were split unnecessarily have been merged back together in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179570585
ssundell (2026-03-07 20:59:40+00:00): Onko tuolla Hatanpäällä oikeasti tehty puistosta kävelykatu?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179412539
Sakari_N (2026-03-23 16:57:38+00:00): Nämä kävelykatupuistot voisi ainakin minun puolestani palauttaa takaisin puistoiksi, vaikka OSM-VTYMRP ei olekkaan asiaa kommentoinut. Menin tuosta ohi eikä se ainakaan pikaisesti vilkaistua näyttänyt muuttuneen 50m leveäksi kävelykaduksi :D
Javnik (2026-03-09 21:43:28+00:00): Witam,
dzięki za dodanie danych do OSM. Parę uwag dotyczących znacznika `name` - widzę po zmianach, że aplikuje się to do większości zmian wprowadzanych przez was:
- w nazwie powinna się znaleźć jedynie typowa nazwa firmy
- Lokalizacja firmy jest już zawarta (poprawnie) w innym znaczniku; nie ma sensu jej powtarzać w name,
- dodatkowe detale odnośnie dodawanych miejsc można zawrzeć w tagu `description`, aczkolwiek to też nie jest miejsce na reklame jakiegokolwiek typu,
Podsumowując, w tym konkretnym przypadku `Multikor` w tym tagu wystarczy.

Doceniam wysiłek prawidłowego oznaczania wprowadzanych firm - reszta tagów wydaję się w porządku (w znaczniku `phone` warto dodać prefix polski na początku `+48`). 

Miłego dnia
peterlilliegeo (2026-03-06 00:20:39+00:00): Thank you!! Sorry about that, still getting my bearings
NeisBot (2026-03-05 19:51:39+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 44 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/226476954 v4 | 15 crossings
https://osm.org/way/471167387 v2 | 14 crossings
https://osm.org/way/226476845 v6 | 13 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/2352919426 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179413029
NeisReview (2026-03-14 05:33:10+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/179813486
gurglypipe (2026-03-05 23:53:14+00:00): This is looking fun! Do the building parts which don’t touch the ground need min_height? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:min_height

I’m completely guessing here since I’ve never tried to map a roof in this much detail.

What are you using to visualise it? I tried looking at https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=54.0453726&lon=-2.7812111&zoom=21 but it’s not doing a very good job of rendering it.
iMacThere4iAm (2026-03-06 21:23:04+00:00): Tagging building:part=roof stops walls from being rendered in most renderers, but apparently building:part=porch doesn't. The most frustrating thing is I haven't found a renderer that will visualise buildings in progress, without having to submit the changeset first. 
I used this to render a single building
https://deevroman.github.io/OSMBuilding/?id=158264239&type=way
but it doesn't support the roof shape of the Butterfly House.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179413053
Dezza (2026-03-07 19:25:13+00:00): JOSM has a plugin "Urban Eye 3D" which lets you visualise the building before committing. That of course means getting to know JOSM first though!
F4 is good, but sometimes takes a day or two to update.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179413053
Langlaeufer (2026-04-17 18:55:56+00:00): Ich finde von dir öfter mal nicht verbundene Wege. Du must in JOSM die Punkte mit den bestehenden Wegen "Joinen" oder mit bestehenden Punkten Mergen.
JOSM sollte das eigentlich auch anmeckern.
osmmapper222 (2026-04-17 19:13:41+00:00): Beziehst du dich auf isolierte Wege, die nicht an das allgemeine Wegenetz angeschlossen sind?

Oder überlappende Wege, die nicht mit einem Knoten verbunden sind (z.B. eine Auffahrt, die einen Gehweh kreuzt)?

Vor dem Upload lasse ich den JOSM-Validator drüberlaufen und fixe, was angemerkt wird. Komisch, dass es hierfür keine Anmerkungen gab.
Langlaeufer (2026-04-18 03:27:24+00:00): Zweites:  Neue Wege bei.denen teilweise Knoten nahezu (cm) auf einem anderen Weg liegen aber nicht verbunden sind, aber verbunden werden sollen.
Baloo Uriza (2026-03-11 13:54:45+00:00): Were you trying to create a new US 70 Business?  Because you modified the historic tag, and the changeset comments didn't provide a hint.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179413559
MappingMore (2026-03-08 02:34:54+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:179516634
Zrop (2026-03-05 20:45:41+00:00): Hallo ZB_BN,
ist dieser Weg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/162619297 wirklich ausschließlich als Notfallzufahrt für Rettungsfahrzeuge gedacht oder darf er auch von Fußgängern/Radfahrer benutzt werden ?

Gruß
Zrop
marc__marc (2026-03-07 21:38:53+00:00): Hello,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/334252078
camp_site describe the level of infra of a camping. no isn't a level :)
to descripbe that camping is forbiden, I advice camping=no
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Acamping
Regards,
Marc
Lucy miau (2026-03-13 09:30:32+00:00): Hello, thank you for pointing out this error! :)
camping=no is obviously correct
hoserab (2026-03-11 00:06:46+00:00): Your source is a 17-year-old conceptual map from the "Calgary Transportation Plan", developed from the "Plan It Calgary" initiative undertaken by the City about 20 years ago. The Calgary Transportation Plan has since been merged into Volume 3 of the Municipal Development Plan, and said "Road & Street Network Map" was superseded by an updated map in 2020, which itself has been amended five times in the past three years.

I haven't done a detailed review of the changes made here, but as a general warning: don't trust a 17-year-old planning map as a source...
NeisBot (2026-03-05 20:25:11+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/13621220001 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Backwater area"
---
Misalnya, versi teks yang lebih netral dan faktual bisa jadi: "Daerah pedalaman"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-14 05:33:02+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179838089
(Delete spam tags. First version)
RickDalton (2026-03-30 04:31:39+00:00): Beat me to it. Good eye, keep up the good work.
OlasMapy (2026-03-06 13:22:52+00:00): jakiej nieprawidłowej? tu masz wikipedię https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzielnica_muzyczna_w_Bydgoszczy, a Londynek lepszy by był jako sąsiedztwo.
Wildsharky (2026-03-10 05:24:38+00:00): Revert of 179416978
OlasMapy (2026-03-06 13:27:35+00:00): nie ma niczego takiego jak Swietłogorsk wg listy KSNG z przeszukania nazwy "Swietłogorsk" skrótem ctrl+F
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-13 14:33:04+00:00): Partly reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179771389
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-13 14:33:50+00:00): Hi bartgron,

I’m not sure what’s going on here, but some of your map edits seem to have been reverted after your revert.

Best regards,
Pascal
JJIglesias (2026-03-05 20:50:57+00:00): SALUDOS. TOMAR EN CUENTA

e) Ningún objeto lleva Nombre (name), a no ser que tenga nombre propio; así una casa NO tiene ningún nombre; como SI puede tener un edificio, o una hacienda, la etiqueta (Tag) define la Identidad del objeto; el nombre solo se coloca a objetos que SI tienen un nombre propio real (Ejemplos: Edificio Los Tiempos, o Panadería Uvita, o Farmacia Bolivar, etc.). Ningún nombre se escribe en MAYUSCULAS, todo va capitalizado ósea solo lleva en Mayúsculas la primera letra de cada palabra; tal como los ejemplos anteriores.
ghostrider44 (2026-05-25 08:45:58+00:00): Hallo wuff57,
schau dir mal folgende Seite an:
https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/results/DE/BW/DE-BW-VVS-Analysis.html#bus_504 
Laut Chronik hast du am 05.03.2026 den Weg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33487117 
zuletzt bearbeitet.
Die vermutlich falschen Eintragungen sind zwar schon länger vorhanden, Monster 1965 ist aber schon länger nicht mehr aktiv. Kennst du dich hier aus und kannst das überprüfen?
Gruß ghostrider44
wuff57 (2026-05-30 09:57:10+00:00): Hallo ghostrider44, ich war schon mal an der Stelle. vehicle=no ist richtig. Ich glaube, der wesentliche Fehler war die Richtung des Wegs. Busse können nur Rtg. NW durchfahren. Das habe ich jetzt geändert. Und official durch yes ersetzt. Und den roundtrip rausgenommen, der war noch von Deinem letzten Update übrig geblieben. Viele Grüße, Franz-Peter
NeisBot (2026-03-05 20:48:45+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/12329034587 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

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

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-14 05:33:04+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/179415388
Wildsharky (2026-03-10 05:25:09+00:00): Revert of 179414425
NeisBot (2026-03-05 20:51:43+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/13596545052 v5

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Home Boutique"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-14 05:33:04+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/179838093
(Restore previous tags. No changes)

If you believe this was incorrect or would like to clarify the intent of the original tags, please reply here.
NeisBot (2026-03-05 20:57:40+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 16 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1485813270 v1 | 10 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1485483293 v2 | 6 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=179415356
MadelineMaddie (2026-03-05 21:05:56+00:00): Working on fixing it by changing the "area" to "line"
Wildsharky (2026-03-06 12:17:43+00:00): Revert of 179409197
pitscheplatsch (2026-03-06 11:41:08+00:00): Hi Rinzo007.

May we know the reason why you removed several name:* tags here?

Thanks.
H4N5-antw (2026-03-06 09:28:55+00:00): uw repliek bij note #5191181 klinkt goed, vooral waar een nog ontbreken stuk 'beek' uit mijn ooghoek idd een droogstaand doodlopend grachtje is, niet van belang lijkt voor de vistrek; 

Note bene: lijkt handig als OSM'ers jegens gebruikers voorbehoud te maken dat wegen, paden en wandelsporen goed gekarteerd kunnen worden, bevaarbare waterlopen eveneens, doch vooral de kleinste beekjes niet wegens onbegaanbaar dan uitsluitend opgenomen indien barrière bij paden? 

Dat daarnaast in een intensief gebruikt gebied als Vlaanderen hagen, afrasteringen, grachtjes langs wegen zelden ingetekend worden - juist om het overzicht te bewaren?