piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NorthCrab_upload (2025-04-11 16:41:12+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, dodaj ją w addr:street. Jeśli nie, zamień addr:city na addr:place - tak oznaczamy adresy bez ulic.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/789836771

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Marek-M (2025-04-11 17:28:33+00:00): Cześć, nie dopisujemy miejscowości w nazwie obiektu. Przedszkole bez nazwy własnej oznacza się samym tagiem `amenity=kindergarten` bez dodawania nazwy.
Dawid2849 (2025-04-11 21:52:51+00:00): Akurat w przypadku szkół czy przedszkoli dodawanie tych nazw ma sens (podobnie jak w przypadku UG), bo znam przypadki szkół typu "Szkoła Podstawowa w miejscowości X, oddział w Y"
Marek-M (2025-04-12 06:49:56+00:00): Ale to nie jest ten przypadek.
Dawid2849 (2025-05-03 22:11:17+00:00): Nie jest, ale jednak moim zdaniem warto tak robić. Tak samo jak zawsze do ochotniczych straży pożarnych jest dodawana nazwa miejscowości, choć w wielu przypadkach będzie ona taka sama, jak nazwa na węźle place=village
Dawid2849 (2025-05-03 22:12:02+00:00): No chyba, że trafi się na taki potworek: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12336732638
MxxCon (2025-04-14 20:20:46+00:00): Hello.
The website you linked to points to a business in Falls Church, VA. Is that accurate?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164824243
hellflower (2025-04-15 02:15:12+00:00): It's the same business and menu, but the website doesn't mention the NY location, so I deleted it. Thanks!
SomeoneElse (2025-04-12 10:31:11+00:00): Hello,
Thanks for this.  I'm guessing that the gap at https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/69312#map=18/51.828983/-2.215376 is just "awaiting survey following completion of new housing estate" or similar?
The view of the ROWmaps data (green lines at https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#18/51.82841/-2.21512/H/P ) I don't think has been updated for ages, but the path round to the south looks new, so presumably that may end up being joined and (and perhaps even signed).
Cheers,
Andy
Alex McKee (2025-04-12 12:17:46+00:00): Hi Andy, Yes, the Glevum Way across Winneycroft Farm is currently unclear. The order that suspended the footpaths created temporary rights of way around the edges of one of the fields but the Glevum Way itself hasn't yet been rerouted.

I will be re-surveying the footpath between Painswick Road and Winneycroft Farm (EUL 22) soon.

I will also be re-surveying Sniggs Field Avenue once there's more progress there. When we surveyed it recently there was evidence on the ground (but inaccessible) that there's going to be a set of public paths crossing the estate roughly lining up with the old EUL 21 footpath, which is good. But it does appear that EUL 22 may be permanently re-routed south to join EUL 24, EUL 23 is currently suspended and may not be reestablished at all as there are now houses on the line and doesn't appear to be any space reserved for the path. So yes, as you say the gap is awaiting more progress on the housing estate and hopefully some GW waymarkers. Thanks!
Alex McKee (2025-04-12 18:04:03+00:00): Just a note that I resurveyed EUL 22 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164866807 and found somewhat mixed results on the ground. There are GW stickers on the temporary fencing showing part of the route but not other parts. It still runs across the small paddock between Winneycroft Lane and the new road, Sniggs Field Avenue.
SomeoneElse (2025-04-12 18:35:04+00:00): Thanks - these things do sometimes get forgotten.
mcliquid (2025-04-18 12:42:03+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
b-jazz (2025-04-11 17:23:22+00:00): Shit. My bad. Sorry.
George Karidis (2026-02-25 15:31:15+00:00): Hello, 
Why did you remove all english and greek names?
sheldonelectric (2026-03-03 11:39:22+00:00): Όταν δεν διασταυρώνεται ότι οι λατινικοί χαρακτήρες στην οδό ή στάση του λεωφορείου είναι συγκεκριμένης γλώσσας (πχ αγγλικά; ιταλικά; αλβανικά;) βάζουμε ως int_name.
George Karidis (2026-03-23 20:28:44+00:00): Κατανοητό, αλλά δεν τα άλλαξες σε int_name. Τα αφαίρεσες τελείως.
eggie (2025-04-11 19:41:40+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
Allison P (2025-04-11 19:56:13+00:00): Hi bwheeler65, a few tips and questions:

The website tag should only be used for a site directly relating to the feature. If there is a distinct page for each building, then use that, otherwise the tag should be left off.
Ditto for the phone number. If calling that number doesn't lead directly to someone at the particular building, it should not be included. If it is indeed correct, then the phone number should also include the country code, delineated with a hyphen. (+1-208-387-6195)

The name is pretty verbose. Consider renaming to "Traffic Operations Building #" and adding operator=Ada County Highway District and operator:wikidata=Q4678237.

Finally, are you certain the street is East Franklin Road? The county assessor reports the address as West Franklin Road. East Franklin Road would suggest that the facility is in Meridian, which does not correspond to the city limits. https://apps.adacounty.id.gov/PropertyLookup/PropertyDetails?parcel=S1109438975&year=2025

Thanks!
bwheeler65 (2025-04-14 12:03:22+00:00): Thank you for the valuable feedback. I made the change to West Franklin and shortened the name. Removed website and phone numbers.
Allison P (2025-06-06 21:43:58+00:00): I have also corrected the ZIP code on buildings 2 and 3, after confirming with the county addressing and post office.
cyton (2025-11-01 11:18:46+00:00): Siehe Note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3665486
RedAuburn (2025-04-11 18:31:54+00:00): src survey
esemenko (2025-04-15 20:20:16+00:00): Why have you deleted Curtis Road? It hasn't been removed as far as i can see in all the imagery options. Additionally, the paths through the forest shouldn't have been deleted either. They are also still visible.
Nextwave980 (2025-04-16 00:44:03+00:00): Curtis Road is still there, but curtis Road changes into Dixon Drive but yea.. I wouldnt just remove one of the largest used roads on base. If I deleted something, it was not intentional. Curtis Road is a major used road in Trenton.
Kaloan-koko (2026-07-29 14:41:05+00:00): За съжаление неопределиени POI "point" не излизат дори на EveryDoor, за малко щях да го добавя повторно.
Няма ли тагове за такъв вид помещения?
Fraxi (2026-07-29 16:19:18+00:00): Еми сложил съм room=storage, доколко е правилно е друг въпрос...
Fraxi (2026-07-29 18:09:19+00:00): Ето това прочетох в уикито
"The room=* key is used to mark rooms inside a building, which is a space surrounded by walls and doors. This is useful when mapping indoor spaces."
"To tag a room, create an area area (preferred) or a node node and add indoor=room."
По-надолу след "Avoid these values":
	Ambiguous, can be a shop or a storage room. Use shop=* or room=storage instead.

Пробвах да сложа indorr=room и редакторът реагира, че трябвало да бъде площ. Как да я начертая? Нищо, че по-нагоре пише "OR a NODE"
Fraxi (2026-07-29 18:15:37+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186601705

Митко може да върне промяната, ако трябва.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-04-06 08:58:24+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8541236395/history has bicycle = optional_sidepath that was added in this edit
What this tag means? This access value is unusual
Lezurex (2026-04-06 09:16:15+00:00): Hi Mateusz, good catch, that was an error of mine. bicycle=optional_sidepath only applies to ways of course, not to nodes.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-04-27 11:03:41+00:00): Should this tag be simply removed?
Lezurex (2026-04-27 16:03:24+00:00): Forgot to remove it after you made me aware of it, sorry. Removed it now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181898739
rempshaener (2025-04-12 17:13:50+00:00): Hallo,
da war einiges verschachtelt, ich habe es mal überarbeitet.
Viele Grüße
A35K (2026-04-18 22:09:38+00:00): Hallo, gibt es einen Grund weshalb der mJKW am De-Gasperi-Bogen auf den nordwestlichen Radweg verschoben wurde und dabei der nicht-existierende Radweg https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1376856657 erstellt wurde? Es macht wenig Sinn das der mJKW hier die Straße überqueren soll um dann weiter nördlich bei der Münchner Straße wieder die Straße zu kreuzen. Außerdem ist auf der Website https://jakobskirchenweg.de/Rad/Neuperlach-Feldkirchen/Neuperlach-Feldkirchen.html auch die Variante mit dem südöstlichen Radweg entlang des De-Gasperi-Bogens eingezeichnet. Leider darf die Website wegen Lizenzgründen für OSM nicht verwendet werden aber ich wollte mich trotzdem deswegen erkundigen.

MfG, 
A35K
JAAS (2025-05-19 17:01:58+00:00): Hola Guiseppe Salvador,

Hasta en donde he encontrado, no existe alguna evidencia visual que demuestre la existencia de esta vía (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320013198#map=17/-12.151276/-76.991048). Si bien es cierto que se cita como fuente a "la municipalidad de Lima", fuese mejor incluir un link que lleve a relevar más directamente de qué trata. Si se tratra de un proyecto próximo a inaugurarse, en todo caso debiera dibujarse utilizando las etiquetas `highway=construction` + `construction=*`. Luego de revisar en todas las imágenes satelitales y de superficie disponibles, éstas indican el paso de esta vía que ha dibujado ahora pasando por encima de grandes edificaciones... En todo caso esto no puede estar como se encuentra actualmente, pues para efectos prácticos cualquier ruteador lo tomará en cuenta para llegar de un punto a otro, desinformando a los conductores a tomar una ruta que aún no existe (si es que llega a existir algún día). ¿Podría ampliar acerca de la fuente utilizada y si se trata de una propuesta futura, o si se trata de algo que ya se ha concluido, por favor? 

En OSM se recomienda dibujar tan las solo cosas existentes para evitar malos entendidos. Para otras cosas planeadas que existirán en un futuro cercano (y/o ya se encuentran físicamente en su fase de construcción) no deben aparecer como ya transitables libremente. 

Muchas gracias,
JAAS
Giuseppe Salvador (2025-05-19 20:57:27+00:00): Hola

Todo lo que está trazado y modificado en esta edición ya está oficialmente concluido y abierto al tránsito desde hace un mes y medio. Lamentablemente, aún no hay imágenes satelitales recientes donde se pueda corroborar ello. Adjunto un vídeo externo en el que se aprecia la situación actual:
https://youtu.be/5T1IsKHjR2E?si=9rFL1KxTldYasPd0

Saludos
JAAS (2025-05-19 22:12:31+00:00): Hola de nuevo Guiseppe Salvador,

Quiero pedirle disculpas por el anterior mensaje. Luego de buscar más he encontrado que efectivamente ya ha inaugurado la Avenida Paseo de la República en Lima y que los datos ingresados son todos correctos hasta donde he logrado confirmar. Sólo unos pocos "cabos sueltos" orginados por tanto cambio hecho, pero ya los he tratado de corregir acorde.

Muchas gracias y nuevamente mis disculpas.

Saludos cordiales,
JAAS
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-13 06:54:54+00:00): DWG revert - this CS reverted to fully correct previous issue

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164881041
ManuelB701 (2025-07-02 18:22:10+00:00): Gibt es einen Grund, warum du einige (gekreuzten) Bundensstraßen durch "highway=trunk" ersetzt hast?
NSiecw (2025-04-12 12:35:30+00:00): Is this a future development? because Im almost certain that this is currently a vacant building and certainly not a prison?
bxl-forever (2025-04-12 07:19:26+00:00): Hello,

This changeset seems to be much more than just changing a Colruyt.  I see you spend a lot of time mapping but could you use a few more seconds to start typing real changeset descriptions for your changes.

Just asking: i see you are using the landuse category to map… individual plots as landuse=residential like here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1376863124  Wouldn’t place=plot be a more appropriate choice?  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dplot
cpa8 (2025-04-13 20:18:46+00:00): Salut, attention aux croisements sur le fleuve (1376864572).
foehn (2025-04-14 10:45:22+00:00): Bonjour,
Merci pour ta vigilence. Je n'arrive pas à retrouver l'erreur. De quelle croisement parles-tu ?
cpa8 (2025-04-14 11:33:34+00:00): Salut, si tu ouvres la voie dans ID : https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=1376864572#map=17/48.397329/-4.422405
, il y a pleins de warning sur le croisement avec les autres voies. C'est le cas tout le long du fleuve, si on peut appeler ça un fleuve ;)
foehn (2025-04-14 13:35:31+00:00): Ah top, je regardais sur le Stang Alar. Bon j'ai mis des tunnels, mais je suis passée rapidement vendredi, j'ai un doute sur l'implantation souterrain du réseau. Le tracé est importer à partir de la BD Topage.
Selon toi, peut-on améliorer l'information (tunnel ou pas) ou dois-je supprimer ce cours d'eau que j'ai ajouté sans le connaître parfaitement ?
cpa8 (2025-04-14 19:33:38+00:00): Je ne suis pas du tout calé sur le sujet désolé :/
Tu devrais peut-être poser ta question sur le forum ou sur notre groupe dans un premier temps.
Et du coup ma remarque, si elle est bien pertinente, s'applique également à tes autres changesets comme 164831299 !
zuicz (2025-04-16 15:21:07+00:00): Droga Mokre - Bujaków ma numer 927?
JanerNaKole (2025-04-16 18:11:57+00:00): wg. wykazu dróg powiatu Mikołów

http://bip.pzd.mikolowski.pl/upload/ZESTAWIENIE_DR%C3%93G_2019_5974bd.pdf

DW927 to jest ulica Sosnowa
zuicz (2025-04-16 22:52:55+00:00): Możliwe, że są to stare dane, niezaktualizowane. Przebieg zmieniono w 2016
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44764015#map=14/50.18237/18.83632
SomeoneElse (2025-04-12 09:38:02+00:00): It looks like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1376867539/history was accidentally created as a duplicate way of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366119186 in this changeset and as well as fixing some invalid relation that created others ("5446375 | Miltonsfields" fell out of the database last night).
I've deleted the duplicate and re-added the missing relations to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/366119186 .  The relations I've edited in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164846491 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164847085 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164847214 now verify in JOSM as valid polygons, so hopefully all is geometrically OK now.
VictorIE (2025-04-12 19:12:49+00:00): Thank you
eggie (2025-10-17 09:11:59+00:00): Hoi Wim,

Weet jij hoe het hier zit gezien de opmerking?
Ik heb van het fietspad nu een highway=track gemaakt. 
bicycle=no toegevoegd, want dat staat ook op de aansluitende wegen. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4877594#map=15/51.61806/4.91428&layers=N

MVG
eggie
kuhni74 (2025-10-04 13:05:25+00:00): Woher stammt der neue Gipfelname? Den zuvor hatte ich der Franziszeischen Landesaufnahme (FLA) entnommen wie in source angegeben.
kuhni74 (2026-03-31 11:46:01+00:00): darf ich nochmal artig nachfragen?
Bergfan (2026-03-31 23:38:16+00:00): Habe scheinbar den Kommentar übersehen. Sorry!

Der Name steht so auf der "Box" für das Gipfelbuch, die am Kreuz dort montiert ist (und im Gipfelbuch selbst). Daraus habe ich geschlossen, dass das der aktuell gebräuchliche Name ist. Es wäre nanürlich auch möglich dass die Person, welche die Box für das Gipfelbuch aufgehängt hat diese Bezeichnung erfunden hat.
kuhni74 (2026-04-01 08:24:36+00:00): Danke! Wo ist denn die Box? Am Zellerkreuz? Am eigentlichen Gipfel ist ja zumindest weder Kreuz noch Gipfelbuch gemappt? Und fkv traf ca. 2016 auch keines an laut https://www.gipfeltreffen.at/forum/gipfeltreffen/toureninfo-verh%C3%A4ltnisse/wanderungen-und-bergtouren/wien-n%C3%B6-burgenland-af/39013-schacher-zeller-kreuz-bei-klein-mariazell?view=thread.
kuhni74 (2026-04-01 08:29:52+00:00): ich korrigiere: nicht 2016 sondern 2009 (ist halt schon eine Weile her)
Bergfan (2026-04-02 14:21:37+00:00): Ja, die Box ist am Zellerkreuz auf der Rückseite montiert. Deshalb habe ich beim Zeller Kreuz summit:register auf yes gesetzt und nicht beim Gipfelpunkt. Direkt am höchsten Punkt (der etwa 50 m entfernt ist) gibt es kein Kreuz, das stimmt.
Bergfan (2026-04-02 14:31:07+00:00): Aufschrift auf der Box ist:
"AM SCHACHER
633 m"
kuhni74 (2026-04-03 14:40:14+00:00): Dankeschön! Weißt Du noch, ob aus dem Gipfelbuch der Urheber hervorgeht?
Bergfan (2026-04-03 15:19:32+00:00): Ja, ich glaube es stand auf der ersten Seite, wer das Gipfelbuch hingebracht hat. Kann mich aber leider nicht an den Namen erinnern und habe kein Foto davon (nur vom Kreuz mit Box). Natürlich muss das nicht zwangsläufig die gleiche Person sein, wie jene, die die Box montiert hat.
HaritaDuzenlemeHesabi (2025-04-11 20:49:37+00:00): Yeni bir kullanıcının aşağıda bağlantısı verilen vandalizm amaçlı değişikliği geri alınmıştır. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164808261
SomeoneElse (2025-04-11 21:35:37+00:00): Also a bit of cycleway near York college
monotar (2025-08-29 21:28:07+00:00): ich wollte nur mitteilen, dass hier wohl nicht genau hingesehen wurde. Bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/990602734 war das bicycle=yes keinesfalls implizit. Die Frage ist ob noch weitere Wege von deinene Edits betroffen waren.
burrscurr (2025-08-30 10:47:48+00:00): Hi monotar,

danke für den Hinweis. Hier muss mir ein Fehler unterlaufen sein, bicycle sind vehicles, und auch das VZ ist ja mit angegeben. An diese konkrete Straße kann ich mich nicht mehr erinnern – vermutlich hatte ich vehicle=destination übersehen? Ich habe eben die Straßen im Changeset noch mal stichprobenartig geprüft und habe keine vergleichbaren Konstellationen gefunden. Danke fürs korrigieren in diesem Fall!

VG burrscurr
zuicz (2025-04-11 22:29:43+00:00): witamy na OSM; mapa służy do dodawania realnych obiektów
grzegorz75jan (2025-04-12 06:46:42+00:00): Gdy usuwasz wandalizm to dodaj informację, że to zrobiłeś bo niepotrzebnie ktoś inny się fatyguje na darmo.

W każdym razie i tak dzięki za "wielką miotłę"
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164834880
zuicz (2025-04-12 10:46:33+00:00): Okej, sory :v
grzegorz75jan (2025-04-12 10:49:26+00:00): Wybaczam ci :)
SomeoneElse (2025-12-05 23:31:35+00:00): I don't know much about UPRNs, but just checking - is https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/27212056 OK?
philipcullen (2025-12-05 23:56:48+00:00): This really interesting (if you can excuse my enthusiasm). It seems that that UPRN was at the end of the road, but has then been moved. I added it manually when it was at the junction between "Huntington Road" and "Brandsby Grove". It seems to be located there now, in the latest data I have. I don't record changes between the releases, and only the latest version is online, so I can't look back to see this over time. I notice that some sites show it at the other end of the road, showing a snapshot at some point.

I've seen UPRNs migrate as buildings are constructed, and the UPRN moved to the exact location, but not UPRNs that appear to relate to roads move.
santamariense (2025-05-30 00:41:23+00:00): Olá DoloresReis,

Encontrei diversas edições suas que na verdade bagunçam o que já estava correto indo em sentido contrário as regras. Parto do princípio que tu não está por dentro dessas regras, por isso compartilho aqui: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brazil/Classifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o_das_rodovias_do_Brasil

Neste caso em específico, estava como terciária porém você converteu em local. Na verdade estava certa como terciária pois ela conecta uma pequena área urbana a rede viária superior.

Qualquer dúvida, pergunte.

Bons mapeamentos,

santamariense
marc__marc (2025-09-17 14:12:25+00:00): Hello,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1238908264)
is the 1st start_date about this object or it's about the operator
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11329742061 ?
Regards,
Marc
Ardennen8 (2025-09-17 17:56:14+00:00): It is about this object:
start_date	1825-03-17;1953-06-30
start_date:note	Opgericht op: 1825-03-17. Locatie in gebruik genomen op: 1953-06-30.
Udarian (2025-04-12 04:15:35+00:00): why did you add the "aeroway=bldg" as this does not seem to be an existing tag according to taginfo https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/aeroway#values , what is this tag 
supposed to mean? also, what is you source for this commit?
Glassman (2025-04-12 19:39:32+00:00): Why did you remove the driveway at the north end of Treemont Lane Northeast? It is on the imagery.

Also you added a power line that connects two different roads. Power lines don't connect to roads. 

Please review this edit and make connections as needed. Let me know if you need help.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/164835536
KCRadioGuy (2025-04-13 01:59:25+00:00): A driveway is not a part of the street. Is there a utility roadway, the powerline is a dirt road for utility access and commonly gets used by locals when traffic issues arise.
Glassman (2025-04-13 02:31:48+00:00): The driveway should be left. It's good for routing for friends and deliveries.

Also, the dir road should be tagged highway=service and if you are energetic, surface=dirt.  There is a mapped power line just to the east of where you did you work as an example of what they look like mapped.

Can you fix these two items? Let me know if you need help.
Nathan_A_RF (2025-04-27 20:43:52+00:00): Hi, please change maxspeed:type tags when changing maxspeed tags. Thanks!
ianc (2025-04-27 20:51:58+00:00): Try again, this time with something vaguely resembling civility.
Nathan_A_RF (2025-04-27 21:01:53+00:00): I'm sorry? I was being polite...
jtracey (2025-04-11 22:58:38+00:00): resolves https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4706168
dadavid (2025-05-06 02:12:18+00:00): Hi kuhni74, 

vielen Dank fürs Verbessern hier und auch für die source:name, bin da nämlich auch gerade drüber gestlopert :D 

Viele Grüße und weiterhin viel Spass beim Mappen

David
MassCartog (2025-04-15 01:15:32+00:00): Hi Johnthorn welcome to OSM, looks like when making this change you messed up a few nodes, linking them all together and misplacing them. check out cochrane avenue and the track.

Let me know if you need help repairing them!
MassCartog (2025-04-18 13:37:47+00:00): didnt respond, revert in 165113085
whammo (2025-04-29 00:26:35+00:00): Hi prodsevv, what are you doing here with creating these fake objects and then subsequently deleting them, calling them vandalism?
DwarfNebula_ (2025-05-08 13:31:10+00:00): Hi,

Mag ik vragen waarom je Achthoven hebt gesplitst in twee gehuchten? Node 12749057636 heb je nieuw aangemaakt maar dezelfde wikidata tag meegegeven (wat niet kan/mag). Tevens staat er bij de weg Achthoven-Oost een bebouwdekombord met Montfoort als plaatsnaam.

Ik hoor graag van je!
Bienson (2025-04-13 02:28:32+00:00): Hallo,

Ich habe deine beiden Edits 164837650 und 164838003 revertiert, da du die Umrisse der Gebäude verschlechtert und ein Gebäudeteil gelöscht hast.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164877431

Bitte an den Umrissen aus dem Liegenschaftskataster orientieren.