piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
goodidea (2026-06-19 19:32:56+00:00): Hallo!

Kleine Bemerkungen zu deiner Bearbeitung am Rathaus-Carrée (siehe auch Bemerkungen zu Changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181721862): die Situation dort ist wirklich komplex … ich habe da schon viel bearbeitet und korrigiert, und kenne die Situation daher recht gut.

Du hattest da jetzt eine neue building-Outline hinzugefügt (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1502896324), was so aber nicht korrekt war. Das ist kein eigenständiges Gebäude, sondern Teil vom „Rathaus-Carée“ (der gesamte neuere Gebäudeteil heißt so – siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89024220!). 

Also sollte es als building:part eingetragen werden. retail stimmt auch nicht, denn oben sind Büros vom Rathaus etc. name=Bahnhofstraße 20-24 stimmt so auch nicht und name kann man so auch nicht verwenden (siehe Wiki!), die Hausnummern stimmten wohl auch nicht (dort müssten HN 22–24 sein; ich habe mal Adress-Knoten angelegt). Habe diesen name-Tag daher komplett entfernt und es in building:part geändert (siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184329421).

Auch die Outline vom Multipolygon „Rathaus St. Johann“ (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/585745388) wurde wohl geändert (oder von von User Optiml?) sowie building:part „Gebäudeflügel F“ (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/700240652) und building:part „Rathaus-Carrée“ (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/89024220) – aber das stimmte jetzt nicht mehr, denn der von dir neue eingezeichnete Teil gehört zu diesen 3 Objekten. Ich hab das auch wieder korrigiert. 

Hat mich einige Zeit gekostet, durchzublicken, was da geändert wurde. Bin mir auch nicht 100% sicher, ob das alles von dir war (oder von User @Optiml, der da auch einiges nicht ganz sauber geändert hat).

Also falls du dort noch etwas machen willst: bitte sehr genau prüfen, was wozu gehört und wie geändert werden muss … es ist recht kompliziert dort, da gibt es vieles zu beachten.

Viele Grüße!
aceman444 (2026-04-25 15:02:28+00:00): Zdravim, ale to treba aj nejako oznacit, ze tie vchody nie su pre verejnost. "note" navigacii nepomoze.

Pridat to takto je horsie ako nic, lebo to vyzera, ze sa tadial da ist.

Opravim to, ale nemusel som si vsimnut.
vlakos555 (2026-04-25 15:05:57+00:00): Dobre. Počítam s tvojimi opravami. Ja dodávam podklady. Ale napríklad neviem zrušiť ten plot do tej slepej uličky a dať ho po oboch stranách. Urob, pls.
rajdhani (2026-04-26 06:50:07+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:181831840
LavaFlowsYT (2026-04-23 17:31:47+00:00): there is a reported issue i may look into this.
anticyclonic (2026-04-23 19:02:18+00:00): whats the issue
LavaFlowsYT (2026-04-23 21:15:49+00:00): there are 4 warnings
Kugelbaum (2026-04-23 20:00:40+00:00): Hi,

Sorry for my admittingly too harsh reactions. I see you don't have a lot of osm experience besides these roads. 

My point is, road classifications are a big deal in osm. We rely on national consesuses not to end up in chaos. See, if I applied your interpretation of a residential road to the rest of the country, we'd have to change probably most CR going through localities. 

I know these roads. They serve the purpose of connecting sparsely populated villages, they are therefore wide and officially limited to 50 km/h. 

I hate traffic noise as much as everyone else but if you try to get rid of motorbike tourists, this is not the way. They see nice corners on a map and then simply drive there. 

Vandalising osm by changing road types and now also actively falsifying speed limits won't resolve anything. You hear motorbikes on sunny weather through all of the Eislek and Mullerthal. Sorry, but we all have to live with it. 

FYI there is a ticket open with DWG moderators.
DressyPear4 (2026-04-24 10:01:04+00:00): Olá davi lucas,
por que você está adicionando velocidade de 100km/h em vias residenciais?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181726162
aceman444 (2026-04-30 19:27:06+00:00): Dakujem za aktualizacie obchodov v trznici, ci zabradlia na zastavkach elektricky. Ale tie schody a chodniky do vchodov do trznice obnovte, lebo takto sa do bran neda dostat. Objekty area:highway nesluzia na routovanie, takze sice su OK, ale mali tam zostat aj tie povodne linie.
Illio (2026-05-01 13:49:14+00:00): Doplnil som, snáď je to teraz dobre.
aceman444 (2026-05-26 22:54:07+00:00): Ano, dakujem.
Len tie https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1502906902 a na druhje strane, ak ide o drzadlo na schodoch, tak to nie je zabradlie, ale handrail:center=yes ako vlastnost tych schodov.
Illio (2026-05-27 13:58:20+00:00): Zmenené na barrier=handrail.
aceman444 (2026-06-27 14:01:52+00:00): Dakujem.
pitscheplatsch (2026-04-23 17:21:22+00:00): Hallo Norbert Banhalmi, willkommen bei OSM.

Ich bin mir nicht sicher, aber ist hier mit der erstellten Relation nicht irgendwas schief gelaufen? Das sieht seltsam aus ...

Danke und viele Grüße
mavl (2026-06-07 06:01:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 183764451, 183764460, 183764431, 183764453, 183764448, 183764459, 183764455 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20768].
rajdhani (2026-04-24 10:39:36+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:181757956
Glassman (2026-04-25 00:25:30+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.

I would recommend adding driveways as a way instead of an area. That way routers can utilize the way.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181727030
Geim (2026-06-10 06:16:40+00:00): Hey Peter,
Moet deze https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13755545925/history#map=19/52.179796/4.464873&layers=N eigenlijk ook niet als turbo rotonde gemapt worden?
Gr. Marinus
Peter Elderson (2026-06-10 10:38:09+00:00): Nou nee, want hij heeft geen harde rijbaanscheiding en je kan op de rotonde van baan wisselen. Dit is een turb-lookalike, oftewel geen turborotonde!
Geim (2026-06-10 12:47:09+00:00): Op de rotonde misschien niet, maar direct daarvoor is wel een harde scheiding: https://maps.app.goo.gl/hHixevvYUq7irgqZ6
RJPe (2026-06-08 16:46:54+00:00): Der Punkt " Eichberg " ist  im JOSM ist mit den Koordinaten "N 50.1960151 O 11.1923664" vorhanden, nur der passende Bergname fehlt.
StC (2026-04-23 18:39:13+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a créé une discontinuité dans l'itinéraire, je vais essayer de m'occuper de la réparation
MaxR_6429 (2026-04-24 07:10:08+00:00): Bonjour, merci pour votre message, comment est-ce que ce change a crée une discontinuité ? j'ai relié le nouvel itinénaire de bout en bout, est-ce oublié un segment ou autre chose ?
StC (2026-04-24 08:54:27+00:00): Il a fallu que je m'y reprenne à deux fois pour comprendre et tout résoudre :
1. tout un groupe de chemins était présent à la fois dans la sous-relation et dans la relation parente
2. au niveau d'un passage à niveau il y avait deux chemins superposés et non connectés.
iandees (2026-04-23 18:53:35+00:00): Hello! I noticed that node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2469325058 was moved a long distance in this changeset. This is a common mistake that happens when you click on a point and drag to move the map. The point moves with your mouse instead of the map.

I moved things back to where they were before in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181733875, so no harm done!

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

Happy mapping!
w_moela (2026-04-24 18:10:43+00:00): Thank you! I thought the browser is being slow and didn't notice any movement, though i saw there were more than 1 changes in the set. I'll be more careful next time.
rajdhani (2026-04-26 07:14:43+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:181832523
DaveF (2026-04-24 08:32:37+00:00): You've made this just as bad by moving the road to an inaccurate  location instead of moving the inaccurately placed house. 
What background imagery  are you using?
Nar_ach (2026-04-24 09:10:54+00:00): Hi DaveF, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.
Nar_ach (2026-04-28 08:51:36+00:00): Hi DaveF, I adjusted the highway alignment to fit within the roadbed based on the Esri World Imagery on my edit. I understand that for accuracy and consistency I should have checked the imagery offsets and align both the building and the road. I’ll be more aware of this situation in my future edits. Thank you for your kind feedback.
Hufkratzer (2026-04-23 20:46:56+00:00): Hi,
FYI: I retagged https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1502918134 (outdoor riding arena/school); compare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_to_map_a#Riding_centre_(equestrian) and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/855580917#map=17/50.834704/0.236673&layers=P (example)
limes11 (2026-04-23 23:19:30+00:00): Hallo, 

Welche Hausnummer ist denn vor Ort erkennbar ? Wenn da eine 0 oder 1 am Haus prangt, sollte es entsprechend erfasst werden. 

Viele Grüße
KHFRT (2026-04-27 09:21:50+00:00): Hallo,

am Haus selbst befindet sich leider keine Hausnummer. Sonst hätte ich diese wie in den anderen Orten erfasst.
Die Hausnummer beruht auf einem Gespräch mit einer Anwohnerin.

Gruß
9_tab (2026-04-23 21:40:12+00:00): What's the meaning of this edit?
What's the connection between version 1 and version 2 of the node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/17960327/history
Kees 59 (2026-04-24 13:15:47+00:00): Illogical:
* Relation type on node.
* "new" check_date from 2022?
Felis Pimeja (2026-04-26 22:54:31+00:00): fixed it, sorry
9_tab (2026-04-27 09:14:13+00:00): Can you answer my questions?
Felis Pimeja (2026-04-27 10:29:32+00:00): @9_tab, hi. That edit had no special meaning — just a technical bug in my app. While saving edits, it rewrote the node with ID 17960327 instead of the relation with the same ID: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17960327
I've fixed all the corrupted data and the app's code already.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
9_tab (2026-04-27 11:03:45+00:00): Oh, I see trivial issue. ID of the relation was applied to a node instead. (I sometimes do that too)
mavl (2026-06-07 06:02:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 183764451, 183764460, 183764431, 183764453, 183764448, 183764459, 183764455 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20768].
felipeeugenio (2026-04-23 18:42:27+00:00): Hola. Street_side es para otro tipo de estacionamiento. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:parking%3Dstreet_side)

Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181729810
czebureks (2026-07-22 12:20:28+00:00): Cześć, dzięki za zmiany w okolicy. Czy jesteś pewien, że ten numer 14 dotyczy ul. Górnej, a nie Orlej?
NorthCrab_upload (2026-04-24 03:43:53+00:00): 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/1502930669

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
PumpkinPieAficionado (2026-04-23 17:49:48+00:00): Correction: Source used was Mapbox Satellite.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-05-03 04:52:49+00:00): DWG revert - not mappable on OSM

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182142163
Fizzie-DWG (2026-05-03 04:50:41+00:00): DWG revert - incorrect changes

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182142141
GerdP (2026-05-15 09:10:56+00:00): Moin aus Wildeshausen!
Wie sicher bist Du Dir mit der PLZ  bei dem Gebäude  https://www.osm.org/way/405727453  ?
Nach meinem Verständnis gehört das zu Ganderkesee.
letihu (2026-05-29 14:22:45+00:00): Das stimmt. Da ist mir wohl ein Fehler unterlaufen.
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-11 09:10:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 183960779 where the changeset comment is: revert low-quality AI building imports
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-11 08:58:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 183960337, 183960380, 183960341, 183960408, 183960275, 183960389, 183960221, 183960319, 183960306, 183960280, 183960292, 183960414, 183960349, 183960228, 183960252, 183960358, 183960240, 183960299, 183960267, 183960399, 183960370, 183960328, 183960364 where the changeset comment is: revert low-quality AI building imports
FajrAl (2026-04-26 15:17:11+00:00): Harap tiap bangunan jangan menambahkan nama pemilik rumah.
santamariense (2026-06-20 14:38:12+00:00): Olá alison2002,

O site de rodovias do Mato Grosso não determina a forma como as rodovias são classificadas no OSM. Como você chegou a essa conclusão?

A classificação viária utilizada é esta https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brazil/Classifica%C3%A7%C3%A3o_das_rodovias_do_Brasil , depois de muitas discussões na comunidade brasileira.

Bons mapeamentos
Pontificator Extraordinaire (2026-04-23 18:55:54+00:00): While the original mapping was not correct, your edit does a worse job at representing the parking geometry and was done hastily. Please take more time to carefully trace the outlines of parking lots.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181733519
anticyclonic (2026-04-23 19:03:07+00:00): my bad. i will work on it later when i have the chance, apologies
Pontificator Extraordinaire (2026-04-23 18:55:48+00:00): While the original mapping was not correct, your edit does a worse job at representing the parking geometry and was done hastily. Please take more time to carefully trace the outlines of parking lots.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181733619
Davie946 (2026-06-13 10:48:40+00:00): Marigolds recreation ground does not include the area north of footpath 183. That area is privately owned and nothing to do with the Marigold Trust
LordGarySugar (2026-06-13 20:07:55+00:00): Thanks for raising this, I have now adjusted it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184061997.
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-11 09:07:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 183960779 where the changeset comment is: revert low-quality AI building imports
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-11 09:08:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 183960779 where the changeset comment is: revert low-quality AI building imports
Comino (2026-04-24 20:05:12+00:00): Hi,

In your edit you use the deprecated tag "payment:bitcoin=yes".

Please DELETE the payment:bitcoin=yes tag !
Use the "currency:XBT=yes" instead.

For more information please read: https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki/Tagging-Merchants#tagging-guidance
and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Please also use phone number syntax with country code. Also read our wiki's.
https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki

Happy mapping,

Edwin Comino
BTC Map
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Comino
silversurfer83 (2026-04-24 19:43:22+00:00): Moin Paul :)

der tag shop=supermarket benötigt noch ein Lebenszykluspräfix, wenn hier aktuell Baustelle ist

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181734631
SuperPaul5000 (2026-04-25 05:49:36+00:00): Hallo Silversurfer,

ich bin mir nicht ganz sicher, was du mit „Lebenszykluspräfix“ meinst. 
Meinst du disused:shop=* ? Das erscheint mir hier nicht ganz passend, da das eher auf Leerstand hinweisen würde oder?

Meine Idee war, den Shop trotzdem bestehen zu lassen, damit z.B. in CoMaps sichtbar ist, dass der Supermarkt geschlossen ist und nicht einfach verschwindet. Aldi ist ja noch dort, nur das Gebäude fehlt momentan.

Vielleicht denke ich dabei zu sehr aus App-Nutzer-Sicht.

LG Paul
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-11 08:59:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 183960337, 183960380, 183960341, 183960408, 183960275, 183960389, 183960221, 183960319, 183960306, 183960280, 183960292, 183960414, 183960349, 183960228, 183960252, 183960358, 183960240, 183960299, 183960267, 183960399, 183960370, 183960328, 183960364 where the changeset comment is: revert low-quality AI building imports
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-11 09:08:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 183960779 where the changeset comment is: revert low-quality AI building imports
srbrook (2026-04-24 10:09:50+00:00): This area is the outline of the school site not the building. Use the amenity=school tag for the site. Only use the building=school tag for the buildings on the site.
chnuessli (2026-04-24 05:36:56+00:00): I added some key-tags that were missing: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181746655
please check it.
Jakub Gozdz (2026-04-23 19:47:12+00:00): Should be reverted
yelisey90 (2026-04-24 09:32:41+00:00): reverted - even though it's steep, dangerously narrow, unpaved, and unmanaged, it's still a road in a city that leads to residential buildings, so by OSM standards it's residential (or maybe alley). Consider adding tags smoothness & surface to discourage others from using it; possibly it can also be changed to highway=service+service=alley if it qualifies as a narrow street in an old part of the city where it's impossible to park a car or to overtake another car, as only one car fit in width

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181755401
BlackyP8 (2026-04-29 01:03:57+00:00): Hi 5R-MFT,

why did you close a shop that is still open?
I reverted your cs.

BlackyP8
5R-MFT (2026-04-29 05:53:50+00:00): Oh, sorry was mistake with Jerusalem branch. Thank for Update.
NieWnen (2026-04-24 15:56:52+00:00): Jakie jest źródło tej zmiany?
Wildsharky (2026-04-28 10:45:59+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:181745879
MappingMore (2026-04-24 11:41:50+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:181760805
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-11 09:00:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 183960337, 183960380, 183960341, 183960408, 183960275, 183960389, 183960221, 183960319, 183960306, 183960280, 183960292, 183960414, 183960349, 183960228, 183960252, 183960358, 183960240, 183960299, 183960267, 183960399, 183960370, 183960328, 183960364 where the changeset comment is: revert low-quality AI building imports
rempshaener (2026-04-24 16:58:00+00:00): Hallo,
das Taggen von cycleway=shoulder ist  umstritten. Mindestens auf der L201 sind häufig langsam fahrende Fahrzeuge unterwegs, die K33 häufig verschmutzt.
Bitte stelle die Änderungen wieder zurück.
Alternativ: suche die Diskussion in der Community, siehe z.B. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/sind-seitenstreifen-ausserorts-cycleway-lane/72447/26
Viele Grüße
1998alexkane (2026-04-26 18:53:46+00:00): Hallo Ramschender,
ich habe schon z.B. diese Diskussion gelesen, die ich interessant fand: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rare-cycleway-value-shoulder-obsolete-or-useful/5849/
cycleway=shoulder finde ich auch nicht ideal, aber shoulder=* ebenso, und die Nützbarkeit eines Seitenstreifens kommt auf viele Faktoren an. 

Mindestens auf meiner Strecke auf dem Rad auf der L201, ich habe den Seitenstreifen sinnvoll gefunden. Es war aber auf einem Sonntag, und wahrscheinlich deswegen habe ich keine langsam fahrende Fahrzeuge begegnet.

Diese Änderungen setze ich zurück

VG
rempshaener (2026-04-28 15:01:24+00:00): Hallo,

danke dir.
Ich finde das shoulder=yes gar nicht so schlecht, letztlich müssen die Auswerter das vernünftig deuten.

Viele Grüße
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-11 09:10:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 183960779 where the changeset comment is: revert low-quality AI building imports
Baloo Uriza (2026-04-24 01:53:25+00:00): This could be just amenity=parking and parking=surface, and just leave off the access and capacity tags.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181737275
woodpeck_repair (2026-06-11 08:59:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 183960337, 183960380, 183960341, 183960408, 183960275, 183960389, 183960221, 183960319, 183960306, 183960280, 183960292, 183960414, 183960349, 183960228, 183960252, 183960358, 183960240, 183960299, 183960267, 183960399, 183960370, 183960328, 183960364 where the changeset comment is: revert low-quality AI building imports
BCNorwich (2026-04-24 05:15:55+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've tweaked your area to better suit OSM practice.

Regards Bernard.
eggie (2026-04-23 20:57:34+00:00): Dag Kipper,

Je speeltuin met naam?  heb ik verwijderd van het wegdeel.
Er staat al een speeltuin als vlak ingetekend een eindje verder.
Wat is je bedoeling?

MVG
eggie
Kipper Anderson (2026-04-23 21:12:04+00:00): Die speeltuin iets verderop is weg, sinds 2025. Dat was een lullige wip met een bankje. Dit is een nieuwe, veel uitgebreidere speelplaats. Rubbergranulaat grond, klimtoestellen, schommels, kabelbaan en meer. En dus tientallen meters verderop, de straat met parkeerplaatsen is ook weg en een grindpad met oprit geworden. Ik probeer dit al maanden door te geven met edits....
eggie (2026-04-23 21:20:04+00:00): Moment.. ik kijk even met een andere luchtfoto
eggie (2026-04-23 21:35:23+00:00): Ik heb dat speeltuintje teruggezet en die Platanenweg verwijderd.
Or loopt aan de oostzijde een nieuw pad. Dat heb ik ingetekend. 
Is er nog wel autoverkeer mogelijk vanaf de westelijke Platanenweg langs de woningen?
Laatste situatie op een beetje redelijke sat foto.
https://viewer.satellietdataportaal.nl/@52.35455,4.914341,19/?datastrip=20260225_SVNEO-04&sensorname=SuperView-NEO

CTRL F5 voor het effect. Je zou met een reguliere editor als bv iD kunnen proberen de situatie te verbeteren.

MVG
eggie
Fizzie-DWG (2026-04-25 02:46:47+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20180
dav23r (2026-04-23 22:08:28+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10781831229 + shop=convenience
dav23r (2026-04-23 22:14:50+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13756731305 - layer
dav23r (2026-04-24 20:11:48+00:00): Handled by:
changeset 181782250
changeset 181782062
yelisey90 (2026-04-24 09:50:49+00:00): restored & relocated Cinemaholics: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181756072
dav23r (2026-04-24 19:53:03+00:00): Good catch! I mistook newly mapped nearby art cinema - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13665198701 - as the new location, making subject node leftover. Thanks for reviewing.
VictorIE (2026-04-25 16:05:38+00:00): Hi,

I realise that it is complicated, but if there is no street called "Evergreen Buildings", then what street is this building on? :)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1503098383/
MapMenMan (2026-04-25 20:57:52+00:00): I've placed it in the Residential Area name "Evergreen Buildings" as it is number 43 of the buildings with those addresses
VictorIE (2026-05-30 22:54:05+00:00): Hi again,

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ireland/Roads/Cork_City

Road
L-51064-1

Name
EVERGREEN BUILDINGS

Starts At
JUNCTION BARRACK STREET - EVERGREEN BUILDINGS

Via
EVERGREEN BUILDINGS

Finishes At
JUNCTION OF INDUSTRY STREET - EVERGREEN BUILDINGS

Length
109

-----------------------------

Length measured on OSM = 109.4.
MapMenMan (2026-05-30 23:11:41+00:00): That's a brilliant resource I never knew existed. I have updated the name and ref and added a note of the source. I'll keep this page in mind for the future and add the same note on other streets I come across with no on-street signage. Thanks