piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2026-01-08 06:58:50+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/9509966514 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Eccentric press manufacturing and repair services"
---
Örneğin metnin daha nötr ve gerçek bir versiyonu şöyle olabilir: "Eksantrik pres imalat ve onarım hizmetleri"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-18 08:33:52+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177363501
(Deleted leftovers after several edits)
NeisBot (2026-01-08 06:58:58+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/13437163664 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Zakład Opakowań Tekturowych w Warszawie i Łomiankach"
---
Na przykład bardziej neutralna i obiektywna wersja Twojego tekstu mogłaby brzmieć: "Zakład Opakowań Tekturowych w Warszawie i Łomiankach"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-18 08:39:33+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177363639
(Deleted leftovers after several edits)
❤️‍🔥 (2026-03-26 09:06:50+00:00): Hi, thanks for your edits! `NZ:main_M` isn't valid, if you open OpenRailwayMap at this location, you'll see that the signals don't render properly: https://openrailwaymap.app/#view=14.01/-36.91805/174.80471&style=signals

do you remember what type of signal this should be? the valid options are defined here: https://osm.wiki/New_Zealand/Railways
YT_JoshTransit (2026-03-26 09:32:47+00:00): I was basing off the signal revealed by the City Rail Link team on social media which I will link below for reference. Possibly i have misunderstood the signal icon guide you linked.

MTD ref: https://www.instagram.com/p/C9jEWslSmIn/?igsh=M3poOXFxNXAwbnc4
❤️‍🔥 (2026-03-27 08:16:11+00:00): oh sorry i meant the ones in te papapa, not the CRL. You added main_M, but it should actually be either main_MM, main_MD, or main_MS
pwbriggs (2026-01-07 19:45:06+00:00): Thanks, your edit looks good. Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
trial (2026-01-08 10:06:32+00:00): Bien mais la règle pour le nom en breton est d'indiquer la source :
source:name:br=proper translation, https://www.openstreetmap.bzh/fr/participer/tutoriel/
Au fait pour la stèle c'est une amélioration, pas une correction ;-).
Nahelou (2026-01-08 14:52:51+00:00): Merci, c'est corrigé :)
StreetSurveyor (2026-01-10 00:20:52+00:00): This was incorrect. The road does exist and is listed in the town’s official GIS street map. Its presence was also confirmed through an on-the-ground physical survey. The Lyft-owned aerial imagery appears to be outdated or incomplete in this area.
tkotnala_lyft (2026-01-13 05:37:09+00:00): Hi StreetSurveyor,
My name is Tanya, and I’m a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you very much for reaching out! I updated the geometry based on Lyft-owned aerial imagery (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WKlXyRLcvtJSY4BH6-dE8IyId9C753Hj/view?usp=sharing)  from October 2025 & Lyft owned telemetry data. While the road does appear in the official GIS street map, the AHS Building project site (https://ahsbuilding.org/2025/10/22/251185/#:~:text=Wayfinding%20Map%20%E2%80%93%20Oct%202025) indicates that the road no longer exists due to recent changes on the ground. Based on this, I corrected the road geometry using the Wayfinding Map from October 2025 (https://ahsbuilding.org/2025/10/22/251185/#:~:text=Wayfinding%20Map%20%E2%80%93%20Oct%202025):
I hope this explains the reasoning behind my edits. If you have more recent data than October 2025 or local knowledge about the territory, please feel free to update or amend the changes accordingly.
Thanks,
Tanya
Langlaeufer (2026-01-16 19:46:33+00:00): Mühlenweg nur 2 m breit? ich messe im Luftbild 3 m
Nadjita (2026-01-17 07:33:47+00:00): Den Mühlenweg hab ich doch gar nicht angefasst. Sorry, gib mal die ID vom Weg, dann schau ich noch mal in meinen Notizen
Langlaeufer (2026-01-17 08:22:09+00:00): Sorry Mühlenfeld, das schmale Stück mit dem Poller
Langlaeufer (2026-01-17 08:24:19+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176934107
Langlaeufer (2026-01-17 08:26:52+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1465032934
Nadjita (2026-01-17 08:29:44+00:00): Sorry, Du hast Recht. Der ist 3,2m breit nach meiner Messung. Ich vertippe mich leider immer wieder :o( Fixt Du kurz? Bin noch im Bademantael
Langlaeufer (2026-01-17 08:44:26+00:00): Done
aixbrick (2026-01-07 09:55:36+00:00): Hallo,
bitte nur die Zutrittsrechte setzen, die vor Ort beschildert sind. Ich nehme an, dass ist hier VZ260 mit 1026-36. Dann wäre "motor_vehicle=agricultural" korrekt, die anderen Rechte (vor allem "access=no") bitte entfernen.
Die Befahrbarkeit des Wegs kann mit anderen Tags beschrieben werden: smoothness, tracktype (bereits gesetzt), surface.
Gruß
de100819 (2026-01-07 10:07:49+00:00): Guten Tag,
Danke für die Hinweise. Ich habe mich da ein Stück weit auf den ID-Editor verlassen. Mir ist nur wichttig, dass das OSRM-Routing mich (oder andere) nicht durch diesen Weg schickt.
Die Beschilderung werde ich gerne nochmal verifizieren, bin mir da aber sehr sicher, dass die Nutzung auf landwirtschaftlichen Verkehr beschränkt ist.
VG Thomas Klein, AC-Hahn
aixbrick (2026-01-19 16:33:21+00:00): Unnötige access-Rechte wieder gelöscht: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177438305.
❤️‍🔥 (2026-01-07 13:23:41+00:00): sorry but this isn't correct, the physical bridge pillars were built on different dates many months ago.

the date that the cycleway opened is different, and recorded by the start_date=* on the https://osm.org/way/1221288557
BCNorwich (2026-01-09 07:49:37+00:00): Duplicated highway Way: 1465070702 removed because it could disrupt routing.
BCNorwich (2026-01-09 07:54:23+00:00): Also removed Way: 1465070703,  Way: 1465070704 and Way: 1465070705, same reason as above.
BCNorwich (2026-01-09 07:55:09+00:00): Please try not to duplicate highways.

Regards Bernard.
vmicho (2026-03-20 14:25:12+00:00): Hi.
WTH?
What is the point of your change? It was mapped and worked correctly already.
You broke the routing completely BTW.
vmicho (2026-03-20 14:25:42+00:00): Example foot:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=46.786588%2C7.083585%3B46.785934%2C7.080104#map=19/46.785944/7.080574

bicycle broken too.
rokas_osm (2026-03-24 12:14:15+00:00): Hello Vmicho
The changes I made in Avry-Matran station include the following : correct shape and length of the train platforms (as well as some equipments, such as shelter), accesses to platforms (stairs, ramps, and more), underway, and more… many of which where either not present or not properly aligned with the new infrastructure objects. 

Can you give me more details about how those changes “broke routing completely”? 
My tests with the GraphHopper Router look good : 
As far as I know, the router cannot “snap” a target location if the object is not accessible, or if the object has a layer attribute (e.g. bridge or underway). 
In your example : 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=46.786588%2C7.083585%3B46.785934%2C7.080104#map=19/46.785944/7.080574
- Impasse de Pra-Long has access=no, and as such, no route to this way can be found : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/886440736/ 
- The bridge with cycleway above the platform has layer=1, and won’t be snapped as a target. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1458558478

If I move a bit the target, GraphHopper works as expected : https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=46.786588%2C7.083585%3B46.785797%2C7.079709#map=19/46.785885/7.080904
What broke the bicycle routing is this way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1465049178 ; I added a bicycle=designated Tag to fix the issue. https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_bicycle&route=46.786588%2C7.083585%3B46.785763%2C7.079895

Additionally, a new access ramp will be in operation at the start of next month ; it will be accessed from the Impasse de Pra-Long https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/886440736/ (access=no should be adapted with bicycle=designated), and the temporary stairs will be removed : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1458558474

Best regards
NeisBot (2026-01-08 06:59:03+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/8783498621 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Math tutoring center"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-01-18 08:39:33+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/176936152
eggie (2026-01-07 09:58:17+00:00): Dag number.

Wanneer er een groenstrook tussen hoofdrijbaan en trottoir ligt wordt er in de regel apart ingetekend.
Wanneer het echt langsliggende trottoirs zijn is het gebruikelijk om de tagging van het voetpad op te nemen in de tags vande hoofdrijbaan of fietspad.
Met bv sidewalk=right (of both of left) 
Het routeert anders niet goed. Probeer op de kaart maar eens de straat over te steken.
Je krijgt enorme omwegen.
Bedenk dat even voordat je alle straten gaat voorzien van trottoirs.
Er is geen consensus over je manier van mappen. Ik wijs je alleen op de consequenties.

MVG
eggie
number975312468 (2026-01-07 10:15:37+00:00): Hi Eddie,

I observe different path for OSRM and for Graphhopper, I was wondering if this was related to how sidewalks are defined. I wanted it to be defined such that the shortest route is being used, also for OSRM.

Graphhopper goes via Keizer Karelweg whereas OSRM goes via van der hooplaan.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=52.2951256%2C4.8510874%3B52.3033029%2C4.8601772#map=15/52.29929/4.85557&layers=TN
number975312468 (2026-01-07 10:22:06+00:00): sorry, I think I understand what you mean, you can deny this request
eggie (2026-01-07 10:32:55+00:00): Hi...  Google translate will do the miracle.
Briefly...   Parallel footways do not route properly.
Tag sidepath=right in the tagging of the mainroad or cycleway.
number975312468 (2026-01-07 10:36:11+00:00): thanks, I think this can be closed and rejected, have a nice day
AndyB_66 (2026-01-22 12:41:54+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
eggie (2026-01-07 10:05:38+00:00): Dag Moiety,

Lijkt me oke op de description na. Dat heet werving en wordt door OSM als spam gezien.
We horen neutraal te taggen. Dus kijk nog even naar de description.

MVG
eggie
Rainero (2026-03-23 10:43:31+00:00): Revert mit changeset/180297767
(unzulässige Quelle)
eggie (2026-01-07 10:22:02+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  Meestal zijn tweewielers uitgezonderd van oneway=yes.
Is dat hier het geval. Het zal anders niet meer correct routeren voor bv fietsers.
We voegen dan toe oneway:bicycle=no en evt ook voor mofa en moped.
Staat er een onderbord.. Graag reactie
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-01-07 10:35:41+00:00): Bij mijn weten is er geen eenrichtingsverkeer hier. Wel is er een afslagbeperking bij het kruispunt met de Hooftlaan muv fietsers.
20 dec jl Was er geen eenrichtingsverkeer hier.
https://viewer.satellietdataportaal.nl/@51.43249,5.481290,19/?datastrip=20251126_SVNEO-01
eggie (2026-01-07 10:43:29+00:00): https://www.ed.nl/eindhoven/elzent-en-bergen-zuid-experimenteel-eenrichtingsverkeer-wordt-definitief~a99f09c7/
raving (2026-01-07 10:55:50+00:00): Ik kom hier regelmatig en vandaag ben ik hier nog langsgekomen. Er staan letterlijk betonblokken zodat je er niet in kan vanaf de P.Czn.Hooftlaan. De situatie op die plek in ieder geval is zeer recent gewijzigd, uit mijn hoofd minder dan 2 weken geleden dus dat kan kloppen. Je mag er vanaf geen enkele kant in bij de P.Czn.Hooftlaan, en er staat een verbodsbord C2 muv fietsers.
eggie (2026-01-07 11:02:13+00:00): Oke.. geloof je direct.
Maar dan heeft de wegbeheerder een 'verkeerd' bord gebruikt. Nu zit je gevangen in die straat.
Een betonblok kun je toevoegen met barrier=block
..motor_vehicle=no
..moped=yes
..mofa=yes
..bicycle=yes
..foot=yes
Dat oneway=yes kun je denk ik beter verwijderen
Welk bord staat er aan westzijde..?
raving (2026-01-07 11:07:12+00:00): Nee je zit niet gevangen, maar op 1 kan van de weg zijn die betonblokken namelijk de rechter/ingangkant vanaf P.Czn.Hooftlaan. En de straat is dus alleen in te gaan vanaf Elzent kant en uit te gaan aan PCH kant. Ik ben nieuw bij Openstreetmap maar de situatie ken ik zeker. Als er ook voor een halve kant betonblok een betonblok toegevoegd moet worden zal ik dat doen. Maar deze wijziging is voor mij het belangrijkst omdat navigatie nu elke keer probeert vanaf de illegale kan Jan Smitzlaan in/door te rijden.
eggie (2026-01-07 11:13:02+00:00): Ahh.. je begint wel direct met een hersenkraker.
Voeg in iedergeval op het traject oneway:bicycle=no toe.
Dan routeert het zoals de bedoeling is.
Tja.. halve betonblokkade. Zou die voorlopig even weglaten.
Gaat dat lukken. ..oneway:bicycle=no
BCNorwich (2026-01-07 12:57:15+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've added the marina tags.

Regards Bernard.
eggie (2026-01-07 11:22:02+00:00): Welkom bij OSM. access=private is voldoende. Ik heb het aangepast.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-01-07 11:34:54+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
HaritaDuzenlemeHesabi (2026-01-08 14:13:45+00:00): Merhaba. Teleferikte zaten disused:aerialway=cable_car etiketi mevcutmuş. Teleferik tekrar kullanıma  mı açıldı? O nedenle mi aerialway=gondola etiketi eklediniz?

Ayrıca hem gondola hem de cable_car değerlerinin buluması doğru değil. Yanlış olan silinmeli.
NeisBot (2026-01-08 06:59:05+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/13417451751 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Towing service in Edmonton Alberta"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-18 08:39:34+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177363640
eggie (2026-01-07 11:24:54+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Wanneer het gebouw ook een naam heeft kan de naam op de gebouwomtrek. Is het alleen de bdrijfsnaam dan beter verwijderen.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
BCNorwich (2026-01-08 08:23:22+00:00): I've removed several duplicated highways because they could disrupt routing. Please check before uploading.

Regards Bernard.
Sakari_N (2026-01-08 15:12:57+00:00): Moi,

Tässä muutoksessa oli Vantaan toimiston lisäksi myös Kotkassa sijaitsevaan nurmialueeseen lisätty vantaan toimistoa kuvaavat tiedot. Poistin nämä, ja toivoisin tarkkuutta muokkaamiseen :)
NeisBot (2026-01-08 06:56:34+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 21 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1462322186 v12 | 21 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176938528
NeisReview (2026-01-17 16:35:47+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/177335210
NeisBot (2026-01-08 06:59:06+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/way/334936751 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Building company for home extensions in Glasgow"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-01-18 08:39:34+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/177363641
OSM-Contributer (2026-01-07 11:43:53+00:00): source "indianrailinfo.com" is incorrect. Correct spelling is "indiarailinfo.com" . I have used "indiarailinfo.com" not "indianrailinfo.com". Sorry for the inconvenience
eggie (2026-01-07 11:19:39+00:00): Dag raving De info heb ik samengevoegd met de bestaande adresnode. Tip.. Je hoeft geen adressen toe te voegen in OSM. Die zijn er al. 
Gr eggie
nevw (2026-01-07 12:11:47+00:00): Hi, we map houses by zooming in and precisely drawing the outline of the house itself instead of the plot of land it sits on.
If you wish to display the plot shape then map the fence lines accurately is a good alternative.
fortera_au (2026-01-07 22:17:23+00:00): I've fixed them up in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176962528 for an example of how building=house should be drawn.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176939353
OSM-Contributer (2026-01-07 11:46:02+00:00): Source is indiarailinfo.com
ticki_52 (2026-01-07 11:07:42+00:00): erl.
Rainero (2026-03-22 22:23:29+00:00): Revert mit changeset/180274708
(unzulässige Quelle)
eggie (2026-01-07 11:20:23+00:00): Top!
BCNorwich (2026-01-08 07:50:07+00:00): Hi, There are several inners to the relation Coed Rheidol National Nature Reserve (20055810). All are untagged; some are self-intersecting. They seem to be along the river line. The self intersections need correcting. Could some description be added to the inners?

Regards Bernard.
likeaword (2026-01-08 09:45:10+00:00): Hi Bernard

Thanks for flagging this up. I had some trouble with this but I'll have another look.

Cheers

Ben
likeaword (2026-01-08 10:08:02+00:00): I don't think any of these inners should have been there so I have removed them. I'd appreciate any further comments.
BCNorwich (2026-01-08 11:07:48+00:00): Hi, I take it then that you want to learn more on how to fix problems, so I'll try to explain what has happened with your Changeset: 176977317.

You've removed Way: 1465080775, which was an outer way of Relation: Coed Rheidol National Nature Reserve (20055810), leaving it as an untagged polygon. Was Way: 1465080775 supposed to still be an outer of the NNR? 

Way: 1465080781, Way: 1465080780, Way: 1465080772, Way: 1465080773 and Way: 1465080774, that where inners of Way: 1465080775 (mentioned above), are now untagged self intersecting polygons. I think these should be removed.

Lastly  Way: 1465080775 has a section of it's outline at north that extends about 500m in a thin strip following the River Rheidol. I think it's likely that this strip should be removed.

If you need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2026-01-12 08:24:53+00:00): Hi, I haven't heard from you, so I've removed all the untagged objects.

Regards Bernard.
likeaword (2026-01-12 14:33:09+00:00): Hi Bernard

Sorry I missed your comment of the 8th. 

Thanks for your help with this. I'm not sure how I made sure a mess of it.

Cheers

Ben
vrix (2026-01-08 08:57:09+00:00): Hello Evanzz, can you please review your changes? something broke the Turin relation, which now can't be found in Nominatim anymore https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=R&osmid=43992
Nakaner (2026-03-06 17:00:23+00:00): reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179455974
Fjana (2026-01-28 12:47:47+00:00): Ahoj, nechci do tohohle editu sám moc zasahovat, ale chtěl bych se zeptat, jestli by přeci jen nebylo lepší označit obvody jako "obvod Praha X" a správní obvody jako "SO Praha XX", protože pak by to teoreticky odpovídalo konvenci na pojmenovávání ostatních okresů a obvodů v ČR (SO ORP, SO POÚ a okres mají všechny tento název v name, a asi se shodneme, že nedává smysl tagovat např. celý okres Kladno jako Kladno bez toho titulu "okres"). U SO bych možná dal full_name=správní obvod Praha XX.

Vím, že jsme se o tom nějak bavili, ale myslím, že jsem se asi špatně vyjádřil nebo jsme se nějak nepochopili.

Franta
Yakari (kleiner Indianer) (2026-01-28 13:17:34+00:00): Původně jsem chtěl, aby se to tam ve výsledcích Nominatim se obvody Prahy příliš moc neopakovaly, protože by to bylo moc dlouhý, ale se zmapovanými SO ORP a SO POÚ to vyjde asi tak nastejno. No tak aspoň se můžeme pyšnit tímto víceúrovňovým dělením. Jinak máš pravdu, chtělo by to od sebe nějak trochu rozlišit i ve vykreslovaném názvu.
Fjana (2026-01-28 15:56:07+00:00): Tady si zase myslím, že MČ teoreticky nepotřebují v názvu to MČ. Obce (a mimo jiné taky MČ s místním názvem místo číslo) taky nemají ve jménu "MČ" nebo "obec". Pokud máme v názvu obvod a SO, je to už jednoznačné. Už jen pro konzistenci bych pro všechny na admin_level=9 odstranil to MČ, nebo to doplnil i u všech ostatních MČ, které nemají v názvu číslo
Yakari (kleiner Indianer) (2026-01-28 16:49:35+00:00): O tom jediném jsem přemýšlel, zda to tam dát taky nebo ne. Na další MČ jsem už nešel, nejde to nijak dělat hromadně, a jak to mají jiná statutární města, to nevím. Zkusím to ještě bez toho, a pak podle toho, jak to bude vyhledávat.
Fjana (2026-01-28 16:58:25+00:00): Plzeň má městské obvody, které jsem mapoval bez titulu "MO". To samé platí pro obvody v Opavě a pro Vratislavice v Liberci. Osobně si myslím, že ty "MČ" tam jsou opravdu přebytečně ;)
chickpeas (2026-03-31 22:20:58+00:00): This was a bad edit. The aerial imagery referenced for the edit clearly pre-dates the on-site surveying I did for changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172255152 on 2025-09-21. The surface lot at this location has been replaced by the Fontaine Research Park Garage (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1431722083/history / https://parking.virginia.edu/whats-new/fontaine-research-park-garage).
chickpeas (2026-03-31 23:23:42+00:00): Reverted (changeset/180695872)
sarya_Lyft (2026-04-01 23:58:13+00:00): Hi chickpeas,

My name is Surander & I am a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Many thanks for letting me know about the latest data & reverting my edits. I realize now that I mistakenly used outdated aerial imagery, while the existing data had already been corrected. I sincerely apologize for the oversight and any inconvenience these edits may have caused.
Thank you for your contribution to the OSM!

Regards,
Surander