piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
habi (2025-03-03 07:57:30+00:00): Ciao Linde4711

Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap!
Schön machst du hier mit und hilfst, die Karte und die Kartendaten zu pflegen.

Leider macht https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12631444990 so überhaupt keinen Sinn.
Wenn du nur den Namen erfasst, dann wird das nicht korrekt ausgewertet.

Wenn ich hier frei verfügbare Bilder anschaue, taucht https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=152866103472423 auf.

Mit einem Umweg über https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Switzerland/Map_Features#Other_common_Signs ergibt das `motorcar=destination` und `motorcycle=destination` für https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25493551 damit das von Routing-Algorithmen auch ausgewertet wird (dein `name=Fahrverbot...` nämlich nicht).
Ich habe das in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163149362 korrigiert.

Bei irgendwelchen Fragen gerne hier in den Kommentaren nachhaken oder bei https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/ch/107 eine Diskussion eröffnen, wir versuchen gerne zu helfen.

Ä Gruess us Bärn,
habi
bxl-forever (2025-03-02 22:56:36+00:00): Hello qqqq-anonym,

Adding missing shops is nice, but please do not retag buildings themselves.

To add a shop, the recommended method is to create a floating point inside the building, while leaving the building untouched.

I fixed your edit, there is nothing more to do here.
aceman444 (2025-03-07 11:28:20+00:00): Zaujimavo vymysleli tu obchadzku krizovatky D1/D4 .

Bod https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2685044293 ma byt bez motorway_junction?
mapko (2025-03-07 11:47:41+00:00): Takto to bolo planovane uz od jej navrhu.
Ten bod je tak schvalne nakolko tak este nie je odbocovaci pruh. Rovnako pribudne bez zo strany od Trnavy a pribudne tam novy docasny.
TriRIK (2025-03-02 23:24:51+00:00): This is THE A1.1 as the new one under construction is yet to be opened
Fizzie-DWG (2025-03-03 06:35:10+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17351
InfiNorth (2025-03-07 05:43:31+00:00): Please stop using separately mapped cycleways for the purpose of on-street bike lanes. The appropriate mapping is already done (for a rendering, see layers > CyclOSM). The appropriate tag is cycleway, directly on the roads with the bike lanes. 

Please revert the edits - the amount of misleading mapping that has been done is dangerous and misleading for cyclists. 

I will be commenting this on all your cycleway changeasets in hope that you understand the damage this has done to the map.
InfiNorth (2025-03-07 05:43:18+00:00): Please stop using separately mapped cycleways for the purpose of on-street bike lanes. The appropriate mapping is already done (for a rendering, see layers > CyclOSM). The appropriate tag is cycleway, directly on the roads with the bike lanes. 

Please revert the edits - the amount of misleading mapping that has been done is dangerous and misleading for cyclists. 

I will be commenting this on all your cycleway changeasets in hope that you understand the damage this has done to the map.
InfiNorth (2025-03-07 05:43:07+00:00): Please stop using separately mapped cycleways for the purpose of on-street bike lanes. The appropriate mapping is already done (for a rendering, see layers > CyclOSM). The appropriate tag is cycleway, directly on the roads with the bike lanes. 

Please revert the edits - the amount of misleading mapping that has been done is dangerous and misleading for cyclists. 

I will be commenting this on all your cycleway changeasets in hope that you understand the damage this has done to the map.
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-03 06:43:41+00:00): Hi Twycross3, welcome to OSM!

It seems that the changeset you created includes nodes and ways without any tags. Could there have been an issue during the mapping process?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-03 06:43:29+00:00): Hi Twycross3, welcome to OSM!

It seems that the changeset you created includes nodes and ways without any tags. Could there have been an issue during the mapping process?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-03 06:43:18+00:00): Hi Twycross3, welcome to OSM!

It seems that the changeset you created includes nodes and ways without any tags. Could there have been an issue during the mapping process?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
Fizzie-DWG (2025-03-03 06:46:01+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17352
itineris (2025-03-15 08:21:30+00:00): Szia!

Mi a forrásod erre a barlangra? Ahogy a megjegyzésben írtam, az Országos Barlangnyilvántartás nem tud róla.
(Ha pedig a nevet szerkeszted, akkor az földrajzi névként kötőjeles.)

Üdv:
Ákos
rskedgell (2025-03-04 09:15:28+00:00): Please don't map for the renderer by creating non-existent sections of dual carriageway, as you have done on Cherry Blossom to the North of its junction with Tomalin Drive.

While you may feel that it looks better on the map when a non-existent split is introduced, not following established mapping conventions can impact other data consumers.

From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway :
"Roads are not to be mapped as dual carriageways if the two directions are only separated

by paint. This includes single or multiple painted centre lines[1], hatched areas, channelized turn lanes[2], two-way turn lanes[2],
by flush medians[3],
or by any other means that is not a physical barrier to vehicles."
InfiNorth (2025-03-07 05:42:55+00:00): Please stop using separately mapped cycleways for the purpose of on-street bike lanes. The appropriate mapping is already done (for a rendering, see layers > CyclOSM). The appropriate tag is cycleway, directly on the roads with the bike lanes. 

Please revert the edits - the amount of misleading mapping that has been done is dangerous and misleading for cyclists. 

I will be commenting this on all your cycleway changeasets in hope that you understand the damage this has done to the map.
citrula (2025-03-02 23:46:08+00:00): You mention on your website that you are using https://www.goarch.org/parishes/ as a source for some(?) of this information. I wasn't able to find a license for this data - have you gotten permission to use this dataset?
If so, it would also be helpful to add it to the source tag for your changesets.

I commend you for your efforts - the US has tons and tons of outdated and nonexistent church information, so it's a welcome improvement.
OrthodoxChurchMap (2025-03-03 00:14:59+00:00): I got the initial list of churches and urls from the goarch website, but the phone numbers and addresses I scraped from each individual church's website (which I then compared to the data gotten from the goarch.org site to manually check discrepancies). The goarch database also has a lot of out of date information unfortunately (which I contacted them about last week but I am yet to hear any response).
So I didn't actually get permission to use the data on their website. I don't really know how licensing works. Hopefully they are ok with it, but if they respond to my email I will ask them to double check.

So with that information, would you recommend adding it to the source tag? I wasn't really sure what to put there.
citrula (2025-03-03 03:12:03+00:00): In general, I try to put any non-obvious sources in the source tag of the changeset, so users can determine exactly where the data comes from. You can add multiple sources as well.

Regarding the licensing, the general consensus in the OSM community is to err on the side of caution regarding datasets like this, since they took some effort to gather (often called "Sweat of the Brow"). Factual data scraped/gathered from individual church websites is completely acceptable though. 

https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2023-08-14#Ticket#2023081110000064_%E2%80%94_First_party_websites_as_sources

My personal recommendation (not a lawyer, just another contributor) is to try to get explicit permission from the website to use their data.
OrthodoxChurchMap (2025-03-05 20:52:33+00:00): I got permission, thanks for your advice.
citrula (2025-03-05 21:53:25+00:00): Glad to hear it. Good luck on your project!
Allison P (2025-03-02 23:00:44+00:00): You replaced the website with the street address
OrthodoxChurchMap (2025-03-02 23:02:38+00:00): sorry, fixing now
silversurfer83 (2025-03-03 20:32:27+00:00): Moin

Dörfer sind trotzdem Dörfer und damit idR viallge oder ähnlich. Wir nutzen suburb bei der Adressierung um klar zu machen, dass ein Dorf zu einer größeren Gemeinde gehört.
Würdest du das bitte wieder korrigieren?
Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163141102
eggie (2025-03-03 12:57:48+00:00): review_requested

Dag A   Lijkt me allemaal oke.

MVG
eggie
A-dg6 (2025-03-03 14:32:43+00:00): Top, dankjewel!
Svalbard (2025-03-04 07:48:26+00:00): Hallo firewarrior, hast Du die ausdrückliche Erlaubnis des Wasserbeschaffungsverbandes die Daten nach OSM zu übernehmen? Sind keinerlei Copyright-Hinweise erforderlich? Die Daten können also von Jedem uneingeschränkt genutzt werden, da sie sich nun in der OSM-Datenbank befinden? Die Source-Angabe „survey“ ist m. E. aufgrund des Changeset-Titels nicht passend. Da hätte eher „Wasserbeschaffungsverband xxxx“ stehen müssen. Gruß Svalbard
firewarrior (2025-03-04 07:54:01+00:00): Moin!
Diese Nummern sind öffentlich sichtbar auf den jeweilien Schildern links oben vermerkt, weil bei Problemen mit den Hydranten die jeweiligen Verbände/Wasserwerke darüber den Hydranen identifizieren können.

Die source-Angaben korrigiere ich natürlich.

LG
Baloo Uriza (2025-03-03 16:18:59+00:00): When a value is unknown, it's best not to set the key.  No operator tag would suggest that the operator is not known, but operator=unknown suggests the operator is named "unknown".
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163141557
LeoMarin (2025-07-12 11:57:26+00:00): Why did you change an osm_id for Schmitten im Taunus???
ManuelB701 (2025-10-01 12:45:13+00:00): Nur so zu Info: Der Grund, warum einige Stadtteile als place=village getaggt worden sind, liegt darin, dass diese faktisch so sind. Das gilt vor allem für Hessen, welches im Gegensatz zu z.B. RLP keine Verbandsgemeinden kennt und dadurch mehrere Dörfer (teilweise Kilometer entfernt von der eigentlichen Kern-"Stadt") mit in eine Stadt eingemeindet worden sind bzw. manchmal einen Städtebund bilden (z.B. Taunusstein) und dementsprechend aus OSM-Sicht nicht als richtige Stadtteile gelten.
surveyor54 (2025-11-01 17:27:17+00:00): Hallo based_kronberger,
schade, dass du dich hierzu nicht äußerst.
Hier ein Zitat aus dem Wiki:

    𝐵𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑐ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑠 𝑧𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑎̈𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑡𝑔𝑒𝑏𝑖𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑛 𝑛𝑖𝑐ℎ𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒=𝑡𝑜𝑤𝑛, 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒=𝑣𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒=ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑛. 𝐷𝑖𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑊𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑡𝑒 𝑛𝑢𝑟 𝑓𝑢̈𝑟 𝑎𝑏𝑔𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑧𝑡𝑒 𝑆𝑖𝑒𝑑𝑙𝑢𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑛 𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑛.

    𝑈𝑚𝑔𝑒𝑘𝑒ℎ𝑟𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑛 𝑘𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑏𝑔𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑧𝑡𝑒 𝑂𝑟𝑡𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑛, 𝑑𝑖𝑒 𝑇𝑒𝑖𝑙 𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟 𝑔𝑟𝑜̈ß𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛 𝐺𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑑𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑑, 𝑛𝑖𝑐ℎ𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒=𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑢𝑟𝑏 𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑛 𝑗𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝐺𝑟𝑜̈ß𝑒 𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑘𝑡𝑢𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑠 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒=𝑣𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑔𝑒, 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒=ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑙𝑒𝑡 𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑔𝑒𝑔𝑒𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒=𝑡𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑛. 

Gruß
surveyor54
ManuelB701 (2025-11-02 08:28:45+00:00): Davon mal abgesehen habe ich auch bemerkt, dass du Oberusel-Mitte durch Oberursel (Taunus) ersetzt hast. Zugegebenermaßen war das alte Tagging m.M.n. auch nicht angebracht, da man der Logik nach z.B. Bad Homburg oder Frankfurt auch als place=municipality taggen würde (wütender Blick zu surveyor) aber es gibt durchaus einen Stadtteil namens (Oberursel-)Mitte und der ist separat von Oberusel als ganze Stadt (welches u.a. Oberursel-Nord und Bommersheim) einschließt).
surveyor54 (2025-11-02 09:25:31+00:00): Hi ManuelB701,
mit dem  place=municipality für Oberursel muss ich dir Recht geben, place=town ist hier angebracht.

Man lernt nie aus. 

Die Stadtteile Bommersheim, Oberursel-Mitte, Oberursel-Nord sollte man als place=suburb eintragen, da zusammenhängend. Die Stadteile Oberstedten, Stierstadt
und Weißkirchen sollten wieder place=village  werden.

Übrigens Oberursel-Mitte habe ich als separaten Stadtteil (Relation) eingetragen und tlw. nach ALKIS, gemäß Hauptsatzung der Stadt Oberursel digitalisiert.
Oberursel-Nord und Bommersheim sind nach Hauptsatzung auch separate Stadtteile, die ich auch so erfasst habe.

https://www.oberursel.de/de/rathaus/stadtrecht-haushalt-wahlen/satzungen/satzungen-1/hauptsatzung-vom-04.05.2021-inkl.-aenderung-vom-14.12.2023.pdf?cid=17nj

Mein Fehler war also nur, dass ich Oberursel als place=municipality  erfasst habe. Warum dann "(wütender Blick zu surveyor)", wohl noch nie Fehler gemacht???

Trotzdem freundliche Grüße aus dem Kreis Offenbach
citrula (2025-03-03 04:31:32+00:00): Welcome to OSM. You added this backyard as a building - I went ahead and mapped the house and added the address to it.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-28 12:31:25+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12631760681/history has shop = furniture_accessories that was added in this edit
shop=furniture_accessories ? What kind of shop, if any is here? Is it intentionally used instead of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=houseware ? If yes, what is the difference? Should we document this shop value as distinct, valid and useful?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-28 12:31:59+00:00): also, are you using Google Street View for editing?
Negreheb (2025-03-04 12:42:50+00:00): Hey, thanks for adding to OSM. Unfortunately the holes itself are not completely correct. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1364135946 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1364135947 should not be used for an individual hole for the disc golf course. 

Check https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Ddisc_golf_course and just ask if you need further help (also possible in chat where we talked aready )
Negreheb (2025-03-04 10:42:03+00:00): Looks good as well on first look
Negreheb (2025-03-04 10:41:44+00:00): 👋Looks good :)
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-03 06:44:35+00:00): Hi Twycross3, welcome to OSM!

It seems that the changeset you created includes nodes and ways without any tags. Could there have been an issue during the mapping process?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-03 06:45:00+00:00): Sorry. Hi gretta vazquez.

It seems that the changeset you created includes nodes and ways without any tags. Could there have been an issue during the mapping process?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
citrula (2025-03-03 04:46:21+00:00): Welcome to OSM. Changes you make are visible to everyone, so it's not appropriate to add features that don't reflect reality (like this natural=wood area crossing a residential area), even if it's for a project :)
citrula (2025-03-03 04:44:21+00:00): Swimming pools should be tagged with leisure=swimming_pool, not natural=water + water=pool

wiki page for swimming pool:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dswimming_pool
NeisBot (2025-03-04 15:36:46+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was flagged because your added description contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Comment
NeisRevert (2025-03-13 14:46:18+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163573792
jtracey (2025-03-03 04:40:52+00:00): This edit was made by downloading everything in Waterloo Region edited by raptureboi [1], then going through each crossing and barrier=kerb to look for obviously incorrect tags. "Obviously incorrect" means things like bad geometry (e.g., a barrier=kerb on a node shared by multiple sidewalks), or curbs tagged with tactile paving when nothing resembling tactile paving is visible in 2024 imagery. If one of the tags was obviously incorrect on a node or way, I deleted that tag, as well as any other tag I couldn't verify via aerial imagery, such as whether there are (lowered) curbs.

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/raptureboi

This user has been adding these tags all over, even in cases where they are incorrect, as verified by aerial imagery, street-level imagery, and ground surveys. Tagging things as wheelchair accessible when they are in fact a raised curb that leads to a patch of grass is the sort of thing that makes the map worse than useless, so I reached out to raptureboi multiple times over the past few months, with polite comments on changesets and private messages, but they continued to edit without replying to me or addressing these issues. My most recent message let them know that it was my last warning before going to the DWG if they didn't at least reply, and while they didn't, they do seem to have stopped mapping entirely for now, so I'm trying to just go through and fix as much as I can myself.

This changeset is conservative in the sense that, despite the problematic mapping practices, I'm only touching tags, and I'm leaving anything that looks plausible. E.g., I've left lowered curbs when they didn't have any other obvious geometry or tagging flaws, and I limited the changeset to Waterloo Region since that's what I have 2024 imagery for. I also left in features whose tags are from raptureboi, but the history shows as originating from me because of my previous attempts to improve these features (e.g. by splitting curbs), since those are harder to find. I should have just done this at the start, but it took me a while to realize how extensive the problems are, so it's all a mess.
Jarek 🚲 (2025-11-25 16:35:28+00:00): Thank you for your work sorting out the mess here! I have also seen bad edits from that editor unfortunately. Thanks for your efforts.
Glassman (2025-03-03 19:45:21+00:00): A couple of issues - first the leveled land, should like be tagged as landuse=brownfield instead of using a descriptive name. The fence tag is appropriate.

Also the trail you added, stops just short of SE 41st Dr. Should it connect? Also, this looks like private property. Is there a public path there? The owners may be concerned if people start walking on their property.
TrickyFoxy (2025-03-03 23:34:35+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163181258
Fizzie-DWG (2025-03-03 23:36:07+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17355
Dindia (2025-03-20 08:53:08+00:00): There's already gate specified. No need to add
zstadler (2025-04-04 05:19:05+00:00): The earlier gate is at an inaccurate location.
See https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12632532847/history/1#map=19/31.785507/35.457170&layers=D
Glassman (2025-03-03 19:26:18+00:00): Not sure why your removed the highway=residential tag from NE 126th Ct, but I added it back.

Also you added a duplicate driveway, house and shed. I removed the duplicates. Also, we don't use descriptive names, like Shed or Driveway, instead tag them appropriately, for example highway=service + service=driveway
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163146399
Boris Verkhovskiy (2025-03-03 17:40:13+00:00): Could you make your changeset descriptions descriptive?
bean_stew (2025-03-03 18:51:00+00:00): Hi, sure thing I will be sure to do this moving forward. Thanks for this! :)
Martin Constantino–Bodin (2025-03-03 14:58:28+00:00): Le commentaire généré n'est pas top : j'ai ajouté des panneaux M12.
NeisBot (2025-03-04 15:38:10+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was flagged because your added description contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2025-03-13 14:46:55+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163573819
NeisBot (2025-03-04 15:39:36+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was flagged because your added description contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2025-03-13 14:50:08+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163573934
s777n (2025-03-03 21:06:57+00:00): Здравствуйте. Пожалуйста соблюдайте правила написания названия улиц. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Россия/Соглашение_об_именовании_дорог#Написание_статусной_части Исправлено
ivanbranco (2025-03-10 20:02:31+00:00): Ciao CDB77, ho modificato alcune cose. Ho cambiato historic=memorial con historic=yes (prima della tua modifica era historic=building). Ho spostato il memoriale dall'interno dell'edificio all'esterno, in prossimità del muro. Ho sistemato la sintassi di Wikimedia Commons come da wiki. Ho cambiato wikipedia in subject:wikipedia.

Buon mapping
CDB77 (2025-03-10 20:08:09+00:00): oh, perfetto! Ho ancora molto da imparare... ma sono contenta che ora sia ben referenziato!
Grazie!
s777n (2025-03-03 21:45:15+00:00): Здравствуйте. Вы нарисовали несуществующие улицы. Откатил вашу правку.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-03-03 06:51:02+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/240423099

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Lezurex (2025-03-03 11:38:04+00:00): Hallo Nicolas,

Ich habe dein Changeset rückgängig gemacht, weil wir solche Dinge in OSM nicht einfach löschen, sondern entsprechend markieren. Soweit ich weiss, ist hier ja nach dem Umbau immer noch eine Migros. Daher wäre hier der Prefix construction gut gewesen: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix Damit bleibt der Node samt seiner History nämlich bestehen und kann so immer noch rückverfolgt werden. Das hat dann auch den Vorteil, dass bspw. in StreetComplete eine Quest auftaucht mit der Frage, ob der Umbau schon fertig ist.

LG Lezurex

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163157420
Lezurex (2025-03-03 12:01:35+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163158207
aharvey (2025-03-04 05:09:23+00:00): hi you've tagged the whole stream as tunnel=culvert, are you sure that's correct? If the stream is open in some places, but channelled through a culvert in other places you can split the way and tag each part differently.
s777n (2025-03-03 21:45:23+00:00): Здравствуйте. Вы нарисовали несуществующие улицы. Откатил вашу правку.
mavl (2025-05-13 15:07:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
opendcc (2025-03-03 07:20:06+00:00): Hallo, ich würde es besser und übersichtlicher finden, wenn der Name nur einmal am Schulgelände getagged wird und nicht bei den Gebäuden wiederholt wird.
fortera_au (2025-03-03 07:59:12+00:00): Thanks for that! I'll have to double check Every Door's handling of 1800 numbers.
Glassman (2025-03-04 22:43:53+00:00): This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. I'll leave a changeset comment with what I found.

This appears to be all fictitious. I'm reverting it. If you disagree, please let me know. I'll send you more info on OSM in a message.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163148265
maro21 (2025-03-05 00:52:42+00:00): Na pewno po tej stronie Swobodnej jest zakaz skrętu w lewo? Wg źródła, które podałeś, zakaz jest po drugiej stronie. Chociaż oba są "ze Swobodnej w Powstańców Śląskich".
Tomek | Yanosik (2025-03-05 07:31:08+00:00): Zakaz skrętu w lewo nadałem tylko jadąc w kierunku Gwiaździstej (zgodnie z komunikatem). Na odcinku Swobodnej od Gwiaździstej do rozdziału na dwie jezdnie jest podwójna linia ciągła.