piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
topolusitania (2023-12-08 21:52:10+00:00): Olá. O aeródromo foi fechado desde que o parque eólico foi construído por razões de segurança aérea.
topolusitania (2023-12-08 22:02:28+00:00): Há um mapeador que insiste em desenhar pistas e os seus contornos mesmo quando estão fechadas. A minha correcção foi automática, removendo o contorno, quando devia ter removido tbm a pista. O alcatrão ainda lá está e como não é usado, parece como novo.
Cebderby (2023-12-14 12:47:44+00:00): parking areas changed to buildings here
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=144863983&relations=true
Chieftl (2024-08-13 13:49:10+00:00): хіба садки і школа біля Набережної мають плоский дах, як ви вказали?
Має бути roof:shape=hipped
BCNorwich (2023-12-08 07:28:09+00:00): Hi, I've removed the duplicated section of highway as it disrupts routing. There is no highway named Waterville Gardens, that name refers to the group of dwellings.

Regards Bernard.
Tomas Straupis (2023-12-07 18:53:01+00:00): Pakeitimas atšauktas. Kitą kartą bus pateiktas siūlymas naudotojo blokavimui.
DiogoBaptista98 (2024-02-23 05:39:22+00:00): Porque colocaste o tunel a intersectar cada edificio criando um ponto com uma nota de ponto? Não entendi o proposito.
DiogoBaptista98 (2024-04-07 03:48:19+00:00): A pergunta tem mais de um mes sem resposta
Langlaeufer (2023-12-07 13:33:14+00:00): Hi Kintaro,
Der Eingang sollte vermutlich auf den Gebäudeumring und nicht auf den Parkplatzweg?
Grüße Langläufer
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144865045
NorthCrab_upload (2023-12-07 12:40:26+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572354674
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572354673
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572354728
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572354727
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572354726
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572354693
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211788738
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211788739
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211788740
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211788741
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211788742
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211788743

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
André Alvarenga (2023-12-07 12:50:15+00:00): Olá Tomio. Essa alteração que você fez vai gerar várias inconsistências nos validadores, porque ficarão building dentro de building. A tag building:part=* é utilizada dentro da área de uma building=* para permitir a inserção de características diferentes para cada parte de uma construção, como a altura, ou no caso de casas geminadas (semidetashed_house), permitir o compartilhamento do mesmo número de porta.
Tomio (2023-12-07 14:50:11+00:00): Bom dia André.
Talvez eu errei ao adicionar o building =yes, mas o estranho é que as edificações não estavam aparecendo como um objeto, mas apenas o contorno vazio como se fossem uma area=yes.
Eu posso reverter essas edições, mas acho que tem alguma coisa estranha no mapeamento sem ter uma building especificando o objeto. As outras building:* seriam apenas completamentos, na minha interpretação. Mas posso estar errado
Tomio (2023-12-07 14:51:49+00:00): Nem na visualização do osm elas estavam aparecendo
André Alvarenga (2023-12-07 16:38:50+00:00): De fato, no site do osm.org você não verá a rendererização da tag building:part=* porque essa tag não é utilizada na geração de mapas 2d. Veja por exemplo esta construção aqui: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1181228848 . No osm.org você verá apenas uma construção única, mas ela tem outros 4 polígonos dentro dela, representando as quatro unidades. Dessa forma, podemos colocar etiquetas adicionais em cada unidade. De forma resumida, nós teremos um polígono com as tags building=* e vários polígonos building:part=* dentro dele, porém os polígonos com building:part=* só são renderizados em mapas 3D, como o Organic Maps, a menos que tenham alguma outra etiqueta que também seja renderizada em mapas 2d. Compare esta construção no osm.org e no Organic Maps: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7467949 (San Sebastian Residence) . No caso desse prédio eu utilizei uma relação do tipo building, mas o conceito é o mesmo. A relação serve apenas para agrupar os elementos.
André Alvarenga (2023-12-07 16:44:44+00:00): Vi que você usou o ID para fazer as alterações. Ele não fez nenhuma crítica? No JOSM ele apresenta um aviso de inconsistência do uso de building:part com building.
André Alvarenga (2023-12-07 16:53:46+00:00): Um exemplo um pouco mais simples, que não usa relação é este aqui:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372084945 (este é o polígono da área completa do prédio)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372084930 (este é o polígono só da área dos apartamentos)

Agora compare o resultado no osm.org e no Organic Maps.
André Alvarenga (2023-12-07 16:56:48+00:00): Errei na indicação de que o polígono https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372084930  é dos apartamentos. Na verdade é a parte superior do prédio, provavelmente a caixa d'agua que fica acima dos apartamentos.
trial (2024-07-31 11:00:57+00:00): Bonjour, je lis artist_name=Kendo, mais en haut à gauche de l'image ce n'est pas ce que je lis (Charles Foussard & Vincent Sereks). C'est normal ?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathlt/53259035597

Une confusion avec Le Mur de Bayonne de Kendo https://www.kendo-pf.com/actu/
Le lieu semble le même, Kendo : peint en janvier 2023.
Photo actuelle : similaire à une prise en octobre 2023, donc je dirais artiste_name à changer
Patchanka (2024-07-31 13:26:01+00:00): bonjour
Bien observé !
En fait le MUR est destiné à être repeint régulièrement, une nouvelle œuvre remplaçant la précédente.
Je ne suis pas sûre que la photo corresponde à l’œuvre actuelle (dont l'auteur est peut-être Kendo).
Je vais aller vérifier
NorthCrab_upload (2023-12-07 12:50:24+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572354575
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572354597
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572354599
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572354598
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572354725
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9572354692
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211788744
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211788745
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211788746
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211788747
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211788748
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1211788749

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Johnwhelan (2024-01-24 19:11:02+00:00): A group of buildings could possibly be called a settlement rather than lots of isolated buildings grouped together?
Sajeevini sivajothy (2024-02-27 14:32:16+00:00): yes, but it depends on the context (which is hard to know remotely) and the distance between them (which we can measure).
Xvtn (2023-12-13 23:02:36+00:00): Hi, thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, here are a few tips:

- It's best to avoid abbreviations in OSM tags wherever possible. ("N" -> "North")
- Opening hours tag follows a specific syntax. It can be a little tricky but using this format makes it machine-readable, meaning apps and whatnot can parse it reliably.

I went ahead and made those changes. Thanks again, and welcome to OSM!
user_5359 (2023-12-09 10:49:29+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/1229441987. What is the mean of the tags
line1 = fiber
telecom:medium(vols1) = fibre

On the other hand the value of
ref = Кабель оптический ОКГ-нг(А)-HF-24хG.652D (3х8)-7кН
is to log for a reference number (more a description a the cable type).
Did you known the standard unit of distance is kilometers (distance = 57.97) ?
Allison P (2024-01-06 07:14:59+00:00): Relation with no type or tags https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16794387
BS97n (2024-01-06 11:29:34+00:00): Thanks for the hint, seems to have been a copy of the turn restriction. Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145952891.
Looking at the history of other relations I edited in that changeset, I see Vespucci&me probably messed up some more relations. Which luckily have already been fixed by other mappers.
I'll doublecheck what went wrong here to avoid this in future.
rainerU (2023-12-08 08:01:24+00:00): Bonjour,

Avec une série de CS tu as modifie le tracé de l'EV8. Je te réponds sur celui-ci car il est difficile d'identifier celui qui comporte la modification en question.

À Argelès-sur-Mer tu as ajouté le segment entre l'avenue du Tech et l'avenue Molière qui comporte ce chemin : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1184377934#map=19/42.55421/3.03690 . L’accès à ce chemin est interdit et il y a un portillon fermé de chaque côté. En plus, il n'y a aucune signalisation EV8 le long de cette section. J'ai été sur place cet été et j'ai des photos qui confirment la situation. 

Je te prie de ne pas détruire le travail des contributeurs locaux au profit des informations fournis par une organisation qui ne se soucie pas de cette discontinuité qui existe depuis des années.

Je suis au courant des discussion sur les forums au sujet des itinéraires EV.

rainerU
StC (2023-12-08 09:33:46+00:00): Bonjour,

il semble donc qu'il y a une divergence entre le GPX fourni par EuroVelo et le terrain. C'est un excellent cas à utiliser pour améliorer nos processus de gestion de qualité.

Je te prie de bien vouloir utiliser cette belle énergie pour venir contribuer à la discussion et proposer une méthode de travail qui permette à tous de travailler efficacement.
rainerU (2023-12-08 14:22:41+00:00): Ma méthode de travail est d'aller sur site pour vérifier avant de faire des modifications substantielles. Cela m'a appris qu'il faut se méfier des informations fournis par les autorités et les organismes du genre ECF/EuroVelo. La force d'OSM est de refléter la situation du terrain au lieu de se contenter d'intégrer sans vérifier des données externes. 

Je n'ai donc rien à apporter à une discussion dont le but est surtout de conformer les données OSM aux données de l'ECF.
rainerU (2023-12-12 10:27:09+00:00): Et maintenant? Que comptes-tu faire?
StC (2023-12-12 16:14:35+00:00): Voici comment je propose la suite :
- on avance la discussion avec V&T et ECF sur le processus de remontée des défauts et de traitement des écarts.
- je crée un sujet EV8 pour y exploiter ce défaut comme exemple (ainsi que la question de la variante plus au sud)
- on applique ce qui sera défini dans ce sujet comme solution dans l'EV8.

Un peu de patience et d'investissement en temps, beaucoup de bénéfices pour tout le monde à l'arrivée.
rainerU (2023-12-12 16:22:49+00:00): Tu veux dire qu'on laisse la relation EV8 dans un état qui ne correspond pas à la réalité sur le terrain ? A mon avis, c'est contraire aux princispes d'OSM. Je vais donc faire un revert de tes modifs sur la section en question.
pyrog (2023-12-12 16:41:37+00:00): @rainerU nous voulons tous qu'osm soit fidèle au terrain.

Nous avons la chance en ce moment de pouvoir discuter des relations itinéraires (vélo mais au delà pédestre, VTT, cheval…) entre contributeurs et opérateurs.

Je suis favorable à la proposition de Stéphane de laisser temporairement un état fidèle aux données de l'opérateur plutôt que fidèle au terrain.

A moins que tu puisses nous aider à   identifier clairement les sections qui sont à jour sur OSM (et pas chez l'opérateur).
Depuis ton passage cet été l'opérateur a peut-être réalisé des modifications ?

A terme les modifications dans OSM pourront guider l'opérateur pour faire ses mises à jour (avec l'aide d'outils comme le moniteur de knooppuntnet).

En attendant ne fait pas de revert s'il te plaît 😀
rainerU (2023-12-12 17:54:11+00:00): L'opérateur de ce tronçon de l'EV8, c'est le CD66. C'est lui qui en charge des aménagements de voirie et de la signalétique. Si on veut être fidèle aux données des l'opérateur prenons donc les données qu'il met à disposition sur son site web : https://www.ledepartement66.fr/les-grands-itineraires-et-realisations-recentes/ et où la section en question est "en projet". 

Si tu as des informations qui indiquent que ce nest plus le cas je suis preneur.
rskedgell (2023-12-30 20:52:06+00:00): Reverted by another user in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145707221

What does "busmiles snap to road" mean? If you explain what you are trying to achieve in your changeset description and reply to comments, other mappers may be able to help you. If you don't reply, your changes may be reverted in order to fix errors.
citrula (2023-12-07 16:20:33+00:00): Hello and welcome to OSM! You have deleted the highway tag and a building, which hopefully wasn't intentional - I went ahead and fixed that for you. In addition, I have removed the description you added - this is not a place to advertise your company, but rather to provide useful description to map users. Happy mapping!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144867353
thopf (2023-12-08 10:53:54+00:00): Der Weg verläuft durch einen Wald... Wie sieht's aus? Ist der Wald dort komplett eingezäunt? So weit mir das bekannt ist, ist das dort nicht der Fall. In Österreich gilt grundsätzlich in Waldgebieten das freie Wegerecht: https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/themen/freizeit_und_strassenverkehr/freizeit_im_wald/Seite.3750010.html  Ein generelles access=no Tagging, wäre somit falsch.
teatime456 (2024-01-17 09:35:55+00:00): Es ging darum, dass der Grundbesitzer ein Ersitzen des Wegerechts verhindern möchte. Bis auf Widerruf dürfen Personen den Weg weiterhin benutzen. Daher habe ich den Tag nun auf access=private gesetzt.
Negreheb (2024-04-29 11:26:31+00:00): Dann ist aber access=private auch falsch, bitte permissive nutzen. Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dpermissive
silversurfer83 (2023-12-07 15:23:41+00:00): Gude :)

das nächste mal bitte darauf achten, ob die Adresse noch für das Gebäude gebraucht wird.

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144867599
mangerlahn (2023-12-14 07:58:37+00:00): Hi! Du hast auf dem Wilhelm-Leuschner-Platz das cycleway tag in separate geändert. Tatsächlich gibt es hier aber zwischen den Links- und der Rechtsaabbiegerspur noch einen Radweg auf der Straße. Der Radweg daneben existiert zusätzlich. Ich würde daher wieder cycleway:right=lane setzen?
mangerlahn (2023-12-14 07:59:28+00:00): Es geht um folgende node: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/380114012
Augustlej (2023-12-14 10:58:46+00:00): Oh krass, danke für Deine Kontrolle. Ich habe da im Vorbeifahren nur auf die Gehwegseite geachtet. Hätte mir nicht durchrutschen dürfen.
mangerlahn (2023-12-14 11:05:01+00:00): Ach alles gut! Ich hab mich vorhin noch einmal genauer belesen und frage mich nun generell, wie das hier getaggt werden soll. Anscheinend wird für diese Art von Radweg (mitten auf der Straße) cycleway:right überhaupt nicht genutzt. Ggf. ist separate da doch richtig?
Augustlej (2023-12-14 17:40:17+00:00): Ja eigentlich nur wenn dieser separate Weg, und zwar jener mitten auf der Straße, auch als solcher gesondert eingezeichnet wäre.
Aya Samir (2023-12-07 14:39:51+00:00): Hello Kai2z;
Thank you for reaching out, I only fixed the overlapping streets in this location.
And I see you reverted my edit:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144868835
as you made these streets overlapping :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1229046364
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/685324627
In my proposition for "770-16" Street, it should be as shown in the image below:
https://ibb.co/SmG40N7
To become separate streets without any overlapping
Could you check it and fix it, please?
Aya_Samir
Regards
desertivy (2023-12-07 14:48:07+00:00): overlaping been fixed, accourting to the area map its one continuous street not two, thank you
Aya Samir (2023-12-07 15:01:35+00:00): Thank you!
Rico557 (2023-12-11 13:12:11+00:00): А что вэбсайт в доменной зоне .by уже не работатет?
kate_rocketdata (2023-12-11 13:50:07+00:00): Добрый день!
Действительно, сайт в доменной зоне by работает.
Сайт будет изменен на верный. Просим прощения за допущенную ошибку.
Rico557 (2023-12-12 12:42:22+00:00): Спасибо за понимание и оперативную реакцию! Важно, чтобы информация была актуальной для пользователей. Благодарю за внимание к деталям!
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-08 07:27:26+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15458
MKnight (2023-12-08 11:28:22+00:00): Moin, warum hast Du hier die Relationen gelöscht?
Dagmar Hach (2023-12-10 10:39:16+00:00): Moin moin, weil es ein Überest von einem nicht mehr vorhandenem Wanderweg war, den ich schon früher gelöscht habe. Die kleine Stelle (Brücke) ist noch als Wegeschnippsel übrig geblieben.
MKnight (2023-12-10 11:55:04+00:00): ok, danke
Cebderby (2023-12-08 16:47:09+00:00): Can you confirm that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/64045423
is now two-way for all vehicles (private cars etc) as you have changed it.  It was previously set as two-way only for bus, taxi and bicycle. Seems likely an error.
gabro00 (2023-12-09 09:31:34+00:00): Szia! Ha jól nézem a maxspeed:type kulcs a StreetComplete-ből származik, érdemes lehet a fejlesztőjének írni egy üzenetet, hogy itthon más a preferencia, különben újra meg fognak jelenni és szélmalomharc lesz :/
CurlingMan13 (2023-12-12 03:24:10+00:00): 'Changeset has been reverted.  Do not delete features just because they are "private".  You can read more on why here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145020680
CaldeiraG (2023-12-07 16:11:45+00:00): Hey, welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing.

One general recommendation: 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

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144870879
*Martin* (2023-12-07 18:31:02+00:00): My apologize. I was not aware that the changeset included also fixes in US.
Hjart (2023-12-12 06:33:09+00:00): Hvad var forkert? Det er såvidt jeg kan se den rette bygning.
archie (2023-12-12 08:30:21+00:00): https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=144870989 

taggar som har med amenity=kindergarten att göra,  flyttade från byggnaden till egen nod. 
Alternativ,  om du känner till skolområdet så ritar det istället, men ha inte dessa uppgifter på själva byggnaden.
silversurfer83 (2023-12-08 07:34:43+00:00): Hallo schaeferpp und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap :)

schön, dass du hilfst die Karte aktuell zu halten.

Du hast darum gebeten, dass sich jemand diese Änderung ansieht. Ich geb dir mal Feedback:

DIe Daten am Gebäude sehe soweit gut aus. Falls du die Umrisse genauer haben möchtest: Guck mal im Editor unter "Bildmaterial" auf der rechten Seite nach "NRW Orthophoto". Da ist ein aktuelles Luftbild mit dem Gebäude vorhanden.

Weiter viel Spaß bei OSM und bei Fragen immer raus damit
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/144871249
kapazao (2024-03-04 19:44:06+00:00): Hola, por favor ten cuidado a la hora de añadir etiquetado. He visto que has añadido amenity=fuel en algunos elementos que no son gasolineras a los que además les añades otro etiquetado. Esto crea problemas para encontrar los elementos y crea gasolineras duplicadas.
Un saludo
conradoos (2023-12-09 14:53:53+00:00): Nie dodajemy obiektów, których nie ma w terenie https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:was:*
maraf24 (2023-12-11 15:19:04+00:00): Nawet na ISOK jej nie widać.
kapazao (2024-08-21 20:51:37+00:00): Hola, ¿puedes explicar el etiquetado not:operator:wikidata? ¿por qué ese "not" delante?
Noktoborus (2023-12-07 18:03:31+00:00): Правка отменена:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144875907
NorthCrab_upload (2023-12-07 16:20:21+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Klucz addr:place oznacza brak nazwy ulicy. Kombinacja z addr:street (który definiuje nazwę ulicy) jest błędna.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/292765766

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
WieKo68 (2024-06-11 04:16:02+00:00): poprawione
Noktoborus (2023-12-07 18:12:20+00:00): Откатил:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/144875992

В дополнение хочу отметить, что man_made=traffic_signals не является описанным тегом и не оказывает влияние на трафик, как highway=traffic_signals, необходимый в точке https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2528194860 или, если вы хотите мапить более простой схемой и не портить более подробную, в точке https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9950956450

Исходя из области применения тегов man_made=, могу предположить, что данный тег необходимо ставить непосредственно на месте установки светофора в его координатах, а не в виде проекции на маршрутные данные.
Xvtn (2023-12-07 19:46:53+00:00): Just a heads-up that when both building and outer church boundary is marked as amenity=place_of_worship, it's generally interpreted as two churches. (Two icons and labels rendered, two entries show up on searches, etc.)

For that reason, I've generally tried to put all tags on the outer area, then tag the building as building=church only.
I'm open to other strategies if you disagree with that. Let me know what you think.
mamanakis (2023-12-08 00:08:09+00:00): I have noticed that before and am torn. From a dataset point of view accuracy would mean tag correctly and that this is a map rendering issue, but I have done my share of tweaks to make the map look right.

I have seen the whole church building in an area vs church.

I think the most correct answer is to put in a feature request for the map renderer to suppress the building religious symbol or area symbol if close enough to another symbol from a more specific or less specific parent or surrounding/surrounded entity.

I have also had it on my list to put in a request or see what it would take to use denomination specific symbols instead of the cross for all Christian denominations as some of them, such as this one don’t use that symbol and actively avoid it.
mamanakis (2023-12-08 00:12:26+00:00): I personally have just accepted the double symbols as less than ideal and a render bug. But if I had to choose I would drop the denomination sect info from the area to favor the most specific entity having the details.
It tough. From map guidance perspective finding the building is more useful than finding then site. But from a land use point of view it would be nice/interesting to be able to sum up land use area by denomination.
mamanakis (2023-12-08 00:18:48+00:00): From a programmatic standpoint it doesn’t matter much as if when the map is fixed searching for areas containing building and updating tags in mass is possible

I would imaging that in terms of prevalence that there are more marked buildings than areas which is to say church’s that don’t yet have an associated area either because it is not yet mapped or because the church has not grounds and is a building in a different area type.

That argument would also be in favor of marking the building and not the area with denomination if both exist.