piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Gabriele Dri (2024-08-02 18:55:19+00:00): Ottimo lavoro!
aseidel (2024-07-30 08:09:36+00:00): Liebe:r heinrichla,
bitte bei dem für den Radverkehr freigegebenen Fußweg an der Dorfstraße in Wetzen (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1304455982) das Tagging korrigieren. Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren#Stra%C3%9Fenbegleitende_Wege (Freigegebener Gehweg) bzw. Bsp. 10 auf unserer Tagging-Beispielliste. Die von Ihnen gesetzten Tags werden nicht für freigegebene Gehwege genutzt, sondern z. B. für kombinierte Rad-/Fußwege (traffic_sign=DE:240).
Danke und herzliche Grüße
Antje Seidel
#lgmaps
aseidel (2024-07-31 12:27:18+00:00): PS: Bitte außerdem das Tagging am Radweg von Wetzen nach Marxen prüfen, siehe dazu Änderungssatz-Diskussion unter https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154563156.
GretaMN (2024-08-03 13:12:11+00:00): Liebe:r heinrichla,
bitte achte darauf das LG Maps Tagging Schema bei einem class:bicycle Wert von 0 anzuwenden. Da ein class:bicycle Wert von 0 keine Aussagekraft für ein Bevorzugen oder Vermeiden des Weges hat, wird dort der class:bicycle:description=* Tag verwendet siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/LGMaps.
Danke und viele Grüße!
#lgmaps
mavl (2024-07-29 14:37:29+00:00): Здравствуйте. Вы добавили странный адрес. Улицы с таким названием нет, насколько мне известно. По данным OSM такой улицы тоже нет. Вряд ли какой-нибудь поисковик по данным OSM найдёт этот адрес. Напишите, пожалуйста, из какого источника получен этот адрес?
dingoy29 (2024-07-29 16:39:41+00:00): Добрый день! Адрес исправлен и тег тоже.
dingoy29 (2024-07-29 16:48:39+00:00): Адресы сверяю с ЕГРН, также с Яндекс. Панорамой
flohoff (2024-07-29 14:36:33+00:00): Moin,
warum sind diese Wege nicht mehr betretbar oder dürfen nicht mehr betreten werden? 

Der changeset kommentar "Korrekturen" ist ja jetzt wenig aussagekräftig.
Plinius Meterson (2024-07-30 20:39:53+00:00): Moin,
hatte es bei der zugehörigen Note kommentiert: "Vor Ort überprüft, dass der Felsenweg tatsächlich schon ab diesem Marker nicht begangen werden darf (ist mittels eines niedrigen Holzzaunes mit Verbotsschild abgesperrt, den aber dennoch viele Wanderer überwinden und den Weg dennoch einschlagen). Habe daher auch für diesen Bereich access=no gemappt."
Viele Grüße!
NieWnen (2024-07-29 20:56:15+00:00): Niestety dalej nie jest poprawnie.

building:proposed -> proposed:building powinno być

i te proposed najlepiej dodać przed każdy możliwy tag
np. jak masz man_made=tower, to przed tym też musi się znaleźć proposed: bo wcale nie jest wybudowane

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

No i proszę podaj źródło tych zmian.
Nathan_A_RF (2024-10-10 16:36:52+00:00): The prohibition of these users is already implied with the tag "highway=motorway"
Frans S (2024-08-02 10:55:30+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. 

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
In this document, you will find some hints and tricks which might help to expand your mapping skills.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154564902
mcliquid (2024-07-29 19:10:20+00:00): Aber club ist doch ein Vereinsheim. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:club
VictorIE (2024-08-09 22:15:49+00:00): Hi,

"Pedestrians and bicycles are not allowed on motorways in Ireland under the Roads Act 1993"

The default setting on OSM is that pedestrians and cyclists have no access to motorways. There is no particular need to add these tags.
Saeveo (2024-08-09 23:23:48+00:00): Just following the wiki:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway

"It is suggested to include implied tags when mapping motorways regardless. "
GretaMN (2024-08-03 13:32:50+00:00): Liebe:r heinrichla,
bitte bei Kreis-/Landes-/Bundesstraßen ohne vorhandene Radverkehrsinfrstruktur dies immer durch cyleway:both=no mit angeben, siehe LG Maps Tagging Bespiel 21.
Danke und viele Grüße!
#lgmaps
Dimitar155 (2024-07-30 07:24:05+00:00): Здравей Боби,

Обектът на нов адрес ли е или си го преместил случайно?

Поздрави,
Митко
Boyan Alexiev (2024-07-30 10:18:28+00:00): Здравей Митко! 

Съзнателно е преместен, но таговете за адреса не са актуални. Синит ми посещава и се преместиха преди два дни 😄
Dimitar155 (2024-07-30 17:23:36+00:00): Ясно, благодаря за отговора.
alix_geovelo (2024-07-29 14:13:20+00:00): pardon, erreur de changeset
silversurfer83 (2024-07-29 17:16:05+00:00): Hallo und herzlich willkommen bei OpenStreetMap :)

danke, dass du hilfst die Karte besser zu machen.

Da du ein Häkchen bei "jemand soll sich diese Änderung ansehen" (review requested) gesetzt hast fällt die Bgrüßung nun etwas ausführlicher aus ;)

Also:

Einie Dinge, die wir bei OSM tun sind (leider) nicht ganz intuitiv. Beispiel: Die sogenannten Radwege. Meistens handelt es sich hier um kombinierte Fuß-/Radwege mit den Verkehrszeichen [VZ] 240/241. Wenn dort keine Ausnahmen für zweispurige Fahrzeuge vorhanden sind, werden diese Wege bei uns, auch wenn sie schön breit und asphaltiert sind, als Pfad (highway=path) gekennzeichnet. Das war bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228990775 schon korrekt so, wie es war und deshalb hab ich es mal wieder zurückgesetzt. Ist aber nicht schlimm.
Wie Dinge hier gemacht werden wird idR im Wiki gesammelt. Unter wiki.osm.org findest du meistens, was du brauchst.

Der Rest deiner Änderungen sieht ansonsten ganz gut aus. Nur warum du hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93026963 aus einem Feldweg (highway=track) einen highway=service gemacht hast, würde mich interessieren.

Dein Kommentar und deine Quellenangabe sind auch aussagekräftig und hilfreich. Guter Start :)

Dabei will ich es erstmal belassen.

Wenn du Fragen hast, immer raus damit. Unter c.osm.org ist praktisch immer jemand online oder schreib mich auch direkt an

happy mapping
silversurfer83
aseidel (2024-07-30 08:03:11+00:00): Liebe:r heinrichla,
bitte bei unbefestigten Wegen, die mit dem normalen Fahrrad nicht nutzbar sind (erkennbar z. B. an smoothness=very_bad) keine Bewertung mit class:bicycle=* vornehmen (auch die Aussage zu class:bicycle=0 braucht es nicht). Siehe LGMaps-Ausfüllhilfe und Schema unter https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/LGMaps/class:bicycle.
Danke und herzliche Grüße
Antje Seidel
#lgmaps
GretaMN (2024-08-03 14:04:15+00:00): Liebe:r heinrichla,
bitte ergänze auf diesem Weg
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1304447517) den korrekten Tag zum Straßenschild DE:250. Für das Tagging von Straßenschildern auf Wegen ist folgendes Tool sehr hilfreich:  https://osmtools.de/traffic_signs/
Danke und frohes Schaffen :)
#lgmaps
GretaMN (2024-08-03 14:33:29+00:00): P.S. und bitte hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1304431378 den smoothness Wert für ein vollständiges Tagging ergänzen. Danke!
trigpoint (2026-03-11 15:14:01+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/179707075
dypa (2024-08-06 16:19:18+00:00): При указании размеченных не регулируемых пешеходных переходов нельзя использовать тег crossing=zebra, см https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:crossing=zebra

Пожалуйста при внесении следующих правок используйте теги (Размеченный (нерегулируемый) пешеходный переход)
crossing=uncontrolled
crossing:markings=zebra

Заранее спасибо!
seattlefyi (2024-07-29 17:38:18+00:00): Hi, thanks for the edit! Someone had already added the new location but didn’t remove the tags from the previous location.

I’ve added slightly corrected tags of your hours/phone number edit to the new location. 
The node at the old location should still have that same address (for the next tenant), so I’ve changed it back.

Thanks again for the edit, or else it would have gone unnoticed (also for the review request). Hope to see more!
DressyPear4 (2024-08-01 13:30:55+00:00): Olá, discuta com a comunidade antes de fazer grandes importações.
Alguns detalhes;
Linhas de distribuição de energia são classificadas como "minor_line" e apenas linhas subterrâneas como "cable".
Os níveis dos alimentadores não são mapeados de forma separada, mas sim na mesma linha apenas informando o número de "circuits" e a quantidade de "cable". Assim evita que postes sejam adicionados em excesso, onde apenas existe um.
E por fim, antes de enviar, certifique-se que as linhas não estão sobrepondo as edificações existentes.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154566693
batman_bolander (2024-07-29 15:15:56+00:00): Перепутал перекрёсток
Не нужно применять данные правки!
Gregory Peony (2024-11-02 18:08:27+00:00): I believe that WAY: 1304480052 is not a building becasue I cannot find evidence for it in other imagery sources and it looks like vegetation. I think that WAY: 1304480051 is also not a building becasue it looks like vegetation, casts a shadow on the building represented by WAY: 1286849643 and it overlapped with the footprint that I drew for WAY: 1286849643. I recommend that you flick through some of the other imagery options if you come accross a feature that may or may not exist in one of the sources, and if you're not sure then either don't add it, or add it with a fix me tag.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154568237
aceman444 (2024-11-18 21:54:57+00:00): Thanks, but please provide proper changeset description, as documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments .
Also please do not edit in such large area in one changeset unless the changes somehow relate together. Which the do not relate in case of random minor edits.
Alliegaytor (2024-08-04 02:58:36+00:00): Hi ChonkerStonker,

This changeset added also caused issues with bus route relations. The newly made ways were added at the end of the route relations and you didn't sanitise for which direction the bus is meant to go in, so each bus route was going in either direction of the road for each roundabout.

Also, Highview Road (28640412) (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28640412/history) should have been split in two from where it meet with Chesterville Road to properly allow for routes to turn left without going on the wrong side of the road. You can see what I mean here (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1305487927) with what I did.

I've since fixed the routing in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154794621 as well as splitting the road to allow for turning.

You should be able to see both bus routes following their respective correct paths here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2747625#map=18/-37.93026/145.06435
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11189472#map=18/-37.93026/145.06435

I know that this changeset was made before my first comments, but I've fixed at least 2 separate routes today that had issues caused by your edits. This changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153021217 being another one that had issues with the routes, fixed here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154794427. Just want you to be aware.

Please don't hesitate to reach out for assistance when it comes to routes!
bxl-forever (2024-07-29 15:52:12+00:00): Hello and welcome to OSM.

Adding new places to the map is fine BUT people do not steal existing address points to change them into amenities or anything else.  Just create a new point inside the building and that would be fine.  (Addresses should not be typed on places either, OpenStreetMap is a geographical database, it automatically assigns places to the nearest address point.)

We fixed it here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12080596651
Niiepce (2024-08-19 12:36:58+00:00): Hallo mike_hd,
der Weg osm.org/way/1304482534 exsistiert vor Ort nicht.
Und falls man osm.org/way/1304482531 als Wasserfall bezeichnen möchte, dann sollte das keine Linie sondern ein Punkt sein.
Viele Grüße
Hedaja (2024-09-11 16:17:09+00:00): Hallo
kurze Frage. DU hattest Bischof 72 als Restaurant mit veganen Angeboten eingetragen. Auf dere Online Speisekarte konnte ich jetzt keine vollwertige vegane Mahlzeit finden. Hast du vor Ort etwas 
entsprechendes gesehen?

Grüße
Christian
dankarran (2024-07-29 16:01:30+00:00): Thanks for that fix. 

What about the footpath connection between Spinney Close and Copse Hill?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25987693

(ps - as a cyclist I want all these kind of connections to be cycleable, but without explicit signage I don't think that's usually the case)
jbcharron (2024-08-24 16:33:20+00:00): Bonjour,
Le tag name n'est pas destiné à contenir la description d'un objet, pouvez-vous corriger cela sur les modifications que vous avez faits récemments ?                              Pour quels usages, utilisez-vous OpenStreetMap dans votre activité professionnelle ?
Je suis disponible pour en discuter sur notre forum à cette adresse https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/sarrebourg-urbanisme/26477.
Bonne journée
Vinber (2025-01-14 07:21:25+00:00): Bonjour,
dans la continuité du précédent message https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159883443, d'une part il est préférable de mettre un commentaire compréhensible, d'autre part OSM concerne ce qui est sur le terrain (modulo quelques usages sur de la planification mais en utilisant le bon vocabulaire).
Un sujet vous est dédié sur le forum (https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/sarrebourg-urbanisme/26477), il serait sympathique de répondre (ce qui pour l'instant n'a jamais été le cas https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=1308394).

Bonne cartographie
Frans S (2024-08-02 12:16:01+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
A: Inaccurate mapping.

C: Collecting adjacent buildings and mapped is as 1 building.
E: Buildings not squared.
G: Included the shadow of the building .


Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154569461
Frans S (2024-08-02 12:21:13+00:00): More info.  Removed > 150 bad shaped mappings. ( clustered and oversized.)
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154569461
Gregory Peony (2024-11-02 19:19:49+00:00): The vast majority of footprints here are valid, appropriately squared and are quite accurate in their orientation. Some however are oversized for instance WAY: 1304486921 envelopes the shadow that the building casts and WAY: 1304486920 is extended too far to the NW.--- Please take a look at Changeset: 158642006 (open it in you editor) first through bing imagery where the building is being constructed then in ESRI when the roof is present and see how in that case the roof compares to the footprint I drew. If you encounter odd situations, and perhaps imagery distortions it is usually the safer bet to map the footprint slightly smaller, becasue generally: building footprint <= building roof.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154570233
mavl (2024-07-30 13:44:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 154606945, 154607060, 154606852, 154606682, 154606922, 154606888, 154606817, 154607086, 154607139, 154607100, 154607116, 154606768, 154607328, 154606972, 154607347, 154607243, 154606611, 154607170, 154607000, 154607035, 154606643, 154607202, 154606740, 154606797, 154607308, 154607276, 154606705 where the changeset comment is: Whole World: the changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: duplicates of objects, undiscussed mass editing].
Vinber (2024-07-31 08:14:19+00:00): there's a discussion, a vote and preference to Orpi, you decide to put Orpi Millet Immobilier ???

https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/conflit-sur-le-nommage-de-magasin-dune-chaine/23821/44

Regards
gileri (2024-07-31 08:43:13+00:00): Hi Vinber, please take a look at the thread you shared, and the discussion :

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154323209

Andy from DWG was asked to intervene, they said that what was printed in the storefront in the photo shared was to be put in the name, I applied their decision. Please raise an issue with Andy (SomeoneElse) if you believe that the name on storefronts should not be used when mapping.

The choice is out of our hands now that DWG is on the subject.

Have a nice day.
Syl (2024-08-03 12:53:38+00:00): Bonjour, sur la photo fournie sur l'autre changeset on voit deux noms, celui de la marque au dessus et le nom de l'entreprise sur la vitrine. Rien n'indique que les deux sont liés ou qu'ils formeraient un seul et même nom.
Deux noms veut donc dire deux tags différents.
Syl (2024-08-16 07:43:10+00:00): Après relecture des réponses du DWG, je viens de corriger en suivant tout ce qui a été demandé : afficher le nom tel que visible sur place (voir mon précédent message) et suivre l'avis de la majorité s'étant exprimé sur le sujet (voir le message de Vinber).
Ceci clos donc normalement cette guerre d'édition. Comme dis précédemment merci de contacter le DWG avant de remodifier.
Bonne journée.
gileri (2024-08-16 11:20:25+00:00): Salut Syl, j'ai revert ta modification.

Avec les éléments dont nous disposons, le nom sur la façade n'a toujours pas changé, et la position d'Andy du DWG non plus.

Évidemment, si ça venait à changer, aucun problème pour appliquer les changements que tu suggères.

Bonne journée.
mavl (2024-07-30 13:44:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 154606945, 154607060, 154606852, 154606682, 154606922, 154606888, 154606817, 154607086, 154607139, 154607100, 154607116, 154606768, 154607328, 154606972, 154607347, 154607243, 154606611, 154607170, 154607000, 154607035, 154606643, 154607202, 154606740, 154606797, 154607308, 154607276, 154606705 where the changeset comment is: Whole World: the changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: duplicates of objects, undiscussed mass editing].
maro21 (2024-07-31 13:59:02+00:00): Czy ta automatyczna edycja była dyskutowana?
Proszę nazywać komentarze zmian odpowiednio - to nie jest "naprawa" tylko "dodanie tagów bus=yes i public_trasport=platfrom do highway=bus_stop". Dokładny komentarz jest szczególnie ważny przy tak dużych zmianach.
mavl (2024-07-30 13:44:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 154606945, 154607060, 154606852, 154606682, 154606922, 154606888, 154606817, 154607086, 154607139, 154607100, 154607116, 154606768, 154607328, 154606972, 154607347, 154607243, 154606611, 154607170, 154607000, 154607035, 154606643, 154607202, 154606740, 154606797, 154607308, 154607276, 154606705 where the changeset comment is: Whole World: the changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: duplicates of objects, undiscussed mass editing].
Gregory Peony (2024-11-02 19:43:44+00:00): You also modified a highway in this changeset. Please check that your comment is accurate when uploading.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154570884
Gregory Peony (2024-11-03 01:18:47+00:00): The mapping of buildings in this changeset is certainly a significant improvement over what was here before. Buildings have more accurate shapes and you preserved the metadata of existing mapping. Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154570884
mavl (2024-07-30 13:44:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 154606945, 154607060, 154606852, 154606682, 154606922, 154606888, 154606817, 154607086, 154607139, 154607100, 154607116, 154606768, 154607328, 154606972, 154607347, 154607243, 154606611, 154607170, 154607000, 154607035, 154606643, 154607202, 154606740, 154606797, 154607308, 154607276, 154606705 where the changeset comment is: Whole World: the changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: duplicates of objects, undiscussed mass editing].
rskedgell (2024-09-10 07:40:13+00:00): You appear to have tagged two section of the Longbridge Road/Fanshawe Avenue/Barking Northern Relief Road circular junction as foot=no in response to a StreetComplete task asking "Are pedestrians forbidden to walk on this road here?"

I have checked the available Bing Streetside and/or Mapillary imagery for evidence that there really is a (signed) pedestrian prohibition here. I cannot see any TSRGD diagram 625.1 "pedestrians prohibited" signs on the imagery, so do not believe that a prohibition exists and have therefore reverted your edit.

The wiki states that access tags reflect legal access. Subjective opinions about whether it would be pleasant, a good idea, safe, etc. for a particular transport mode are not relevant to legal access.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot

As real pedestrian prohibitions on public roads other than those tagged as highway=motorway or motorroad=yes in the UK are quite rare and are always signed, this quest is probably better left disabled.
2tefan (2024-09-10 09:39:49+00:00): Hi @rskedgell,

thank you for your comment! You are absolutely right, pedestrians aren't forbidden to walk around there. I'm very sorry, for mistagging this road.

This will not happen again, and thanks for telling me!

BR 2tefan
eggie (2024-07-29 17:15:36+00:00): Dag Bakeliet,

Je maakt nu van de weg zelf een 'barrier'.  Dat klopt niet. Er is nog gewoon een weg.
De afscheiding zul je op een node 'moeten'zetten en dan daar de accesstags op.
Bv vehicle=no

Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=154571876

Dus niet de highwaytag verwijderen. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-07-29 17:17:12+00:00): barrier=jersey_barrier 	op een node : A Jersey barrier consists of heavy prefabricated blocks to create a barrier. Use material=plastic or material=concrete to express the used material.
eggie (2024-07-29 17:21:22+00:00): Ik heb het aangepast en de weg weer terugezet. Je kunt de blokken evt verschuiven naar de plek waar ze staan en/of nog een jersey_barrier aan de andere kant zetten.
Up to you.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-07-29 17:24:51+00:00): Afslag beperking toegevoegd: Alleen rechtdoor.
hk51 (2024-07-29 18:04:22+00:00): hier die selbe Frage, wo ist das Problem bei diet:halal und diet:kosher ?
Bobbi123 (2024-07-30 09:51:56+00:00): Weil es gezielte negative Markierung bestimmter Geschäfte aus rein religiösen Gründen ist, die sich nicht den Gesetzmäßigkeiten dieser Religion unterwerfen/anpassen wollen (z.B. der Scharia).

Wir als Editoren auf OSM haben eine Verantwortung Geschäfte und deren Inhaber sowie deren Personal vor dadurch entstehenden Repressionen zu schützen, indem wir solche gezielte, rein religiös-extremen Taggs erst garnicht zulassen.

Siehe auch die Diskussion in: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154340335#map=19/49.60624/10.98457