piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
StefanHRT (2024-03-30 06:40:44+00:00): Hallo Predatorix, 
Bist Du bitte so gut und änderst den gemeinsamen Rad-/Gehweg wieder auf path um (gemäß https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren).
Danke und Happy Eastern
szydzio (2024-03-30 12:37:15+00:00): Proszę nie dodawać wulgarnych wpisów do danych OSM !
Takie działania uznajemy za wandalizm.
CurlingMan13 (2024-03-30 00:36:42+00:00): Note for whom it may concern:

This user appears to have an alt account:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/buhla
Dodko (2024-04-05 18:57:52+00:00): Aký má zmysel lesná cesta nenapojená na žiadnu inú cestu?
Nedá sa kresliť len tak od stola každá ryha na DMR5 ako lesná cesta, v skutočnosti to môže byť zarastené alebo len ryha na vodu.
tekim (2024-03-30 16:28:49+00:00): Hello, Welcome to OpenStretMap (OSM).  Thanks for your edits to the map!  Unfortunately we are not allowed to use Google Maps when editing OSM due to Google's terms of use.
tekim (2024-03-30 16:30:43+00:00): This is being reverted because it used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149359281
tekim (2024-03-30 16:31:39+00:00): This is being reverted because it used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149359318
Dodko (2024-04-05 18:53:38+00:00): Tie lesné cesty ste aj prešli, sú priechodné a nezarastené?
K lesnej ceste pridajte aj značku tracktype
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Key:tracktype
mcliquid (2024-03-30 06:34:30+00:00): Hi,

please note: 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#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
tekim (2024-03-30 16:32:46+00:00): This is being reverted because it used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149359373
tekim (2024-03-30 16:34:01+00:00): This is being reverted because it used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149359416
ottwiz (2024-04-03 21:22:48+00:00): "mirror" means here I have to use a proxy, because otherwise it's geoblocked for me. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ohio#Proxy_for_Geo-restricted_Aerial_Imagery
tekim (2024-03-31 13:56:10+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149391745
tekim (2024-03-31 13:55:50+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149391710
tekim (2024-03-31 13:45:23+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149391235
aceman444 (2026-03-14 15:08:53+00:00): Ani tu nie su ziadne vchody.
tekim (2024-03-31 13:41:59+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149391120
felipeeugenio (2024-03-31 00:45:42+00:00): Hola.
Gracias por sus ediciones.
Dónde en el INE aparece ese dato?
Gracias y saludos
CurlingMan13 (2024-03-30 00:36:23+00:00): Note for whom it may concern:

This user appears to have an alt account:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Susy_2684
MxxCon (2024-03-30 04:11:12+00:00): Hello.
support=ground implies that a light is sitting directly on the ground. That would be a logical conflict with lamp_mount=bent_mast or straight_mast..
The value that you want is support=pole.
I went ahead and updated all the street lights I could find in this park. But you are welcome to double-check to confirm if I missed any. 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149334686
Joyce Danhel (2024-03-30 03:49:34+00:00): #UPTaclobanYM
Joyce Danhel (2024-03-30 03:47:21+00:00): #UPTaclobanYM
akadouri (2024-03-30 02:28:01+00:00): Hello, thanks for contributing to the #nycwalkabout project. Crosswalks like this one that are signal controlled should be tagged as crossing=traffic_signals (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dtraffic_signals), crossing:markings=zebra. This is the "signalized crossing" preset in Rapid, or updating the "crossing type" drop down.

crossing=marked are crosswalks controlled by stop signs or otherwise (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing=marked)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1267596349
muralito (2024-03-31 13:03:58+00:00): Hi. Please make changesets with a much smaller bbox.

Please read and try to understand the notes other mappers have done with the elements you edit. E.g. "FAVOR NÃO DELETAR! Este trecho permite verificar a integridade da relação ao longo de toda a rodovia." 
This element are there because they allow to check the integrity of the relatiion. They have been there for almost 10 years. Why do you need to delete them?

If this changeset was done to remove this kind of ways you think are an error, IMO the changeset should be analyzed with detail and maybe reverted.

And, last, but not least, before doing this kind of massive changes, please discuss with the local community.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-03-31 21:12:52+00:00): Did you even look at what ways were deleted and their topology? These ways served no purpose and are a direct violation of the on the ground principle. The request to not delete is not necessary if you're adding real features and were only added after these fake features were correctly getting deleted. These are all from one person and is not an established "local community" practice. Appeals to age don't really change any of these facts.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-04-01 01:34:48+00:00): for reference they were all just like this: https://imgur.com/a/kiJVpnm
jumbanho (2024-04-01 16:19:44+00:00): I would probably use the newish tag footway=link https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Tag:footway=link

Alternatively, use a unmarked crossing.  

One more suggestion would be to add curbs (barrier=kerb) where the pathways enter roads/parking lots.
tekim (2024-03-31 13:40:54+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149391031
tekim (2024-03-31 13:40:14+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149391010
MxxCon (2024-03-30 04:15:49+00:00): What is this node? It doesn't have any tags..
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149336330
IraGersh (2024-03-30 04:18:49+00:00): The node was part of the steps so I figured I could attach a photo there.  Id did not complain.  It does seem odd.
MxxCon (2024-03-30 05:44:54+00:00): If you are adding a photo of the steps, perhaps add it to the steps way?
tekim (2024-03-31 13:39:40+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149390987
MxxCon (2024-03-30 04:17:25+00:00): You have extra / in this tag
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149336546
MxxCon (2024-03-30 04:17:57+00:00): Ah, I see you fixed it in the following edit. 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149336546
IraGersh (2024-03-30 04:22:03+00:00): Yes.  Its a common mistake I make and I usually catch it.  I always check that the link works before I close it out.
denis1080 (2024-03-30 03:28:01+00:00): I wasn't sure if the 3 footpath segments (the existing one, and my 2 new ones) have to stay separate or can be merged using the iD editor.

Everything else in the changeset should be ok.
Viajero Perdido (2024-03-30 17:17:46+00:00): This is good.  These ways can't logically be merged, because a way can only have two ends, either separate ends or at the same node such as here.

Sometimes ways can be merged, eg adjacent blocks of a street, if they have equivalent tags, and then it's usually a good idea, but not essential.

It's a good idea to have ways connected (as they appear to be here), if they are in real life.  EG, the semi-circular path being connected to the street.  This helps routing.

BTW, welcome to OSM!
denis1080 (2024-03-30 23:39:46+00:00): Thanks! And thanks for the extra clarification.
tekim (2024-03-31 13:39:13+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149390969
RDE FUN (2024-03-30 04:20:40+00:00): not fernbank it was Loganberg Drive BRUH
BR_pebble (2024-05-22 06:04:43+00:00): Hello
Chisom Okwuchi
Thank you for mapping!
I have added Missing highway 41.1257628, 28.84672
Please inspect your task carefully before closing.
Happy Mapping!
Glassman (2024-03-31 17:15:13+00:00): It's not good to tie unlike features to others. I unglued the park from the street. Later if the park or street changes geometry, ungluging the features takes time.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149337469
Glassman (2024-03-31 17:17:40+00:00): It looks like you accidentally dragged a node from the northside parking lot to Lake Forest Park Towne Center. I fixed it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149337679
tekim (2024-03-31 13:38:40+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149390944
MxxCon (2024-04-01 04:07:34+00:00): If it's a "park", then it shouldn't be "garden:type=". However, the name seems to indicate that this is a garden...?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149338085
Robin Zyx (2024-04-01 04:28:18+00:00): I've been trying to get OSM to mark this as a green rectangle, which it apparently won't do if you mark something as a garden. But it still doesn't do so after I changed it to a "park" as I have seen done elsewhere for some rooftop gardens. And certainly I see some ground-level lot-size community gardens in the neighborhood are marked on OSM as "parks" and have signage saying that.

So, IDK. I give up. Do whatever you think best.

I think there's a URL in the POI if you want more info. If not, see https://thelotusgarden.org
Robin Zyx (2024-04-01 04:31:20+00:00): Sorry, I meant that some neighborhood community gardens are called gardens in their signage, but are marked on OSM as parks.
MxxCon (2024-04-01 04:44:15+00:00): The fact that it doesn't show up a certain way in certain map styles doesn't mean we should fudge tags. That would be https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer and that's bad.
It might not look green in the default OSM style, but it looks just fine in another map style.
Our primary concern is for the tags to be accurate, not for the map to look pretty. 🙂 The way the map looks can always be fixed, but the underlying data is wrong...🤷 garbage in - garbage out.
dypa (2024-04-03 10:20:20+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
dypa (2024-04-02 05:46:36+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
BertMule (2024-03-31 18:33:37+00:00): People may walk there.
That doesn't make it a 'path'.
mcliquid (2024-03-31 18:51:06+00:00): Which minimum requirements that a path must fulfill are missing here? Depending on the water level, you can always walk right up to the waterline here and the trail is always clearly visible on site.
BertMule (2024-05-19 18:44:42+00:00): The point is that there isn't any trail or path visible in the available aerial photography. It just looks like a bed of scree, intermittently washed, depending on the the water-level. 

I would only draw some path if that is really distinguishable, or there is a route as a relation.

So you say it is.
I leave you to it.
mcliquid (2024-05-20 06:21:16+00:00): I am curious, why does it take two months to get an answer?
ivanbranco (2025-02-24 11:37:08+00:00): Ciao Adel89,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29921544

come fa questa way ad essere a senso unico? Vuol dire che si può uscire ma non entrare, non sembra corretto.
tekim (2024-03-31 13:37:51+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149390913
tekim (2024-03-31 13:37:28+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149390898
aceman444 (2025-03-19 19:27:24+00:00): Zdravim, nemyslim si, ze cesty v parkovisku treba sekat uplne presne na meter a co ma vedla seba parkovacie miesta tak je hned parking_aisle a co nema, tak uz nesmie byt parking_aisle.
Napr. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1267630738 preco by nemohla byt parking_aisle ked prepaja dalsie parkovacie ulicky a nema iny ucel? Rovnako https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1267630762 .
Naopak https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288708238 ste ako parking_aisle ponechali hoci ziadne parkovacie miesta nema a prave sluzi ak centralna os na prechod medzi dvoma obchodnymi domami. Naopak https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86133740 ste nedali ako parking_aisle hoci sluzi len na to aby popri nej parkovali auta. Cize sa mi to zda presne naopak. Aku pouzivate koncepciu?
Pozrite si https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle , parkoviska by mali mat nejaku logicku siet ciest, prijazdove a hlavne tepny (trunk), ci obvodove cesty na privadzanie aut nemusia mat parking_aisle.
Warin61 (2026-02-09 00:46:47+00:00): HI
Multipolygon outer ways cannot share segments. So the relation has been deleted.

The 3 buildings are now tagged building:part=yes
A new way mapping the 3 buildings foot print has been created with the Sargood Centre tags.
tekim (2024-03-31 13:36:46+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149390873
tekim (2024-03-31 13:36:29+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149390868
tekim (2024-03-31 13:36:10+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149390860
tekim (2024-03-31 13:35:53+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149390853
tekim (2024-03-31 01:10:53+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149373535
Matej Lieskovský (2024-03-31 06:21:36+00:00): Discussion over Discord pointed out a more established public_transport=platform_edge tag, but otherwise there were no objections. Will continue with the new tag for now. Still open to feedback!
tekim (2024-03-31 01:10:35+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149373533
mapperue (2024-03-30 16:42:26+00:00): Motor vehicles on cycle path with a permit, and even bicycles? Do you know what access=permit means?
This means that any car that requests permission can access the bridge. Do cyclists also have to requests permission?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/527506690
syntex (2024-03-30 22:37:52+00:00): Ok, I had a different idea of what "permit" in osm means. Fixed that
user_17222985 (2024-03-30 08:17:01+00:00): САМЕ ЦЯ ВЕБ АДРЕСА ЄПРАВИЛЬНОЮ https://t.me/DecolonizationUkraine/12341
tekim (2024-03-31 01:10:14+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149373517
uPunkt (2024-04-03 19:11:58+00:00): Hallo locked,
Vielen Dank fürs Mappen des neuen Radwegs. 
Eine Frage noch ich erinnere mich nicht mehr richtig daran. Es wurden ja entsprechende Verkehrszeichen aufgestellt, hast du das noch im Kopf welche? Damit könnte man das tagging noch ausbauen.  
Viele Grüße
locked (2024-04-04 20:07:30+00:00): Servus!
ich habe nur ein typisches blaues "Fuß und Radweg" gesehen. Fehlen damit noch Tags?
uPunkt (2024-04-07 18:39:49+00:00): Wenn es ein gemeinsamer Fuß und Radweg ist dann würde das hier eher passen. 
highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no
traffic_sign=DE:240
locked (2024-04-08 17:53:30+00:00): Coolio, danke!
Ich habs den ganzen Radweg entlang getagged.
uPunkt (2024-04-09 09:20:54+00:00): Sieht gut aus. 
Danke fürs umsetzen.
tekim (2024-03-31 01:09:52+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149373514
tekim (2024-03-31 01:09:27+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149373511
tekim (2024-03-31 01:09:04+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149373504
Warin61 (2024-04-01 23:13:38+00:00): Residential relation 7656605 now only has inners... broken.
Lockstar (2024-04-02 00:01:54+00:00): Fixed - thanks
NorthCrab_upload (2024-03-30 08:50:46+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Czecha":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11773175221

"Szmaragdowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11773175250

"Józefa Sowińskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11773214492

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
euroPathfinder (2024-03-30 12:45:43+00:00): Auch diesen Änderungssatz habe ich mir angesehen. Meine Anmerkungen:
- die Treppen nordwestlich des Hochhauses haben keine Verbindung zum nördlichen Weg -> habe ich ergänzt.
- den Parkplatz westlich des Hochhauses habe ich bereits ergänzt. Er ist allerdings als "straßenseitiges Parken" eingetragen statt einer eigenen Fläche. Dadurch dass du den Parkplatz jetzt als eigene Fläche eingezeichnet hast ist das ganze redundant -> ich lösche Deine Fläche noch einmal.
- Ansonsten noch wie vorher schon einmal der Hinweis Flächen am Besten über "Q" einmal rechtwinkliger zu machen, sieht einfach schöner aus.

Ansonsten alles top und mit viel Liebe zum Detail - sehr schön!
mf2105 (2024-04-17 10:20:40+00:00): @europathfinder Danke für's prüfen und die Tipps!
Es wäre mMn aber "visueller" wenn man den westlichen P ähnl. wie um Hausnr. 9 herum auch wirklich sehen würde auf der Karte. Nur eine Idee, deine Meinung?
euroPathfinder (2024-04-17 15:12:21+00:00): Ja das stimmt schon, besser sichtbar wird es als getrennter Parkplatz wenn es nicht direkt am Weg als Tag dran ist. Also wenn du magst kannst du es auch getrennt taggen. Wie gesagt, das andere Schema ist schon auch genau wie im Wiki, aber lange nicht so verbreitet und wird eher in Städten benutzt. Mit diesem Tool kann man solche Parkstreifen am Straßenrand ganz gut sehen: https://zlant.github.io/parking-lanes/#16/49.2350/7.0045

Viele Grüße
tekim (2024-03-31 01:08:33+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149373498
tekim (2024-03-31 01:08:03+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149373491
user_7130456 (2024-03-31 03:14:02+00:00): reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149374993
AndyB_66 (2024-03-31 20:41:59+00:00): Postaraj się, proszę, nadawać swoim zestawom zmian sensowne nazwy (patrz: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian). Sformułowanie "uzupełnienie danych", które nagminnie stosujesz, jest zbyt ogólne i nikomu nic nie mówi.
euroPathfinder (2024-03-30 12:30:39+00:00): Auch diesen Änderungssatz habe ich überprüft. Meine Anmerkungen: 
- Ein Name "(geschlossen)" ist sinnlos, denn das würde implizieren dass das Cafe immer noch existiert, aber nur einen neuen Namen trägt. Stattdessen ist es gute Praxis alle Tags zu löschen und nur noch einen Tag disused:amenity=cafe bestehen zu lassen. So bleibt die Geschichte des Ortes bestehen und sollte hier in Zukunft nochmal ein anderer Laden öffnen kann der Punkt wiederverwendet werden.
- Die meisten Flächen sind rechtwinklig/Parallelogramme/oä, dies lässt sich hier auch sehr leicht verwirklichen. Nach Erstellen der Fläche einfach einmal die Taste "Q" drücken und die Fläche wird "schöner". Betrifft zum Beispiel die Parkplätze die du erstellt hast - ist aber nur ein Schönheitsfehler und gute Praxis, sonst war da alles richtig.
- Einen fehlerhaften Parkplatz gab es: du hast einen Parkplatz erstellt der ins Gebäude hineinreicht. Das ist natürlich falsch und habe ich korrigiert. (es war der Parkplatz vor dem Hörgeräteladen Richberg).

Ansonsten alles super und vielen Dank für Deine Mithilfe!
Gruß euroPathfinder
tekim (2024-03-31 01:07:41+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149373485
tekim (2024-03-31 01:07:23+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149373481
nick1993 (2024-04-05 19:52:28+00:00): ma e' un toretto o e' una fontanella smat ovvero un distributore dell'acqua? solo per capire se mettere il brand smat o no
megaloman-it (2024-04-08 18:55:46+00:00): Ciao, è un semplice toret nel cortile anteriore della chiesa, ce n'è uno analogo dietro la chiesa:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7853256035
ofr1tz (2024-05-15 16:57:42+00:00): The shop is not disused, but still in use by New Arirang restaurant. The change set should be reverted.
tekim (2024-03-31 01:06:58+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149373474
tekim (2024-03-31 01:06:40+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149373464
BCNorwich (2024-04-02 07:16:29+00:00): Hi, Your new highway, Way: Islampur Road (1267659787), is a duplication line of an existing highway. This disrupts routing so I've removed it. It's OSM practice, if needed, to amend the existing way.

You've also made many mistakes of mapping buildings within buildings, hospital within hospital, and water within water. Could you please correct these problems? need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2024-04-02 07:33:00+00:00): Hi, I also notice other duplicated highways, Way: Bajuyerdangi Road (1267659767), Way: Bankal Sardarpara Road (1267659800), and part of Way: Aminur To Rashid Road (1267856290) which I've removed.

I also removed several address tags from highways which are pointless.

Regards Bernard.
Zarraf Tajwar Adib (2024-04-03 03:54:41+00:00): Hi BCNorwich, thanks for checking the data.
euroPathfinder (2024-03-30 12:10:29+00:00): Dieser Änderungssatz sieht soweit gut aus. Ich habe nur noch einen Poller auf der Straße ergänzt (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11773349298), sonst hätte ein Navi für Autos weiterhin den Weg von Norden her verwendet. Jetzt wird ein Navi ein Auto nur noch über den Süden zu den Parkplätzen navigieren, wohingegen Fußgänger und Radfahrer auch über den nördlichen Zugang navigiert werden.

OSM ermöglicht natürlich beliebig detaillierte Karten. So könnte man auch hinterlegen, ob die Parkplätze kostenfrei und öffentlich zu verwenden sind und dergleichen. Falls Du ein Android-Gerät besitzt würde ich die App "StreetComplete" empfehlen, dort kannst du massiv zur Qualität beitragen und kaum was falsch machen.

Viele Grüße und schöne Ostern!