piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Jordi MF (2026-07-27 16:53:03+00:00): Gricas, Phaes. A veces puedo sonar seco, pero mi intención es intentar ayudar.

Ese tramo que comentas es el que me generaba dudas mirando el visor del Institut Cartogràfic Valencià. Lo demás lo veo bien, aunque es cierto que cuando una calle peatonal es muy ancha para el tránsito de personas (por ejemplo, si un vehículo de emergencias pudiese circular por ella), se marca esa vía como "calle peatonal" (highway=pedestrian). Pero con la ortofoto aérea, no llego a ver si el tramo que antes ocupaba la calzada para coches se ha convertido en transitable o no. Si fuera transitable para las personas, se debería de crear la calle peatonal justo por el medio de la zona para peatones. Y, si la zona transitable está a la misma altura que la acera (es decir, realmente, no existe acera), deberíamos de borrar la vía highway=footway.

De todas formas, como ya he dicho, lo veo bien así. Según lo que consideres con lo que te he dicho, puedes afinar más.

Bueno, creo que no lo he dicho, pero la vía higway=pedestrian debe de añadirse siempre y cuando haya una señal de tráfico que así lo indique. He dado por sentado que debería de existir. Si no hay ninguna señal, no me hagas caso en lo que acabo de escribir...
Phaes (2026-07-27 18:21:34+00:00): Gracias de nuevo. Tu mensaje no me ha parecido seco, al contrario!

Si hay una zona transitable por personas, y no está a la altura de la acera, sino a la altura de lo que antes era la calzada. Sin embargo, no veo ninguna señal en las fotos, y hay un tramo en el que han plantado algunos árboles, por lo que imagino que la intención es que los peatones caminen por la acera. En cualquier caso, me fijaré cuando pase por ahí de nuevo porque paso habitualmente con la bici.

Gracias de nuevo y saludos
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-25 19:12:07+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Please see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Reverted adding SEO spam POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags/values in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/186363747
user_8655426 (2026-07-25 10:51:38+00:00): こんにちは。
このグラウンドには「球技場」 "SOCCER RUGBY GROUND" の表示があります。
あなたは実際にここに来て、名称を確認したのですか？
aTarom (2026-07-25 14:42:30+00:00): Hola, noms com
"Pujadote del carajo"
mirat la wiki de
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mountain_biking
en especial
mtb:name
eggie (2026-07-25 10:55:21+00:00): Hoi.. Het is alleen living_street als er een bord woonerf staat. De max snelheid op een woonerf is 15 km wettelijk. Dus geen 30. Staat er een bord woonerf?
Gr eggie
overzuid (2026-07-25 11:04:06+00:00): ja, alle woonstraten in deze wijk zijn woonerven aangeduid met het bord woonerf.
eggie (2026-07-25 11:13:36+00:00): Okw.. dan kun je de maxspeed aanpassen naar 15.. anders krijg je foutmeldingen.
Mapse
Marek-M (2026-07-26 16:34:53+00:00): Dzięki za dodanie Dino 👋. Dokładnej lokalizacji nie zdążyłem zweryfikować i pinezkę dodałem na oko gdy przejeżdżałem obok :)
vectorial8192 (2026-07-25 13:57:51+00:00): I see/guess the objective is indicating the reclamation protection area. Placing the harbour to be equivalent to other natural reserve areas in the world is imo unexpected, but I guess this is still technically correct per the "protected area" definition.
Kovoschiz (2026-07-26 11:37:32+00:00): The cause is actually because a problem is shown, whether it's an unknowing duplicate https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/851848400
There are several reasons 
1. Conceptually the two shores of Victoria Harbour are HKI and Kln being separated. No one actually says Rambler Channel is Victoria Harbour. The law is for managing the HK harbor area for maritime traffic. 
2. Doesn't fit `=bay` , `=strait` , `=water` , or any other `natural=` 
3. It duplicates other actual `=bay` , and `=strait` (viz Rambler Channel)
For the solution now
1. It's defined as an exact border, so `boundary`  
2. Not only reclamation, but also water pollution control zone (although the border is slightly different). 
3. `protect_class=5` is "Protected" "Seascape", which seems toleratable.
ceirios (2026-07-25 11:08:48+00:00): Hi there again, you're adding the boundary tag to the actual rivers and streams 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:boundary
Hufkratzer (2026-07-26 10:37:22+00:00): Hi,
was ist https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1544509175 ? Die hast du mit leisure=horse_riding + sport=pedestrian getaggt. Gehört die Fläche zu "Grundstein 8" ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13000126390 ), welches ebenfalls mit leisure=horse_riding getaggt ist? (Das wäre dann schlecht, weil es dann doppelt gemappt wäre.) Was ist sport=pedestrian ? Sollte das sport=equestrian sein? Könnte man die Fläche vielleicht als leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian (Reitplatz) taggen?
eggie (2026-07-25 11:57:24+00:00): Jurrien. Op een footway hoeft geen bicycle=no. Op een highway=path wel, want een path routeert wel voor fietsers.
Gr eggie
eggie (2026-07-25 11:55:15+00:00): Hoi Jurrien,

..bicycle=no is default op een footway. Dus niet taggen.
Dat routeert echt niet voor fietsers.
Gr eggie
KartKollektor (2026-07-25 21:15:40+00:00): Hi,
thank you for every small edit. However, please consider the following:

If you want to upload data to OSM, please upload it immediately after editing one small territory.
Data from this upload belongs spans over far away countries, making your change show up as a giant bounding box across two continents!
If you collected it before/after a flight, it should always be uploaded before embarking on a journey.

Thanks.
Kovoschiz (2026-07-26 13:20:24+00:00): This is conceptually wrong. CLK was reclaimed from 2 islands.
Joel Koen (2026-07-26 09:40:44+00:00): You seem to have aligned the roads here to Mapbox Satellite when Bing/QLD Imagery is more accurate. Is there a reason you've done this?
Tatfahren (2026-07-25 12:27:40+00:00): Wie stellst du dir die Beschilderung für einen Wirtschaftsweg vor?

Wenn keine Beschilderung vorhanden ist, und im Luftbild (wahrscheinlich auch vor Ort) der Weg durch mehrspurige Fahrzeuge genutzt wird, kann es zumindest kein path sein.

Vor 9 Jahren hast du sogar geschrieben das der Weg als Zufahrt zu den Grundstücken dient. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39841822
Detektiv Jim Gordon (2026-07-26 18:54:19+00:00): Hallo, eine Beschilderung für einen Wald- oder Wirtschaftsweg sieht so aus.: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Waldweg_gesperrt_(sign)#/media/File:Forest_Trail_Locked_Sign_1994.png, und so ein Schild habe ich vor Ort nicht gesehen. Ich lauf hier häufig lang. Solche Schilder sehe ich auch häufig an Beginn von Wäldern. Nicht jede unbefestigte Straße ist ein Waldweg (siehe wiki). Wenn kein Schild, dann kein track und so mappe ich auch. Zum Kommentar von vor 9 Jahren: Die Grundstücke die ich meinte sind auf der Oststraße. Bei der Oststraße habe ich mich für residential bzw. für service entschieden, da dies eine schmale und teilweise unbefestigte Anliegerstraße ist. Der Spargelweg ist jedoch keine öffentlich gewidmete Straße, sondern nur ein etwas breiterer Pfad, der über privater Felder verläuft. Eine öffentliche Nutzung (durch Fußgänger, Radfahrer!) wird hier durch die Eigentümer nur gedultet. Wenn man dies jetzt durch service ersetzen würde, dann enstünde der Eindruck, dass es eine offizielle Durchgangsstraße ist. Selbst der schmale Durchgang zwischen Annenstraße 4 + 6 ist eher ein Pfad, wo gerade so ein Pkw durchkommt. Wird aber als Zufahrt zu Grundstück Nr. 12 + 16 benötigt. Hoffe ich konnte dir helfen.
Tatfahren (2026-07-26 19:17:45+00:00): Im Wiki konnte ich leider keinen Hinweis darauf finden das ein Wirtschaftsweg immer mit Verbotsschild ausgestattet sein muss, dort ist es nur als Hinweis beschrieben, das es sich wahrscheinlich um einen "track" statt ein "hw=unclassified" handelt. Mir geht es nicht speziell um den Spargelweg, mir geht es darum das es falsch ist das dort ein Schild sein muss. Sonst müsste ich wohl 95% der Wirtschaftswege die ich kenne zu path ändern, und damit alle Forst und Landwirte von ihren dortigen Flächen aussperren.

"Eine öffentliche Nutzung (durch Fußgänger, Radfahrer!) wird hier durch die Eigentümer nur gedultet."
--> wenn da ein entsprechendes Schild steht, würde ich "access=private" + "foot=permissive" + "bicycle=permissive" eintragen, statt es über eine Änderung des highway typs auszudrücken.
Dimitar155 (2026-07-25 11:49:36+00:00): Може да се опростят доста, като се махнат излишните възли.
Fraxi (2026-07-25 12:00:23+00:00): Еми ако искаш, ги коригирай, но така са според кадастъра...
Fraxi (2026-07-25 12:17:40+00:00): Обърнах по-сериозно внимание на това, което казваш. Значи, в момента съм отворил и двата слоя в JOSM - и на OSM, и на файла от кадастъра(модифициран в geojson). Точките пак са много. Например за полигона на медицинския колеж. Ако направя опростяване(shift+Y), точки изчезват, но СИ граница се измества на запад(макар и не много). А аз държа на границите по кадастър. Има някакви опции на "Simplify", които много не ги разбирам и сигурно ако им се зададат съответните цифри, отклонението може да е минимално.
Dimitar155 (2026-07-25 14:22:47+00:00): Само за медицинския колеж, като се махнат около 20 излишни точки (основно по почти правите участъци), разликата в площта става 6 кв. метра (2930 спрямо 2924 в началото). Няма и особена разлика върху картата (освен някой пиксел, но няма кой да го види).
Fraxi (2026-07-27 07:58:19+00:00): С риск да бъда подигран, изразявам следната позиция:
-по отношение на различните имоти на образователни институции, чиито граници са определени и утвърдени най-вероятно със съответни нормативни актове/устройствени планове(тъй като са общински/държавни)-то, кои сме ние да пипаме границите, определени по кадастър? Ние ли сме с геодезическо/картографско образование? Дори и наглед границите по кадастъра(например на колежа) да изглеждат грозни, несъразмерни спрямо това, което се вижда на сателит и околни обекти, дори и да има прекалено много точки(но линиите са начертани от ТЯХ, експертите от АГКК или там, които са). Може би изключение би било ако ЯСНО виждаме на налични сателитни и наземни снимки границите на детска градина например(оградата). А по отношение на църковния имот, там пък в никакъв случай не искам да пипам... Разбирай какво говоря.
Без значение ще бъде евентуален твой отговор, но противен на тази моя позиция. Ако толкова желаеш, ти промени границите и "опрости".
Dimitar155 (2026-07-27 08:48:40+00:00): Ние не сме Агенцията по кадастър и точно поради тази причина не е нужно да сме прецизни до сантиметър (още повече, че тези сантиметри не се виждат на картата). Отделно, това, което си начертал в момента, са имотни граници, което е различно от физическия обект училище, университет и т.н. Имотните граници изобщо не са препоръчителни за импортиране тук. За справка - двете червени предупреждения на place=plot

Между другото, при бърза проверка на наземните снимки се вижда, че дворът на медицинския колеж и църквата си имат плътни огради, които са достатъчен ориентир. Конкретно колежът е заградил и съседния малък имот, поради което и той следва да е част от площта му.

Оправих ги с changeset/186443351
Fraxi (2026-07-27 09:46:05+00:00): За първото ти изречение от последния коментар - можеш да си го запишеш на лепящо се листче и да си го залепиш за монитора, да ти напомня всеки път когато предявиш претенции към някой mapper за педантичност и прецизност. 
Всъщност, в първата "червена линия" пише "You can add plot data if you want but only where the plot boundaries are actually visible on the ground. " Въпреки че по-надолу пише:"Note that fences and walls are not necessarily at plot boundary."
Ами в такъв случай някой друг може да се заеме с наскоро започнатата инициатива за разкачване на границите. Защото с JOSM е много по-лесно(и бързо!) да се използват имотните граници от кадастъра. Да не мислиш, че наистина някой ще губи време и ще се занимава да разкачва стотици или хиляди площи и да ги донаглася точка по точка, ъгъл по ъгъл, линия по линия?
Мисля си дали не е добре да се направи една тема във форума по този въпрос(или да се добави точка в уикито) така че всички, които ги е мързяло да чертаят както трябва и просто са залепвали границите(и на квартали) за кръстовищата, да вземат да си ги оправят или поне да се предотврати подобно нещо в бъдеще.
Знам, че ти постави въпроса в osmose-backend, но мисля, че трябва и тук, на местно ниво.
Dimitar155 (2026-07-27 14:45:42+00:00): В уеб редактора е още по-бързо. D, Shift и - и половината работа е свършена.

Мисля че никой вече не залепя площни за линейни обекти (или поне се надявам да е така). Остава да се изчисти постепенно каквото е останало. Иначе е хубаво да си повдигне като въпрос, за да може всеки да си огледа района и да поразчисти малко.
Fraxi (2026-07-27 16:38:18+00:00): > Мисля че никой вече не залепя площни за линейни обекти (или поне се надявам да е така).

 Пример:

https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1433787577

За мен с iD не е толкова бързо, много по-тежък ми е откъм ресурси. После-да видиш отсечките, коя към коя релация/полигон/път принадлежи май ставаше като погледнеш отдолу вляво. Но с JOSM ми е по-лесно.

Кой ще пуска тема във форума?
Dimitar155 (2026-07-27 23:41:28+00:00): Който пита :)
Fraxi (2026-07-28 07:46:33+00:00): Наглееш вече... Добре, мисля да пусна тема, за да бъде повдигнат въпроса, но изобщо не гарантирам, че ще се занимавам с това разкачване. Викам "дискусията" по този changeset да спре дотук.
gr4yweb (2026-07-27 08:28:39+00:00): Danke dir! Für mich passt das auch erstmal so. Eventuell bin ich Ende der Woche persönlich vor Ort und schaue mir nochmal die Parkplätze für die Ärzteschaft an. Die sind ja prinzipiell auch private Plätze.
BrummsLee (2026-07-27 09:56:44+00:00): Ja, das sieht eher nach Mitarbeiterparkplätzen aus. Da müßte dann access=private an den Parkplatz. Eventuell ist auch der andere Parkplatz rechts hinterm Haus Privat. Da fehlt der Zugang auch noch.
whb (2026-07-31 11:09:57+00:00): Guten Tag,

trotz intensiver Suche vor Ort konnte ich die automatische Nummernschilderkennung (Kamera) an der eingetragenen Position nicht finden. Wurde diese wirklich an der richtigen Position eingetragen? Existiert diese überhaupt?

Viele Grüße
whb
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-27 01:23:24+00:00): Still more issues here, which I've again had to correct in changeset 186429694

https://osm.org/changeset/186429694

Specifically:

- You inexplicably deleted way 375880935 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/375880935 , the correctly tagged school grounds, leading you to then add it yourself (incorrectly), as a new object, in your later changesets.
- You added perhaps the most malformed geometry parking way I've ever seen--I didn't even know it was possible to get iD to generate something like that, nor how any reasonable mapper could look at that and think it was an acceptable representation of the parking area
- You added a service way, misaligned and tagged as a service=alley for very unclear reasons, that connects only to the sidewalk leaving it disconnected from the rest of the map
- There are multiple serious node drags, including node 11091246854 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11091246854 by over 20 m, and node 11091246840 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11091246840 by over 150 m 
- The shapes you've drawn for the pitch areas don't resemble the shape of the real thing. Tip: iD can make a way perfectly square or perfectly circular by right-clicking and using the appropriate button (or shortcut)
tastrax (2026-07-26 01:52:57+00:00): Great work on the addresses - makes the map so much more useful! Cheers
C_1965 (2026-07-31 11:43:33+00:00): Hallo, Du hast mit deinem ersten Edit (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1544545066) ein Objekt "Multifunktionaler Raum Turmberg" eingetragen. Was soll das denn sein? - Ich nehme fast an, das ist ein Versehen und kann gelöscht werden.
mueschel (2026-07-26 13:49:15+00:00): Hi,
what does 'payment:cashier' mean? This tag isn't used in other places.

You also added "fuel:octane_ron:90" and similar - the correct tag is "fuel:octane_90' - could you have a look and fix this?
eggie (2026-07-25 20:27:13+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Kalk80 (2026-07-26 12:18:24+00:00): Are you sure there is a second hand shop here?
b-holdet (2026-07-26 15:39:03+00:00): Så skal det vist være i privat regi.

Her er hvad der er registreret på adressen:

https://datacvr.virk.dk/soegeresultater?fritekst=Sj%25C3%25B8rupg%25C3%25A5rdvej%252015%25208581%2520Nimtofte&sideIndex=0
KronosTheLate (2026-07-27 07:08:29+00:00): Ja, jeg var der og handlet de forrige 2 lørdage på ferie. Det er en butik i regi av kattehjemmet, hvor de selger donerte sager, og all inntekt går til kattehjemmet. Butikken består i ca 4 telte sat op på ejendommen. Jeg har efterspurt at få åbningstider til genbrugen på hjemmesiden til kattehjemmet over epost.
shrimp crevette (2026-07-25 13:37:19+00:00): voir https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/mise-a-jour-des-limites-du-parc-georges-pompidou-grenoble/44630/2
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-30 07:19:52+00:00): You deleted all these addresses without adding them on the appropriate existing business, or adding the corresponding business POI tags to them. Especially as a beginner mapper, you should not be deleting data from the map without a very good reason. Do you have any explanation for this? Otherwise, I will have to restore them.
O1S (2026-07-30 12:30:21+00:00): Like with the other comment I just left you here, there were both "place" nodes and "address" nodes, I didn't see the need for two there, so I deleted the "adress" nodes, and replaced them with the "place" nodes. (This was also the same for the Sendik's and buisiness's around there.)
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-31 04:37:52+00:00): As discussed in changeset 186349772 , it is usually okay to merge (or delete) address nodes that are already tagged exactly as such on buildings and/or POI nodes, but not if they aren't already tagged on something else as was the case in most cases here.

https://osm.org/changeset/186349772

Therefore, I restored or merged the addresses that did not already exist in changeset 186684589

https://osm.org/changeset/186684589
iuvi (2026-07-25 21:20:01+00:00): нельзя мапить под навигатор. можно в приложении задать избегать разбитых дорог
Gitasaleh Virast (2026-07-27 09:50:54+00:00): تبریک - راه way/1544555555 ساخته شد
Supaplex (2026-07-26 00:54:45+00:00): Please add meaningful changeset comment. The changeset comment you add does not match what you do.

Google Translation:

Vui lòng thêm chú thích thay đổi có ý nghĩa. Chú thích thay đổi bạn thêm vào không khớp với những gì bạn đang làm.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186345667
mavl (2026-07-25 13:19:13+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 186328802, 186328915, 186328931, 186328959, 186328976.
habi (2026-07-25 18:24:02+00:00): Das ging ziemlich in die Hosen; ich wollte das Gebäude benennen, nicht die Piste.
habi (2026-07-25 18:32:26+00:00): Revertiert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186361967
soshial (2026-07-26 11:49:15+00:00): Hey, I was here a week ago and coulnd't find a clear path in direction from the koča to Storzic. Did you see it?
mk2k22 (2026-07-26 17:56:04+00:00): Are you referring to this route? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/21143404
HellMap (2026-07-27 15:21:20+00:00): Sveiki,

Gribēju pieminēt, ka ēkām un citiem lieliem objektiem, kas ir redzami ortofoto (un paliks tur redzami vēl daudzus gadus), bet nekas jauns pa virsu nav izveidots, būtu vislabāk atzīmēt tos ar `demolished:building=*` vai citu atbilstošu "dzīves" tegu: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix . Iemesls ir, jo kāds cits to vēlāk atkal pa jaunu iezīmēs ieraugot ēku ortofoto. Jo 99%+ gadījumu, kad ēka ir ortofoto bet ne datos, tā vienkārši nav vēl iezīmēta.
kaposts (2026-07-27 15:39:14+00:00): Paldies par ieteikumu, ņemšu vērā.
shrimp crevette (2026-07-25 13:36:14+00:00): voir https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/mise-a-jour-des-limites-du-parc-georges-pompidou-grenoble/44630/2
divaddivag (2026-07-25 18:50:21+00:00): Bonsoir,

Pourquoi enlevez-vous tous ces highway=mini_roundabout comme ici: node/364035456 ou là node/616709423 . Ce sont des giratoires qui sont franchissables, non?
Loopslol7 (2026-07-29 03:20:01+00:00): Thank you mueschel :D didnt know about this tag
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-28 07:35:03+00:00): Hi O1S,

You performed a massive node drag of no less than 4 different ways over a distance of well over 300 m (1000 ft), leading to no less than 63 (!) iD warnings that you inexplicably ignored. Fortunately, another mapper spotted and fixed this in for you in changeset 186452472

https://osm.org/changeset/186452472

This is unfortunately quite far from the only time that you've performed a serious node drag in one of your changesets (in some cases multiple per changeset). I understand you are a beginner, but even when I was a beginner myself, with no expert mappers to help me and clean up after me, I never once was responsible for a node drag, at least one that I didn't catch before uploading with basic care and due diligence. As I've repeatedly recommended to you before, this is really something that I strongly advise that you learn and practice if you would like to productively contribute to OpenStreetMap. Thanks.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-30 07:14:46+00:00): Furthermore, what was the reason for deleting all the addresses here? They do not otherwise appear on the map.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-31 04:29:12+00:00): Restored or merged the relevant addresses and POI nodes/tags that don't already exist, and cleaned up some other tags in changeset 186684142

https://osm.org/changeset/186684142
user_5359 (2026-07-26 15:59:19+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please notice a name need a description like place or shop or ..
FajrAl (2026-07-27 05:11:33+00:00): it's translated as marketplace, but there is already marketplace here. I think it's a section where seller sell chickens meat
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-30 07:13:36+00:00): What was the reason for deleting a whole bunch of addresses here?
O1S (2026-07-30 12:26:37+00:00): I deleted the address nodes because there were both address nodes and place nodes. I didn't see the reason there should be both, so I got rid of the address nodes, and just used the "place" nodes.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-31 04:28:24+00:00): If the POI ("place") node already contains the address tags, then it is okay to remove, or you can merge the nodes if both exist and you know the address of the POI. If only the address nodes exist and you want to add the POI, don't delete the existing address nodes, just add the POI tags to the address nodes. And certainly don't delete the address node if the address is not already used for at least one POI node, or you are losing valid information.

In many cases in this changeset, the address already existed on a POI node, but in others no POI existed for that address. Furthermore, you deleted the entire building most of the addresses were contained with that had many very detailed tags, and you also deleted a number of POI nodes with very detailed tags in favor of those you added you very few, which is also a lost of information.

In general, especially as a beginner, you shouldn't delete anything unless you not only think but 100% know, based on clear guidance in the wiki and from other mappers, that the object either completely doesn't exist at all in the real world or that the tags are wrong/redundant.

At some amount of effort, I manually went through the deleted objects one by one and restored or merged those that did not already exist, as well as fixing up some tags, in changeset 186684142

https://osm.org/changeset/186684142
Kovoschiz (2026-07-26 11:47:34+00:00): 1. Please change to `landuse=` `=construction` , `=brownfield` , etc, not deleting it 
2. I intentionally make and suggest `description=` to be English only due to 255-char length limit, similar to `destination:lanes=` and `opening_hours=`