piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
JeroenHoek (2026-05-16 09:22:34+00:00): Qua methodiek: als je maxspeed ziet ontbreken, kijk dan even naar de geschiedenis van de way. Als het recent is zal dat meestal gedaan zijn omdat de situatie veranderde en de nieuwe beperking nog niet duidelijk is.

Voor sidewalk geldt het hetzelfde als bij die andere changeset: access-tags staan los van deze tagging. Je kan uit alleen de access-tags niet deze informatie uitlezen. Verwijder ze dus niet als ze valide zijn. sidewalk=separate en foot=use_sidepath gaan vaak samen, maar impliceren elkaar niet (foot=use_sidepath zegt niet over de aanwezigheid van een stoep).
JeroenHoek (2026-05-16 09:23:35+00:00): Het bord is trouwens in de echte wereld wel weg; er is een mooie bouwfoto van waar die wordt verreden (naar de nieuwe plek bij de rotonde).
emvee (2026-05-16 10:30:38+00:00): > Qua methodiek: als je maxspeed ziet ontbreken, kijk dan even naar de geschiedenis van de way.

Ik ben er vrij zeker van dat ik naar de geschiedenis van de betreffende weg heb gekeken en als ik dat alsnog nu doe dan zie ik dat maxspeed=30 van bijna 4 jaar geleden is en toen was dat niet correct.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1067986337/history#map=18/53.177972/5.418110

Ja dat het bord weg was had ik in de youtube video gezien.

Ik kan niet uit de tags van https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30911864 halen dat het naast een highway=secondary ligt. brouter heeft dat ook niet nodig, die bepaald op basis van de overige OSM data of een pad langs een drukke weg loopt.
Joseph R P (2026-05-14 20:41:12+00:00): I don't think these roads should be trunk even if they were to receive any non-local traffic as the main through route (or "trunk route") for such traffic would be I 15/11. The only case these roads would be viable for non-local traffic use would be if there was a really bad jam on the Interstates, as typically, the bulk of traffic won't divert onto local arterial roads with lower speed limits and traffic signals just to pass through the city when freeways are available and are purpose-built for that traffic. I think tagging these roads as trunk may also trick many routing systems into believing these roads are faster and safer to use than the Interstates, and while you shouldn't necessarily tag for the router, it should be taken into accountability.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-05-14 20:50:30+00:00): Oh, okay then. I distinctly remember you telling me that, due to the lack of a complete beltway, non-local traffic would be "forced onto Nellis [Blvd]," for example, to reach Nellis AFB. I could have instead upgraded Boulder Highway (which WAS built to carry some U.S. Routes), but:
1. SR 582 was shortened, such that it is no longer within the Henderson city limits (except for a short portion of Wagon Wheel Drive);
2. Those U.S. Routes were either decommissioned (466) or rerouted onto the freeway.
Is there any way to close the gap left by the nonexistent Eastern Beltway?
Joseph R P (2026-05-14 21:25:59+00:00): Until a roadway that is of or near the same quality as the western segment of the Beltway is built bypassing Vegas to the east, there isn't any way we could fill that gap on the map. Since that road doesn't exist, you could almost say I 15 and 11 are the Eastern Beltway. Realistically and officially, the Beltway is and probably will forever just be that incomplete C-shape due to Henderson developments, Frenchman Mtn, and Nellis AFB all being in the way. 

This isn't unusual for beltways as Salt Lake City's own 215 has a missing gap in its northeastern quadrant because of development and mountains. In a better situation, Denver's E-470, while incomplete, does have some non-freeway highways in the northwest which cut so much of a route and are high speed enough to be a viable informal continuation of the beltway. Since neither Vegas nor SLC have some roads like that cutting through the city or wilderness that provide a viable shortcut for through traffic, the beltways should just remain mapped as is without any complicated alternative routes mapped out to fill their gaps.
Joseph R P (2026-05-14 21:28:22+00:00): Come to think of it, SLC does have 84 to the northeast, though it's still technically not part of a beltway.
FajrAl (2026-05-18 06:32:23+00:00): Jangan menambahkan nama kepemilikan di OpenStreetMap
gurglypipe (2026-05-14 22:25:18+00:00): Heya, thanks for all your StreetCompleting here recently.

It looks like something’s amiss with these steps — is it really three consecutive flights of steps, 90m in length, with only 9 steps in all that distance? Or are some of these ways meant to be footpath rather than steps? :)
gurglypipe (2026-05-18 11:18:59+00:00): I’ve added this as note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5298556 since there’s been no reply here.
lakedistrict (2026-05-18 19:07:45+00:00): From memory it is almost like a series of ramps with a step or few between them.
FajrAl (2026-07-12 11:52:42+00:00): Terima kasih, sekarang hutan di sekitar Moncong Lapobattang jadi hilang
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-14 17:34:30+00:00): 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/2911077522
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262544129

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-14 17:54:57+00:00): 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/2911077522
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/262544129

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
ticki_52 (2026-07-22 07:58:25+00:00): Hallo MattGPS, der Node "amenity=taxi" bedeutet, dass dort ein ein Taxistand ist. Dem ist nach meinem Kennstand nicht so. Die Wendemöglichkeit ist doch im benachbarten Way ausreichend beschrieben. Was meinst du?
MattGPS (2026-07-22 17:09:18+00:00): Will mal behaupten dass die Taxi-Wende auf der Sulzbacher Brücke auch als Taxi(warte)stand genutzt wird falls der eigentliche voll belegt ist. Kann ja nicht die Straße blockieren.
ticki_52 (2026-07-24 10:02:36+00:00): Hallo MattGPS, die Wende kann nicht als Taxistand genutzt werden. Die beiden Fahrbahnen sind mit durchgezogenen Linien (und Pflanzkübeln) getrennt. Nur an der Wendestelle sind die Linien auf 4 m  durchbrochen und eine Fahrbahnmarkierung "Taxi" ist angebracht. Andere Hinweise gibt es nicht. Btw: In Backnang ist der Haupt-Taxiwartestand am Bahnhof. An der Bleichweise warten nur noch bei besonderen Anlässen Taxis. Bei Anruf kommt das Taxi in der Regel vom Bahnhof zur Bleichwiese gefahren. (Sind ja bloß ein paar Minuten).
gurglypipe (2026-05-14 17:13:59+00:00): Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap. :)

What were you trying to achieve here? From your changeset message it’s not quite clear :) Where does this path start and finish on the ground, and have you walked in recently in person?

I’ve had to revert your changes because they broke a number of things (adding a gate in the middle of the road, dragging various things around which you probably didn’t mean to, deleting a wall) and more importantly, because they used OS Maps as a source. Because of its copyright, we *cannot* use OS Maps as a source for OpenStreetMap. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey

If you can describe what’s wrong with the geometry on OSM at the moment, and how it differs from what you’ve surveyed on the ground, I can try and help you get it fixed.

(Reverted as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182661594)
woodpeck (2026-05-15 12:07:10+00:00): Hello gurglypipe, the mapper messaged the DWG about their edits being reverted (Ticket#2026051410000504). Unsure if they saw your message above, I've directed them to this changeset discussion just in case. Apparently they raised a problem with AllTrails and were told to fix it themsevles on OSM, so they attempted that. They write: "[Alltrails] is directing walkers across private woodland where there is no designated public footpath. [...] I therefore amended the map to move the incorrect route onto the actual designated pedestrian path, which runs from White Moss Lane, through the gate, down past Banerigg Guest House and onto the pavement alongside Grasmere Lake. The route previously shown [...] is not a public footpath and cuts directly across private land."

I have explained that we don't delete private paths, we just mark them as private, but maybe that information about where the public path is supposed to be can be helpful.
gurglypipe (2026-05-15 12:21:22+00:00): Heya, thanks for handling this. Hopefully @Please_Fill_in_this_Field is getting these messages and can comment here to help out :)

I’ve marked the path as private in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182695854

If @Please_Fill_in_this_Field wants to add the designated footpath along Banerigg guest house, that would be great. I’m not personally familiar with it. It’s not on the council’s definitive map, which suggests it’s permissive?
gurglypipe (2026-05-18 12:15:11+00:00): It’s been pointed out by Pete Owens on changeset 182695854 that this is actually CROW access land, so all footpaths through it, except where through developed land and gardens, are publicly accessible.

You can see a map of CRoW boundaries here: https://mapscaping.com/england-crow-access-land-map/ (it’s public data)

I’ll revert the access changes (i.e. mark the footpath as publicly accessible) again in a few days unless someone replies here with a correction or clarification.

*Section 16 land is, aiui, where the land has been voluntarily denoted as access land by the land owner. Section 16 declarations are irrevocable. See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/section/16
woodpeck (2026-05-18 12:24:32+00:00): I have informed the complainant accordingly. Feel free to re-instate public access - if they can substantiate their claims I will relay here.
gurglypipe (2026-05-18 12:43:27+00:00): Thanks, access reinstated in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182830354
Please_Fill_in_this_Field (2026-05-18 17:03:53+00:00): The woodland is mapped as CROW access land, which provides a general right of access on foot. However, this does not mean that new official footpaths or promoted routes can be created across the woodland.
There are already two designated public footpaths serving the area. The line currently being shown is not a recorded public right of way, designated route, or permissive path, and its inclusion is misleading.
I would therefore respectfully request that the route is removed/reverted and that users are directed to the existing designated footpaths instead.
gurglypipe (2026-05-19 12:00:38+00:00): OSM is a map of what’s on the ground (and, in the UK, what’s legally a designated right of way, if those don’t also physically exist on the ground). As the legal access covers this entire area, the question remains as to what is physically on the ground.

If there’s physically some path infrastructure (e.g. gate, stile) or a trod on the ground, then it should be mapped.

If there’s nothing physically on the ground then it shouldn’t be mapped.

5 years ago someone mapped this path using an on-the-ground survey and GPS traces (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106643646) which suggests that, at least 5 years ago, a path physically existed on the ground.

It’s likely that a path continues to exist, as it’s an obvious route from the parking layby, and from the bridge over the Rothay, to the quieter road up the hill.

Changes have been made on OSM previously to discourage use of particular paths for conservation reasons, e.g. where the National Trust have physically tried to discourage people from using particular shortcuts to fix path erosion. However, in those cases they have provided equivalent alternative routes which are just as convenient (and hence likely to be used by people). In the case here, the alternative route (which you haven’t mapped or described adequately for someone else to map) appears to start several hundred metres further up a busy road which has no pavement. So it’s not really equivalent.

Are you the landowner? What is your ultimate goal here?
joost schouppe (2026-05-19 07:40:12+00:00): Hi,
Would you say this is also a police:type = community_warden, like the Gardiens de la Paix? Or is this a very different type? With clarifying the type, amenity=police feels somewhat incorrect...
bxl-forever (2026-05-19 09:40:26+00:00): Honestly, I don’t know, and this is what I said when answering the note that requested to add this POI.

Just applying identical tags to existing LISA offices, to make it easier to bulk-retag once a more suitable tag is found.

From what I understand, a LISA office is staffed by civil servants and by police officers, and where citizens can come to easily report small neighbourhood problems, without the hassle of the classical administrative procedures.  Perhaps we can start a forum discussion to agree on a tag for this.
joost schouppe (2026-05-19 10:03:26+00:00): Here's my previous attempt at classifying police stations: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-police-force-details/125850
I'd say police:type=outreach may be more correct?
literan (2026-05-14 19:35:24+00:00): вы здание сломали. Аккуратнее, пожалуйста
habi (2026-05-17 19:42:40+00:00): Wir haben in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5250729 eigentlich schon "diskutiert", dass das ein Darstellungs-Problem von OrganicMaps ist.
Wenn ich aber jetzt https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:zoo%3Daviary#Part_of_zoo_fits_this_description nochmals genau durchlese, ist der `tourism=zoo`-Tag auf dem Gehege doch unnötig; danke fürs Entfernen.
Happy mapping,
habi
Famlam (2026-05-16 16:36:37+00:00): Something seems to have gone wrong as several buildings are now tagged as `building=*` rather than e.g. building=house or building=apartment or similar
Tomas09 (2026-05-17 08:09:52+00:00): Ik neem vanmiddag wel even een kijkje 🤔
Tomas09 (2026-05-17 14:58:33+00:00): Hoort in #182788998 gefixed te zijn (:
karr4s (2026-05-15 08:21:36+00:00): Bonjour,
Est-ce le nouveau nom pour le MoHo ?
karr4s (2026-05-15 08:28:57+00:00): Après vérification en ligne, l'ISEN est bien hébergée au MoHo jusqu'à la livraison des bâtiments situés sur la presqu'île (le chantier est déjà indiqué avec toutes les informations utiles).

Je me suis permis de corriger la modification et de remettre le bon nom à cet endroit.
Bonne journée et bonne cartographie. ;)
Juupero (2026-05-14 19:19:13+00:00): Puu-alue ei relaation luonnin jälkeen näy kartalla. Koitan korjata.
lankapuhelin (2026-05-15 09:17:48+00:00): Veikkaan johtuvan siitä, että pari-kolme inneriä menee ristiin koirapuiston kohdalla https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/66426053/
qstep (2026-05-15 13:44:11+00:00): Szia. Miért kellett az egész laktanyára és az iskolára building címkét rakni? Meg voltak a területen jelölve az épületek külön.

Valamint az egyes épületek magasságait honnan szedted? Lemérted?
infeeeee (2026-05-15 15:06:45+00:00): Laktanyáról a címkét leszedtem.
qstep (2026-05-16 10:37:35+00:00): Iskolák javítva: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182735501

Magasságokra továbbra is várjuk a választ.
Wally_PL (2026-05-16 06:20:33+00:00): Źródło?
silversurfer83 (2026-05-15 22:24:39+00:00): Hi :)

ich nehme an, dass es hier sich hier um eine simple Hütte handelt? Das von dir gewählte highway=rest_area ist eher für Rastplätze an Bundestraßen oder Autobahnen gedacht.

Hab das mal vorläufig angepasst.

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182663466
jmsbert (2026-05-14 17:53:50+00:00): Correção. As alterações foram feitas em Ibiracaraí.
Jarek 🚲 (2026-06-17 03:08:13+00:00): Hi, thanks for your edits in Toronto. When editing here, please make sure to consult and/or use the aerial imagery "Toronto Orthorectified Imagery - Most current year" as it is currently the most up to date (currently it's from mid-2025). For example, the crossing at Sheppard and Goddard is shown with zebra or ladder markings, not with lines. Can you make a note that your coworkers will be able to see as well?
RVR015 (2026-06-17 15:05:10+00:00): Hi Jarek! I'll share this information with the team. Thank you so much.
NxPFoto (2026-05-14 18:13:18+00:00): * +source=Mapillary
Fizzie-DWG (2026-06-21 01:51:21+00:00): DWG revert- unverified speed limit changes

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184373185
OlasMapy (2026-05-14 18:27:04+00:00): Co Cię skłoniło do tej zmiany? Moim zdaniem tertiary jest odpowiednie
Kamil Kalata (2026-05-14 18:39:01+00:00): A ja uważam, że jest to zmiana słuszna; żadna ze zmienionych dróg nie jest na tyle ważna, żeby highway=tertiary było uzasadnione, gdyż one rozprowadzają one ruch wewnątrz osiedli, a nie obsługują one ruchu międzydzielnicowego. highway=tertiary na Czyżkówku nie ma uzasadnienia, gdyż zaraz obok biegnie highway=secondary. W przypadku drogi na Osowej Górze pokusiłbym się ponadto o highway=residential, ale akceptuję aktualny stan rzeczy, żeby podkreślić jej charakter zbiorczo-rozprowadzający.
NxPFoto (2026-05-14 18:12:58+00:00): * +source=Mapillary
lukabułka (2026-05-14 18:09:50+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5291838
streckenkundler (2026-05-15 19:50:45+00:00): Hei,

...du hast in diesem Bereich und darüberhinaus ziemlich viele Grenzen geschrottet! Bitte beachten: iD ist für Bearbeitung von Grenzen aller Art ungeeignet! 

Zu den Fehlern: siehe https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=10.37305&lat=53.53220&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

JOSM nennt mir 10 nicht geschlossene Multipolygone und ich bin mir nicht sicher, alles erwischt zu haben...

eigentlich müsste das revertet werden...
streckenkundler
Nakaner (2026-05-16 11:42:31+00:00): This changeset was reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182738027

Lieber DirkHH69,

der iD-Editor ist zum Bearbeiten von Verwaltungsgrenzen ungeeignet. Der von dir hochgeladene Änderungssatz illustriert, dass der Editor keine Validierung der Polygone vornimmt, bevor er die Änderungen in OpenStreetMap hochlädt. Seitens der zentralen Datenbank erfolgt bei OSM keine weitere Validierung.

Bitte mache ich mit der Funktionsweise und den Gültigkeitsanforderungen für Multipolygon-Relationen und Boundary-Relationen im Wiki vertraut. Nicht nur die Geometrien müssen gültig sein (die Ringe dürfen nicht offen sein usw.). Auch dürfen sich zwei Verwaltungsgrenzen der gleichen Hierachiestufe (admin_level) nicht überlappen.

Bitte verwende für weitere derartige Bearbeitungen JOSM. Dort erfolgt eine Validierung vor dem Hochladen.

Im Übringen stellt sich bei mir die Frage nach der Quelle dieser Änderungen.

Viele Grüße

Michael
lukabułka (2026-05-14 18:13:06+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5291839
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5291840
Wildsharky (2026-05-18 03:49:47+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:182691566
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-14 18:31:17+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/237745629

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
rarad74 (2026-05-15 18:17:50+00:00): Pune comentarii la ce faci!!!
Stergi mulștipoligoane si faci praf harta.Opreste-te sau vei avea contul blocat!!! Voi trimite un raport la Data Working Group!
eggie (2026-05-14 19:43:27+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback Hoe kan nu een adres veranderen op een lacatie? Waar is dan nu nr 34 en op 24b zit een restaurant?
Op deze locatie zit volgens het Kadaster 34.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-05-14 19:48:20+00:00): Kan het zijn dat Primera nu ergens anders zit?
OnnoJames (2026-05-14 20:13:47+00:00): Klopt, de locatie moet worden aangepast. Ze zijn verhuisd.
eggie (2026-05-14 20:18:29+00:00): Oke.. naar de locatie waar nu dat restarant zit? En bestaat dat restaurant nog?
eggie (2026-05-14 20:21:02+00:00): Primera heb ik verplaatst naar locatie 24b
Nr 34 heb ik hersteld.
Nu de hamvraag. Bestaat dat restaurant nog dat nu op 24b zit?
OnnoJames (2026-05-14 20:36:59+00:00): Nee dat restaurant is al een aantal jaar dicht.
eggie (2026-05-14 20:41:28+00:00): Oke... verwijderd.. Dan klopt het nu.
Mapse..
Glassman (2026-05-15 02:33:03+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182666030
eggie (2026-05-14 20:16:54+00:00): Hoi.. Het blijft toch inconsistent.
Waarom wel een restrictie met een tijdvenster voor bevoorrading en geen restricties voor overig verkeer. Welk bord staat er vooraan?
Geldt dat venster nog?
Alexander Meijer (2026-05-14 21:05:38+00:00): het moet eigenlijk zijn: yes @ 0600-11:00
of: no 11:00-06:00
maar die zie ik niet als optie, kan ik dat dan toch gebruiken?
er staan de volgende borden:
Bord: G07zb (voetgangerszone)
Onderbord: OB54
en dan: camera controle bord
Alexander Meijer (2026-05-14 21:09:25+00:00): I take that back!
ik zie de 'no' variant wel
dat is beter
Alexander Meijer (2026-05-14 21:10:57+00:00): dat is nu changeset #: 182670854
Udarian (2026-05-15 00:54:47+00:00): street names in OSm are not supposed to have abreviations (you are supposed to use the full version), same applies to addr:street. This means that previous "Coral Way" is the correct value for addr:street in this instance.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-14 20:23:33+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Działkowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13828883722

"Sosnowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13828883894
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13828883895
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13828883896
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13828883897

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
void_aep (2026-05-18 17:27:59+00:00): do you plan on adding more? or can i?
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-01 23:05:37+00:00): Yup, SEO spammer for sure. Thanks!
osmmapper222 (2026-05-18 19:36:03+00:00): Hallo @herr_taschenbier,

die Hausnummer mag in der Form von den Besitzern angebracht worden sein. Jedoch ist addr:housenumber=4√(5!+1) nicht zielführend:

- da nicht maschinenlesbar und auswertbar, 
- amtlich in der Form vergeben (s. ALKIS),
- und nicht postalisch zustellbar.

Man könnte im note-Tag hinterlegen, dass 4√(5!+1) dekoratisch an der Fassade steht. addr:housenumber würde ich wieder den Wert 44 zuweisen. 

Gab es auf dem Grundstück noch ein weiteres, "offizielles" Nummernschild mit dem Wert 44?
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-14 20:23:32+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/160723526

Pozdrawiam! 🦀