piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2024-01-07 16:17:56+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks has been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 

Please pay attention to next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
several buildings inaccurate mapped.
Buildings not squared.
Collected multiple buildings, mapped as 1 building

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve 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/145952888
Strubbl (2024-01-12 23:19:23+00:00): Hi Thomas, ich habe das Tagging von dem Shop und dem Gebäude korrigiert. Falls du Lia kennst, kannst du ihr bitte sagen, dass sie für die Karte auf ihrer Website die Lizenz von OSM einhalten muss? Siehe auch https://openstreetmap.de/faq/#wie-ist-das-mit-der-lizenz oder https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence
Frans S (2024-01-06 16:22:38+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 has 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 next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Map more accurate by following the rooflines precise
Buildings are to be tagged as building=yes
Square each building


Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve 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/145953554
Frans S (2024-01-07 11:41:38+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/145953576
Frans S (2024-01-07 11:40:34+00:00): Hello, thanks for mapping.
A remark. tag buildings default as building=yes.
Best regards
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145953815
A67-A67 (2024-01-06 16:54:39+00:00): De only_straight_on-restrictie vanuit de Sportlaan was incorrect. Deze heb ik verwijderd. Het omzetten naar een no_left_turn-restrictie was niet correct.

De andere only_straight_on-restrictie op de rotonde klopte wel. Hier was de to-rol foutief gewijzigd naar een from-rol. Dit heb ik teruggedraaid.
Frans S (2024-01-07 11:37:25+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 has 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 next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Buildings not squared.
Connected nodes of buildings to other features.


Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve 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/145954021
Dave Venables (2024-01-07 08:46:40+00:00): Castleward Phase 3 2023 - 2024
Frans S (2024-01-07 11:35:25+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. However, buildings not squared !

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/145954092
Frans S (2024-01-07 11:34:16+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 has 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 next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Buildings not always squared.
Collected multiple buildings.(1) mapped as 1 building

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve 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/145954206
mavl (2026-05-03 05:38:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 182142872 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20224].
Frans S (2024-01-07 11:29:25+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. 
Tagging of highways in rural areas, like here. Just tag minor highways as highway =unclassified. (residential is used in urban (town) areas.
Also, issues shown by the issue triangle need to be solved before you upload your work.
Best regards
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145954787
TrickyFoxy (2024-01-07 20:01:49+00:00): 👌
Frans S (2024-01-07 11:23:21+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 has 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 next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Inaccurate mapped.
buildings not squared
I reviewed nearly all changesets (56 buildings). They show the same issues.
Please collect your mappings until you are finished or want to stop with mapping and upload them in 1 go.


Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve 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/145955210
MFlamm (2024-05-03 10:42:19+00:00): Attention: sur la Rte d'Aire-la-Ville à l'approche de Bernex, la voie bus n'est pas autorisée aux cyclistes. J'ai donc corrigé l'indication cycleway=lane, vu que je serais surpris qu'une bande cyclable supplémentaire ait été ajouté là (c'est l'axe parallèle par le Chemin de Paris qui est à privilégier pour les cyclistes).
map per (2024-02-01 20:22:40+00:00): Wegen review_requested:
Die Änderung sieht gut aus, danke!
ivanbranco (2024-07-04 11:40:36+00:00): Hi luk452,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16949356
what's the source of the Park Zakrzowek boundaries?

thanks and good mapping :)
Dawid2849 (2024-07-04 12:56:32+00:00): Boundaries of parks, squares and other similar features are visible on "Geoportal 2: Place, skwery i osiedla" layer in iD editor.
Dawid2849 (2024-07-04 12:57:30+00:00): boundary added in this edit is almost correct, western part could get a small improvement
woodpeck_repair (2024-02-28 00:02:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 147993534, 147993538, 147993527, 147993537, 147993522, 147993535, 147993517, 147993518, 147993530 where the changeset comment is: revert edits of user Barroszt in 2024 that affect Torun, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146515808
t_ja (2024-01-06 16:28:03+00:00): Ahoj Peter,
pri merge-ovaní adresných bodov s budovami si treba dať pozor na to, že staršie adresy boli zaznačené s tagom "source" (čo pri nich dáva zmysel, kedže bod obsahoval LEN informácie o adrese), ale po merge-ovaní sa táto hodnota prenesie do tagu "source" na budovu, čo je nesprávne. Správny tag je "source:addr", keďže iba informácie o adrese pochádzajú z Minvskaddress, nie budova samotná.

S pozdravom
Tibor
Langlaeufer (2024-10-30 08:34:50+00:00): Hallo Bussfoerare. Was ist deine Quelle für die Namensänderung?
Der Bach wird heute Totenborn genannt. Das Tal heißt heute Totental. (Die aktuelle Schreibweise ist abweichend von Schreibweise in der Preußischen Landesaufnahme Todten-Thal)

Ich ändere es in Totenbornquelle. (auch ohne Leerzeichen!)

Grüße Langläufer
Frans S (2024-01-07 11:14:12+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 has 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 next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
Buildings not always accurate mapped.
Buildings not squared.
Connected nodes of buildings to other features.
I reviewed multiple change sets from you. They show the same issues.


Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve 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/145956450
Luzandro (2024-03-29 18:16:49+00:00): https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/u-bahn-strecke-als-teil-eines-pilgerweges/88027/20
bikepiper (2024-03-30 14:30:11+00:00): Hi Luzandro.
mh ok ... soll der Tag route=foot von der Relation wieder entfernt werden?  Von mir aus ok, aber es ist ja (falls er existiert - was auch immer das genau heißt) schon primär ein Fußweg, auch wenn offenbar Teile mit der U-Bahn (durch die darin zu Fuß gehenden ;-) ) zurückgelegt werden sollen. Die Route wird halt dann in osmose immer wieder aufpoppen, wenn kein route=* getaggt ist, was bei mir der Fall war, als ich etwas (primär fahrradspezifiches) an den Straßen ort getaggt hab.
  Den Thread in der Community hab ich lustigerweise gesehen kurz bevor du hier kommentiert hast.
Luzandro (2024-03-30 18:06:09+00:00): Die Tendenz geht jetzt offenbar dahin, die Route zu löschen, wenn sie aktuell nicht existiert.

OSMOSE zeigt vieles an, was ein Problem sein _könnte_, aber nicht zwingend ein Fehler ist. Lifecycle Prefixe sind zB dokumentiert, aber werden eben bei diesem Check nicht berücksichtigt, kann man also als false positive markieren. Du findest sicher irgendein anderes QA-Tool, dass sich beschwert, weil jetzt sowohl proposed:route= als auch auch route= gesetzt sind ;)

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

https://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/resources/data/validator/relation.mapcss
bikepiper (2024-03-31 13:19:44+00:00): ok! :)
Frans S (2024-01-07 10:14:41+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. 
1 remark: Buildings need to be tagged as building=yes .

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/145956925
SomeoneElse (2024-01-06 13:27:11+00:00): We did ask whether there was any on-the-ground justification for a current name:ru here, but didn't receive any reply on that.
To contact the DWG about this either comment here or email data@openstreetmap.org with a subject of "[Ticket#2023111310000152] [OpenStreetMap] way 239299960".
arjunaraoc (2024-01-08 15:40:12+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  India page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India) and  join OSM India Telegram channel (https://t.me/OSMIndia).

Check my update: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146033845
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145957099
arjunaraoc (2024-01-08 16:19:32+00:00): Another cleanup https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/146035122
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145957099
这里没有鱼 (2024-01-07 01:26:43+00:00): 这里存在问题，我回退了。
1. 一次编辑不要跨越多个城市，可以分开提交。
2.编译信息不要只写“1”，说清楚你干了什么。
3. 13号线地铁连接到道路上，而且形状明显错误。
4. 下一个编辑中不要删除17号线地铁的配线。
Herman Lee (2024-01-08 03:29:08+00:00): 你好，有的时候的修改道路并公交线路修改可能会导致关系内成员错误，望注意
gscholz (2024-01-07 07:38:15+00:00): Hi Test360,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting and displaced ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=2.66550&lat=45.08720&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=145957656

Can you please fix this?

You can avoid uploading such errors if you use the internal validator of JOSM:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Validator

Kind regards
Guido
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2024-01-06 13:49:24+00:00): This was suggested in https://t.me/OpenRailwayMap/1/1006
Frans S (2024-01-07 10:12:27+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/145957973
desertivy (2024-01-06 13:55:52+00:00): near المشتل*
mcliquid (2024-01-06 13:53:56+00:00): Changeset im Task vermischt.
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2024-01-06 14:06:01+00:00): Sorry, I made a mistake in the previous changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145957804.

I corrected it according to the instructions at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcrane.

The crane track should be tagged as:
```
   man_made=crane
   crane:mobile=rail
```

I accidentally missed one track (a total of 35 tracks), which was also corrected in the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145958376.
Dave Venables (2024-01-07 08:46:20+00:00): Castleward Phase 3 2023 - 2024
Kovoschiz (2024-01-07 05:58:38+00:00): You made a typo turning them from `=service` to `=secondary`
samho1234567 (2024-01-07 13:00:41+00:00): Oops. My fault. Thanks for the reminder.
Layft Greater (2024-01-19 17:23:49+00:00): S?
Luzandro (2024-07-17 06:52:30+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4336828
ElliottPlack (2024-01-19 12:49:44+00:00): This one is interesting to me based on my time at the county. We had researched this and found it was a public road right to the end, paid for by taxpayers. It is on a public snow plow route. Did the gate look official?
HMC3rd (2024-01-19 13:23:24+00:00): The gate was signed as saying no access to the church, enter from Cromwell Valley Rd.  I assumed it was installed by the church but I also assumed that this meant it was no longer a public road.  Has the county devolved ownership to the church?  As much as I hate the privatization of public goods, I also would be happy to not be financially responsible for this road as a county taxpayer.   Might be worth revisiting to document.  At the time I didn’t look too closely, just thought, “ok, end of the line”.  I’ve found plenty of situations like this when I visit an infrequently traveled dead-end that was mapped from aerial imagery only, so that’s why I felt fine with the update.
George Gilbert Scott Junior (2024-05-15 14:01:38+00:00): Hello Badojo, may I ask the rationale behind changing the name from 'The Borough' to 'Southwark'? OS Maps use 'The Borough' for this area, and as 'Southwark' has several meanings (the tube station, the modern council, and the ancient borough) and could cause confusion, I don't think this change should be retained unless there is a compelling reason.

And which of the above are you referring to with this use of 'Southwark'?
Luzandro (2024-07-26 06:13:45+00:00): Hallo,

ich nehme an, es war ein Versehen, dass der Fußweg eine Sackgasse und im Westen nicht mit der Straße verbunden ist?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145959837
lintschi33 (2024-07-26 12:57:35+00:00): Hallo!
Stimmt natürlich!
Ich habe meine Schlamperei schon korrigiert.
Danke für den Hinweis.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/145959837
Frans S (2024-01-06 16:33:18+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please solve the issues raised by the issue triangle before you upload your mappings.
Please tag buildings just as building=yes (default for HOTOSM projects)
Never connect nodes of a road to other features.
Best regards and keep mapping
Supaplex (2024-01-16 05:03:35+00:00): Hi, 

It seems most of the places you added are already on the OpenStreetMap. Please be aware that the POI exists but in an unfamiliar language. For example the Sichuan Beef Noodle Soup one.
CaHein (2024-02-11 11:07:53+00:00): Der Weg existiert doch. Wieso soll er keinen Namen haben dürfen?
Langlaeufer (2024-02-11 12:07:12+00:00): ich habe Bürgersteige entfernt die so nicht existieren. Diese waren doppelt eingezeichnet (einmal richtig und einmal falsch).
"Parallelweg zur B242" ist kein Name sondern eine Lagebeschreibung, oder hast du einen Beleg dafür, das der offiziell so heißt? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen#name_ist_nur_der_Name
Langlaeufer (2024-02-11 12:08:24+00:00): https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=145960618
CaHein (2024-02-12 10:30:19+00:00): Habe den namen aus dem wegeplan des Nationalparks entnommen. Insoweit ist das ein 'offizieller' name (tabelle seite 70, wege 280/281/281a, übersichtskarte 2).
Die frage bleibt natürlich, inwieweit das doch eher ein interner name ist.

https://www.nationalpark-harz.de/de/downloads/gesetzliche_grundlagen/Wegeplan_2011_Internet.pdf
Langlaeufer (2024-02-12 10:50:49+00:00): o.k. ich empfinde das weiterhin nicht als Name, aber die Entscheidung überlasse ich dann dir.
Grüße und weiterhin frohes mappen
CaHein (2024-02-12 11:09:36+00:00): Ist mir nicht weiter wichtig. Können wir auch so belassen, denn der Nationalpark-name ist wirklich allzu funktional.
Vielen Dank und beste Wünsche
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-01-06 18:19:44+00:00): Driveways and ways through parking lots are highway=service, not highway=residential
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-01-06 18:22:32+00:00): roads leading to houses are not tracks. surface tag should be used to tag surface. 

I've rollbacked this changeset.
rahwakunstnik (2024-01-11 15:47:58+00:00): Map says was exactly as I noted! Stop bragging on me, you would be a golden find for the kgb/nsa!
gurglypipe (2024-01-06 16:46:15+00:00): How on earth is this piece of grass (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1237546078) more ‘detailed’ than what was already mapped there, which you deleted? What are you trying to achieve?
John Embrey (2024-01-06 21:30:59+00:00): When I was there I saw no trees.
gurglypipe (2024-01-07 22:39:00+00:00): Right, that makes sense, thanks.

As well as deleting the trees, though, you also deleted the piece of grass around them which was already mapped, and then replaced it with something much more coarsely detailed.

Firstly, this loses history of others’ contributions to the map (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history), and secondly it’s losing geometric detail.

If the deletion was accidental, note that the map editor has an undo button to allow you to undo mistakes while editing.
gurglypipe (2024-01-07 22:41:36+00:00): (Apologies for the aggressive tone of my first message, I should have been more polite. It is frustrating to see my work deleted for seemingly no good reason, though.)
BG2ETV (2024-01-29 15:27:17+00:00): 您好，此处变更不恰当。
广茂线广州-小塘西间拆除，为广湛高铁预留用地。
应为railway=razed。
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-01-06 18:18:20+00:00): Hi again.
access=no means that even the owners won't be able to use that road. Is this intentional?
rahwakunstnik (2024-01-11 15:57:38+00:00): If there was a sign that forbade driving in, that was the case, there is no sign anymore, which means that this part of the road is now PUBLIC! What do you think is malicious? Stop this scolding, I can also send Yandex maps data, there is respect for each other, not bullying and mocking!
rahwakunstnik (2024-01-11 16:00:50+00:00): Sorry that the access was "no", you could have changed it to "yes" without shouting. Just a small mistake! :D
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-01-11 22:02:45+00:00): I'd like to note that there is no "shouting" from my side. Please don't take my messages as attempts to bully you. I review a lot of changesets, not just yours and sometimes some things need clarification.
rahwakunstnik (2024-01-14 14:06:20+00:00): This is exactly what you are doing, bullying and harassment! Go bully someone somewhere in the forum consistently, see what happens!
I wanted to make the card with care and love, you come and keep bullying!
As I said, I operate in my home place, you go home, don't come to a stranger's door!
We need to find out how to delete the account with all the data, there is no point in improving this site! :(
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-01-14 16:09:59+00:00): I’d like to remind you that this is not your personal map, but a community project. If other people, doesn’t matter if me, Pikse or someone else have questions, express concern or point out possible mistakes, they deserve to be heard with respect, even if you disagree with their opinion.
rahwakunstnik (2024-01-14 21:22:06+00:00): I made my point, probably you still didn't get it or didn't like it.. Someone changed street / road types, navi programs are lying now (like paid sygic; just giving an example)! The map loses its meaning if it cannot NAVIGATE PROPERLY! I don't mind having to keep going back and rebuilding everything for the gps programs, especially if someone starts to wise up. It seems that you still consider this program personal!