piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Tomas_J (2024-03-14 09:46:04+00:00): In order not to duplicate I continued in the discussion here : https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-to-handle-massive-name-deletion/110497/6
MenKauRa (2024-03-14 14:53:04+00:00): ok... no problem..
Taktaal (2024-03-11 21:22:21+00:00): In this edit you removed some multilingual names for neighborhoods. What was the reason for removing these names?
MenKauRa (2024-03-11 21:47:07+00:00): After the de-occupation of the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, work is being carried out to administratively divide this region... the names of settlements that have lost their relevance also fall under this mess...
Taktaal (2024-03-11 21:56:35+00:00): historic names stay relevant for a few generations at least until the old inhabitants have completely died off. i.e. in the Germany/Poland/Czech area you still have towns being called by three different names even though they last changed their state in 1945

i have since also found this thread on the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/edit-warring-over-nagorno-karabakh-region-republic/57413 which states that it is policy that while the name=* should be adjusted to the new azerbaijani names, the old multilingual names shall not be removed

I will readd the old hy and ru names. That way they will remain available for searches. The map itself only displays the name=* tag
MenKauRa (2024-03-11 22:34:36+00:00): Do you seriously think that I should be guided by the suggestions of a Xelgen user written as a discussion question in November 2011?... today is the year 2024... and
not a single bus driver or taxi driver, or private car driver, not a single guide will take anyone to that region using names that have lost their relevance...

Regarding old names - there is a tag "old_name[:<xx>]" and any openstreetmap user can use this tag...

I repeat - after the de-occupation of the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, work is being carried out to administratively divide this region... the names of settlements that have lost their relevance also fall under this mess... I think I answered your question quite comprehensively..
Taktaal (2024-03-12 08:42:15+00:00): It's not only buses and taxis that matter, but people might want to look up a name from a history book from the past, or look for where their family used to live, and their documents will have the old name of the town on it. So there is a reason to try to keep them searchable by names that might not be regularly used in the future anymore.

This is established OSM consensus like for example on https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/31782520 and it is handled everywhere the same where conflicts make towns move ownership, as an example in Ukraine or Palestine.

You are correct, using old_name:xx would also have been a good option, but you deleted those too.
NorthCrab_upload (2023-10-18 17:00:27+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/11272474328
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/679729597

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
TrickyFoxy (2024-06-12 10:22:27+00:00): Не пишите капсом
NorthCrab_upload (2023-10-18 17:00:28+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/11272451153
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11272451151
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1122309773
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/841238094

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2023-10-18 17:10:27+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/11272486517
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1122309772

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Boyan Alexiev (2023-10-19 12:13:47+00:00): Hello KeShcramm,
Thanks for mapping here!

Just a suggestion - instead of deleting the buildings and re-making them, you can square non-square buildings by selecting the object and pressing Q. This preserves he building history and attributes that can be lost if the building is mapped from scratch.

See all shortcuts for the iD editor here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ID/Shortcuts

Thanks for helping and keep up the good work!
pitfire (2023-10-19 08:55:37+00:00): Hi svencb,
betr.: Note,
meintest Du beim "Altenzentrum am Michaelsberg (162144732, v5)" seit oder ab Sommer 2024?
svencb (2023-10-23 16:49:16+00:00): Hallo, Danke für den Hinweis! Gemeint war "ab Sommer 2023"... habe ich nun korrigiert. Viele Grüße!
Tomas_J (2024-03-14 02:01:59+00:00): Why do you vandalize/delete other languages' names? Stop going so and return to the original state pls.
chris66 (2024-03-14 08:21:25+00:00): The case is discussed here:

community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-to-handle-massive-name-deletion
Jordi MF (2023-10-18 18:19:13+00:00): Hola jemily,

Estoy acabando de revisar los nombres de caminos de las carreteras "unclassified" para ponerlos en bilingüe. Me quedan unas 200 vías, pero esta semana estoy seguro que los terminaré.

Quedará lo más costoso: revisar todas las "highway=residential" (unas 1500 vías). Sé que lo estás haciendo. Pero creo que a partir de la semana que viene podría ayudarte.

Pero necesito saber cómo estás revisando estás calles. ¿Sabes si los nombres están bien situados? Yo sólo me dedicaría a corregir alguna falta de ortografía, situar los nombres en castellano y catalán en la etiqueta "name", y añadir name:ca y name:es. ¿Crees que debería revisar algo más?
jemily1 (2023-10-22 16:09:13+00:00): Estoy bajando a ver todas las calles que puedo, aunque la gran mayoría he pasado por ellas alguna vez. Por motivos laborales tengo muy poco tiempo entre semana, así que aprovecho al máximo los fines de semana. Las que más quebraderos de cabeza dan son las que llevan nombres de santos (algunas están dedicadas a fincas que tenían nombres de santos, y por eso no tienen traducción) y de municipios / países (hay muchas de este tipo que se llaman Carrer Nombre en español y tengo que asegurarme bien). Después compruebo si coinciden en catastro y en el callejero de la web del ayuntamiento.

Estoy usando el gestor de tareas y marcando todas las zonas ya revisadas, para poder saber cuanto queda. En estos momentos estoy revisando los barrios Florida, Ciudad de Asís, San Gabriel y Urbanova. Conforme avanzo en esa zona mi conocimiento de las calles disminuye, aunque con los autobuses en media hora puedo llegar a cualquier calle. Después avanzaré hacia los barrios de Altozano, Tómbola, San Agustín, Los Ángeles y Virgen del Remedio; toda esa zona la conozco de memoria.

Si todo va bien, a mediados de noviembre lo tendré todo comprobado.
jemily1 (2023-10-22 16:17:41+00:00): Se me olvidaba:

1- Es necesario usar el gestor de tareas https://tareas.openstreetmap.es/projects/337/tasks/?page=1 para marcar todas las zonas de caminos que ya has hecho. 

2- Todas las tareas que ya he marcado deben ser validadas por otro usuario; no pueden ser validadas por el mismo usuario que las ha hecho
erickdeoliveiraleal (2023-10-21 00:22:47+00:00): porque removeu os predios aqui?
hanryabreu (2023-10-21 09:30:18+00:00): Por que foram demolidos recentemente.
dcskobuffs (2023-10-18 17:44:19+00:00): Correction: Source used was Esri World Imagery; Mapillary
Yherisson (2023-10-18 17:54:36+00:00): Il y a des doublons, je pense que c'est une erreur
Les deux nodes suivant, c'est le meme arret.
1108227574
11272573776
lefuturiste (2023-10-18 18:46:25+00:00): Oui et pas qu'une seul
lefuturiste (2023-10-18 18:46:34+00:00): Il y a pas mal de doublon
Yherisson (2023-10-18 19:16:38+00:00): Les doublons ont les meme REF donc je pense que c'est un raté .
mga_geo (2023-10-19 05:23:17+00:00): Bien vu, je n'ai pas assez attendu longtemps que l'overpass répercute mes modifs précédentes.
Je viens de faire un revert de ce changeset.
csomerville (2023-10-18 22:41:30+00:00): Can you help me understand this change? The separation of the roadway begins at the intersection.

Also, I think there is some additional changes perhaps needed to lane configuration at the RR 2222 and RR 620 intersection north of the bypass intersection. I'll take a closer look.

Also, tangent but noticed that it seems like parts of RR 620 keep getting recreated. It looks like a bunch of additional useful tags were lost in changeset #139193387 by different editor. Should we look to restore the history perhaps or at least the tags? 

Cheers!
gpserror (2023-10-19 03:12:30+00:00): This is a T intersection, there should not be 4 roads connected to it.  The main reason is style consistency - while in this case it's the lesser of evils, if there are 5 or so roads that intersection, it is hard for a routing program to tell you that you need to take the left....which left, there are two lefts, but one is actually straight.  This style completely removes the ambiguity.   I had some experience with some routers (though this intersection shouldn't be as ambiguous) report that going straight is actually taking a right turn because the angle of the drawing is enough to trick the router into thinking a turn needs to happen.  With the dual carriageway starting slightly after the intersection, this can't happen.

Sometimes a 5 way intersection is really there in real life, then it should be drawn that way, but this in reality is a 3-way intersection.

I don't know about the other change, have to indicate specifically what was lost.
MarcoR (2023-10-19 17:30:03+00:00): Ciao e benvenuta su OSM!

Il nome della via che hai inserito ha un apostrofo in fondo… si tratta di un refuso?

Buon mapping,
Marco.
Boyan Alexiev (2023-10-19 12:01:04+00:00): Looks good!

Thanks for mapping with us and keep up the good work.
YoungHiro45 (2023-10-19 20:04:28+00:00): Correction: Source used was Esri World Imagery, Mapillary
FahRadler (2023-12-02 14:18:53+00:00): Hallo,

du gibst hier als Quelle Bing an.

Auf Bing ist für 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1138621757
 die Verbindung zum Hotel nicht sichtbar - Bäume verdecken die ca 2m hohe Mauer.
 Dort existiert keine Verbindung.
 
 Ähnlich bei
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1138621756
 
 Die in Bing sichtbare Friedhofsmauer verhindert einen Durchgang zur Kühlweinstr.
 
 Der https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1216574199 hat keine Asphaltierung, er ist zudem privat.
 
 Der https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1216574198 ist nicht existent, du hast ihn mitten durch einen Baum und die Parkflächen gemappt (in Bing klar ersichtlich).
 
 Anscheinend hast du irgendwo ein Bild der Denkmäler 
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11272220853
 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11272220866
 
entdeckt und die Denkmäler gemappt.

Kannst du mir und der Community bitte erklären, was dich umtreibt falsche Wegeverbindungen / Wege anzulegen und dann den Elementen Eingenschaften zuzuweisen die vom Armchair nicht zu erkennen sind?

Das hier ein Kartenprojekt und keine Märchenstunde!
osm_saint-louis (2023-12-02 18:53:36+00:00): Leider liegen Sie VOLLKOMMEN FALSCH. "Bing" als Quelle ist wohl automatisch eingetragen worden, keinesfalls von mir. Ich war dort PERÖNLICH und verbitte mir Ihren unverschämten Ton! Solche Mitmapper brauchen wir hier nicht! Lernen Sie erst einmal einen höflich Ton ... und dann können wir weiterdiskutieren, obwohl es HIER rein gar nichts zu diskutieren gibt. Fahren Sie dort hin und schauen Sie sich's an, bevor Sie herummaulen.
FahRadler (2023-12-06 14:40:54+00:00): deine Antwort ist nur peinlich!!!!


Ich brauche keine vor-Ort Beweisfotos zu schicken, der von mir beanstandete Bereich ist von Google Maps/Streetview sehr schön zu sehen:
zB
https://www.google.de/maps/@49.2607643,6.8566966,3a,75y,43.36h,81.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5Ps_SfdYDIdKLzFpUIWUfA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu
zeigt den Zugang zum Friedhof https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1138621757
Der von dir nördlich davon gemappte Zugang (Höhe FGÜ) ist nicht existent.
https://www.google.de/maps/@49.2611328,6.8566653,3a,37.9y,110.49h,75.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-hdyBNHyc7KTOZHp3COMMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu

Hier
https://www.google.de/maps/@49.2615946,6.8565769,3a,59y,64.14h,75.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss9t7OfaSKHskK0keuR-2Yw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu
kann man recht gut erkennen dass der Weg gepflastert ist - KEIN Asphalt.

Auch der von dir gemappte asphaltierte Weg ist bei Streetview gut einzusehen
https://www.google.de/maps/@49.2614122,6.8566276,3a,75y,259.4h,71.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNcqXBmD967_-DW2Fq7-nmg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu
rechts von der Hecke, mitten durch den Baum - klar erkennbar.

Aber halt- ich bin unverschämt im Ton, die Aufnahmen sind alt, inzwischen wurde "alles umgebaut", oder Streetview ist gefakt.

Und zur Quelle Bing - du nutzt JOSM, in meiner (aktuellen) Josm Version ist das Feld Quelle im Hochladendialog per default leer, ich muss eine Quelle per drop down explizit auswählen.

Ich denke, mit den von mir aufgeführten Links kann sich jeder davon überzeugen, dass dein Mapping NICHT mit der Örtlichkeit übereinstimmt.
osm_saint-louis (2023-12-06 20:17:53+00:00): Ich habe keine Lust mehr auf Diskussionen mit Ihnen. Ich mappe aus Freude an der Sache und stets mit . Neurotiker, die sich akribisch vor Google-Street-View-Ansichten tummeln, um anderen Mappern eins auszuwischen, sind unerträglich. Ich will von Ihnen nicht mehr lesen. und wünsche Ihnen weiterhin frohes Mappen. Ob Sie die Karte wirklich verbessern, wage ich zu bezweifeln.
nvmd (2023-10-21 16:13:58+00:00): Please provide more details on the changes made. "m4 metro" is too abstract and incomprehensible by other contibutors.

There are definitely some changes, which are de-facto reversal of the previous changesets and deletion of the nodes degrading quality of the map.
moje_konto (2023-10-19 04:05:56+00:00): www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16518279/history

Znowu dodałeś relację i za razem dodałeś ręcznie znacznik multipolygon do linii: www.openstreetmap.org/way/1216612030/history

Czyli te dwa obszary to parkingi, które łącznie mają 4 miejsca, tak wskazuje relacja - ale za razem jeden z nich sam ma 16 miejsc.

Nie ma to sensu. Albo relacja opisująca całość i wtedy obszary to gołe linie bez znaczników. Albo parkingi jako zwykłe linie/obszary bez żadnej relacji.
moje_konto (2023-10-19 04:13:40+00:00): Poprawiłem na zwykłe linie ze znacznikami parkingów, odpowiednio z osobnymi liczbami miejsc.
TheDutchMan13 (2023-10-18 23:13:14+00:00): Source of the data is "maricopa county assessor maps"
rskedgell (2023-10-18 20:16:25+00:00): Thanks.
Boyan Alexiev (2023-10-19 11:57:18+00:00): Hello Noah and thanks for mapping for HOT!
Your changes look good, but please make sure that you square buildings after mapping them.

Make sure to check out the videos in the learning section of the website:
https://tasks.hotosm.org/learn/map

Thanks for the effort and keep mapping with us!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142776633
Minh Nguyen (2024-12-06 19:23:32+00:00): Hi, it looks like you undid all the changes in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/106515773 to represent the tower as a tower with multiple antennas on it. Applying man_made=mast to an area technically contradicts the current documentation, but I’ve proposed to relax that restriction, ironically citing these very towers as examples of why it’s necessary to map them as areas:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:man_made%3Dmast#Areas

Apart from the validator error you saw, do you have a particular reason to simplify them down to areas with the details about each antenna all mixed together? You’ve also eliminated any trace of the tower’s well-known name, Wikidata item, etc., which seems counterproductive.
hwierzbicki (2024-12-06 20:33:56+00:00): Hi Minh,

Thanks for the comment and for linking the discussion. 

As you noticed, my edit aimed to align the communication mast with current documentation. 

While I see the merit in your proposed changes, I have some concerns about implementing them in practice:

1. The vast majority of communication masts are collocations with multiple operators.
2. Mapping masts as areas, as mentioned in the discussion, adds unnecessary complexity and essentially forces micromapping.
3. Since the proposal has not yet been accepted into the documentation, current guidelines should generally be followed.

Regarding the removal of the name—this was an oversight on my part, and I agree it makes sense to retain it in this case.

I removed the wikidata tag because there are multiple operators at this site (with unique wikidata tags), and I believed retaining a single wikidata tag would inaccurately represent the collocation.
Minh Nguyen (2024-12-07 04:04:15+00:00): Thanks for your response. I agree that conflating so many real-world features into one node makes it difficult to choose a single Wikidata tag, GNIS feature ID, or FCC ID to put on the node. In my opinion, that’s a sign that collapsing everything down to a node wasn’t a good idea.

I started a discussion on the forum so we can get more feedback on my short-lived experiment:

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/colocated-broadcast-antenna-structures-nodes-inside-an-area/122626

In retrospect, I think there should’ve been some attempt to engage on a solution before deliberately deleting what clearly had more attention lavished on it than the average GNIS-imported mast. The wiki is not gospel; we can get the community to accept an updated approach, but examples of that approach are necessary for the sake of discussion.

I appreciate that you’ve been quite active in cleaning up our coverage of broadcast infrastructure, but if you happen to run across any other examples of this micromapping, would you mind preserving it until we come to a consensus on how to move forward? Thank you for understanding.
Minh Nguyen (2025-07-30 04:21:16+00:00): In the forum discussion, there wasn’t a consensus that a tower can only be represented as a single node and cannot be micromapped further. To restore information that was lost but avoid an edit war, I’ll subsequently retag this man_made=mast as man_made=communications_tower, which is documented as either a node or an area.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169700266
Daniel Ayquipa (2023-10-22 00:07:55+00:00): #FLCHgrdUNMSM
Fizzie-DWG (2023-10-30 04:05:55+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143341935
eggie (2023-10-18 20:09:19+00:00): Beste Maarten. Het is niet de bedoeling om paden al zijn ze afgesloten te verwijderen van de kaart.
De procedure is om ze eerst op slot te zetten met access=no
Er loopt hier ook een wandelroute
purple:brown:white_dot:W:black
Die zal eerst omgeleid moeten worden.
Paden die bewust  dichtgroeien kun je taggen met disused:highway=path
Dit zal ook voorkomen dat een andere mapper de paden weer gaat intekenen. 
Vraag hoe loopt de wandelroute nu?

Je kunt de bewuste paden evt zelf op access=no zetten en/of disused:highway=path (Dan zie je ze ook niet meer op de kaart. )
Ik draai 

Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=142777209

Ik draai je edits even terug. Dan kun je de juiste tags toevoegen.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-10-18 20:12:24+00:00): reverted by changeset #142780198

Mocht je nog vragen hebben stel ze gerust. 

Paden die dichtgegroeid zijn kunnen na zekere tijd verwijderd worden als ze niet meer als pad te herkennen zijn. 
gr eggie
MaartenvDijk (2023-10-18 20:26:15+00:00): Hoi eggie,
Dank voor je tips. De paden zijn echt fysiek afgesloten door de natuurbeheerder. De wandelroute kan ik niet meer vinden op de site van Gelders Landschap dus ik vermoed dat ze deze hebben verwijderd. Zal ik de afgesloten paden nu op access=no zetten en moet ik dan nog iets met de wandelroute doen? Alvast bedankt.
Mvg Maarten
eggie (2023-10-18 20:35:26+00:00): Hoi.. Zet maar gewoon op access=no als ze nog als pad zijn  te herkennen. Laat de wandelroute maar even er gewoon opzitten. 

Ik heb een lokale mapper gevraagd daar even naar te kijken. Dat is een speciale tak van sport.

Die wandelroute is gewoon een rondje over dat stuk hei. Die zal dan denk ik niet meer bestaan.
Mapse..
eggie
eggie (2023-10-18 20:37:10+00:00): En als ze fysiek zijn afgesloten met takkenbossen en boomstammen dan dus disused:highway=path
MaartenvDijk (2023-10-18 20:59:01+00:00): Wederom bedankt voor de tips. Ik heb de paden op disused:highway=path gezet en de wandelroute laten staan. Hopelijk klopt het zo. 
mvg Maarten
eggie (2023-10-19 06:30:58+00:00): Vast wel.. Kijk later wel even in welke die relatie die wandelroute zit.
Gr eggie
eggie (2023-10-19 10:26:28+00:00): Wandelroute Westerheide verwijderd.
adiatmad (2023-10-23 04:21:21+00:00): Hi, do you mind sharing more information about "building=range"?
(https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1216621477)
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=range#overview).
Thank you
AndersAndersson (2023-10-19 20:05:48+00:00): Hello
Was this a misstake with the nod tagging??
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11272950402
amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ (2023-10-20 06:47:24+00:00): oops, sorry. Fixed
AndersAndersson (2023-10-20 07:09:25+00:00): Thanks!
AndersAndersson (2023-10-20 07:11:24+00:00): Just a question. How should I interpret the colors in your link? Is it coloured by length?
amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ (2023-10-20 07:15:12+00:00): No, the colours are randomly assigned.
GinaroZ (2023-10-19 14:10:57+00:00): Just wondering why you removed the landuse=military from here?

Mind and use a different changeset comment for next time ;)
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-10-19 18:00:16+00:00): have you discussed this mass edit with local community?

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
KasperSFranz (2023-10-20 05:43:38+00:00): I did not but I have started a discussion on that now
arjunaraoc (2023-12-12 13:29:12+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)  Issues resolved vide https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/145037915
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142779086
MichaelFS (2023-10-19 09:03:50+00:00): Hallo @Gutefrage, ich habe Deine Ergänung per ReviewRequest gefunden und für das Gelände-Polygon building entfernt und dafür Tags gemäß https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:product=beer ergänzt. 
Bei Fragen melde Dich gerne!
Tomas Straupis (2023-10-19 08:02:05+00:00): Adresai neteisingi
DisplayNameOpenstreetmap (2023-10-19 08:58:35+00:00): I walked through, checked every building, and all of their signs were "J. Balčikonio g. 7"
Tomas Straupis (2023-10-19 11:44:29+00:00): We're using official address data. There is no other way if we want to continue update address data weekly. So number plates do not count (we've found some number plates with "invented" numbers for example).
DisplayNameOpenstreetmap (2023-10-19 13:21:16+00:00): I give up. There is no #5, while #9 and #3 are surrounding buildings. All businesses located there also declare themselves as #7. This is the craziest numbering for a street built from scratch. Good luck and have fun! :)