piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Trailguru100 (2024-07-21 08:46:50+00:00): Schau's dir von oben vor Ort an, dann siehst du's genau, wie ich beschrieben hab. Wenn Du es dann als weglos empfindest, kannst du ihn löschen - vorher nicht. Im nahen Umfeld gibt es Wege, die deutlich schlechter sichtbar / völlig verwachsen sind.
Hungerburg (2024-07-21 21:15:21+00:00): Ich kam zuletzt glaub ich im Frühjahr oben vorbei, hab das für eine Erosionsrinne gehalten, nicht für einen Weg. Außerhalb der Weidezeit. Bin dann nicht dort, sondern im Gras abgestiegen, wie die meisten Strava Uploader anscheinend auch. Wenn du aber meinst, ich splitte dann eben den obren Teil ab.

Ob so ein Stummel Sinn macht, um das gehts ja nicht, es geht drum, ist da ein Weg am Boden oder nicht. Und ja, zugewachsene oder unsichtbare Wege haben wir genug :)
DimplePatel (2024-07-19 20:18:22+00:00): Its hov:minimum=2 and not 3.
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-19 19:55:43+00:00): Hello, and welcome to OSM.  You requested a review of this changeset.

I have reviewed your changeset and only found 1 issue - the names of the roads should not be abbreviated.  While us humans are good at saying "Lemon Balm Court", a computer may interpret it as "Lemon Balm Connecticut".  I have fixed this for you.

Keep up the good work and see you around.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154156286
eggie (2024-07-21 09:31:19+00:00): Dag Tom Ik zie dat DvdHoven al commentaar heeft gezet op je opmerkingen.
Tip.. Nooit access=no taggen icm met andere accesstags. Dat is meestal fout.
Ik zal de ref N347  nog verder verwijderen uit dit 'doodlopende 'stuk. 
MVG
eggie
logus2 (2024-07-20 01:02:59+00:00): Welcome to vietnam! Happy editing -
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-19 19:54:00+00:00): Hello and welcome to OSM!

You requested a review of this changeset. I have reviewed your changeset and found it to be good. Keep up the great changesets, and I look forward to seeing you around.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154157037
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-19 20:36:01+00:00): reviewed.  edits look good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154157054
bxl-forever (2024-07-28 12:17:09+00:00): Hello,
I think that the iD online editor is not a suitable tool for such a large-scale edit.  Your changeset has multiple warnings and you corrupted several bus route relations.  Same for other changesets where new road segments seem to have been started from scratch instead of splitting/re-using, and keeping existing relations in the correct order
I am trying to repair now. :-(
grzegorz75jan (2024-07-20 08:43:51+00:00): Przymierzałem się do tej ścieżki przy ul. Nowy Świat ale nie byłem pewien oznakowania. Patrząc na https://tarnow.net.pl/articles/s/i/477930#Zako%C5%84czy%C5%82-si%C4%99-remont-ul.-Nowy-%C5%9Awiat-w-Tarnowie.-Jak-oceniacie-inw ścieżka kończy się na poziomie styku asfaltu z kostką czyli dałeś zbyt długi jej odcinek aż do ul. Romanowicza. W przypadku ul. Piłsudzkiego to ścieżka jest raczej współdzielona https://www.temi.pl/tarnow/lepsza-droga-do-parku-wodnego-i-kantorii-zdjecia
PituPP (2024-07-20 10:54:39+00:00): Hej. Odnośnie ścieżki na ul. Nowy Świat, masz rację, że te ostatnie kilkanaście metrów do styku z ul. Romanowicza to nie jest nowa ścieżka z asfaltu, ale nadal tam jest ścieżka rowerowa, tylko z kostki. A jeśli chodzi o ul. Piłsudzkiego, to skoro są oddzielone pasy dla pieszych i rowerzystów, to w takim razie ścieżka nie jest współdzielona, czyż nie? :)
Nie mniej jednak, zapraszam do poprawek moich zmian, jestem nowy w edytowaniu OpenStreetMap'a więc nie obrażę się jeśli ktoś mnie poprawi :D
grzegorz75jan (2024-07-20 11:22:12+00:00): Nie ma problemu. Nie byłem tam i opieram się tylko na tym co w sieci. Po profilu domyśliłem się że możesz też być nowy w edycjach a informacja choćby moja zawsze coś wniesie lub nie zaszkodzi. Z reguły najpierw staram się wysłać wiadomość gdy edycja, zmiana jest względnie świeża a czasem też brak czasu więc robię za strażnika OSM bo to nawet łatwiejsze niż edytowanie. 
Nowy Świat. Patrząc na to zdjęcie https://tarnow.net.pl/articles/s/i/477930#Zako%C5%84czy%C5%82-si%C4%99-remont-ul.-Nowy-%C5%9Awiat-w-Tarnowie.-Jak-oceniacie-inw&gid=1&pid=8 to jednak ścieżka rowerowa raczej ma formalnie zasięg tylko na asfalcie a po kostce niby z buta trzeba zasuwać. Takich wynalazków niestety pełno. Padnij, powstań i tak w kółko.
Piłsudskiego to tu poleciałem wewnętrznym skrótem myślowym. W głowie to współdzielę pionowo i poziomo. Podobny przypadek zmalowałem tu https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1254722957
W każdym razie wiemy o co chodzi. 

Przy okazji miałbyś jakieś informacje https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302243424 czy ul. Polna pomiędzy Ochronek a Krupniczą to odcinek prywatny, zamknięty bo edytujący niby poprawiał ale według mnie nie poprawił dobrze i zamilkł a na informacje z ZDiK w Tarnowie jeszcze czekam. Odcinek Garbarska do Ochronek mam potwierdzone.
PituPP (2024-07-20 13:10:01+00:00): nie mam informacji o ul. Polnej
grzegorz75jan (2024-08-10 17:37:45+00:00): Witam ponownie. Miałem okazję sie tam na szybko przejechać i faktycznie ścieżka jest na całej długości oraz oznakowanie zostało uzupełnione względem zdjęć dostępnych w mediach. Na całej długości ścieżka w pewnym fragmencie jest "współdzielona" a w innym typowo z znakiem roweru czyli i tak "współdzielona" Nie miałem czasu się bawić w szczegóły. Najważniejsze, że ścieżka przynajmniej ogólnie jest poprawnie  pod kątem przebiegu naniesiona i dla mnie to już dużo. Szczegóły można uzupełnić gdy będzie Czas i informacje. Jedynie nie jestem pewien ale pamiętam coś z dyskusji na OSM zamiast  foot=designated powinno być foot=yes jednak głowy nie dam ale tak mi polecono wpisać na moście nad Dunajcem w Łukanowicach.

Nawiedziłem też ulicę Polną i zmieniłem. Zostały w okolicy chodniki czy przejścia z błędną lokalizacją ale jestem w ciemnej dupie z czasem.
emersonveenstra (2024-07-22 10:56:20+00:00): Hi there,

Are you sure https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302583774 is a driveway? It looks more like a sidewalk to me
Whoabot (2024-07-22 18:35:24+00:00): Hello,

It is a sidewalk - just an error on my end, clicking the wrong feature. It has been fixed.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-07-25 08:43:59+00:00): This changeset removed the highway tag from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17265654/history/19
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154159280
Elizen (2024-07-30 10:32:31+00:00): Здравствуйте. Пожалуйста, заносите перевод наименования населённого пункта на другие языки в соответствующие теги (name:ce, name:en и т.д.), а не в name.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name
HellMap (2024-07-20 11:43:51+00:00): Hello,

You added this untagged way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302593529 in Estonia - I am assuming this was a mistake. I have deleted it.

Thanks
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-07-25 08:42:20+00:00): why is there a golf course around a golf course? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17857355
felipeeugenio (2024-07-19 21:52:39+00:00): 4340599	Marcelo Andres	2024-07-19 15:36	opened	Block 28 #OsmAnd
4340598	Marcelo Andres	2024-07-19 15:36	opened	Block 26 #OsmAnd
4340597	Marcelo Andres	2024-07-19 15:36	opened	Block 23 #OsmAnd
4340596	Marcelo Andres	2024-07-19 15:36	opened	Block 27 #OsmAnd
4340595	Marcelo Andres	2024-07-19 15:36	opened	Block 25 #OsmAnd
4340593	Marcelo Andres	2024-07-19 15:35	opened	Block 34 #OsmAnd
4340592	Marcelo Andres	2024-07-19 15:35	opened	Block 36 #OsmAnd
4340591	Marcelo Andres	2024-07-19 15:35	opened	Block 33 #OsmAnd
4340590	Marcelo Andres	2024-07-19 15:35	opened	Block 35 #OsmAnd
4340586	Marcelo Andres	2024-07-19 15:31	opened	Block 32 #OsmAnd
4340584	Marcelo Andres	2024-07-19 15:30	opened	Block 21 #OsmAnd
4340583	Marcelo Andres	2024-07-19 15:30	opened	Block 30 #OsmAnd
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-20 01:58:10+00:00): Changeset reviewed.  Good edit
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154160317
mavl (2024-11-13 06:14:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 159076991, 159077113 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: incompatible sources - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16857].
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-20 01:57:35+00:00): good edit
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154160409
NeisBot (2024-07-19 22:08:39+00:00): Hi Ghostly111, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/1302599054

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-20 06:20:28+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/154161814
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-20 06:21:07+00:00): Please don't add fictional data!
shahenda_ahmed (2024-07-21 12:15:25+00:00): Hello Sal73x;
I noticed you reverted my edit and changed the classification for some streets from "highway=primary_link" to "highway=tertiary_link" and it will be suitable to be "primary_link" as this link is out/in of the primary road
Examples:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/709151156
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/709151155
Can you check it, please?
Regards
shahenda_ahmed
Sal73x (2024-07-21 15:25:32+00:00): Hi Shahenda, the reason of my edit is that the link roads are not part  of the main route (Avenue Ali Belhouane) and lead only to minor location with no major importance.
Greetings Sal73x
shahenda_ahmed (2024-07-22 09:58:29+00:00): Hello Sal73x;
Thank you for your quick response, I agree with your point of view.
Regards
shahenda_ahmed
zstadler (2025-03-04 21:35:05+00:00): Hello Sokuya,

Thank you for your huge contribution to the OSM mapping in Israel!

In this edits you have changed the "building:levels" tag of way 400664395 from 7 to 1.5

The wiki at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels?uselang=en#Values says:
"Values should be a positive integer number. Fractional values (like 1.5) are not valid (what is the meaning of a 0.5 floor?) "
The wiki also describes how to provide height in meters.

There seem to be several other buildings tagged with non-integer "building:levels" values.

Best regards,
Zeev
mueschel (2024-07-22 10:02:19+00:00): Hi,
you used the new tag "fuel:jetA" here. Are you sure this is correct? 
Jet A fuel would be unusual, while fuel:JetA1 is the common type.
Bexhill-OSM (2024-07-20 01:33:17+00:00): I think the tourist attraction tag might fit better once it's opened, not much to look at the moment!
nevw (2024-07-20 01:18:07+00:00): Hi, it is one way on each side of the split where the concrete dividers where Chapman St meets Hampshire Rd.
nevw (2024-07-20 02:45:30+00:00): correct wording:
Hi, it is one way on each side of the split at the concrete dividers where Chapman St meets Hampshire Rd as is case to other streets meeting Hampshire Rd near here.
I have fixed now.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-07-19 23:20:14+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/847885934
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/966177743
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/995060629
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302607749
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302607785
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302607786
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302607787
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302607792
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302607793

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
mcliquid (2024-07-20 07:39:17+00:00): Was das jetzt 10 Jahre lang komplett falsch?
hlfan (2024-07-21 19:37:40+00:00): Anscheinend ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Kommt davon, dass es zwei Interpretationen von highway=trunk gibt, vorschnell Annahmen getroffen und Änderungen durchgeführt werden, die aber im Hintergrund bleiben, weil es thematisch zur highway=trunk-Diskussion gehört.

Aber genau dafür hab ich mir für die Autostraßenliste jetzt ein Wiki-Modul gebastelt, das mir Overpass-Abfragen generiert, um solche Dinge aufzudecken.
eggie (2024-07-20 07:07:44+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback  Bij brandgangen kun je de specificatie toevoegen footway=alley

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-07-20 07:14:23+00:00): Hoi q

Ik heb je pad even losgemaakt van de landuse en wat verbindingen met de rijbaan gemaakt zodat het routeert.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=154162280

Mapse
eggie
Minh Nguyen (2024-11-13 07:02:28+00:00): Do these really have to be “superroutes”, or can they just be routes within routes, as documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Route_directions and originally at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Superrelation ?
aighes (2024-11-28 01:45:29+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute
In my understanding of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:superroute documentation and also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Superrelation for me superroute is a perfect fit for those relations. Also offers an easier QA as well as defined separation between the "sub-routes" and the full route.
Minh Nguyen (2024-11-28 02:29:09+00:00): As I understand it, “superroute” was originally the result of a miscommunication in the JOSM issue tracker. The superrelation documentation actually has always recommended nesting a route relation inside a route relation, but this is no longer clear because of the “superroute” page. Even so, that page also alludes to the fact that “superroute” relations are unsuitable for networks such as the USBRS, which is not structured like EuroVelo in the real world. (A USBR is still a USBR within each state.)

A route relation such as 8852715 ideally needs to contain one relation per state, which in turn contains one relation per signposted direction. This would be consistent with the standard for Interstate and U.S. Routes, which are also designated by AASHTO in the same manner. The claimed benefits of “superroute” relations would require the topmost relation to be something else like type=superduperroute…
aighes (2024-11-28 14:28:18+00:00): Maybe I'm misunderstand https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members

but at least as I read it, a route-relation suppose to contains ways and nodes, only the role "information" is intended for relations.
aighes (2024-11-28 14:31:31+00:00): You don't need superduperroute. superroute contains relations, route contains ways and nodes (aka geometry). It's not about hierarchy of different levels.
aighes (2024-11-28 14:49:09+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle#Members
as well just "allowing" ways in route-relations and recommends for longer routes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle#Split_routes_into_sections
the usage of superroute to combine the sections. 
Read "international" in the context of the rest of the world, where a route of 1000 miles length is usually international.
Minh Nguyen (2024-11-28 19:30:09+00:00): Looks like we have inconsistent documentation. Again, the longstanding *superrelation* documentation never required a special superroute type; this is a misreading that has taken on a life of its own.

Steve recently acknowledged your edits on the USBRS page [1], but it’s inconsistent with how other U.S. route networks are tagged, for example U.S. Routes [2] and the route directions page I linked earlier. As it is, the relations you’ve touched are the outlier. This may complicate efforts by data consumers or queries to make use of the superrelations.

We need to have a discussion somewhere the rest of the community can see it. If you aren’t on OSMUS Slack, perhaps we can discuss it on the forum?

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Diff/2760065
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_System
aighes (2024-11-28 21:09:54+00:00): Discussion continues here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/us-route-relations/122274
lasagna (2024-07-22 14:38:53+00:00): This edit distorted the shape of two buildings. Please don't do that.

Unless this business uses the entire building, you should not add amenity/shop/other business tags to the building. Instead, map the business as a new point inside the building.
SaisonHospitality (2024-07-23 22:42:38+00:00): Thank you for noting this! We have made the appropriate update on our end.
Makeena (2024-07-20 12:22:14+00:00): Schon wieder ein Changeset das viel grösser angezeigt wird als es ist...
GartenStuhl (2024-07-24 10:46:08+00:00): Salutti
soweit ich das gesehen habe:
Dieser way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302618808

ist zum Teil verschmolzen mit diesem way:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783982225

was eine indirekte Änderung ist, wodurch dann der CS so gross erscheint.
Ich denke allerdings nicht, dass du deswegen von jemandem hier gleich erhängt wirst.

Hoffe das hilft. Bei dem anderen CS wars was sehr ähnliches (weiss nicht mehr welcher, habs mir aber da schon angeschaut und gedacht: ja passt).
CurlingMan13 (2024-07-20 03:38:12+00:00): Welcome to OSM!  I have reviewed your changeset and it looks good.  Keep up the quality contributions. Let me know if you ever have any questions.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154163702
une abeille (2024-07-20 04:04:07+00:00): Should I remove the names on the walking paths here as well?
Spearfish7424 (2024-07-20 04:10:47+00:00): I think so, since they're not commonly referred to as that and they all share the same name. 

(This is different from something like a sidewalk imo, which *is* commonly referred to as Rue X).
une abeille (2024-07-20 05:37:00+00:00): The benches were all named "Scenic Bench" as well. I think the lesson here is that when we encounter one generic name, we should look for other elements in the area with them as well...
smakai (2024-10-16 17:12:18+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1302627506

This footpath is unmaintained and travels on private property with illegal access. 
What intensity of Strava heatmap are you using to determine if a trail should be included in OSM? I see other Strava Heatmap trails that you are not putting in. Stop putting in illegal trail.
smakai (2024-10-16 17:14:47+00:00): ForestFurnace is the scourge of OSM!
une abeille (2024-07-20 03:49:47+00:00): Perhaps could be further improved with max_age=6 ?
Spearfish7424 (2024-07-20 04:04:37+00:00): Absolutely, I changed it, thanks!
S21wa 1qw (2024-07-20 03:20:48+00:00): i love swimming here
S21wa 1qw (2024-07-20 03:36:31+00:00): i even drink the water in here
CoyKoi (2024-07-21 21:20:18+00:00): Hi chatnz, welcome to OSM thank you for your edits. You're correct that the default LINZ aerial imagery layer is quite old (circa 2017). Try switching the background imagery layer to 'Bing' to see more recent aerial imagery. Cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154164219
Supaplex (2024-07-20 04:20:39+00:00): Hi Muhamad Fahri Mulyawan

Can you explain why you rate a bad edit on OSMCha? It seems to be a valid edit for me
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154164401
bernardo60 (2024-10-29 05:57:30+00:00): Planned roads are not objects that can be seen on the ground, so the source of the data must be specified each time. This can be the source=* tag on the object or in the changeset. Note that generally, OpenStreetMap encourages information to be verifiable on the ground. Proposed features that are not visible on the ground should therefore only be mapped in exceptional cases and after a discussion with the relevant OSM community, lest they might be deleted for lack of verifiability
bernardo60 (2024-10-29 06:04:45+00:00): Please let me know whether the source is available and a discussion with OSM Indonesia has taken place. Otherwise, it would be better to delete this feature. Thanks
S21wa 1qw (2024-07-20 04:21:37+00:00): bad edit
golden4 (2024-07-20 04:22:39+00:00): ok
NeisBot (2024-07-20 04:30:38+00:00): Hi ElManaCR, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 100% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 5 highway(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=154164854
ElManaCR (2024-07-20 04:48:57+00:00): Hi NeisBot,

Thank you for reviewing my edits and for the warm welcome to OSM!

I deleted those highways intentionally to create the correct ones. As I am new to OSM and still learning how to use JOSM effectively, I am working on a university project to map a new trail that will open in Parque Nacional Miravalles.

Thank you for your understanding.

Best regards,
ElManaCR
mariotomo (2024-07-20 06:14:13+00:00): Hi. this is not the correct way to handle here in OSM. if the objects you intend to create are improvements to existing ones, the way to go is to edit the existing objects. that keeps history. 
also your first deleting everything in one changeset.
then adding stuff in another changeset.
that's making reconstruction of history close to impossible.
please ask  your university tutors.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/154164854
S21wa 1qw (2024-07-20 04:31:02+00:00): the WORST edit ive seen
Allison P (2024-07-20 06:10:03+00:00): These buildings look a bit wonky. In the future, make sure you trace over the building outline more precisely. Also make sure to orthogonalize the buildings by selecting and pressing Q after drawing.
yrtimiD (2024-07-20 23:08:41+00:00): Hello and welcome to OSM.
There are usually separate fields for address and other cases, so address is usually split to city, street, housenumber, etc
please be sure to read manual before using new tags: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addr
Elizen (2024-07-22 17:05:06+00:00): Hello, you removed name:ru - degradation of data considered as vandalism. Please restore it
Elizen (2024-07-22 17:02:01+00:00): Hello, you removed name:ru - degradation of data considered as vandalism. Please restore it
DUGA (2024-10-27 17:27:51+00:00): Direction removed
Msiipola (2024-07-30 18:37:44+00:00): Hej! Här har du lagt till byggnader. Tyvärr är alla dessa något felplacerade. Orsakade av Bing har använts som bakgrund, som i sig har positionsfel.
Bakgrundsbilden måste alltid positionsjusteras så att nya objekt hamnar rätt.
Eftersom du använder JOSM så ladda ned trafikverkets lager och positionera bakgrundens vägar att matcha trafikverkets. Sedan är det ok att lägga till byggnader eller annat.
Msiipola (2024-07-30 18:41:23+00:00): Nu efteråt ser jag att du inte är en nybörjare, utan hållit på i många år. Så min text om positionskalibrering är säkert något du redan känner till?
deob83 (2024-07-30 21:28:27+00:00): Hej! Tack så mycket för tipset om hur man positionskalibrerar! Jag ska fixa det här (och på andra ställen) snarast möjligt.
Msiipola (2024-07-31 06:01:58+00:00): Du kanske också hört att Lantmäteriet kommer nästa år släppa sina flygfoton ("Min karta") för allmän användning. Den har korrekta positioner och behöver inte kalibreras. Håll utkik efter det. Senast feb-25 ska det vara klart.
deob83 (2024-07-31 06:34:50+00:00): Nu tror jag mig ha fixat detta för dessa byggnader.

Jag kände inte till det du skriver om Lantmäteriets flygfoton - det låter toppen!