piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2025-06-26 12:59:51+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. 
Objects without a roof (shadow on both the in-and outside or no shadow at all) are not to be mapped as a building.
You overlooked many buildings as well.
Best regards
Best regards.
phoenixsaigon1698 (2025-07-02 09:11:21+00:00): Tên Đường có dựa theo các địa chỉ gần đấy. Anh có thể để Hướng Đi Minh Khai trong các thẻ destination hoặc tra Wiki nhé.
Chứ không có tên đường nào là "Hướng Đi Minh Khai" chính thức cả.
Frans S (2025-06-26 11:53:30+00:00): Hello.
Thanks for mapping.
You mapped the buildings correct and round, however, You did not tag them as building=yes.
I corrected them.
Best regards and keep mapping
Frans S (2025-06-27 13:25:36+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. 
A remark, You tend to oversize the buildings you map. Stay within the rooflines. These huts have an overhang, so they show to be bigger than they are. Zoom in (IDeditor) till at least 40 ft. to have a good view to map a building
Best regards
Frans S (2025-06-26 13:03:23+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 have 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 the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inaccurate mapped.
Check this footage please
Check this footage how to map (round) buildings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1YJV6I_rhY
Best regards


Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen 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/168129631
Frans S (2025-06-26 10:49:15+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 have 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 the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
A: Inaccurate mapping. No round buildings.
Mapped objects without proof of a building. ( not round, no shadow, no yard.

Explanation can be found in this document what  might be helpful to strengthen 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/168129662
enzo_immergis (2025-07-23 15:07:11+00:00): Bonjour mueschel,
Je vous contacte pour vous informer que la bonne combinaison pour les emplacements de trottinettes est bien : kick-scooter_parking

Voir la page du wiki qui indique clairement que kick_scooter_parking est une erreur.

Au plaisir d'en discuter,
Enzo B.
enzo_immergis (2025-07-23 15:08:19+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dkick-scooter_parking
mueschel (2025-07-23 18:09:52+00:00): Hi,
you're right that it is indeed
amenity=kick-scooter_parking.
(this tag was coined before "kick_scooter" was proposed as the vehicle type)

All the *_rental, *:rental, and *_parking tags use the vehicle type in the key and therefore should be "kick_scooter_parking=*". 
There is AFAIK no other key of this group with a dash in it. Having a dash in the main key is very uncommon.
enzo_immergis (2025-07-29 18:09:56+00:00): Hello,
Thank you for your reply. I understand that this is an exception, but ‘kick-scooter_parking=*’ is supposed to ‘respond’ to the value amenity=kick-scooter_parking.

Otherwise, in this case, there is no longer a clear link. Perhaps the value and key kick-scooter_parking should be changed to kick_scooter_parking?

Because changing only the value seems very strange to me.
mueschel (2025-07-29 18:45:43+00:00): It's an unfortunate situation -  amenity=kick-scooter_parking started to be used only in 2022 and documented in 2023, years after "kick_scooter" was proposed and already used a couple dozen times.
I don't remember a discussion about the parking tag when it was introduced. I also prefer to have it changed to kick_scooter_parking, but it's also a bit late now for this change...
Frans S (2025-06-26 12:00:35+00:00): No building here. 
Best regards
eggie (2025-06-26 11:08:35+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback De straatnaam Brandweerdoorsteek heb ik verwijderd. 
residential heb ik aangepast naar highway=service met service=emergency_access en verder de weg doorgetrokken naar de kazerne. 



MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2025-06-26 11:09:55+00:00): Hier wat leesvoer voor hulpdiensten:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Hulpdiensten
eggie (2025-06-26 11:12:03+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback.. Ik heb de hoofdtag amenity=drinking_water toegevoegd
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
marczoutendijk_repair (2025-08-12 13:49:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 170343370 where the changeset comment is: ¨DWG
marc__marc (2026-03-31 10:41:54+00:00): Bonjour,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12953689006
il y a un arbre dans le batiment ?
eggie (2025-06-26 14:52:43+00:00): Dag userpotato..
Wanneer er ergens werkzaamheden zijn verwijderen we niet de wegen.
Wanneer het tijdelijk is dan kun je met conditional tags de weg afsluiten voor een bepaalde rijd.
Voorbeeld.. access:conditional=no @ (2023 Sep 20-2024 Apr 3)

Je hebt nu de wegen verwijderd.

Gaat iets vele maanden duren en/of komt iets op een andere manier terug dan kun je iets op construction zetten.
met bv highway=construction met construction= residential

Graag reactie en mvg
eggie
eggie (2025-06-26 15:00:56+00:00): Ik zie in Melvin geen wegwerkzaamheden https://melvin.ndw.nu/public
eggie (2025-06-26 15:02:06+00:00): Situatie een week geleden..
https://viewer.satellietdataportaal.nl/@52.35133,5.004795,19/?datastrip=20250615_PNEO-03
eggie (2025-06-27 13:17:24+00:00): reverted by changeset #168185710
I will change the roads into highway=construction

Gr eggie
marczoutendijk_repair (2025-08-12 13:49:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 170343370 where the changeset comment is: ¨DWG
marczoutendijk_repair (2025-08-12 13:49:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 170343370 where the changeset comment is: ¨DWG
habi (2026-01-19 10:14:44+00:00): Ciao Fentra

Ich schaue in der Schweiz "komische" `building=level`-Werte an, da ist https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/329745485/history aufgetaucht.

- In https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=168131451 hast du den Standort (von euch) als Punkt (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11965955397/history) gelöscht und aufs Gebäude (nur als Namen) gelegt. Der Punkt wurde von Piagno aufgrund von https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4279557 erfasst.
- In https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=168131581 hast du das Gebäude quasi halbiert und in https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=168131625 nochmals verkleinert. Beide Male aufgrund der französischen Orthofotos, die in der Schweiz deutlich schlechter sind als die Fotos der swisstopo.

Ich habe in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177417652 versucht, das alles zu korrigieren, so dass das Gebäude https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/329745485 wieder die korrekte Grösse hat und https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11965955397 eure Hauptniederlassung darstellt.

Gruss aus Bern,
habi
OSM_RogerWilco (2025-06-26 18:20:55+00:00): Moin Sellhorn und willkommen bei OpenStreetMap!

Da wir Wege mit Betretungsverboten nicht einfach löschen sondern das Verbot entsprechend erfassen, habe ich Deine Änderung wieder rückgängig gemacht.

Warum darf denn dieser Weg oder diese Wege nicht betreten werden? Woran kann man das vor Ort erkennen?

Viele Grüße
Roger Wilco
marczoutendijk_repair (2025-08-12 13:49:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 170343370 where the changeset comment is: ¨DWG
marczoutendijk_repair (2025-08-12 13:49:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 170343370 where the changeset comment is: ¨DWG
Hufkratzer (2025-06-26 18:23:28+00:00): Hi,
the areas
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1409714101 and
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1409714102 are no horse riding centers; they are riding arenas like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1323902001 (tagging: leisure=pitch +  sport=equestrian), see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=horse_riding info box at the top.
marczoutendijk_repair (2025-08-12 13:49:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 170343370 where the changeset comment is: ¨DWG
George Sears (2025-06-26 17:05:47+00:00): Ciao Ruggero, stai facendo qualcosa che avrei dovuto già fare io, ti ringrazio. 
Quando aggiornai le strade provinciali della BAT non misi il numero della strada nel name visto che spesso non c'erano nemmeno i cartelli aggiornati sul posto e volevo cercare di creare meno confusione possibile; curiosamente, SOLO nei comuni che facevano parte della vecchia provincia di Foggia sono stati aggiornati i cartelli, mentre nel resto della provincia ci sono ancora i cartelli della provincia di Bari, uniche eccezioni le strade con tratti di nuova costruzione come la SP2 e la SP1.
Chissà quando si decideranno di installare i nuovi cartelli.
RUGGERO DEL VECCHIO (2025-06-27 16:58:09+00:00): Ok, figurati, non c'è bisogno di ringraziarmi, è una zona che conosco abbastanza bene, perché sono Ingegnere Edile, lavoro e vado spesso a Trinitapoli, percorrendo anche le strade limitrofe.

Comunque puoi sincerarti delle aggiunte o modifiche di denominazioni e numerazioni delle strade provinciali anche attraverso il portale cartografico regionale e provinciale gfmaplet, che riporta le etichette delle numerazioni delle strade. Inoltre è anche disponibile la documentazione delle strade provinciali della BAT (estratto dalla documentazione ufficiale della provincia di BAT) su Wikipedia al seguente indirizzo: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strade_provinciali_della_provincia_di_Barletta-Andria-Trani

Lì sono riportate esattamente le strade con le precedenti denominazioni e numerazioni, con i riferimenti alle precedenti province di Foggia e Bari (i cui territori fanno ora parte della provincia di BAT) e ci sono anche le nuove numerazioni e denominazioni, quindi puoi regolarti da lì. Poi affianchi anche gfmaplet della cartografia regionale e provinciale per riconoscere i percorsi, che sono etichettati con le sigle, così otterrai la precisione dei percorsi e delle informazioni da fonti ufficiali.

Io ho anche scaricato dal sito web provinciale la tabella excel ufficiale, riportante i capisaldi di inizio e fine e la lunghezza in km di ogni strada provinciale della BAT. E' datata 2012, mi sembra. Però, per alcune strade provinciali sul confine di provincia, sembra che nel corso degli anni abbiano concordato la gestione con la provincia di Foggia. Un esempio è la SP 18 di BAT, che inizialmente era divisa tra le province di Foggia (SP 64) e BAT (SP 18), ma poi nell'inventario dei beni provinciali anno 2023 (strade provinciali) di Foggia è stata eliminata, perciò la sua gestione è stata concordata e affidata per l'intero tratto alla provincia di BAT, perchè non compare più nell'inventario (ex Strada Provinciale 64 Ponte Canosa - San Ferdinando - C.da Caprioli della provincia di Foggia, ora interamente della provincia di BAT Strada Provinciale 18 Ponte Canosa - San Ferdinando - C.da Caprioli). In questo caso, nello stradario provinciale precedente era stiamata una lunghezza di 2.5 km in provincia di Foggia e 9.693 km in quella di BAT, ma essendo stata eliminata dall'inventario dei beni della provincia di Foggia, l'intera lunghezza di 12.200 km è tutta Strada Provinciale 18 in provincia di BAT.

Appena avrò tempo provvederò anche ad aggiornare la relativa pagina Wikipedia, ma in mappa ho già inserito la lunghezza corretta di 12.200 km del percorso della SP 18 in provincia di BAT.

Saluti.

P.S. ho letto il tuo commento alle modifiche solo per puro caso, magari la prossima volta sarebbe meglio inviarmi un messaggio attraverso il portale OpenStreetMap, che mi segnala con un numeretto nel menù i messaggi ricevuti e posso ripondere più facilmente e rapidamente.
Mammi71 (2025-07-30 11:11:46+00:00): Hallo Lokalfürst, aus welchen Gründen hast Du denn die Kreisstraßen 62, 65 und 66 zu secondary hochgestuft und "Auf dem Lüppen" zu tertiary? Ich bin ja gern dabei, die offizielle Straßenklassifikation nach tatsächlicher Verkehrsbedeutung nach oben oder unten anzupassen wenn es begründbar und angemessen ist. Ich kann hier jedoch bisher keinen Grund erkennen, von der B 255 kommend ist Merkenbach nicht einmal ausgeschildert. Die Verbindungsfunktion und Verkehrsbedeutung scheint mir eher lokaler Natur (tertiary) zu sein. Und im Industriegebiet, wenn man residential nicht mag, ist unclassified vielleicht eine gute Alternative.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-06-27 10:03:52+00:00): Thanks!
notmyproblem1 (2025-07-15 16:32:38+00:00): ciao caro! per la footway è meglio usare 
highway=footway
footway=sidewalk
e non solo 
highway=footway
bridge=yes
layer=1
, l'ho mappato nel mio changeset,

ciao caroo
Comino (2025-06-26 16:28:28+00:00): Hi rafafogo,

In your edit you use the deprecated tag "payment:bitcoin=yes".

Please DELETE the payment:bitcoin=yes tag !
Use the "currency:XBT=yes" instead.

For more information please read: https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki/Tagging-Merchants#legacy-tags
and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Happy mapping,

Edwin
Comino (2025-06-26 16:27:54+00:00): Hi rafafogo,

In your edit you use the deprecated tag "payment:bitcoin=yes".

Please DELETE the payment:bitcoin=yes tag !
Use the "currency:XBT=yes" instead.

For more information please read: https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki/Tagging-Merchants#legacy-tags
and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Happy mapping,

Edwin
Dimitar155 (2025-07-01 18:12:37+00:00): There is no need to have area=yes for the courtyards. Also, something has gone south while creating the MPs. Did you make them by hand?
rhhs (2025-07-01 18:20:59+00:00): I made them using iD, which is not that easy and I don't have much experience with them. I removed the area=yes tags, but don't understand what has "gone south"...
Dimitar155 (2025-07-01 18:33:08+00:00): Notice in the Carto rendering that there are two buildings with number 37. There should be a hole, but another building appears there. Looking in the editor, notice that those buildings have redder colouring (compare it to it's neighbours). The outer way (way/310598342) has the same tags as the MP (relation/19290218) which is not how they work. The outer way shouldn't have any tags, only the relation should have them.

P.S. The easiest way is to draw a line for the inner part, select the building and the newly drawn way, then press C. iD automagically handles everything.
rhhs (2025-07-01 18:42:31+00:00): I tried to create MPs by adding an area, assigning it with role inner, and assigned role outer to the building. Apparently that's not the way to do it. Please feel free to repair my work. That these buildings have inner courtyards is info from cadastre
Dimitar155 (2025-07-01 18:56:37+00:00): Done in changeset/168367287.
eggie (2025-06-26 15:08:32+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Thibault Rommel (2025-06-26 11:39:09+00:00): *update Ter Lembeekstraat
cuzi (2025-06-26 19:54:29+00:00): Are you sure this is a hot spring? Tens a certeza que isso é uma nascente quente?
Collao (2025-06-26 20:21:10+00:00): It was a mistake, sorry.
cuzi (2025-06-26 20:38:59+00:00): Thanks for the quick response, I have deleted it again.
citrula (2025-06-27 04:23:11+00:00): consider using footway=link or cycleway=link for these "virtual" ways for network connectivity
Bizango (2025-06-27 12:32:12+00:00): Thanks for the tip!  Will do!
TinPetreković (2025-06-27 10:17:48+00:00): Reverting because of accidental node alteration #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168178026
eggie (2025-06-26 12:08:19+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2025-06-26 15:10:49+00:00): Svp geen adressen toevoegen aan de gebouwomtrek

MVG
eggie
Verkeerscentrum Gent (2025-06-26 12:54:01+00:00): I didn't indicate, but it would be welcome to review this change.
eggie (2025-06-26 15:11:56+00:00): Dag de Verwondering  Svp geen adresnodes verwijderen.
Deze zijn van belang om een adres te vinden. 
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-06-26 15:12:49+00:00): Adres 16A hersteld
Verkeerscentrum Gent (2025-06-26 12:53:52+00:00): I didn't indicate, but it would be welcome to review this change.
1Mmarek (2025-06-29 00:36:41+00:00): Zdravím, chcela by som sa spýtať na zdroj dát aj dôvod ich pridávania - totiž, väčšinu trate (ktorá je ešte rozpoznateľná) som už pridala. Z pohľadu na OpenRailwayMap vidno, že trate sú na mape duplicitne. 

Je to iba kvôli nevšimnutiu si, že už je trať zakreslená, alebo je za tým iný dôvod?

Chápem že možno nevidno na prvý pohľad, že väčšinou som trať zakreslila tak, že som pridala tag "railway=abandoned" na existujúce cesty ako cyklotrasy, keďže tie boli postavené na bývalom telese dráhy.
8err (2025-07-01 13:50:49+00:00): Opraveno na demolished: aby v terénu nezřetelné segmenty více odpovídaly významu tagu.
eggie (2025-06-26 15:14:01+00:00): Dag de Verwondering. Svp geen bedrijfsgegevens en adressen toevoegen aan de gebouwomtrek. Gebruik in zo'n geval de bestaande adresnode.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-06-26 15:15:07+00:00): Dit pand is niet Hoogbrugstraat nr 15
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-06-26 15:20:43+00:00): De info heb ik verplaatst naar adresnode nr 15
Wanneer die adressen niet kloppen kun je dat aan het Kadaster doorgeven.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-06-26 15:21:27+00:00): https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/?searchQuery=hoogbrugstraat+15&objectId=0935200000038333&theme=BRT+Achtergrond&geometry.x=177104.941&geometry.y=317519.9355&zoomlevel=15
Verkeerscentrum Gent (2025-06-26 12:53:45+00:00): I didn't indicate, but it would be welcome to review this change.
TinPetreković (2025-06-27 10:18:48+00:00): Reverting because of accidental node alteration #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168178068
NorthCrab_upload (2025-06-26 14:23:23+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/381405546

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
abdank (2025-06-26 15:19:22+00:00): Adres jest prawidłowy. Potwierdza to właściciel nieruchomości i strona "https://glusk.e-mapa.net/". Główna ulica, przy której położona jest posesja nie ma nazwy.
Verkeerscentrum Gent (2025-06-26 12:53:40+00:00): I didn't indicate, but it would be welcome to review this change.
Verkeerscentrum Gent (2025-06-26 12:53:34+00:00): I didn't indicate, but it would be welcome to review this change.
Verkeerscentrum Gent (2025-06-26 12:53:27+00:00): I didn't indicate, but it would be welcome to review this change.
5m4u9 (2025-06-26 19:32:05+00:00): Hola, gracias por añadir este lugar de atención al mapa!

Tenía algunos errores, pero ya los corregí y mejoré según su página web (sobre todo el horario de atención y las especialidades que atienden y una descripción general).

En el siguiente enlace pueden ver como esta ahora:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1409748579

Se podría asumir que es amistoso a LGBTQ+? o solo atienden al colectivo? o se atiende a cualquier persona pero con prioridad al colectivo LGBTQ+? 🤔
IpDH (2025-06-27 12:39:41+00:00): Hola, gracias por tu aporte, atendemos a todos, todas y todes con calidad y calidez, sin prejucios y 100% confidencial asi que pdria decirse que es amistoso a LGBTQ+ ademas somos los únicos en Cochabamba que ofrecemos PrEP y PPE
jmsbert (2025-10-09 20:22:31+00:00): Hallo osmmapper222,
in diesem Änderungssatz hast Du Gebäudekonturen in einem Wohngebiet (Hohenkirchen) eingezeichnet. Zu einigen Gebäuden gab es bereits zuvor Adress-Knoten aus einer vor Ort Begehung. Bitte integriere diese direkt beim Erstellen der Gebäudekontur (z.B. den Adressknoten auch eine Ecke des Gebäudes verschieben, das Gebäude zeichnen und anschließend die Adress-Info des Knotens auf die Kontur übertragen). Im Nachhinein können die Objekte ansonsten nicht mehr ohne Verlust der Historie miteinander verschmolzen werden - außer es würde an passender Stelle ein Eingangsnode gesetzt, was jedoch in der Regel eine Begehung voraussetzt... 

Vorgehen ist auch hier beschrieben, siehe ab "Wenn du einen einzelnen Punkt..." im wiki
siehe auch:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Erhalte_die_Chronik
osmmapper222 (2025-10-09 20:42:56+00:00): Hallo jmsbert,

danke für den Hinweis. Ich werde dies in Zukunft berücksichtigen, um die Kontinuität der Änderungen nachvollziehbar zu halten.
jmsbert (2025-10-09 20:58:23+00:00): vielen Dank für die schnelle Rückmeldung. Das Vorgehen ist zwar auf den ersten Blick etwas umständlicher, aber mit etwas Routine geht es dann doch recht schnell.
Gruß jmsbert,
grzegorz75jan (2025-07-01 16:26:20+00:00): Poprawiłem trochę.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168139935
Frans S (2025-06-27 13:34:37+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. 
A remark, You tend to oversize the buildings you map. Stay within the rooflines. These huts have an overhang, so they show to be bigger than they are. Zoom in (IDeditor) till at least 40 ft. to have a good view to map a building
Best regards
Frans S (2025-06-29 12:46:10+00:00): Thanks for mapping om this project.
The round buildings you have mapped are not drawn in according to the guidelines.
Check this footage how to map (round) buildings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1YJV6I_rhY
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168139951
Frans S (2025-06-27 14:04:25+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. 
A remark, You tend to oversize the buildings you map. Stay within the rooflines. These huts have an overhang, so they show to be bigger than they are. Zoom in (IDeditor) till at least 40 ft. to have a good view to map a building
Best regards
Frans S (2025-07-08 12:38:21+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping .
A remark. When you map a waterway/road to the edge of a task that  continues further on an adjacent task, please map the track a bit over the edge of the task. Another mapper on the adjacent task will see it and can continue mapping. When you stop on or within the edge, it don't show up on the adjacent task.
Best regards and keep mapping
Hungerburg (2025-06-26 21:53:10+00:00): Hallo Pipo, Offensichtlich handelt es sich bei Deiner Ergänzung bei Haus "Am Seerosenweiher 69" um eine Privatadresse. Ein Haus hat eine Nummer, allenfalls einen Hofnamen, aber wer dort wohnt, das gehört meines Erachtens NICHT in openstreetmap abgebildet, auch wenn hinter einem Spitznamen verborgen.