piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
limes11 (2023-01-08 16:00:17+00:00): Hallo Ole, 

hat sich hier etwas an der Auszeichnung der Wege vor Ort geändert?

Laut Online-Wegeplan sind einige von dir angepassten Wege nicht zu betreten, z.B. der über den Dollendorfer Hardt. Siehe

https://www.siebengebirge.com/downloads/reitwege_siebengebirge.pdf

VG, Limes
Ole (2023-01-08 17:10:07+00:00): Hallo Limes, 
ich kenne das Gebiet eigentlich wie meine Westentasche, da ich dort groß geworden bin. Ich bin die von mir geänderten Wege am Samstag morgen gejoggt und habe da die Wege genommen, die alle "Locals" zu Fuß nehmen. Da ist der Weg Südl. des "Pirlenbach" definitiv ein Fußweg und er mündet dann oben (also östlich) auf einen Weg, der Nord-Süd verläuft (von der Langemarck-Straße kommend) und der ist breit und gut befestigt und mit Fortsfahrzeugen befahrbar und auch zu Fuß begehbar und das ist auch die gängige Praxis. Von unten (Westen) hochkommend stehen da keine Schilder, die auf einen ausschließlichen Reitweg hinweisen. Oben an der Kreuzung auch nicht. Ich könnte aber beim nächsten mal das gerne nochmal vor Ort verifizieren. Ich denke, so wie ich es eingezeichnet habe, wird es vor Ort gelebt und daher sollte das passen. Vorher hatte mir meine Lauf-Routing-App komische Umwege vorgeschlagen, die so nicht die Praxis widerspiegeln. Daher bin ich überhaupt erst auf die Idee gekommen, die OSM-Attribute und die Connectivität des Wegenetzes zu prüfen. 

Viele Grüße, Ole
limes11 (2023-01-09 02:23:02+00:00): Hi, 

danke für die schnelle Antwort. Generell stehen im Siebengebirge (fast) keine Verbotsschilder. Der Wegeplan ist so gedacht, dass nur per rotem Dreieck (gelb für Fahrräder) freigegebene Wege zu betreten sind. Die Dreiecke sind auf kleinen Täfelchen zu sehen oder wurden direkt auf Bäume gepinselt. (Reitwege sind hier in der Gegend auch nicht erfasst.)

Laut online-Wegeplan sind der Weg am Pirlenbach sowie die angrenzende Nord-Süd-Verbindung nicht freigegeben. Tatsächlich wurde der Pirlenbach-Weg vor 4 Wochen bereits in OSM geändert, vielleicht gab es hier ja sogar eine Wegeplanänderung. Ich habe im Änderungssatz nachgefragt.

Dass "Locals" diese Wege verwenden, sollte nicht als Grundlage zur Erfassung verwendet werden. Vielen werden ihn schon seit langem benutzen und nicht nach roten Dreiecken suchen. (Einige Wanderwege, die seit Jahrzehnten begangen wurden, wurden bei Einführung des Wegeplans illegal.)

Schöne Grüße Limes
Caerandir (2023-01-11 12:40:51+00:00): Hallo Ole & Limes,
die Lage ist eindeutig: Der "alte" Wegeplan ist nach wie vor gültig, auch wenn ich weiß, dass eine Überarbeitung kommen wird. Und damit sind die Wege nicht zu betreten (worauf IMHO immer noch zu unklar im Feld hingewiesen wird). Ich werde die relevanten Änderungen von Ole gleich rückgängig machen. Falls im Feld tatsächlich abweichende Hinweisschilder mehr erlauben, wäre ich für einen Hinweis dankbar, denn dann würde ich die Naturschutzbehörde nochmal darauf ansprechen.
Grüße, Caerandir
4004 (2023-01-15 23:41:54+00:00): Добры дзень, веласіпедная дарожка ўжо пазначана як частка пешаходнай дарожкі (паколькі яна не аддзеленая)
4004 (2023-01-15 23:45:15+00:00): reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131317661
4004 (2023-01-15 23:45:21+00:00): reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131317661
watmildon (2023-01-08 06:53:10+00:00): Should be "Add Address data from NAD" but I'm not sure how to change the description. Ah well.
Qomar IRM-ED (2023-01-11 09:08:09+00:00): Hi TagaSan,
Thank you for contributing to adding data to OSM!
Currently I'm doing remote mapping to validate the existing rail network in Indonesia.
I need your confrim for this railroad (s.id/1vLeE)

I found an issue with the layer tag, you added "Layer=2" tag to this railroad (-7.3546565, 108.3090457). Did you know that the railroad tracks are on a different layer than the surrounding roads? or is there any other information that you can explain?

I really appreciate any information you provide.
Thanks
WoodWoseWulf (2023-01-09 00:29:13+00:00): Hi, thanks for updating this bit. The previous way only had a fixme, so it was fine to remove, but the new ways you added have no tags at all. Are we all good to add highway=path or similar?
MercatorBe (2023-01-09 00:50:48+00:00): Works for me. I'm new to this, so will go with your experience / recommendation, update as you see fit!
WoodWoseWulf (2023-01-09 01:29:26+00:00): Perfect, thank you for the fast reply. I merged that line into the existing paths - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131035317
Warin61 (2023-01-11 05:07:31+00:00): Hi,
I have closed the tree relation that was open. I have also made the tree way into a relation - so as to inculde holes and stop crossing of the tree areas. Probably worthwhile to combine ther 2 releations into one relation. 
Observation: At least some of this looks to be forestry to produce timber, in that case it would be better to map it as landuse=forest, produce=timber. ???
aTarom (2023-01-08 09:37:26+00:00): Hi, blacx
please, can you check this tag?
"all"="along"
at
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/878746820/history
Thanks in advance, cheers
blacx (2023-01-08 19:29:50+00:00): fixed
surveyor54 (2023-01-08 11:33:39+00:00): Hallo Leon_HB,
willkommen bei Openstreetmap.

Wenn du solch riesige Ergänzungen einfügst, solltest du dich zuerst einmal im OSM-Wiki informieren wie so etwas einzutragen ist.
Relationen Grenzen:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Grenze_zeichnen

Und ob man so etwas einträgt, sollte vielleicht im Forum angefragt oder diskutiert werden.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/de/56

Gruß
surveyor54
DD1GJ (2023-01-08 13:43:48+00:00): Revert, undiskutierter und technisch falscher Import, siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131005534
DD1GJ (2023-01-08 13:40:57+00:00): Revert, siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131005534
DD1GJ (2023-01-08 13:33:28+00:00): Revert, siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131005534
DD1GJ (2023-01-08 13:32:22+00:00): Revert, siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131005534
DD1GJ (2023-01-08 13:29:45+00:00): Revert, siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131005534
DD1GJ (2023-01-08 13:27:43+00:00): Revert, siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131005534
DD1GJ (2023-01-08 13:24:57+00:00): Revert , siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131005534
DD1GJ (2023-01-08 09:57:18+00:00): Hallo Leon_HB,

Grenzen sind in OSM eine komplexe Angelegenheit, Deshalb beschränken wir uns da hauptsächlich auf administrative politische Grenzen sowie Schutzgebiete. Alles andere führt in eine Wartbarkeitsfalle. Zudem sollte ein Import in diesem Umfang zuvor auf den üblichen Kommunikationskanälen (Import-Mailingliste, Deutsches OSM-Forum) abgesprochen werden. Stelle deinen Import bitte vorerst ein.
DD1GJ (2023-01-08 10:06:16+00:00): Nachtrag: Zudem weist dieser Import erhebliche technische Mängel auf. Da wurden tausende kurzer Wegstücke direkt neben bestehenden Grenzrelationen angelegt, die so überhaupt keinen Sinn ergeben.
DD1GJ (2023-01-08 13:21:34+00:00): Revert, siehe obige Bemerkungen.
Marek-M (2023-01-08 13:37:19+00:00): Tag type=waterway jest tutaj niepotrzebny. Zrobię poprawkę.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/422094294/history#map=16/54.2064/19.5150
Unbeatable101 (2023-09-05 10:28:58+00:00): this road is not a oneway street
erantr1 (2023-09-11 14:53:09+00:00): I made this change a long time ago, and don't remember why and according to which indication :-)
Dodko (2023-01-08 09:12:36+00:00): building=house je značka pre dvojdom alebo radovú zástavbu.
Ak je to samostatný rodinný dom použite building=detached
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Tag:building%3Ddetached
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-08-28 15:38:33+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10314277649/history has amenity = fixme that was added in this edit
What kind of object is here? Is it a shop? What kind of a shop? (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop )
antonr (2023-01-08 11:43:58+00:00): Hejsa,

Jeg ville sætte stor pris på hvis du lukker de noter du løser (https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3507616) og skriver noget mere præcist i changeset description (Fx "Retter blokering på Åhavevej jf. note"). Så behøver jeg (og andre) ikke bruge tid på detektivarbejde angående noter der allerede er løst...

Mvh
cyton (2023-01-08 09:29:17+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2896432

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2896433
Palolo (2023-01-08 14:18:39+00:00): Thank you for your first edits to OSM. Please note that we need to have the entire roof are traced, not just one side.
cyton (2023-01-08 09:53:54+00:00): siehe: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2896443
_klaas_ (2023-01-18 07:45:19+00:00): Hallo bahnpirat,

stehen die provisorischen 220-kV-Leitungen beim UW Emden-Ost noch? Die 220-kV-Leitung Emden-Conneforde ist nämlich schon komplett abgebaut.
Viele Grüße
_klaas_
bahnpirat (2023-01-18 17:42:52+00:00): Ich war bisher nur am Conneforder-Ende. Nach Emden wollte ich noch. Da es aber keine aktuelleren Satellitenbilder gab, die zeigten, dass das Provisorium schon abgebaut ist, habe ich es eingezeichnet.
Jodocus up Straat (2023-01-26 13:52:16+00:00): Hallo zusammen,
ich war am 3. Oktober 2022 vor Ort. Die provisorische Leitung, die ich selbst im Sept. 2021 gesehen hatte, war vollständig abgebaut (vermutlich schon seit längerer Zeit), deshalb habe ich sie nun gelöscht. Die alte 220-kV-Leitung wurde zwischen Emden/Ost und KÜA Strackholt inzwischen vollständig abgebaut (weiter östlich war ich nicht), ich habe sie als removed:power=line bzw. removed:power=tower getaggt. Aber provisorische Verbindungen, die nur wenige Monate bestanden haben, sollten m. E. gelöscht werden.
Gruß Jodocus
kurisubrooks (2023-01-08 11:07:48+00:00): Hey, the roundabout you changed was actually razed in order to make it a T junction. ESRI is the most up to date imagery in NSW, so if something doesn't align to Bing, please check ESRI first to make sure it's not out of date.
Beager (2023-01-08 15:43:01+00:00): Thanks - reverted In https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131020161
Cebderby (2023-01-09 09:56:04+00:00): dragged ~6 nodes of buildings and ways large distances - vandalism/test edit reverted
Cebderby (2023-01-09 09:56:53+00:00): dragged nodes of pair of buildings onto huge false shape - vandalism/test edit reverted
Cebderby (2023-01-09 09:57:28+00:00): dragged service way node onto unrelated parking edge - vandalism/test edit reverted
jcr83 (2023-01-08 14:55:12+00:00): Bonjour,
Les rues de Tourette-du-château sont-elles explicitement interdites aux vélos ? Je m'étonne de ne voir que des footway.
Lulucmy (2023-01-09 17:07:06+00:00): Bonjour,
Non, erreur de ma part, j'ai suivi le type des routes déjà existantes. Quelle serait le tag correct ?
jcr83 (2023-01-10 08:03:53+00:00): Bonjour,
Si ce sont des rues trop étroites pour un véhicule, mais pas réservées aux piétons, ce sont des chemins non carrossables (highway=path). À vérifier sur place évidemment.
habi (2023-02-09 09:55:54+00:00): Die Eingänge West/Ost werden besser als mit `addr:housenumber=32 West` und `addr:housenumber=32 Ost` mit `ref=West` und `ref=Ost` erfasst.
Dies auch weil das Gebäude https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/130699831/ schon mit der korrekten Hausnummer `addr:housenumber=32` erfasst ist.
Ich habe das (und Kleinigkeiten) mit https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132297676 geändert.
Patryk2710 (2023-03-03 13:33:48+00:00): zamieniłem shop=Biedronka na name=Biedronka
shop=supermarket
maraf24 (2023-03-03 15:07:24+00:00): Dzięki!
Cebderby (2023-01-09 09:57:54+00:00): shortened side road  - vandalism/test edit reverted
abakus_uploader (2023-01-08 23:33:27+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
Cebderby (2023-01-09 09:58:33+00:00): moved Superdrug shop node far out of position - vandalism/test edit reverted
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-01-08 20:22:50+00:00): Hello, a lot of changes here without a comment ;)

1)
On Valdeku there is a bicycle path tagged as cycleway=track. Now on bicycle maps it looks as if there are separate bicycle and pedestrian ways which is false.

I'd advise to remove cycleway from the street, and for the sidewalk use

path=sidewalk
highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
surface=asphalt

There aren't really enough signs which say that bicycles are allowed here, but there is one from Vabaduse pst direction.

2)
On the junction with Lootuse you forgot to connect the sidewalks through crossing.

3) Not sure these use_sidepath amount to anything. There is nothing wrong with adding them but I don't think there really are any routers which will route pedestrians by these roads when the sidewalks are available.
Zverik (2023-01-08 20:59:06+00:00): 1) that's a lot of tags! Also, I am never using highway=path for a sidewalk. That's ridiculous. I've removed cycleway=track, so routing should be better now.

2) thanks, fixed.

3) well, https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=59.38035%2C24.70002%3B59.38088%2C24.69908#map=18/59.38086/24.69989

I have used foot=no before for streets with sidewalks, but trying smth new here.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-01-09 18:14:49+00:00): 1)
>I've removed cycleway=track, so routing should be better now.

Maybe you misunderstood me. These "sidewalks" seem to be designated as suitable road for a bicycle. At least the southern "sidewalk", can't say for northern without a survey. The infrastructure is bad, but it does allow you to bike through this street by the sidewalk.
Right now you've made this street unpreferable for bicycle routers with "safety" profile.

I know using highway=path may look ridiculous at first. Unfortunately, OSM tagging for pedestrians and bicycles is not ideal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy

Using highway=path is a common pattern for bicycle-pedestrian paths. See here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Ddesignated
under examples. 

I've heard that vespucci's default template uses path. iD editor's template doesn't use a footway too (though it uses a cycleway which is a controversal tagging scheme and CyclOSM opposes it).

Most bicycle and combined bicycle-pedestrian paths are along a "car" road, so they can also be considered sidewalks. As ridiculous as it sounds, we can use paths on these "sidewalks". I'm not sure about the northen way, but the southern is definitely a path for me, not sure about sidewalk. Here there is no mention of sidewalk https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks#Cycleway_and_footway_on_sidewalk (also notice, again, that highway=path is used). Estonian law also doesn't allow bicycles on the sidewalk, but I don't think it matters.

Yes, that's a lot of tags, but that's the minimum for pedestrian and bicycle routers to fully understand what's going because of the reasons listed in "Path controversy"

So, in conclusion, my suggestion is to apply these tags on the southern "sidewalk". path=sidewalk can be ommited if it's deemed too custom.

3) I stand corrected, good example.
Though I wonder if sidewalk:both=separate would be a better alternative? Not sure it will be picked up by graphhopper. foot=no can be used too - on streets with max speed >20km pedestrians are required to use the sidewalk if its present by the law.

It's just that I haven't seen use_sidepath anywhere and maybe it's because other tags already cover it's purpose. 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/map.html?Q=%5Bout%3Ajson%5D%5Btimeout%3A25%5D%3B%0A(%0A%20%20way%5B%22foot%22%3D%22use_sidepath%22%5D(59.348770639630885%2C24.582252502441406%2C59.49460615309517%2C24.929351806640625)%3B%0A%0A)%3B%0Aout%20body%3B%0A%0A%3E%3B%0Aout%20skel%20qt%3B%0A%0A%0A%0A%0A%7B%7Bstyle%3A%20%0A%0A%0A%20%7D%7D
not many of them in Tallinn. Having a rarely used tag adds to confusion. bicycle=use_sidepath was used in countries where you are required to use a bicycle road if it's present, but if there's no way to make a turn somewhere, you can go on the road https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath. What's the use case for pedestrian? You are either allowed on the road or not, so maybe foot=no is better? (BTW bicycle thing doesn't apply to Estonia, you are free to bike on the road regardless of the bicycle paths)
Zverik (2023-01-09 19:43:25+00:00): I'll answer tomorrow I guess, but for now — imagine somebody not 12 years in OSM, but just learning the ropes, mapping some sidewalks and suddenly getting into this kind of discussion. When I started, a similar encounter led me to stop mapping my neighbourhood and choose a different region for mapping for quite a long time.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-01-09 20:28:51+00:00): I can see that such heavy discussions are exhausting. But I don't really see a way around it. I'd like bicycle routers to work well in Tallinn. It's also nice to read on facebook how someone praises how well komoot works in Tallinn.

The only way we can really avoid such discussions is by improving tools/documentation/proposals which is exhausting in a different way :c

Cutting corners is not the way.
dgmapping (2023-01-10 12:28:13+00:00): I also believe such discussions are necessary. But would it be better to move these to somewhere else? Since talk-ee seems to be dead and previous forum is being retired the only logical place seems to be new community forums: https://community.openstreetmap.org
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-01-10 16:32:26+00:00): @dgmapping
I think this is a discussion about a concrete changeset and it belongs here. Not sure there is something to discuss "globally".

----

But as whole, about Estonian community - Mailing lists are a "boomer" thing, young people don't even know what they are.

We don't have an Estonian community on the new forums - nowhere to write. As I understand the new community forum needs to elect moderators first. And so far no one cared.

I don't think it's easy to create a chat too since there is no popular messenger which is used both by Estonian and Russian native speakers. Also I have a feeling that not many want to participate in any kind of discussion.
Zverik (2023-01-15 20:49:10+00:00): So readrding the footway+cycleway sidewalk, I should point out that the "bicycle=designated" page is written by a single person and its path suggestions def won't withstand any public discussion. The "Sidewalks" page has the "questionable or controversial information" box at the top. As most things in OSM, this all really depends on tagging for a renderer. So I guess you should link to that renderer (or router) and skip the middlewiki.

To me, and judging from these pages, highway=cycleway doesn't differ much from highway=path + bicycle=designated. Same for footway and foot.

For Valdeku tn, it doesn't seem like any of its sidewalks were designed for cycling. Both sidewalks look dangerous in that regard. Except maybe between Vabaduse and Lootuse.

For other cases, I'd prefer highway=cycleway + foot=designated, as the Sidewalks wiki page suggests. No use_sidepath, since you can cycle on roads. That seems acceptable. Would be be okay with you?
Zverik (2023-01-15 20:50:24+00:00): Also, do you guys think we should kick-start the Estonian community? We're like the three most active people here.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-01-19 19:39:23+00:00): Sorry, haven't seen you've answered.

>To me, and judging from these pages, highway=cycleway doesn't differ much from highway=path + bicycle=designated. Same for footway and foot.

I think it's ok as long as we are not changing our way of mapping back-forth. You don't change paths to cycleways and I don't change cycleways to paths (unless there are also some serious tag changes). Even if you don't trust the wiki it's important to understand that de facto many cycling infrastructure mappers prefer paths. Just please don't use footways and bicycle=designated, this is a rare combination :)

For me it's important that CyclOSM, cycle map, Komoot, Strava, etc. can render it correctly and brouter, OrganicMaps, Komoot can route bicycles. And they need bicycle=designated for that.

>For Valdeku tn, it doesn't seem like any of its sidewalks were designed for cycling. Both sidewalks look dangerous in that regard. Except maybe between Vabaduse and Lootuse.

The whole idea of putting pedestrians and bicycles on the same road in the city is dangerous, but access tags are about the legal side of the question. If someone can slowly and carefully ride there then why not?

>Also, do you guys think we should kick-start the Estonian community? We're like the three most active people here.

I'm not interested in trying to create, guide and moderate a community, this is quite a work even for a small community. I can participate in discussions though.

Also not sure we are the most active :)
Maybe in the changeset discussions. But there is fghj753, who did important building imports lately, 
micromappers like tshikaboom and Apirnus. Always somewhere at the top of contributors are waterproof_19m and jemm. Someone named Pikse comes to mind too. 

So there are active people, even if they don't talk much.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-01-21 19:25:47+00:00): And now I'm already regretting not having an Estonian OSM community. There is currently a project being done on adding parking lots in Tallinn by students of  Estonian Academy Of Arts. I've contacted the teacher and asked if he could describe it somewhere so that everyone would understand what's going on and the question is where... I've proposed wiki, old forum or the mailing list, but obviously the new community would be better.

BTW, Zverik, he mentioned that he maybe would like if someone from the community would come to talk in person or over Zoom about OSM to students and I've recommended him to contact you. I hope you don't mind.
Zverik (2023-01-21 20:08:37+00:00): Absolutely, I'd love to speak on OSM. I even can come in person. Aitäh!

Do any of you want to co-moderate the Estonian sub-forum? I can ask the admins to create it.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2023-01-21 20:22:09+00:00): Well, I think I've changed my mind and I can help. I don't think it'll be a lively community with anything to do. If it's half-dead I'll be happy. But there should be an easy default place to go to raise a question regarding Estonia in OSM.

There has to be some kind of election, correct?
Zverik (2023-01-21 21:32:31+00:00): Done: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/estonian-category/8093

Now is a time to discuss moderatroship and anything else there. Although with the size of the community, I don't think these are important now.
Birmingham City Mission (2023-01-09 07:13:21+00:00): KIDS YOGA MINDFULNESS MUSIC MOVEMENT YogaPalooza with BARI KORAL LEARN TO TEACH KIDS YOGA SUBSCRIBE 品米
Cebderby (2023-01-09 09:59:44+00:00): moved 2 nodes of building across main road and railway, separated/moved node of 2 buildings - vandalism/test edit reverted
Cebderby (2023-01-09 10:00:08+00:00): deleted all tags from building - vandalism/test edit reverted
nevw (2023-01-08 19:28:52+00:00): Hi, you are expected to accurately map the footprint of the buildings instead of the plot of land on which the building rests. The edges of most of your edit overlap and this is an error. You need to zoom in much further to accurately map the true outline of the building. If you want to map the outlines of each plot it is currently best done by mapping the fence lines between the properties.
Do you want me to delete the buildings you have mapped so far and start again or do prefer to remap those you have done?
nevw (2023-01-16 03:31:25+00:00): no response, reverted in changeset 131320237