piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ramthelinefeed (2025-08-26 15:11:44+00:00): I don't it pays to think too deeply these things - OSM tags try to be logical and consistent, and people try to put a bit of helpful guidance on the OSM wiki, but they will never be 100% accurate and applicable to every place on the planet - there's just too much complexity and fiddly differences out there! :) 
Where you live, I guess your main official administrative unit is indeed F&ODC. But there's plenty of things where it isn't (e.g. the Health & Social Care boards are split up entirely differently, as are our Stormont and Westminster election constituencies).  
As we know, Royal Mail have their own official system for forming postal addresses, but that is just for the purposes of getting letter delivered. 
On broad balance, my vote to tag NI counties with 'place=county' but also 'boundary=historic' - I think that best captures the current situation, in as much as the generally understood meanings of those tags goes.  If 'Nominatum' gets bamboozled by that, they that is a problem for Nominatum to sort out - every country in the world has different nuance in its postal addresses, Nominatum should be able to cope with that.
Lumikeiju (2024-06-14 01:03:35+00:00): Hi - as I mentioned in the comments on your Changeset: 152648594 - it is incorrect to classify these crossings as informal.

Please review the guidance on the Wiki, which clearly states that `crossing=informal` (and `informal=yes`) are only for highways that are not formally established.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dinformal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:informal%3Dyes
CurlingMan13 (2024-06-14 05:49:22+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=Deleting%20objects%20and%20redrawing%20them%20instead%20of%20improving%20the%20shape.%20If%20there%20is%20already%20a%20hole/fairway/etc.%20there%2C%20update%20it.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152654257
CurlingMan13 (2024-06-14 05:46:47+00:00): Please do not delete and readd the same feature.

Before making further edits, please review the following wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=Deleting%20objects%20and%20redrawing%20them%20instead%20of%20improving%20the%20shape.%20If%20there%20is%20already%20a%20hole/fairway/etc.%20there%2C%20update%20it.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152654537
arkarjun (2024-06-29 20:03:06+00:00): Thank you for mapping, last part of name is wrong, corrected #Reviewed_Bad #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152654892
faiz_2024 (2024-07-01 03:18:50+00:00): Please reset your bad review to my changeset again, and revert my edit. You were looking at the oldest mapillary here https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=426071136214684. It is the newest one https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=908860484195645. You need to be careful next time. Don't act like this. 

Beside you should at least pay attention to my source, I did a local observation to this area. I'm a local contributor around here, mapillary just for second check on the coordinate.
tyfi (2024-06-14 01:34:46+00:00): Proof at https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=38.366703%7E-90.629484&lvl=22.0&pi=4.8&style=x&dir=60.5
mueschel (2024-06-15 08:50:02+00:00): Hi,
please don't add hundreds of Wikipedia tags to one single object.
It's fully sufficient to have ONE link to Wikipedia per object. Wikipedia itself has a great directory linking the individual language pages with each other. There is no need to misuse the OSM database as a secondary, not well maintained directory for Wikipedia.
Shoorick (2024-06-15 13:42:45+00:00): OK, got it.
Shoorick (2024-06-23 23:16:18+00:00): Partially reverted in https://osm.org/changeset/153088684 — unnecessary `wikipedia:*` tags was removed from Batumi and settlements near it.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-06-16 02:40:44+00:00): Why were some oneways reversed?
mach314 (2025-02-09 20:36:33+00:00): Sorry, I have not been able to view+reply to messages on openstreetmap.org due to a weird error for several months, which appears to be fixed now.

I was trying out rapid/iD to change road surfaces and smoothness instead of my normal editor. I remember Rapid was lagging a lot, and I'm guessing misinterpreted my clicking/tapping because of that. I always try to double check all of my changes before submitting, but the reversals were not obvious. I see you fixed the issues. Thanks.
miluethi (2024-06-14 12:52:19+00:00): SeonKyeong Kim,

You need to tag buildings with "building=yes" not "building=area". Most building shapes were far bigger than shown on the aerial imagery. I deleted them.
Please square out all buildings by pressing the "Q" key with a selected building.

Thank you.
akimapbuilder (2024-06-14 06:24:48+00:00): You draw building over backyard, try to avoid that. Thanks
AkuAnakTimur (2024-06-14 02:27:28+00:00): If this edit is incorrect, hikers, it's time to shine though...
TrickyFoxy (2024-06-15 09:48:57+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152713506
NeisBot (2024-06-14 03:24:25+00:00): Hi Luiz Idebook, 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's:
https://osm.org/node/11980004635
https://osm.org/node/11980004638
https://osm.org/node/11980004636

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 (2024-06-14 05:47:31+00:00): Thank you for your mapped beaches.

It now appears that the beaches have been mapped twice. Once as a node and once as a way.
nevw (2024-06-15 08:24:31+00:00): Hi Billy
You seem to have accidentally dragged a node here.
Can you fix the error please.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/710887736#map=16/-37.7885/145.1250
Callum Andrew (2024-06-16 00:15:38+00:00): Thanks for telling me, I can get that fixed tonight
silversurfer83 (2024-06-14 18:02:07+00:00): Hello there Tony :)

are you sure you wish to add this place to the OpenStreetMap database? Are you sure it's called "Sarah house"?
Could this maybe be a personal bookmark you mistakenly added to the database?

Questions? Shoot

silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152656679
aharvey (2025-01-16 21:00:23+00:00): This has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161433740 since it seems they do exist in some form on the ground. Tag improvements welcome.
Xvtn (2024-09-05 22:22:45+00:00): Can you give more information on the features "Stack Rock" and "Gooseneck or J Tree"? Are they just landmarks for hikers?
user_13006008 (2024-06-16 14:38:12+00:00): Tuh, ditegur panitia.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/cleanup-of-name-fields-describing-buildings/99591/33
hlfan (2025-02-16 08:56:37+00:00): Interessant, laut Kataster ist da kein Weg, laut dem INSPIRE Agrar-Geodatenportal schon. Da hat der desire path gewonnen
Frans S (2024-06-17 12:50:09+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.
Buildings not squared.
Overlapping buildings. 
Don't you use a mouse to map accurate ?

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/152658798
disc24 (2024-07-08 06:55:33+00:00): Hallo,
ist der Weg jetzt wirklich ein reiner Reitweg und damit für Fussgänger und Radfahrer verboten??
Wenn ich mich noch dran erinnere, als ich das letzte mal dort vorbei gekommen bin, war da eigentlich gar nichts beschildert. Von daher eigentlich ein normaler Path.
Viele Grüße
Dirk
silversurfer83 (2024-06-14 18:05:12+00:00): Moin d1no1981

du hast darum gebeten, dass hier mal jemand drüber schaut.

Sieht ganz gut aus.
Kleinigkeiten: Guck mal folgende beiden Seiten im Wiki an. Ggf. passt du die Öffnungszeiten und die Telefonnummer nochmal an :)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:opening_hours
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:phone

cheers
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152659240
CurlingMan13 (2025-03-28 00:12:44+00:00): I'm not exactly a rocket scientist, maybe an explosions expert, but there is certainly no Chipotle here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11980125993

Removed Chipotle tags.
YomanNH (2024-06-16 20:46:51+00:00): Cześć,
jest już tutaj zrobiona i poprawnie oznakowana droga dla rowerów? Czy póki co jest to jedynie chodnik?
h551w (2024-06-15 03:08:55+00:00): You know, I'm not sure myself. Looking at the two parks I've tagged, I'd say my strategy so far has been to tag only the off-leash area when it's part of a larger park (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/981107309), but with a dog park that is separate from any other park I've tagged all the "park area" as a dog park (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1123268840). Looking at the second one, I guess I didn't include the parking lot though, so I may eventually go back and expand the area to include it, since the park is what the parking lot belongs to.
Allison P (2024-06-14 05:58:40+00:00): Check capitalization on "FIfth" Street
Xanadu_Contractor (2024-06-14 06:18:25+00:00): Thanks, fixed.
CRCulver (2024-12-14 06:13:41+00:00): What is the source of all these waterfalls you have been adding in Tajikistan? And are you sure that waterway=waterfall is the correct tag?
CRCulver (2024-06-16 14:05:05+00:00): Please do not remove footway=sidewalk tags from highway=paths in Poland representing combined or segregated footways/cycleways, as you did with way 864232970. The footway=sidewalk tag is widely used in Poland on such ways that are indeed sidewalks. The Osmose bug layer may complain about this, but this is a false positive in Osmose, not an error.
phoenixsaigon1698 (2024-06-20 10:01:16+00:00): Hello Kaduna, in this changeset have you check Mapillary view before delete the way 1290401043?
Kaduna (2024-06-21 07:53:07+00:00): Hi phoenixsaigon1698,

Thank you for making the corrections. You are right, I forgot to check the Mapillary, I’ll be more cautious while working in this region.
DressyPear4 (2024-06-15 05:03:19+00:00): Atenção ao deslocar nós de vias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152660978
willkmis (2024-06-14 15:42:10+00:00): Hi again,
Browsing around a little more, it seems like the problem of defunct KFCs still being in AllThePlaces that I pointed out in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152662539 is a general one. I pretty quickly found at least two more that appear to be permanently closed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11980218990 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11980210168. They are both also listed as closed 24/7 on the provided websites, maybe that's something the challenge can check for?

Best,
Will
Omnific (2024-06-14 17:18:31+00:00): Thanks for the heads-up. Hopefully the user leading this effort is aware of the issues.
willkmis (2024-06-14 19:41:49+00:00): I'll try raising the issue on OSMUS Slack, I think I've seen folks there post about this effort.

Will
simon_geovelo (2025-03-18 15:54:03+00:00): Bonjour,
Vous semblez avoir transformé des routes ouvertes aux automobiliste en piste cyclable. Ont-elles été interdites aux véhicules à moteur récemment ?
Cordialement
Simon
RP Carto (2025-03-19 14:09:20+00:00): Bonjour,
Ce groupe de modification porte sur :
- la fermeture à la circulation motorisée d'une portion de voie cyclable partagée et création de 2 barrières (côte d'Agleous)
- ajout de pistes cyclables non référencées et séparées (rue de la méditerranée, passage sous D618)
Bonne journée
Romain
simon_geovelo (2025-03-20 08:03:17+00:00): L'avenue de la mer, Cami de les trompetes et traverse du mas santraille sont des pistes cyclables maintenant ? Comment les gens accèdent aux habitation ?
TrickyFoxy (2024-06-15 09:48:58+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/152713506
VictorIE (2024-06-14 14:06:17+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1292289796

Wind turbines are usually drawn as a node.
VictorIE (2024-06-15 01:46:27+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1292289811

About 20 buildings seem to be double-mapped - possibly an error when you were saving
Luz R Finley (2024-06-14 15:02:23+00:00): Der Weg 1076688175 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1076688175) überschneidet den Weg 1078147752 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1078147752)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152662103
Luz R Finley (2024-06-14 15:39:09+00:00): This might need some improvement
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152662103
Algenib (2024-06-14 16:04:48+00:00): Habe ich in dem hochgeladenen Ausschnitt nicht bemerkt. Kann ich korrigieren.
Algenib (2024-06-14 16:27:55+00:00): Ziemliches Chaos an der Stelle
Algenib (2024-06-14 16:29:35+00:00): Didn't recognize when uploading this area. Seems an utter mess.
rskedgell (2024-07-24 10:43:44+00:00): There was no legitimate reason to delete the access road to the school car park. Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154343591
willkmis (2024-06-14 15:33:04+00:00): Hi, thanks for doing this import, it seems like it's mostly adding good data to the map. However, in my local area I noticed a couple of errors in these data:
-This KFC doesn't exist: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11980259978. It was torn down in 2018 according to streetlevel imagery, and something else (a Starbucks) was built in its place. Weirdly, in the website you appear to be scraping from, it shows the opening hours as closed 24/7: https://locations.kfc.com/ca/los-angeles/3061-sawtelle-blvd.
-This Panda Express is in the wrong place: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11980259979. It looks like the website is referring to this already-mapped one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/441936006, but for some reason you've placed it directly on top of the Culver City place=town node. Maybe an issue with the geolocator you/ATP is using? I notice someone else added a note to the existing one that they couldn't find it in ATP. In any case, there's certainly no Panda Express in the middle of the road next to Culver City Hall, nowhere near its street address.

Hopefully these edge cases can help you/the challenge designers better identify more false positives in your data.

Will
Omnific (2024-06-14 17:15:45+00:00): Fixed!
willkmis (2024-06-14 19:42:27+00:00): Great, thanks for fixing these so fast!
NorthCrab_upload (2024-06-14 07:20:13+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera nadmiarowe informacje. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Paczkomat nie powinien mieć nazwy. Nazwa nadawana jest automatycznie, na podstawie wartości brand. Opcjonalnie, numer identyfikacyjny może być przekazany w polu ref.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1292292414

Dokumentacja paczkomatów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:amenity%3Dparcel_locker

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NehaReddy17 (2024-06-21 13:16:48+00:00): #swechaap#kluniversity#klglug
eggie (2024-06-14 08:00:05+00:00): Hoi..
Wellicht nog het winkelnummer verwijderen?
Gr eggie
Guuskeee (2024-06-14 08:04:40+00:00): Wist ik niet, dank je eggie, winkelnummer is verwijderd.
skyper (2024-06-15 11:33:43+00:00): Hallo Seebruecke,
herzlich willkommen bei OSM.
Ich habe ein paar Fragen und Anmerkungen zu Deinen Änderungen:
1. Haben die Gebäude wirklich Namen? Für mich sieht das eher nach Beschreibungen aus, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:name#Verwendung
2. Gebäude können detaillierter Informationen erhalten durch einen genaueren Wert für `building` (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:building#Gebäudetypen), z.B. "shed" für Schuppen, und die eigentlich Nutzung in `building:use=*` (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:building:use).
3. Danke für den ausführlichen Änderungssatzkommentar. Allerdings fehlt da die Information, dass Du die Anlegestelle (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2153884/history) gelöscht hast. Gibt es die nicht mehr oder war das ein Versehen?

Viele Grüße und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen,
skyper
Seebruecke (2024-06-17 05:52:49+00:00): Hallo Skyper,
1.+2.: Ja, eine beschriebung trifft es eher. Danke für die Infos.
3. Das Fischhaltebecken bzw. den Angelsteg gibt es seit ca. 10 Jahren nicht mehr.
Viele Grüße
Chris
skyper (2024-06-18 15:16:36+00:00): Hi Chris,
danke für die schnelle Antwort + Verbesserung.
Als Tipp noch: Sinnvolle Beschreibungen kannst Du gerne anstatt in `name=*` in `description=*` erfassen.

Viele Grüße,
skyper
akimapbuilder (2024-06-14 10:45:58+00:00): Try to match building geometry from satellite imagery.  Thanks!
太平枇杷 (2024-07-04 03:45:30+00:00): 成功東路42巷為住宅區道路，非家樂福停車場之通道，屬於獨立道路，請參照衛星影象和國土測繪中心，或是實際到現地查看
iigmir (2024-07-06 12:56:53+00:00): Note 4207627 ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4207627 ) 在那段路寫上家樂福停車場之通道。 當時檢查衛星影像時，由於中間不是太清楚，末尾那段障礙的阻礙，在判定上本人認為是停車場入口的閘門。這是當時那麼畫的原因。

不過看了你的意見後，本人去場勘，確實和衛星圖不一樣－－成功東路42巷為東段被封起來不讓人進，所以無法那邊驗證；但從家樂福端看，那邊有汽車明顯無法克服的高低差。確實難以當成出入口。

總之感謝協助。
eggie (2024-06-14 11:38:18+00:00): Tip Guuskee... bicycle=no hoef je niet toe te voegen. Dat is default op een wandelpad.
MVG
eggie
Guuskeee (2024-06-14 11:40:35+00:00): Oke, bedankt voor de tip!
TrickyFoxy (2024-06-15 09:49:31+00:00): Please use for tests https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/
andrewsuzuki (2024-07-31 16:55:03+00:00): Why are you changing highway=residential to highway=unclassified (for example, way 659232442). Also why are you changing asphalt to paved?
Richard (2024-07-31 17:28:51+00:00): Hi! Many apologies for any asphalt to paved change - I try to avoid that, but apologies if one has slipped through and I'll double-check this particular changeset to put it back.

highway=unclassified is generally used in OSM for minor roads of a principally rural nature, whereas =residential is intended for residential roads in built-up areas. 

There is (famously) a long-standing issue in the US in that the TIGER import of 2007/08 brought in all A41 class roads as =residential, largely as a placeholder for future use. The TIGER import was famously problematic and fixing its many issues is a long-term project, to put it mildly. (As documented on the OSM wiki: "The large scale TIGER data input of United States street data overused the highway=residential tag. A significant proportion of these roads could be tagged as highway=unclassified or highway=tertiary under the guideline mentioned above.")

Something like the example you give, or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17166426 for another one, is much more akin to highway=unclassified in standard OSM usage than =residential.
Richard (2024-07-31 17:34:52+00:00): > apologies if one has slipped through and I'll double-check this particular changeset to put it back 

Fixed: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/659232442/history
andrewsuzuki (2024-07-31 18:07:39+00:00): I see. There are specific guidelines for Connecticut, although I don't necessarily agree with them:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Connecticut/Highway_classification
Previously I was going by the wiki page for highway=unclassified:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
which says "Residential roads, primarily for access to properties, should be tagged highway=residential instead". Obviously the road has a number of residences along it, although it's hard to say whether it's primarily used by residents or through traffic. I think the Connecticut default has been to tag/leave them as highway=residential. Minor roads without residences are quite rare here (unlike the UK), although at the same time they aren't exactly dense and suburban, so I see your point.
Leo Slager (2024-06-19 11:23:17+00:00): Dag Mattijncr,
Bij de openingstijden is een syntaxfout opgetreden:
Als scheidingsteken moet een ; worden gebruikt.
Je kunt ook gebruikmaken van dit hulpmiddel:
https://projets.pavie.info/yohours/?oh=Mo%2013:00-20:00;%20Tu-Fr%2010:00-18:00;%20Sa%2010:00-16:00
De tekst in het bovenste vak kun je zo kopieren naar OSM.
Luz R Finley (2024-06-14 15:38:00+00:00): looks good to me 👍 --- changeset reviewed as GOOD
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152665708
Luz R Finley (2024-06-14 15:37:02+00:00): looks good to me
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152665781
eggie (2024-06-14 11:29:23+00:00): Dag bu11,

Opnieuw Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback   Eigenlijk nooit naar de daken kijken. Het zijn schuingenomen luchtfoto's. 
Het lijkt dan verkeerd, maar het is juist goed. 
MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-06-14 11:49:37+00:00): Nieuwbouw kun je laten importeren via een verzoek op het forum van OSM in het draadje BAG importverzoeken.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/nl/43
bu11frog (2024-06-14 12:33:42+00:00): Thx voor de feedback!
silversurfer83 (2024-06-14 22:21:48+00:00): Moin

wenn du das laut Hinweis änderst, wäre es gut, wenn du auch "traffic_sign" und "higway" anpasst.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/152666364
Mxdanger (2024-06-14 09:06:37+00:00): Project information: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Orange_County,_California/OCTA
eggie (2024-06-14 11:10:10+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 (2024-06-14 14:27:34+00:00): Feedback   Lijkt me oke zo.. Evt denomination toevoegen..
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:denomination#Islamic_denominations

MVG
eggie
ManuelB701 (2024-06-28 06:54:49+00:00): Also, jetzt muss ich da wirklich eingreifen, da ich gerade gesehen habe, dass eure Qualität nicht wirklich gut sind und u.a. sich dem Wiki (also der Hauptanleitung) sich widersprechen bzw. Qualitätswerkzeugen wie Osmose Fehler von sich werfen:
- Nutzung von veralteten Parken-Tags ("parking:lane:*" und "parking:conditional:*" anstelle von "parking:*" bzw. "parking:restriction:*")
- Aufteilen von Straßen, die von Datenentwerter selber ausgewertet können (alternativ die Parkplätze selber zeichnen und "parking:*=separate" verwenden).
- Übereinanderliegende Straßen nur fürs Parkplatz-Tagging verwendet waren (die Rathhausstraße war dabei hier extrem, da dort eine Linie parallel gezeichnet war).
- Merkwürdiges Tagging für die Parkplätze Am Schlosspark

Auch wenn es gut gemeint ist, habe ich mir auch überlegt, mich bei der DWG zu melden, falls eure Änderungen in den Qualitäten sich nicht bessert bzw. (was ich nicht hoffe) falls ich das Parken hier jemals aufräume, die Änderungen einfach (d.h. ohne Rückmeldung) zurücksetzt.
eggie (2024-06-14 11:18:05+00:00): Dag Bartem   Svp geen BAG adres gegevens verwijderen.
Gebouwomtrekken krijgen niet nogmaals het adres.
Ik heb wat aangepast
BartemX (2024-06-14 11:41:07+00:00): Hoi, bij welk gebouw is dit gebeurt? Ik heb dat namelijk helemaal niet door gehad.