piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Dino Michelini (2026-02-10 08:04:11+00:00): Buongiorno nelson906 nel mappare il campo da golf a Monterosi vedo che hai inserito per hole anche il name. Secondo la wiki di OSM il name si inserisce solo quanto esiste un nome non per farlo comparire nel rendering della mappa. Infatti, per hole si scrive “The tag ref=* would be used to describe hole numbers while the tag name=* would be used for the name of each hole. If a hole does not have an actual name, ref=* is sufficient.” (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:golf=hole?uselang=it). Quindi, il tag name che hai messo per tutte le buche (name=Hole + ref) non è corretto e deve essere cancellato. Per il futuro, prima di mappare in OSM ti consiglio di consultare sempre la wiki relativa ai tag che inserirai di modo da catalogare correttamente le geometrie che disegnerai in OSM.
nelson906 (2026-02-10 09:05:03+00:00): Grazie, sinceramente. Apprezzo molto il suggerimento. L'uso del nome non è proibito e a mio parere aiuta nella lettura. In campi come Monterosi esiste un problema di fondo laddove il percorso presenta più di 9-18 buche. Il ref da solo crea confusione a meno di non seguire una numerazione sequenziale oltre il 18 ed il nome aiuta a capire il percorso. Non ho letto il wiki ma ho visto tutti i campi di Roma e dintorni che riportano (vedi Olgiata) i nomi dei percorsi. Grazie comunque dell'osservazione e mi metterò a studiare il wiki.
nelson906 (2026-02-11 16:22:27+00:00): Sono un po' perplesso. Il riferimento punta a Castelgandolo. Terre dei Consoli presenta già il nome delle buche e non risulta aggiornato da 5 anni. Mi puoi aiutare a capire? Grazie
Dino Michelini (2026-02-16 08:14:08+00:00): Non conosco la zona ma da ricerche su internet risulta un campo da golf https://terredeiconsoligolfclub.it/ a Monterosi ma non a Castel Gandolfo; il campo da golf a Castel Gandolfo è https://www.golfclubcastelgandolfo.it/.
Andrei a correggere i rispettivi name togliendo dal tag “name” la località (peraltro scritta male) e lasciando solo il nome del camp da golf che compaiono sui rispettivi siti internet mappando secondo quanto riportato in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course. Mentre l’indicazione della località si fa tramite il tag specifico addr:city (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:city)
Name=Country Club Castelgandolfo
addr:city=Castel Gandolfo
..
Name=Terre dei Consoli Golf club
addr:city=Monterosi
..
nelson906 (2026-02-16 08:56:22+00:00): Mi perdoni ma Monterosi l'ha nominato Lei. poi mi ha inviato il riferimento di Castelgandolfo. A Monterosi è presente il Terre dei Consoli Golf Club con un percorso Championship ed un percorso Family. Il nome non l'ho inserito io.
Castelgandolfo si chiama Country Club Castelgandolfo anche se cho l'ha registrato ha inserito Castelgandolfo Golf Club resort (il resort è chiuso da oltre vent'anni e non ha mai avuto niente a che fare con con la ASD Country Club Castelgandolfo che gestisce il campo). Francamente fatico a capire il suo punto e cosa mi stia chiedendo. Il name è presente in quasi tutti i campi attorno a Roma e non vedo quale sia il problema. Ripeto: si legga la sua osservazione iniziale. Lì parla di Monterosi e mi manda il riferimento di Castelgandolfo. Fatico a capire il suo punto e vorrei meglio capire.
rezemika (2026-02-04 19:24:47+00:00): Bonjour, et bienvenue sur OSM !
Effectivement sur les vues aériennes on voit qu'il y a un problème de tracé de la route, cependant l'ancien tracé est toujours là, il est possible de simplement "déformer" la ligne de l'ancien tracé pour la faire correspondre au terrain. Aussi vous pouvez directement ses autres clés si elles sont bonnes (en particulier la route est un "highway=tertiary" et non pas "highway=secondary").
antoinesogefi (2026-02-05 16:35:21+00:00): Merci pour votre retour rapide. Je ne suis pas sur d'avoir saisit votre retour. En particulier, reste-il des actions à mener par mes soins ou la modification est elle en place sur OSM ? 
J'aimerai vous partager le fond Plan IGn V2 de la zone qui contient le bon tracé de roue qui sera sans doute utile à l'échange. mais je ne vois pas comment placer une image dans ce fil de commentaire (vous pouvez peut être le consulter via qgis ou autre?)
Dimitar155 (2026-02-02 17:50:37+00:00): Само че не е сърце и се намира на втория етаж :P
Fraxi (2026-02-02 18:30:16+00:00): Горе е, да. Наистина май не беше сърце. Копирах таговете от https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13169575479
Fraxi (2026-02-02 18:32:28+00:00): Кош беше.... Някак си с тоя тип контейнери не мога бързо да се оправя с телефона...
Warin61 (2026-02-20 23:43:39+00:00): Relation 20165239 ... deleted. 

A RELATION is NOT needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Simply tag the ways.
TeamDELKO (2026-07-01 09:49:37+00:00): Hello,

Why did you delete the DELKO Garage here ? It is still open :D
ThomCJ (2026-07-01 10:30:00+00:00): Bonjour @TeamDELKO !
J'ai sans doute considéré que l'activité était disparue du fait de la démolition de l'ancien bâtiment. Je viens de comprendre que vous vous êtes déplacés dans le nouveau bâtiment voisin, ce que j'ignorais. Pardon pour cette méprise !
TeamDELKO (2026-07-01 11:40:00+00:00): Aucun problème ! Le DELKO est effectivement dans le bâtiment en bas à droite de la zone. Ce serait possible de remettre l'établissement avec tous ses attributs au bon endroit ? Désolé je débute dans OSM
Technischer Thomas (2026-02-02 17:48:30+00:00): Habe mich leider verklickt. 
Die korrekte Hausnummer ist Gotenstraße 7
rezemika (2026-02-04 18:54:00+00:00): Pas de soucis sur ce changeset, c'est tout bon ! :)
Baloo Uriza (2026-02-10 15:18:41+00:00): Be sure to update the source:maxspeed or remove it, too.  The old speed limit values were based on the citywide 25 MPH speed limit when speed limit signs aren't posted according to the source:maxspeed tags.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178016147
NeisBot (2026-02-03 06:15:08+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13354261265 v3

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Kitchen and Bath store"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-11 05:07:17+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178388574
(No visible changes after review)
m_fuhrmann (2026-03-04 12:59:53+00:00): Hi! Ich habe mir diese hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1473669107 exemplarisch angeschaut und frage mich, warum ich mit einer separaten Linie angefangen habe. Vermutlich Unwissenheit. Es gibt ja keine bauliche Trennung hier...
Vielleicht ist das nicht schlimm. Vielleicht nicht. kA
Im Wiki habe ich exaxt die gleiche Situation gefunden. Die machen es anders. Vielleicht kannst du auch noch mal schauen?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_designated_lane_for_bicycles

Also, ich fahre gerne die Einstellung "It's not stupid if it works". Ist also kein Drama für mich, es so oder anders zu lassen. Mir geht es hier nur um einen Sync mit dir.
flex16 (2026-03-04 13:41:01+00:00): Hi, grundsätzlich muss ich sagen, dass ich jetzt auch kein absoluter Experte bin, wenn es um Fahrradrouting im Kreuzungsbereich geht.

ich hatte mir dieses Foto angeschaut und zur Grundlage genommen: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Crossing_junction_Hermannplatz.png

Dies ist aus der Radweg Anleitung des Verkehrswende Meetup: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verkehrswende-Meetup/Radwege

Ich finde das Konzept gut, wenn man seperate Radwege durch eine Kreuzung durchgezogen werden, vgl, das Foto. Dort werden die Radwege ja auch nicht mit dem Hauptway der straße verbunden, sobald sie auf die Fahrbahn geführt werden. Dann hat man ein "saubereres" Routing der Radfahrer finde ich.

Ob ich das Konzept aus dem Foto hier richtig übertragen habe möchte ich nicht behaupten, ich fande es eigentlich ganz nice.

Kannst dir gerne nochmal ein eigenes Bild machen und dich nochmal melden.
flex16 (2026-03-04 13:52:29+00:00): Andererseits sind das aber auch nur kurze Stücke auf dem Foto und das cycleway crossing verläuft nicht mitten durch die Kreuzung. Muss ich vielleicht mal nach nem anderen Beispiel in Berlin schauen oder so.
NeisBot (2026-02-03 06:15:09+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/11128962367 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "coffee shop"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-11 05:07:18+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178388575
(No visible changes after review)
silversurfer83 (2026-02-02 18:55:27+00:00): Hi :)

(fast) identisches Feedback wie beim letzten Turm:

Eigenschaften sind schon gut, historic=yes fehlt mir noch.

Wenn möglich, gerne den Umriss aus den vorhandenen Luftbildern oder Katasterkarten übernehmen.

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178017051
silversurfer83 (2026-02-02 21:21:04+00:00): Hi htere :)

remember, private pools need access=private so people looking for a place to chill don't get misdirected :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178017077
SG86 (2026-02-02 21:36:56+00:00): Thanks for the tip.
SG86 (2026-02-02 21:50:31+00:00): in dieser Nachbarschaft gibt es nichts öffentliches... da wird niemand auf die Idee kommen danach zu suchen :)
silversurfer83 (2026-02-03 05:05:33+00:00): That may be true but that's not the only reason.

Plesse add access=private to all private pools you add and have added to OSM. Thank you
rezemika (2026-02-04 18:52:54+00:00): Bonjour, et bienvenue sur OpenStreetMap ! :)
Je vous fais juste un petit retour sur ce changeset : si vous ne connaissez pas les droits d'accès à une zone, vous pouvez ne pas préciser la clé "access", il n'y a pas besoin de mettre un "unknown" (c'est déjà la valeur supposée par défaut). S'il y a une grosse ambiguité, vous pouvez éventuellement laisser une note cet endroit, ou simplement mettre un commentaire sur la route avec la clé "fixme=<commentaire>" qui attirera l'attention des autres contributeurs du coin au cas où.
HellMap (2026-02-02 17:52:53+00:00): Hey!

Thanks for fixing these.

Don't forget that Bing in Latvia is misaligned by 1-2 meters. Something like -1.1, -0.9  in editor. You would generally compare it with LVM, which should be precise.

By the way, noexit=yes is basically for telling other mappers (and verification tools) that "it's not obvious, but this doesn't connect to anything". For obvious terminating connections (like at a fence) or for places where road turns into a footway or something, there shouldn't be a noexit. It's literally the opposite there - an exit ;)
markalex- (2026-02-03 01:33:30+00:00): Thanks for advice: I sometimes adjust bing, but not always. Will keep this in mind.
With noexit - it seems my assumptions were wrong. Thanks for pointing that out, too
therealzakie (2026-02-02 17:39:17+00:00): Forgot to mention, I edited a tag at 54.633701, -6.084999
Mashin (2026-02-03 16:58:26+00:00): Welcome to OSM and thanks for your edits.
Just to note, general agreement is to label roads as private access only in cases when there is a gate or a No trespassing sign. 
If there is just a private road sign, we add ownership=private and access is set to permissive or yes.

Cheers
NEIL2 (2026-02-18 03:22:40+00:00): Hi Mashin, 
Thanks for the note. I want to clarify one point: OSM does not require a gate or a “No Trespassing” sign for access=private. The wiki explicitly states that legal restriction alone is sufficient.

In Connecticut, condo/HOA roads posted as “Private Road” are private ways with no public right of access. Public use is not affirmatively allowed, so access=permissive would not be accurate here.

ownership=private records ownership, but does not describe access rights. In this case, access is restricted, which is what access=private is intended to capture.
eggie (2026-02-02 19:04:43+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 (2026-02-02 19:08:05+00:00): Feedback  Maar staat hier daadwerkelijkeen bord max snelheid 20km/u? 
Welk bord staat vooraan zodat men weet dat het om een priveweg gaat?

MVG
eggie
Kipje (2026-02-02 20:45:56+00:00): Dank voor het uitgebreide welkomstbericht!

Er staat geen bord max snelheid 20km/u, maar de snelheid van 60 was in mijn ogen niet passend voor dit stuk weg. Vandaar mijn aanpassing, maar wellicht is die dus onterecht.

Er staan meerdere en diverse soorten borden langs dit stukje onverharde weg in beide richtingen. De meest oude is het blauwe bord met witte letters ‘Eigen weg’. Verder zijn er nog borden toegevoegd met ‘geen toegang art 461’ etc. alles om óók wandelaars erop te wijzen dat deze weg alleen bedoeld is voor bestemmingsverkeer (maar wel doorgang moet kunnen zijn voor hulpdiensten)
eggie (2026-02-02 20:52:08+00:00): Oke duidelijk.
Art 461 wvs kun je in dit geval taggen als access=private. Om het te overrulen voor hulpdiensten kun je emergency=yes toevoegen.
De maxspeed kan beter weg.
Mvg
eggie
Kipje (2026-02-02 20:55:53+00:00): Ah kijk zo leer ik nog eens iets, mijn vader tipte me dit maar ik ben hier op openstreetmaps nog niet zo thuis als in deze omgeving. Dank! Ik zal het meteen aanpassen zodat het kloppend is aan de werkelijke situatie, wat handig al die mogelijkheden.
NeisBot (2026-02-03 06:11:54+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 16 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/561386270 v1 | 9 crossings
https://osm.org/way/561386247 v3 | 7 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/5413343489 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=178017617
eggie (2026-02-02 19:16:47+00:00): Dag Kipje,

Maar geldt dit ook voor wandelaars?
Graag reactie,
eggie
Rainero (2026-03-16 21:18:40+00:00): Revert mit changeset/179971652
(unzulässige Quelle)
Rainero (2026-03-16 21:50:40+00:00): Revert mit changeset/179972936
(unzulässige Quelle)
O Fim (2026-07-30 18:00:39+00:00): ola este tipo de ligação com calçadas e inútil visto que não tem continuidade e vira apenas um loop
BritzCanal (2026-07-31 18:29:00+00:00): Hello O Fim, Can you clarify what you mean by lacking continuity or provide some specific OSM feature ids so I can better understand your concerns?

Olá O Fim, poderia esclarecer o que quer dizer com falta de continuidade ou fornecer alguns IDs de recursos específicos do OSM para que eu possa compreender melhor as suas preocupações?
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-07 18:29:12+00:00): https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/6763 - I was not aware about maxweight:signed=no also being migrated
Penegal (2026-03-08 08:25:25+00:00): Yeah… I assumed that `maxweight:*` tags would also be migrated, and thought that it was explicit enough, but it was only implicit; my fault, sorry.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-03-08 14:32:49+00:00): also, I am not saying that it is wrong - but either plan for retagging or StreetComplete needs to be changed, or it will start asking again where maxweight:signed=no will disappear

as someone who would be among people responsible for changing SC code I have bias toward solution where I need to do less work :)
eggie (2026-02-02 19:11:05+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
NeisBot (2026-02-02 18:27:22+00:00): Hi roguetraildeleter, 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:
- 7 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=178019059
roguetraildeleter (2026-02-02 18:30:14+00:00): These deletions are intentional, the paths mapped are illegal and should not be shown publicly.
roguetraildeleter (2026-02-02 20:34:07+00:00): @Neisbot the deletions were intentional, see change notes.
Omnific (2026-02-02 21:17:09+00:00): Unfortunately, that does not mean you can delete them. They are accurate, but should be marked private. I am reverting all of your edits.
eerib (2026-02-02 21:32:13+00:00): Hello all,

There is a wiki page that speaks to OpenStreetMap policy on trail deletions and the rationale of why we keep unsanctioned and/or private trails..

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F

My guess is that these trails are unsanctioned mountain bike trails. If that is the case then it would be appropriate to add the informal=yes tag to indicate that the trail is unsanctioned.

If the land owner has specifically put up signs or another form of communication that these specific trails are not to be used then it would be appropriate to add the access=no tag to indicate that the land owner wants no access of the trail.

Cheers, eerib
roguetraildeleter (2026-02-02 21:32:41+00:00): @Omnific I understand your desire to have these mapped, but this is not safe or ethical. While I know that you can mark them as private in the tags, this information does not transfer to other services such as Strava that use an OSM basemap. This leads to map lines that would appear as open to everyone when not on the OSM website. 

Additionally, trails that are clearly not meant for hiking are being marked passable or even preferable for uphill travel as such which is extremely dangerous. 

As a fellow mountain biker, I hope you can understand some of these areas are better left off maps.
Omnific (2026-02-02 21:39:42+00:00): It is the role of Strava/Trailforks/etc. to police how the trails are displayed on their maps. You should contact them about hiding private/informal trails on their basemaps, but removing them from the global OSM basemap represents a fundament misunderstanding of what OSM is. I encourage you to read the article linked.
bartgron (2026-02-03 16:19:15+00:00): Zestaw zmian został wycofany z powodu rażących błędów.
Pozdrawiam
Baloo Uriza (2026-02-06 22:56:32+00:00): These might actually be administrative boudaries for districts and HOAs.  Definitely looks like there's a lot of non-residential landuse mixed in (like streets, forest, etc).
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178019300
felipeeugenio (2026-02-02 19:21:46+00:00): Hola. Por favor no ingresar nombres que no son reales.

gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178019307
Baloo Uriza (2026-02-06 22:48:58+00:00): Looks like you miscategorized The Salvation Army.  That's not a charity, it's a church.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178019532
NEOK Ground Truth (2026-02-07 15:37:45+00:00): Thank you for pointing that out. I just rechecked the building and updated these details on changeset 178232971.
silversurfer83 (2026-02-02 18:56:20+00:00): Hi

nope. Das ist sicher keine Wiese / Weide. Mach das bitte wieder rückgängig.

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/178019621
NeisBot (2026-02-03 06:15:12+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/10259314342 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Beauty shop"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-11 05:07:19+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178388576
(Restore previous tags)
dknelson9876 (2026-02-03 02:56:11+00:00): Hi cache117,

Please note that naming a drive-through after the restaurant it serves is a case of descriptive naming, which is incorrect mapping (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions). Instead, this could be expressed by adding drive-through=yes to Wendy's and drive-through=no to the other POIs in this building.

Please correct this within 7 days, or I will fix it for you.
user_21812011 (2026-02-02 18:56:09+00:00): I'm very glad to be understood again by the Chinese community. 
I think the local officials will be very pleased to receive me.Follow the established policy!
フーヴァー　リー (2026-02-03 01:46:53+00:00): 在行政单位下，平湖市还是属于嘉兴市，但是嘉善和平湖是同级的。社区讨论下有且只有市辖区使用addr:district，即直辖市城市写在addr:province而addr:city留空而地级市则是addr:city写城市。县城与县级市本身就比区地位高，中文中属于代管也就是除了行政划分在地级市下外（估计是怕太多）直属领导都是省政府。根据社区讨论我在addr:district写上街道是不合适的，在此致歉。但是addr:city写上嘉善县是没有问题的，如有疑问可咨询@DanhengOSM。
NeisBot (2026-02-03 06:15:13+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/302810056 v4

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Shoe store"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-02-11 05:07:19+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/178388578
(No visible changes after review)
eggie (2026-02-02 19:27:52+00:00): Hoi,

De eindnodes van de brug heb ik verbonden met de man_made bridge.

viaduct heb ik verwijderd.
MVG
eggie
bartgron (2026-02-03 16:37:09+00:00): Zestaw zmian został wycofany z powodu rażących błędów.
Pozdrawiam
VictorIE (2026-02-03 11:28:10+00:00): Hi,

Welcome to OSM.

Just be careful to create somewhat concise changesets - this one stretches from Poyntzpass to Tallaght. :)
eggie (2026-02-02 19:20:30+00:00): Dag Aleksandar Lukač ,
Wanneer je water op landuse mapt zie je alles door elkaar. Je kunt dat oplossen middel;s een multi[olygoon. Dan is de landuse de outer en het water de inner in een relatie.
Ik heb dat nu voor je gedaan.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Multipolygon_Examples

MVG
eggie