piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
b-jazz (2025-05-22 15:03:54+00:00): >our community is just as massive as yours

That's just patently untrue. I don't think you fully understand the scale of OpenStreetMap. But the size of our communities isn't the issue, so let's set that aside.

>no one has ever told me why lollipopping is bad

1. It's topologically incorrect. Maybe start by reading up on the mathematical concept of Topology. Start with https://a.co/d/0MCqej0.
2. It doesn't accurately describe what is on the ground. It is often some arbitrary stem that meanders from the fairway to the inner feature it is describing, but that path doesn't "map what's on the ground",  a fundamental concept in OSM.
3. The gap that defines the stem of the lollipop is randomly wide and there are blades of grass in that area that are wrongly excluded from the definition of "fairway".
4. Just because it doesn't "break" OSM, doesn't mean it is wrong. I could define a road, but every single segment of the road is a new way so a curve would be made up of dozens of new ways. It wouldn't break OSM, but it isn't correct.
5. I could go on, but it seems like an argument meant to distract from the main point that rules and best practices exist and need to be followed.

Leniency breeds laziness. Things don't get fixed if they are allowed to lay fallow. Bad habits have been allowed to propagate for years now and it has created a MASSIVE amount of needed cleanup. We can't let these go any longer or we'll never get to a good state. When Alice is allowed to create bad data, Bob looks it and thinks, "oh, that's how you map that situation". And now we have twice as much to clean up than if we nipped it in the bud when Alice first made the error.

The terms of service don't specify how to map. You'll find that in the wiki pages.
b-jazz (2025-05-22 15:04:44+00:00): And... thank you for engaging with us and asking question and trying to understand the issues. It's appreciated.
RDreher (2025-05-22 17:03:54+00:00): I made these changes before I realized what the current community practice is, and although I find this practice incredibly hamfisted and meaningless, until the community can agree on a new, more meaningful and universally understandable set of terms to use with place=*, I concede that some of these changes perhaps should be reversed.

However, I will stand by certain ones even with the current broken OSM definitions. For example, the Rensselaer is a very small area, so it's total population might look the size of a "town," the central core of Rensselaer is just as dense and urban as Albany just across the river. In terms of "human geography" it is really just a part of Albany's urban landscape, and Albany's only train station is in fact in Rensselaer. Besides the fact that Resselaer is chartered as a "city" and is thought of by us locals as a city, it's clearly an urban environment as much as Albany is. If New York was like Europe or Japan, Rensselaer would be a part of Albany, but we just don't organize our communities that way. Rensselaer is a small slice of "city," not a "town" in the slightest.
map per (2025-06-06 15:47:33+00:00): Hallo 14c3,

warum hast du hier eingetragen, dass es keine Radwege gibt? Dort ist doch ein separat eingezeichneter Radweg westlich neben der Straße.

Danke und viele Grüße
map per
14c3 (2025-06-06 19:43:58+00:00): Hi map per,

ich verstehe die frage im Street Complete so: hat die straße einen radweg? 
Die Straße hat keinen Radweg (der Radweg ist nämlich seperat bereits in der Karte und auch in der Realität ein eigener Streifen Teer neben der Straße. Hat also streng genommen nichts mit der Straße zu tun.
Oder liege ich da in der Interpretation falsch?

Danke und Grüße,

14c3
map per (2025-06-07 10:49:16+00:00): Ne, die Situation hier vor Ort fällt in die Kategorie "Radweg, aber separat auf der Karte eingezeichnet" auf der einen und kein Radweg auf der anderen Straßenseite.

Das ist ähnlich wie bei den Bürgersteigen in der Plinganserstraße (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164350430)
Kovoschiz (2025-05-20 15:53:45+00:00): Please don't delete addresses. They should be kept.
jimcullen (2025-05-20 05:03:17+00:00): The details I changed here, as I intended to change them, are definitely correct. What I'm unsure about is if I've formatted it correctly in the OSM system.
gormur (2025-06-01 21:00:39+00:00): Men det er vel bare ét av løpene som skal bygges nå i første byggetrinn?
https://www.vegvesen.no/vegprosjekter/europaveg/e134vagsliseljestad/
Gazer75 (2025-06-03 00:45:17+00:00): Var ikkje tydeleg kva løp i så fall. Alle planar visar to. Blir uansett oppdatert når anlegget dukkar opp i NVDB.
BaboucheVerte (2026-05-14 17:22:08+00:00): la D42 est-elle réellement fermée ? cf https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5292212
Langlaeufer (2025-05-20 09:05:17+00:00): Hallo,
willkommen bei OSM. Danke das du/ihrdie Karte verbessern wollt.
Bzgl. access
du hast auf dem weg bicycle, foot, horse, und motor_vehicle=yes eingetragen. bei diesen Werten geht es um den rechtlich zugelassenen Verkehr.
Der allgemeine Zugang sollte durch den Straßentyp gegeben sein.  Nur Explizit beschilderte Ausnahmen werden dann noch eingetragen. 

Was ist das für ein Weg? Wer darf da fahren? Ist das ein eine öffentliche Straße/Weg, ein Waldweg (Zufahrt nach Landeswaldgesetz beschränkt) oder ist es die Zufahrt zum Campingplatz? Gibt es eine Beschilderung wer dort Fahren darf?

Zufahrt highway=service
Wald/Feldweg highway=track 
Fußgänger und Radfahrer und Reiter wären auf beide Wegen generell erlaubt und müssten nicht explizit mit yes genannt wreden. Kfz wären auf Waldwegen nur eingeschränkt erlaubt (motor_vehicle=privat/agricultural/forestry)

siehe auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:access

Ich bin dir gerne behilflich.
Grüße Langläufer
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166505750
Langlaeufer (2025-05-20 09:10:11+00:00): Das Problem, so wir das jetzt eingetragen ist darf jeder jederzeit diesen Weg mit jeder Art von Verkehrsmittel (Kfz, LKW) benutzen. Die Wegart (grade4, grass) ist allerdings wenig einladen.
Darf denn jeder jederzeit den Campingplatz queren?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166505750
citrula (2025-05-20 06:07:05+00:00): In general, OSM does not import individual plots like this. See this warning on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dplot

If you could explain what you are trying to accomplish, maybe I could help you find a better way to do it?
Ribar (2025-05-20 13:27:57+00:00): Thanks for your attention and construction comments.
As you can see, I am not proficient in editing OSM.

It would be best if I could display it based on a land division drawing:
1. The house numbers of the parcels
2.
3. Also the boundaries of the parcels

Here the first two items are fulfilled:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=4025+151st+street%2c+lubbock&zoom=10&mlon=20.050048828125004 & minlat = 46.2596448766666549 & maxlon = 22.467041015625004 & maxlat = 47.04205386721612#map = 19/33.457963/-101.898609

But it would be with the real boundaries (as I tried):

https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=4025+151st+street%2c+lubbock&zoom=10&mlon=20.050048828125004 & minlat = 46.259644876666549 & maxlon = 22.467041015625004 & maxlat = 47.04205386721612#map = 19/33.458578/-101.902058

Thank you in advance for all your help.
Ribar (2025-05-20 13:32:33+00:00): How does the unit number get under the house number because it does not subdue it for shorter house number, but continuously?
citrula (2025-05-20 18:29:53+00:00): You could try https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/ (web based) or qgis (desktop app) for adding the parcels on top of OSM data. I'm not sure what you mean by your second question.
Ribar (2025-05-21 00:14:55+00:00): Thank you, I also look at this option that you recommend.
Sorry for my English.
The question is, how can I get to the label of the UNIT number in a new line under the label of the house number?
citrula (2025-05-21 17:55:02+00:00): The location of the unit number is not possible to control. In some cases it may go on the next line because there is not enough room to render them side by side. A question, though - are these really unit numbers, or are they just lot numbers that the developer assigned? Unit numbers are part of the official address.
Ribar (2025-05-21 19:28:30+00:00): Yes these are the unit numbers used in the parcel allocation. They appear on the plat drawing and there is nothing in this area to help the plot in nature.
NeisReview (2025-05-22 06:35:18+00:00): #DataImport

Hi, welcome to OSM!

With this changeset, you've added a significant number of features that appear to share similarities in their tags. Could you please let us know more about the source of your mapping activity? Is this a data import?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thanks!
ine63 (2025-05-23 00:09:11+00:00): Hi! thank u for your message. 
The data in this changeset was mapped based on publicly available information provided by the Seoul Open Data Plaza.(https://data.seoul.go.kr/)
Please feel free to reach out again if you have any further questions. Thank you.
NeisReview (2025-05-23 05:34:47+00:00): Thanks for your response. I think it would be helpful if the data source were mentioned in the changeset. Is the data's license compatible with OSM?
monotar (2025-05-22 15:54:01+00:00): bist du sicher, dass es komplett gesperrt ist? Selbst im Bild des Artikels steht jemand auf der Brücke und auf https://www.list.smwa.sachsen.de/sperr-app-bis/Bis/ steht, dass es nur den Fahrverkehr betrifft.
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:07:08+00:00): Hallo,
an fast gleicher Stelle sind hier jetzt vier Wasserentnahmestellen eingetragen.
(Fast) richtig ist hier nur www.openstreetmap.org/node/9125012004
Dort das fire_hydrant:type=pillar gegen fire_hydrant:type=pipe ersetzen, die anderen drei löschen, dann passt es.
Bei Fragen bitte melden.
Viele Grüße
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:08:49+00:00): Hallo,
hier wäre suction_point nur richtig, wenn es sich um einen offenen Brunnen handelt, aus dem mittels Saugkorb angesaugt wird.
Und auch hier: bitte den Namen entfernen.
Viele Grüße
martien-176 (2025-05-25 18:51:25+00:00): Hi,  thanks for mapping. You requested a review of your mappings. 

Buildings mappings look okay. One request: always add a changeset comment about what you did.

Thanks and regards, Martien, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166507191
Fizzie-DWG (2025-05-30 05:28:28+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166952470
AkshatPal (2025-06-07 04:33:49+00:00): bro please do not overlap the already existing structure , Loco Shed already exist on the map you could have just put a name over that
gscholz (2025-05-25 08:25:03+00:00): Hi OMA48,
this changeset has created an error in OSM regarding overlapping ways (blue marker):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=3.26716&lat=44.25888&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=166507752

As you may know, this kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps. Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
OMA48 (2025-05-29 17:00:36+00:00): Je viens d’apporter des modifications, le problème est il résolu ?
gscholz (2025-05-31 05:18:52+00:00): Hi OMA48, 
yes, meanwhile I have fixed this error myself.
Guido
citrula (2025-05-20 18:45:35+00:00): you deleted some pretty big buildings in this changeset.
zstadler (2025-05-20 13:06:04+00:00): Please note that the HOTOSM project "Galilee, Israel: Mapping Buildings (Shefaram)" is #hotosm-project-19740
located at https://tasks.hotosm.org/projects/19740 and not #hotosm-project-19839 that was used to launch this edit.

#hotosm-project-19839 is "Galilee, Israel: Updating Land Use (Shefaram)"
Fizzie-DWG (2025-06-04 01:15:13+00:00): DWG revert - poor quality mapping from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167156749
Taya_S (2025-05-22 12:24:34+00:00): Removed SEO spam

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166610878
vlakos555 (2025-05-20 07:33:49+00:00): skúšam funkčnosť JOSM po preinštalovaní. Bod potom odstránim.
Taya_S (2025-05-22 12:24:26+00:00): Removed SEO spam

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166610873
NorthCrab_upload (2025-05-20 07:30:51+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1387998292

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Taya_S (2025-05-22 12:24:11+00:00): Removed SEO spam

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166610853
chris66 (2025-06-04 06:50:23+00:00): Siehe Note:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4788940

wirklich eine Baustelle?
NorthCrab_upload (2025-05-20 08:11:15+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.

"Lednica Górna":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12850436957
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12850436959
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12850436960

"Lednica órna":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12850436958

"Wieliczka":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12850436961

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Johnwhelan (2025-05-21 15:48:42+00:00): You've deleted an untagged way that appears to be a stream?
ENGELBERT MODO (2025-05-22 11:57:07+00:00): Yes   because you  didn't see   the relation with another stream beside this objects. but you wil have waterways mappings and this stream will be map again completly
Johnwhelan (2025-05-22 14:12:16+00:00): By whom?

Traditionally it is better to tag untag ways rather than delete them.  <crtl>h in JOSM will give you the history of the asset.  I note you have deleted a untagged path as well.
ENGELBERT MODO (2025-05-22 17:31:42+00:00): Thanks for advice.
gdt (2025-05-23 10:58:29+00:00): I think this should be reverted, and a fixme="probably stream; needs field checking" tag, or some such added.  It seems 99% likely that someone was intending to add a stream and made an error.

Why do you think it is ok to just delete, rather than comment on the original changeset and ask?   The point of OSM is to work together to improve the map database (and the surrounding infrastructure), and just deleting doesn't really fit that.
Taya_S (2025-05-22 12:23:24+00:00): Removed SEO spam

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166610817
mardiz (2025-05-25 20:01:07+00:00): Heißt das Gebäude wirklich "Rosengasse"? Oder hieß das Restaurant so? Dann > old_name
Arminus (2025-05-28 06:41:00+00:00): m.e. ja: https://rosengasse.bayern/
mardiz (2025-05-28 10:03:31+00:00): Sollte dann das Gebäude nicht als Hotel o.ä. getaggt werden?
Arminus (2025-05-28 10:19:30+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166868437
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:09:32+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:09:42+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:09:49+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:09:57+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:10:04+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:10:17+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:10:24+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:10:29+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:10:37+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:10:44+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:10:52+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:11:00+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:11:18+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
rempshaener (2025-05-22 18:11:31+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166609461
Rodrigo Rega (2025-05-25 14:32:45+00:00): Hola,

¿Podrías explicar la razón para haber añadido "sport=cycling"?

Un saludo.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166511751
Rodrigo Rega (2025-05-25 14:35:34+00:00): Hola de nuevo,

Acabo de ver que esa etiqueta se puede aplicar a otros elementos que no sean vías, así que ya he aclarado la duda.

Gracias por tus aportes a OSM. Un saludo.
Sattine (2025-05-25 17:59:14+00:00): Según Google, es la manera de indicar una cafetería o bar donde loa ciclistas son bienvenidos y paran habitualmente. Ai hay otra manera mejor, por favor indícamela y la hago
Rodrigo Rega (2025-05-30 22:32:04+00:00): Buenas,

Supongo que se te escaparía ver mi segundo comentario. Está todo ok, fue problema de mi lado, que no conocía todos los usos de la etiqueta.

Un saludo.
VictorIE (2025-05-20 20:16:06+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1388183555

Is this Toorlestraun GAA?
EM_OSM (2025-05-20 21:01:01+00:00): Yes it is.
Branko Kokanovic (2025-05-21 09:09:28+00:00): U rgz-u je bez crtice. Jel ima neka tabla gde vidiš crticu? Ni po pravopisu nema crtice, ja bih rekao (mada Bračko to zna bolje)?
Aleksandar Matejevic (2025-05-21 09:26:22+00:00): Службени лист општине Алексинац (http://aleksinac.org/index.php/euprava-2/registar-propisa-2?task=callelement&format=raw&item_id=1475&element=f85c494b-2b32-4109-b8c1-083cca2b7db6&method=download&args[0]=0c97f837a4a68c1c116240a6a37e2c60)

Страна 233 (у пдф је 200) за насеље Мозгово, под 11. стоји
11. Улица Јована Митића-Ђорђа,матични број 701165010126
Branko Kokanovic (2025-05-21 10:12:59+00:00): Sad cu da izmenim u https://dina.openstreetmap.rs/ar/street_mapping.html da ima crticu. Pa ce report onda da fleguje i adrese da treba da se menjaju, pa cu i to da sredim
Aleksandar Matejevic (2025-05-21 10:36:30+00:00): Ali da znaš, nije to jedina ulica sa tim problemom, dosta ih ima u Aleksincu koje imaju zvanično crticu, ali nisu u RGZ upisani sa crticom. Ako hoćeš mogu da ih sve sredim, zajedno sa adresama, i da ti pošaljem koje su pa da ih ubaciš u dina, samo mi treba par dana, malo sam u gužvi
Aleksandar Matejevic (2025-05-21 10:37:38+00:00): ili, možda bolja solucija, da ispravim da name bude bez crtice, a da svima dodam official_name sa crticom, mislim da tako imamo manje posla?
Branko Kokanovic (2025-05-21 12:18:59+00:00): ako se ime iz "name" taga i DINA-e ne slaze - bice flegovane, pa ja svakako hocu da u DINI imamo dobro ime. Sto se mene tice, samo nabroj ovde ulice i reci gde da cross-checkujem (jel ovaj sluzbeni list isto?), i prebacicu ja i u DINI, pa posle naknadno moze i u adresama i u ulicama
Branko Kokanovic (2025-05-24 21:57:12+00:00): Ispravio sam ovo (sve kucne brojeve i u DINI). Na kraju se ispostavilo da je greska kod mene u mapiranju, a ne u RGZ-u. RGZ je ispravno imao crticu, ali je u nasem mapiranju nije bilo (izbacena je verovatno jer nije bilo po pravopisu ili ne znam kako, ali covek je to uradio), pa je DINA mislila da je pravilno bez crtice. Evo ispravke da vidis kako izgleda iznutra to:

https://gitlab.com/osm-serbia/adresniregistar/-/commit/c9752bc44f617dda7e4c708a7496caaf654d80be
WendyFrison (2025-05-20 08:44:20+00:00): Correct! Dankjewel
literan (2025-05-20 20:03:36+00:00): на свежих снимках тут нет никакого здания. Пожалуйста, не используйте снимки Бинг, они очень старые. Используйте Esri
Marek-M (2026-02-04 20:14:59+00:00): Rollback of an incorrect edit in which, among other things, power lines were connected to roads and existing roads were removed.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178110522
SafwatHalaby (2025-05-20 18:14:10+00:00): שלום, אתם ממשיך להוסיף מספרים למפה הציבורית למרות שביקשנו שתפסיקו. אם המצב ימשך יתכן שהחשבון שלכם יחסם.

דיון כאן:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157482706
NorthCrab_upload (2025-05-20 09:11:04+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/769091676

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
bartgron (2025-05-20 18:13:55+00:00): Poprawiłem ten adres
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-10-10 01:38:24+00:00): Nothing fixed. just moved a node slightly
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/166513565
aharvey (2025-05-21 04:50:59+00:00): Sorry I don't agree with this change. The Wildlife Protection Area should be tagged as a protected_area with a protect_class based on the protection of native wildlife. While yes the tag should be used an an area, in this case the node is a placeholder until we can identify and map the exact bounds. It's well established that it's okay to place a node first to at least give a rough location until the precise bounds are added.
aharvey (2025-05-21 05:17:06+00:00): I've converted it to an area covering the bushland as an initial estimate with a fixme note. I see protect_class=4 is more for IUCN so I've changed it to 7
aharvey (2025-05-21 05:29:10+00:00): Hmm all the other Wildlife Protection Area's in OSM in NSW use protect_class=4 and that seems to align with other countries per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:protect_class although I understand these aren't IUCN assigned, so based on that could be protect_class=7. I don't mind either way so long as they have protection_title set, but maybe we should still use 4 to align globally despite the lack of IUCN?
TheSwavu (2025-05-22 08:37:59+00:00): No. The IUCN categories are a statement of intent from the owner of the reserve. This reserve does not have a published IUCN category.
aharvey (2025-05-22 23:41:53+00:00): Ok, so I guess it comes down to if protect_class is meant to be strictly applying based on IUCN category, or if it's just for IUCN-like categories that can apply even without a published IUCN.

A bit like if sac_scale applies only where we have an "official" SAC scale, or can it apply based on sac_scale like values, or if mtb:scale:imba only applies based an IMBA scale. In the latter two it's widespread to apply them without an assigned category or scale by choosing the "like" category.

I'm tempted to say protect_class should be the same, in that you can use 1-4 even without an IUCN and instead use iucn_level as being only for those officially assigned.

I'm not too fussed either way though, for me the protection_title is sufficient, but it would still be nice to have a globally consisnent way to say this areas is for wildlife/fauna protection, ie. "Habitat/Species Management Area" ie. protect_class=4.

Do you think we should then change all Wildlife Protection Area's to protect_class=7 given they are all 4 currently?
Bienson (2025-05-20 19:02:40+00:00): Hallo,

Das sind keine Einfamilienhäuser mit der selben Adresse, sondern Gebäudeteile. Bitte eine Fehlermeldung erstellen, wenn StreetComplete nach Gebäuden fragt, die eigentlich nur Gebäudeteile sind.

In Dortmund sind alle Adressen bereits eingetragen. Wenn StreetComplete nach der Adresse fragt und es kein Neubau der letzten Jahre ist, stimmt irgendwas nicht.