piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Hufkratzer (2026-07-26 08:52:27+00:00): Hi,
the areas https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1543902668 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1543902665 , https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1543902664 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1543902663 are probably not 4 distinct horse_riding centres ( leisure=horse_riding ), perhaps these areas belong to a horse riding centre which is not mapped yet.

Compare earlier discussion in https://osm.org/changeset/176422929
BholeKiBhasam (2026-07-27 14:09:18+00:00): g'day ..and once again thank you for the feedback...I see there are many such points...horse walker...well this is new for me and will be done
Hufkratzer (2026-07-27 20:38:31+00:00): Not every small area where a horse can walk is a horse walker, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:animal=horse_walker#Difference_to_lunge_pens_and_round_pens
BholeKiBhasam (2026-07-30 03:00:06+00:00): ok..will take note of it
B252697 (2026-07-24 00:36:18+00:00): Official Source from Choa Chu Kang Town Council: https://www.ccktc.org.sg/building-better-for-you-mini-road-safety-park-offers-learning-fun/
mewhenthe (2026-07-24 03:33:08+00:00): Please check your OpenStreetMap inbox. I have left important feedback on your changesets.
JesseFTW (2026-07-24 03:35:44+00:00): Excellent -- thank you so much for adding this!
felipeeugenio (2026-07-24 15:06:56+00:00): Hola.
Por favor mas cuidado con las ediciones.
Los muros internos: varios son murallas y casas pegadas. esos no son rejas

Además si las rejas de cruzan, que queden intersectadas. La mayoría están separadas.

por favor cuidar la calidad del mapa. Voy a intentar corregir algunas cosas, pero varias se tendrán que borrar.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186268635
nerihv (2026-07-24 01:41:49+00:00): movi edificios creados por mi anteriormente usando esri como base(más actual) desplacé bing -5.8, 2.91 y mapbox para verificar las formas 3.88, -0.85
nerihv (2026-07-24 01:42:42+00:00): dibujé tambien dos edificaciones más. Usando esri como base(más actual) desplacé bing -5.8, 2.91 y mapbox para verificar las formas 3.88, -0.85
nerihv (2026-07-24 01:48:20+00:00): -movi edificios creados por mi anteriormente usando esri como base(más actual) no fue necesario desplazar bing y mapbox en este caso.
HT259 (2026-07-24 02:23:10+00:00): Typo, Brainerd, not Brainard, and meant to add sources of aerial photography and local knowledge.
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-24 04:16:31+00:00): I usually include the street names on sidewalks because most navigation software will use this in walking directions (particularly helpful for blind people).
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186269873
worthian (2026-07-24 22:56:05+00:00): Thank you for letting me know, but I'd like to double-check before I make any changes. Is it as simple as putting the street name in the 'name' tag of the sidewalk? (I am using the built-in editor)
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-24 23:20:09+00:00): You might have to split the ways at street corners if the sidewalk goes around a corner or bend, but beyond that, yeah.
Loopslol7 (2026-07-24 03:50:18+00:00): also: adding construction zone.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-24 06:32:37+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Are the added names real?
Дарья Горбенко (2026-07-24 08:37:45+00:00): Yes, our organization is working on this project, and there are speed limits for the equipment operating at the field.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-24 08:46:34+00:00): Thanks for clarifying. 

However, name=* in OSM should contain the actual name of a feature, not a speed value or other technical attribute. The speed-limit signs are already described by traffic_sign=maxspeed and maxspeed=50, so name=50 should be removed from these nodes.
samliedl (2026-07-24 04:11:08+00:00): Penso di aver sbagliato e di dover inserire un punto per segnare la Misericordia più che inserire l'edificio come ho fatto.
Chiedo scusa nel caso e lascio a persone più esperte il correggere, ma mi segno comunque la cosa così da farla notare se passasse in cavalleria.
Gitasaleh Virast (2026-07-24 04:39:07+00:00): سیصد و شصت و چهارمین ویرایش
Xvtn (2026-07-27 15:13:22+00:00): Hello - Just letting you know that another contributor has changed the tagging for this camera to a UDOT traffic camera. Perhaps you guys can work together to confirm its actual nature? It's my understanding that Flock ALPRs have a pretty distinct design.
BenevolentOverlordOverload (2026-07-27 21:05:03+00:00): Yes, these are udot cameras and they have access through the udot app. They are rotating remotely it seems. The direction is changing daily. I would suspect that they are lpr capable as well, there’s no good reason for them to be changing directions other than to track people. 

I am looking for the camera brand information for posting them on the deflock.com website map.
NeisRevert (2026-07-24 06:31:30+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/186276283
Comment: "Remove spam"
NeisRevert (2026-07-24 06:31:46+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/186276294
Comment: "Remove spam"
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-24 13:47:09+00:00): We are unable to use Google as a source but I was able to clean this one up to be consistent with generally accepted tagging standards.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186273701
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-26 19:30:46+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is not allowed on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account; see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Furthermore, use of Google Maps as a source is strictly prohibited by both OSM and Google policies--see https://osm.wiki/Google for more details.

Following a [discussion on the OSM-US Slack](https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCJ2P6KCH/p1784923148850199), we reverted this in changeset 186419254 given this is apparently Google-sourced, could not be verified with other allowed sources and was added by an account that is well-known to be part of a ring of hundreds of SEO spam accounts with over 100 blocks and thousands of negative feedback comments, zero of which were ever answered or meaningfully addressed.

https://osm.org/changeset/186419254
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-26 19:30:59+00:00): @Baloo%20Uriza , I see you voted this changeset as "Good" in OSMCha, which appears it must be a misclick given this is obvious SEO spam of the worst order. Could you fix your review? Thanks!
mavl (2026-07-25 07:04:53+00:00): Здравствуйте. Подскажите, зачем адрес на заборе?
user_5359 (2026-07-25 12:20:02+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537399393 (one of three objects). What is the mean of the tags
BJECTID = 867346
areasqkm = 0.002
fcode = 39004
fcode_description = Lake/Pond: Hydrographic Category = Perennial
fdate = 2003-08-12
ftype = 390
permanent_identifier = 95334275
reachcode = 12030103015495
resolution = 2
resolution_description = High
visibilityfilter = 100000
visibilityfilter_description = Approximately 1:100,000 or Larger Scale
?
I W (2026-07-25 15:55:34+00:00): Thanks for catching that! It was attributes left over from the USGS shapefiles. I have removed it now.
evgenykatyshev (2026-07-24 07:07:44+00:00): I reverted it because you accidentally broke a lot of objects along with this. But thanks for your try, I'll redo it correctly

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186277899
LordGarySugar (2026-07-25 20:28:32+00:00): It's not necessary to create a multipolygon for a tiny square of grass like this.
BAGgeraar (2026-07-30 15:22:11+00:00): Alverna is volgens de BAG geen woonplaats; dit valt onder de woonplaats Wijchen. Hoe ben je erbij gekomen om Alverna als woonplaats toe te voegen? Naar mijn idee was de situatie zoals het er voorheen instond correct.
Ernie C (2026-07-30 16:14:36+00:00): Ik heb alleen de grenzen toegevoegd, de tag van het dorp zelf bestond al jaren. Er staan ook gewoon plaatsnaam borden bij het dorp als ik er doorheen rij.
BAGgeraar (2026-07-30 18:04:15+00:00): Leidend voor de registratie van woonplaatsen in OSM is de BAG, en daar is deze woonplaats niet in aanwezig. Zie ter informatie ook https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonplaats_in_Nederland Je zou wellicht de grenzen kunnen gebruiken om het dorp (place=*) in te tekenen?
vectorial8192 (2026-07-24 06:59:03+00:00): Based on https://www.td.gov.hk/tc/traffic_notices/index_id_83845.html ; unless we have newer situations that I am not aware of.
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-24 08:42:09+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Is the added name real?
Godliness (1077280347), v4
user_5359 (2026-07-24 15:34:37+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1543962970 (one of nine objects). What is the mean of the tags
Color = 3
DocId = 1.3624494667224949E+19
DocUpdate = 1784900670000
Elevation = 0
Entity = LWPolyline
GlobalWidth = 0
Handle = EF70
Layer = زراعت و پوشش گياهي2-1
LineWt = 25
Linetype = Continuous
LyrFrzn = 0
LyrOn = 1
OID = 4226
?
(no other OSM keys)
user_5359 (2026-07-30 17:46:16+00:00): Please answer the questions before you continue.
GeoBir (2026-07-30 21:27:25+00:00): Hello, and thank you for reviewing the changeset.

Those tags (Color, DocId, DocUpdate, Entity, Handle, Layer, LineWt, Linetype, etc.) were unintentionally imported from a CAD (DWG/DXF) source during data preparation. They are internal CAD attributes and have no meaning in OpenStreetMap.

This was my mistake. I have removed these non-OSM tags and will make sure they are not included in future uploads. The mapped geometry itself was created from aerial imagery and local survey/knowledge, but the CAD metadata should not have been uploaded.

Thank you for pointing this out and helping improve the data quality.
db-ak (2026-07-24 07:41:24+00:00): W wandale i niedowiarki niech sobie szukają znaku: 
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/posts/198282069/
Albo wyślę własne rzuty z przejazdu
martinst (2026-07-24 08:39:05+00:00): Wäre motor_vehicle=private bzw. agricultural;forestry hier nicht richtiger?
motor_vehicle=no schließt auch Forstnutzung und Anreinerverkehr aus.
Welche Beschilderung steht vor Ort?
ChrisPosch (2026-07-24 11:53:05+00:00): Hi Martin, Fahrverbotstafel ausgenommen Berechtigte. z.B. Forst und Anrainer dürfen zufahren. Es ist ein Forstweg. 
Weißt du, wie man das Routing bei google maps hinausbekommt. Holländische Touristen wurden von Aschau nach Westendorf über diesen Weg zurückgelotst :-). danke dir
martinst (2026-07-24 12:23:25+00:00): Dann wäre motor_vehicle=destination;forestry wohl richtig.
Google verwendet keine OSM-Daten, die haben eigene. Änderungen können bei "Karte bearbeiten" angestoßen werden. Bei mir hat das einmal nicht geklappt, ein gemeldeter Kartenfehler wurde erst behoben als ich hier ein Ticket eröffnet habe: 
https://support.google.com/maps/community
Mannivu (2026-07-24 08:54:44+00:00): Ciao e grazie per le aggiunte! Ti faccio solo notare che il campo "nome" va usato solo nel caso in cui un oggetto abbia un nome proprio, non per descrivere cos'è (quindi in questo caso "Fontanella" non serviva).

Grazie ancora e buona mappatura!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186279913
LordGarySugar (2026-07-25 20:31:09+00:00): This doesn't make any sense - you've got amenity=fuel tagged on a type=building relation. The best way to resolve the overlapping buildings would be to move them slightly so they aren't overlapping. One building=retail and one building=roof.
tms13 (2026-07-26 08:09:50+00:00): Moving the areas wouldn't be correct, as aerial photos show that they do in fact overlap (on different layers).  I'm now to type=building relations, so perhaps misunderstood how it's supposed to be used (the amenity tag came from previous version of relation, but I guess it should be applied to the whole site rather than the building?)
tms13 (2026-07-26 08:10:25+00:00): (Should have read "new to", not "now to" - sorry for any confusion!)
LordGarySugar (2026-07-25 20:31:44+00:00): As per previous changeset, none of this tagging makes any sense.
silversurfer83 (2026-07-26 20:13:19+00:00): Hi :)

hier ließen sich die Einzelflächen halbwegs erkennen. Ich empfehle JOSM um die Arbeit einfacher zu machen. Da gibt es ein plugin, welches bei Stellflächen behilflich ist.

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186280567
OSM_RogerWilco (2026-07-24 14:57:30+00:00): Hallo,

hier ist etwas falsch gelaufen. Hier wurde ein Wassergraben und eine Zufahrt vermutlich versehentlich zu einem Fußweg geändert. Ich habe das korrigiert.
Oder sollte zum Ausdruck gebracht werden, dass man die Zufahrt nur zu Fuß betreten darf?

Viele Grüße
Roger Wilco
eggie (2026-07-24 08:48:21+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback  Volgens mij is het adres (huisnummer) verkeerd en ontbreekt de plaatsnaam.

MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
freek500 (2026-07-24 09:08:17+00:00): Heb het aangepast
eggie (2026-07-24 09:10:21+00:00): Oke,  maar we gebruiken de adresnodes.

Klopt phone= nu  In Nederland +31? 
Mapse,
eggie
eggie (2026-07-24 09:12:31+00:00): phone heb ik even aangepast
user_5359 (2026-07-25 12:17:06+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1012047819. What is the mean of the tags 
ANMERKUNG = Axa_Schafalm 3
CREATETIME = 2021-12-07
CREATEUSER = u0369136@tirol.gv.at
LNUMMER = 0
OBJEKT = SGOsw
OBJEKT1 = Objektschutzwald
SHAPE_AREA = 254937.46479100001
SHAPE_LEN = 3046.54010062
UPDATETIME = 2026-07-13
UPDATEUSER = u0369136@tirol.gv.at
?
BTME (2026-07-27 04:56:41+00:00): Hello, thank you for pointing this out! These tags were attributes from the source GIS dataset (TIRIS) that I accidentally transferred to OSM when importing the updated geometry. They were not intended to be OSM tags. I have now removed them and corrected the object. Thanks for noticing!
eggie (2026-07-24 08:51:46+00:00): Dag Free,

Je kunt scholen op twee manieren taggen. Maal altijd een keuze. Nu staat de school 2x in de data.
Wat was er verleerd aan taggen op het schoolterrein. Dat is vaak wel gebruikelijk.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-07-24 08:53:39+00:00): Alle begin is moeilijk. 
De info staat nu alleen nog op de adresnode. Die heb ik samengevoegd met de al bestaande adresnode.
Gr eggie
eggie (2026-07-24 08:59:05+00:00): Freek... We gebruiken de adresnodes om op bij te taggen. Dus niet de gebouw omtrek.
De tag voor restaurant is amenity=restaurant. Dit doet niets in OSM.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-07-24 09:04:51+00:00): Info verplaatst naar adresnode
eggie (2026-07-24 09:05:58+00:00): Freek.. Svp bijtaggen op de adresnode.

MVG
eggie
silversurfer83 (2026-07-26 20:10:47+00:00): Moin :)

Öffentliche Toiletten sind sehr wichtige Infrastruktur. Gut, dass du sie erfasst :)

Bitte beachte, dass nicht alles einen name=* hat, sondern solche Infos mit festgelegten Eigenschaften erfasst werden können wie access=yes und ganz wichtig: opening_hours=*

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186282370
eggie (2026-07-24 09:08:05+00:00): Volgens de BAG is dit nr 168A
De pizzeria is 168.
De info staat nu op de adresnode als het goed is.
Gr eggie
IvaKraljić (2026-07-24 09:44:06+00:00): The accidentally created node has since been deleted in the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186284228#map=17/19.429045/-98.873730. #OptimoRoute
user_5359 (2026-07-26 15:26:16+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2906285. What is the mean of the tag Linie = 222396461 # Bourke Street (2 Punkte)
IvaKraljić (2026-07-24 15:20:47+00:00): The accidentally created node has since been deleted in the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186301886#map=16/19.39866/-98.86727. #OptimoRoute
eggie (2026-07-24 09:28:29+00:00): Oke.. en dan kun je de winkelinfo verwijderen van de gebouwomtrek.
freek500 (2026-07-24 09:35:21+00:00): Gedaan
Kovoschiz (2026-07-24 18:14:53+00:00): Add them to OHM, not OSM. At least add to `old_name=` only. This is not even a `loc_name=`
Kovoschiz (2026-07-24 18:23:08+00:00): 2. Don't add any random Cantonese romanization to `*:en` , only `*:yue-Latn=`
eggie (2026-07-24 09:26:57+00:00): Top!
silversurfer83 (2026-07-26 20:07:18+00:00): Moin :)

amenity=parking_space wird idR für *einzelne* Stellflächen innerhalb eines Parkplatzes genutzt. So wie du es hier machst, sieht es dann so aus, als gäbe es hier Stellflächen für Windradschwertransporte...

Da ich mir nicht zutraue aus den vorhandenen Luftbildern sauber die Einzelfächen zu erkennen würde ich vorschlagen sie wieder zu löschen. 

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186283401
no details provided here (2026-07-24 12:27:29+00:00): Fab work Maptapper!  I will be visiting the area this afternoon just north of Sale Lane/Manchester Road (Fri 24 July) if I can help with anything.  There's a new solar farm planned for the top of this area.
eggie (2026-07-24 09:59:15+00:00): De info heb ik verwijderd van de omtrek.
Mapse,
brunesto (2026-07-27 20:11:20+00:00): Hello, the road that continues south-east of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1544005601 was deleted, Please can you check if this was not a mistake? Thanks
PandaRoams (2026-07-27 21:15:58+00:00): Hello, not a mistake. They moved the road completely to the one just north of it and now it's a dirt patch. I suspect that it might be a bikepath in the future, but that is not clear yet. I was there just as they opened the new road section. The current shape of the road matches reality. The old road is gone for now.
brunesto (2026-07-27 21:41:05+00:00): Ok, thank you!
silversurfer83 (2026-07-26 19:46:15+00:00): Hi,

ein paar Kleinigkeiten:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14045530896 sollte als Eigenschaft an den node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5434099234 getagt werden. service:vehicle:car_repair=yes ist KEINE Eigenschaft für einen Knoten ohne weitere übergeordnete Werte. Hatte ich im Forum aber auch (mehrfach?) erwähnt. Gleiches gilt für https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14045530897

Dann wäre noch https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1225464141 wo der name=* meiner Ansicht nach in description=* gehört.

Grüße
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186283874
eggie (2026-07-24 09:43:53+00:00): 👍
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-24 16:31:19+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186301997
LordGarySugar (2026-07-25 20:33:08+00:00): It isn't necessary to have the wetland and pond as multipolygons.
eggie (2026-07-24 10:53:58+00:00): Welkom bij OSM,

Het adres heb ik compleet gemaakt.
MVG
eggie
☆Finvenkulo (2026-07-24 12:37:41+00:00): Fakt, niepotrzebnie zaokrągliłem powierzchnię. Ale klucze source:sqkm= i source:population= umieściłem na zestawie zmian, aby nie zaśmiecać obiektów niepotrzebnymi (dla końcowego użytkownika) kluczami.
db-ak (2026-07-24 20:54:28+00:00): Kolejne niepoprawne użycie tagu, w wielu miejscach w ogóle nie ma infry rowerowej.
mavl (2026-07-25 07:23:20+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок отменён. Статус населённого пункта place=hamlet.
mavl (2026-07-25 07:23:26+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок отменён. Статус населённого пункта place=hamlet.
mavl (2026-07-25 07:42:21+00:00): Подскажите, зачем вы удалили номер дороги?  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/60194867/history
mavl (2026-07-25 07:46:39+00:00): Здравствуйте. Зачем вы удаляете номера дорог и этимологию названий?  
Разве улица Ленина названа не в честь Ленина?
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-24 20:31:07+00:00): Hi Raymond, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

We appreciate you trying to contribute. However, first of all you are on OpenStreetMap, not Google Maps, which has nothing to do with each other.

Second, most of the tagging you added is not correct, and was thus removed by another mapping in changeset 186305378 .

https://osm.org/changeset/186305378

Specifically:

- access=all is not a known value of access=* . You might mean access=yes (but most likely you are better off leaving out this tag entirely if it is a public road)
- this does not to be one large bridge, so bridge=yes is incorrect
- layer=1 is not correct, as that would imply it is a bridge which is not the case
- name=* is not correct, as it is a description of the road rather than a name=*

Please carefully read the OSM wiki before you map, and iD's presets will help you use correct tagging without having to learn everything manually.

Thanks, and happy mapping.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-24 20:32:08+00:00): Hi Raymond, and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

We appreciate you trying to contribute. However, most of the tagging you added is not correct, and was thus removed by another mapping in changeset 186305414.

https://osm.org/changeset/186305414

Specifically:

- access=all is not a known value of access=* . You might mean access=yes (but most likely you are better off leaving out this tag entirely if it is a public road)
- this does not to be one large bridge, so bridge=yes is incorrect
- layer=1 is not correct, as that would imply it is a bridge which is not the case
- name=* is not correct, as it is a description of the road rather than a name=*

Please carefully read the OSM wiki before you map, and iD's presets will help you use correct tagging without having to learn everything manually.

Thanks, and happy mapping.
Kovoschiz (2026-07-26 13:19:11+00:00): Please don't create these `=locality` for these `name=` in OSM. Use OpenHistoricalMap.
pesticides (2026-07-24 11:20:05+00:00): bicycle, foot, horse - access tags on members
cycle_network - removed US:PTC, as they only manage one trail (this one)
description - didn't provide any information not already present in other tags
note - this field is supposed to be used to provide context for editors
surface - surface tag on members
usage - nonstandard usage of tag
wheelchair - retained on walking route
mikita_paloika (2026-07-28 10:13:30+00:00): Hi wense98!

Thanks for your edits and for contributing to OpenStreetMap!

I noticed you've been adding several POIs in this area. Could you please clarify what source you are using for these edits? Just a quick reminder that copying data from proprietary sources like Google Maps is not allowed due to copyright rules.

If you are mapping from local knowledge, field surveys, or open imagery, that’s awesome — adding a brief note about your source in the changeset comment (e.g., source=survey or source=local knowledge) is super helpful for other mappers.

Thanks again, and happy mapping!

Best regards,
Mikita
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/186288870
literan (2026-07-25 10:39:04+00:00): только зачем на всю многоэтажку теги было вешать, ведь компания не все 150 квартир занимает
söm4324 (2026-07-25 06:21:08+00:00): Hallo Bernd498,
du hast vor Kurzem bei der Bäckerei Werner https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/691734426#map=19/49.660824/11.089641&layers=N die Öffnungszeiten aktualisiert. Aber der Laden ist als leerstehender disused:sop eingetragen. Das passt nicht zusammen. Hast du vergessen, das 'disused' zu entfernen?

Viele Grüße
Bernd498 (2026-07-25 20:00:19+00:00): Hallo söm4324,

danke für deinen Hinweis. Ich habe lediglich die Öffnungszeiten aktualisiert, so dass das Feld gültige Daten beinhaltet. Auf den Laden selbst habe ich nicht geachtet, da sollte auch nichts verändert worden sein. 

Die Änderung habe ich über das Tool zur Validierung der Öffnungszeiten durchgeführt. 

Schöne Grüße 
Bernd
söm4324 (2026-07-26 06:18:45+00:00): Hallo Bernd,
ah, ok, danke für die Erläuterung. Die Öffnungszeit hab ich von dem ehemaligen Bäcker grad entfernt. Passt ja irgendwie nicht zum "geschlossen"-Status.

In dem Validierungstool erkennst du geschlossene, aber noch mit Öffnungszeiten versehene POIs an einem roten Feld mit Inschrift "Ungenutzt". In solchen Fällen kannst du eigentlich immer davon ausgehen, dass die Öffnungszeiten noch unnützerweise am POI stehen und entfernt gehören. (außer der POI hat zwischenzeitlich wieder eröffnet, was aber Recherche erfordert.)

Viele Grüße und einen schönen Sonntag,
Thomas