piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
trigpoint (2025-06-15 17:27:13+00:00): Boundary lines are  imported from official data and are correct.
If they do not match features on the ground it suggests that they were traced without properly aligning imagery.
Cheers |Phil
Dan Hatton (2025-06-15 21:41:09+00:00): Oof.  In that case I'm going to have to revert a *lot* of my recent changesets.  Still, all a good learning experience.

(For the rest of this post, I'm kind of thinking out loud - don't feel under any obligation to answer my annoying questions, although I'd be most grateful if you do.)

When you say the imported parish boundary data are correct: the real boundaries are (for the most part) smooth curves, and the imported data are some polygonal approximation to those, right?  And it looks like the granularity of the polygonal approximation is about 15 metres: in some cases, that approximation is in itself enough to qualitatively mess up the correspondence with physical features.  Is there anything in particular we're supposed to do about that?

It's tempting to respond to your point by saying "in that case, where a parish boundary is known to coincide with a physical feature and they're currently mismatched in OSM, we should displace the physical feature to match the parish boundary".  But the reason the parish boundaries are known to coincide with physical features is that the County Council has presented its own (definitive) map of the parish boundaries overlaid on an OS map that includes the physical features - so this would be a slightly indirect way of copying the physical features from an OS map, which I believe is a big no-no, isn't it?

Something I've encountered quite frequently is that a parish boundary coincides with one bank of a river or stream or ditch, but that river or stream or ditch is implemented as a zero-width way in OSM.  I was never very satisfied with the way I was handling that, but in the light of what you've told me, the way I was handling it was very wrong.  Is there a policy for that circumstance?
rskedgell (2025-07-23 12:40:48+00:00): Please don't add fiction like foot=use_sidepath to roads in the UK. Pedestrians use highways by absolute right unless explicitly forbidden (requiring a traffic order and a sign), therefore adding foot=no without a sign is also wrong.

If you read the wiki for that tag, you will note that it states: "This tag should only be applied in countries that have compulsory footways."
osm.wiki/Tag:foot%3Duse_sidepath

If you're adding separate sidewalks, please also set sidewalk:$side=separate on the parent street. That would be far more useful than adding non-existent access restrictions.
CJJ2501 (2025-08-06 13:42:48+00:00): (Reply on this changeset: osm.org/changeset/169343421)
Tatfahren (2025-06-15 19:01:03+00:00): ? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
eggie (2025-09-24 08:41:11+00:00): Adrie  
huis?????

Please comment your edits properly.
Greetz
eggie
habi (2026-05-19 06:41:00+00:00): Ciao NGC104
Ist https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1395498188 wirklich ein (privater) Campingplatz, oder einfach eine Jurte (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dger) in der ab und zu mal jemand schläft?

Gruss,
habi

PS: Ich bin hier, weil ich einen (nicht privaten) Camping in der Gegend hier suche :)
AndyB_66 (2025-09-23 19:21:11+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
XPromus (2025-06-15 12:43:24+00:00): Do note that, due to a construction site, some of the footpaths are not usable at the moment and are not the usual surface, but they should return to their usual state after the construction work is finished.
LudovicG (2025-06-21 09:11:49+00:00): Bonjour,
Je suis surpris du ref=100, la plaque d'identification ayant été arrachée du mur proche depuis quelques mois maintenant. Où avez-vous trouvé la ref=100 sur place ?
NathanBnm (2025-06-21 09:15:50+00:00): J'ai relevé la référence directement sur la plaque au sol. Sur une autre plaque il était indiqué 105 alors j'ai pensé que c'était la référence. Peut-être que j'ai mal interprété ?
fortera_au (2025-07-15 12:31:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168963114 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incorrect source, no valid source provided
fortera_au (2025-07-15 12:31:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168963114 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incorrect source, no valid source provided
Bienson (2025-06-15 20:36:24+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167667131

Implizierte Tags müssen nicht hinzugefügt werden.
trigpoint (2025-06-15 17:03:22+00:00): Hi Phil from the Data Working Group here.
Please don't do this, the only logical conclusion is that the UK relation version number goes up exponentially.
I have removed this and amp planning to remove the others you have added.
Dan Hatton (2025-06-15 17:37:11+00:00): I think I've only added the one example of the non-standard "townhall" role in a boundary relation (precisely because I wasn't sure it was acceptable practice and was waiting for review before adding any more).  But maybe you're talking about some wider set of the things I've done?
Dan Hatton (2025-06-15 17:42:09+00:00): (In fact it sounds like you're talking about me adding local government admin boundary relations as subareas of the UK admin boundary relation, right?)
Dan Hatton (2025-06-15 18:26:06+00:00): I was about to say something based on the premise "I need to learn to revert changesets", but from what you've just done, it looks like the method of reverting a changeset is to create a new changeset that does the opposite things, in which case I've caused you a bigger headache than I imagined, so many apologies.
trigpoint (2025-06-15 19:53:24+00:00): Hi Dan
I was atlking about your additions to the higher admin boundaries.

Reverting does just create a new version. We (the data working group) can redact but we only do that for thing that need tags be not seen. 

The review requested is a bit misleading, it merely sets a flag that someone may spot but setting it no way guarantees anything will happen.

Cheers Phil
Bienson (2025-06-15 20:35:32+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167667131

Kein Parkplatz
Bienson (2025-06-15 20:35:29+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167667131

Kein Parkplatz
Bienson (2025-06-15 20:35:25+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167667131

Kein Parkplatz
silversurfer83 (2025-06-15 13:38:50+00:00): Hallo und herzlich Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap :)

Danke, dass du hilfst die Datenbank aktuell zu halten.

Ich würde dir mal eben Feedback zu deinen ersten Änderungen zukommen lassen. Grundsätzlich sieht das nicht verkehrt aus, ein paar Anfängerfehlerchen können wir aber vielleicht auch direkt abstellen :)

bis gleich
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167651236
Bienson (2025-06-15 20:38:28+00:00): horse=no wieder entfernt, Poller eingetragen und zu highway=path geändert in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167667240
NorthCrab_upload (2025-06-15 13:40:42+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nieprawidłowa wartość addr:postcode. Kod pocztowy powinien być formatu XX-XXX, gdzie X oznacza cyfrę.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1395327512

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-06-15 13:31:52+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4801316
Aethonatic (2025-06-15 15:04:35+00:00): It'd make more sense to keep a hierarchy system in place for subareas, i.e. admin_level 8 is only a subarea of admin_level 7, which is only a subarea of 6, and so on. So the four countries would be subareas of the United Kingdom, but not any of the counties or civil parishes.
Dan Hatton (2025-06-15 17:43:15+00:00): I was in two, or maybe three, minds about this.  Legally, English parish councils (admin_level 10) derive their existence, powers, and territorial extent directly from legislation by central government (admin_level 2).  Anyway, it looks like at least part of what I've done is a big policy no-no and needs reverting.
trigpoint (2025-06-15 20:00:53+00:00): Hi Dan 
OSM derives the relationship from level 10 being inside a level 6 or 8 inside a level 4 up to being inside a level 2 UK.
Cheers Phil
MichS (2025-06-20 05:19:34+00:00): Hallo,

der CS-Kommentar wurde nicht beantwortet. Ich deute den CS-Kommentar als Antwort auf meine Nachfrage.
Wie sind die Nutzungsbedingungen dieses offiziellen ALKIS bitte? Bitte einen link zu diesem ALKIS.

Der angebliche Weilerbach vom Teich nach Nordosten hat der nicht einen anderen Namen?

MFG
hNdrX_ (2025-07-20 10:43:23+00:00): Fixmes sind keine Kommentarspalte, sondern Hinweise auf konkrete, nötige Arbeitsschritte. Welche sind das hier? Warum hast du ein fixme angelegt? Bitte erklär mir das.
Wolfgang Holtz (2025-07-20 11:38:22+00:00): 1. Das Haus sah noch sehr nach Baustelle aus (z.T. noch eingerüstet), ich wollte verhinden, dass wieder auf construction geändert wird.
2. Östlich vom Haus wird eingezäunt, dort entstehen Wege, Grünfläche, Spielgeräte, Grillplatz? etc Dies wäre noch einzuzeichnen.
hNdrX_ (2025-07-23 17:32:04+00:00): 1. kannst du als Notiz eintragen
2. das sind solche Details, die keine öffentlichen Flächen sind und bei ca. 95% der Häuser auch noch nachgetragen werden könnten - dafür jedes mal ein Fixme zu erstellen, würde die Karte mit Fixmes zupflastern.
blacx (2025-06-15 15:00:40+00:00): per a noms locals no oficials, hi ha el tag loc_name
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167652271
Comino (2025-06-15 17:05:01+00:00): Hi Fideles Mercadinho,

In your edit you use the deprecated tag "payment:bitcoin=yes".

Please DELETE the payment:bitcoin=yes tag !
Use the "currency:XBT=yes" instead.

For more information please read: https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki/Tagging-Merchants

Happy mapping,

Edwin
fortera_au (2025-07-15 12:30:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168963114 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incorrect source, no valid source provided
Jrachi (2025-06-16 14:34:35+00:00): Ciao.
Cancellando una way hai creato un buco nella relazione del percorso N7
Ivo
fortera_au (2025-07-15 12:30:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168963114 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incorrect source, no valid source provided
Tommybara (2025-06-16 04:40:46+00:00): Mình sẽ lùi lại sửa đổi này của bạn vì: (1) Nghị quyết về việc sắp xếp phường chưa có chính thức, (2) Việc lập phường mới diễn ra đồng thời với việc bỏ quận, nên việc bạn cho 4 phường mới trực thuộc Q1 là sai hoàn toàn.
gurglypipe (2025-06-15 19:31:30+00:00): Heya, thanks for the updates. Are you sure that Ruskins (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6020071092) is closed though? I’ve seen events advertised by them recently.

https://www.facebook.com/Ruskinskendal
SmithyScotland (2025-06-15 20:06:22+00:00): The poi is behind Furness building society. Checked the lane with white hart on it and it's a blank wall. Checked the lane with peppys on it and only doorway I could see was very unkept. Didn't look like it had been opened in some time. Possible the poi is in the wrong place? Unfortunately I can't recheck.
gurglypipe (2025-06-16 11:53:27+00:00): I think the POI is in the right place. It was probably the door you saw — it’s a gig bar which is only open in the evenings, so unless you were surveying then it won’t have been obvious.

Marked as open again in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/167690138
earlyistimeless (2025-06-18 03:41:10+00:00): Hé Jeroen, als de track nu volledig afgesloten is, dan moet dat zijn gedaan nadat ik de wijzigingen heb doorgevoerd, want ik heb er die dag nog over gelopen, samen met vele anderen. De geopende hekken ervoor laten geen sporen van vernieling zien, en het betonblok en de dwarsliggende trap lijken te zijn aangebracht om motorvoertuigen en fietsers te weren: niet voetgangers; vanaf de Sinnewei ook, waar een bypass is naast het hek dat bestaat uit een grindhoop: opnieuw te passeren voor voetgangers, maar lastig gemaakt voor fietsers.
JeroenHoek (2025-06-18 06:05:55+00:00): Er staat een afgesloten hek op de Sinnewei met een bordje verboden toegang. Dat maakt het private, ongeacht wat mensen er zelf doen. De bult zelf was ook afgesloten met een gesloten hek op zondag, zonder verdere aanduiding over openingstijden.

Als de grondeigenaar hier voetgangers wil toestaan, zal hij dat anders moeten aangeven.
earlyistimeless (2025-06-18 22:08:38+00:00): Ah, die heb ik dan gemist. Met bult bedoel je de campus zelf? Zo ja, dan komt dat overeen met mijn ervaring op een maandag. Daar staat overigens ook een bord dat foutief communiceert dat de oude vuilstort voorwaardelijk vrij toegankelijk is. Dus wellicht dat het bord aan de Sinnewei ook is gedateerd. Als het fietspad nog in aanleg is, is het dan niet verstandig dit als E. De Wit als construction te taggen. Er zijn anders geen aanwijzingen dat het een fietspad betreft: vandaar dat ik het ook had gewijzigd naar een service.
JeroenHoek (2025-06-19 06:26:36+00:00): Kijk de plannen er maar eens op na. Dat is een fietspad waar nog geen toegang toe is. Die als cycleway taggen voorkomt ook dat iemand die wel toegang heeft tot dat gebied er met een vrachtwagen overheen rijdt. Daar is het wegdek niet op berekent (omdat het een fietspad is). Het toont kaartgebruikers ook dat dat een fietspad is (waar je nog niet mag komen).

Construction klopt niet meer; het pad is fysiek af, alleen niet opengesteld.

Dat bordje bij de Sinnewei is letterlijk een artikel 461 bordje. Die is in combinatie met dat hek rechtsgeldig.
earlyistimeless (2025-06-19 13:33:35+00:00): Ik trek nergens in twijfel dat het een toekomstig fietspad betreft, ik zeg alleen dat het nog in aanbouw is als het laatste stuk nog ontbreekt. Dus ik vraag niet of het terug gaat naar een service, wat het vrachtwagen argument irrelevant maakt. En de fietsende kaartgebruiker heeft niets aan de aanduiding als deze er nog niet kan/mag komen, in plaats daarvan kan het alleen maar voor verwarring zorgen. En wat het bord betreft zeg ik alleen dat ook dat bord, net als die van de energiecampus, niet meer de situatie aangeeft zoals het is.
JeroenHoek (2025-06-19 13:41:29+00:00): Het laatste stuk is ook niet ingetekend. Zodra daar aan gebouwd wordt komt die erbij als highway=construction natuurlijk. Wat ingetekend is, is af. Hij staat duidelijk op access=private, waardoor navigatiesoftware hem niet gebruikt, en kaarten hem tonen als privé. Dat is toch precies wat gewenst is?

Of een bordje met verboden toegang daar misschien niet hoort is niet aan ons als mappers. Het is gebied is duidelijk afgesloten met barrières en dat bordje. Dat is access=private totdat dit verandert. Je mag zelf natuurlijk inschatten of je de toegangsbeperking negeert, maar dat hoort niet in de tagging thuis.
literan (2025-06-16 20:18:25+00:00): ознакомьтесь, пожалуйста, с правилами адресации, чтобы не делать ошибки: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Адреса#Нумерация_домов
rarad74 (2025-06-16 08:33:33+00:00): Salut. Nu mai adauga drumuri si autostrazi care inca nu sunt finalizate si date in lucru. !!!
NeisBot (2025-06-28 14:45:50+00:00): Hi naxngiga, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 3 highway(s)
- 1 building(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

PS: I have also sent this message through the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=167654262
NeisReview (2025-06-30 06:59:41+00:00): 👍 Thank you for your private message and confirming that your deletions were intentional.

#HappyMapping
fortera_au (2025-07-15 12:30:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168963114 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incorrect source, no valid source provided
Mashin (2025-06-17 18:49:58+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM!
Just a comments to your edits. When removing businesses please leave the address intact. The address typically stays and is reused for a new business that will come after.

Cheers
binarygnome (2025-06-20 14:07:39+00:00): Opps, sorry.  I'll keep that in mind.  Some of my other edits are from buildings that have been demolished.

I'll try and fix the ones that need to be
Glassman (2025-06-15 19:27:44+00:00): Thanks for adding the charging stations. However, I'd like to point out that the node 12917566746 does not match the address tags location.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/167655228
GA_Kevin (2025-06-15 20:55:42+00:00): Hm, yeah I see that. I remember looking at that one to verify because it has such a high amount of level 2 chargers. I suspect the address is right but the pin is wrong. The lat/long is from AFDC directly. But it seems this is meant for the library complex which is on the street it’s tagged as. I’ll take a look tonight!
Glassman (2025-06-15 21:33:19+00:00): It is currently pinned at the old library location, which never had any chargers. The new location has them located on the upper floors. 

Because of this error, I'm wonder how good the rest of the data is
mappingman2 (2025-06-16 21:48:53+00:00): Dos this have to be a single US-wide changeset instead of one change per station?
GA_Kevin (2025-06-17 03:23:51+00:00): I suppose it doesn't have to be but there's 2 reasons I'd say I do:

1) I don't know how to split it up automatically in JOSM.

2) The wiki page for this project is updated each week with the changeset link so you can go back to previous weeks. If each were individual, I think we'd lose that historical perspective.
kubzon7 (2025-06-17 14:12:11+00:00): Widzę, że w obu liniach ZaT do Dworca jeszcze pozostało kilka nieusuniętych elementów relacji na Jagiellońskiej i Focha
deneb48 (2025-06-15 15:22:05+00:00): Bonjour, pour info cette soumission de changements fait suite à la discussion https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/process-de-passage-a-30km-h-sur-une-commune/7516/13?u=deneb48 

Je me suis limité ici au passage à maxspeed=30 pour les voiries qui n'étaient pas déjà <= 30, et pour la D920 qui reste à 50. J'ai vu quelques avertissements du validateur de données mais vu le nombre de modifs j'espère faciliter la tâche du ou des reviewers (que je remercie au passage !) en me limitant à maxspeed 30 pour le moment !
mga_geo (2025-06-16 04:45:43+00:00): Bonjour,
Pourquoi avez-vous modifié l'attribut network ?
Le wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rennes/Transports_en_commun indique que la valeur correcte est FR:STAR.
Pouvez-vous corriger ?
Merci d'avance
Marc
Benj35230 (2025-06-16 12:02:06+00:00): Bonjour, je suis désolé pour cette erreur de ma part, je pensais bien faire en voulant corriger les erreurs. J'ai normalement remis comme à l'origine. N'hesiter pas à me dire si j'ai oublié de le remettre quelque part. 
Merci pour votre retour
Benjamin
mga_geo (2025-06-23 05:21:11+00:00): Bonjour Benjamin,
Je n'ai plus de signalement avec osmose ou PTNA, donc bravo !
L'éditeur iD propose des valeurs qui ne sont pas toujours exactes, il est souvent préférable de ne modifier que les attributs "connus".
Bonne journée
Marc
Benj35230 (2025-06-24 09:10:43+00:00): Super alors, cela me servira de leçon !
Merci pour votre retour
Bonne journée à vous
Benjamin
DwarfNebula_ (2025-06-16 12:34:05+00:00): Hey! Is dit daadwerkelijk een glas container? Op de site van afvalwijzer en streetview lijkt dit een restafval container.
Berend Veldkamp (2025-06-17 08:05:00+00:00): Ik zou zweren dat het een glas container was, maar kan me natuurlijk vergissen, ik had hem pas later thuis ingevoerd nl. Iig zag het er nu anders uit dan op Streetview (opening aan de andere kant), dus er is wel _iets_ veranderd. Iemand moet er nog maar even gaan kijken anders
b-jazz (2025-06-16 15:56:42+00:00): As I've mentioned twice already (once in http://osm.org/changeset/167156687), you can't be crossing fairway lines with other golf features. Not to mention the fact that you are drawing a fairway where another fairway already exists. Please go back and fix your recent changes where you are making the mistake and avoid this in the future as well. Thanks.
de24000 (2025-07-25 14:48:19+00:00): Hi Erkinalp
Can please confirm this changeset. The railway track going under the Birerova deposu is looking like a mistake?
erkinalp (2025-07-25 16:06:59+00:00): Sahada inşaat halindedir
de24000 (2025-07-25 18:16:01+00:00): Maybe there some construction, so I updated the tag accordingly for this way. In addition, way 1395533651 is showing  a 360m tunnel. This is not verified by any other source, and it does not make sense in this context.  Please check again?
aw_LT (2025-06-16 08:19:58+00:00): An dieser Position ist ein abgeschrankter Privatparkplatz vom Fischereiverein …

Der Parkplatz beim Kirchturm ist bereits an der korrekten Position hinterlegt:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86783256
aw_LT (2025-06-19 12:48:37+00:00): Bezeichnung vom Parkplatz wieder entfernt
Fabian007 (2025-06-22 11:12:11+00:00): Hallo aw_LT,

Sorry, das ich den Parkplatz leider falsch hintergelegt habe und danke, das du mir mit den Änderungen von mir Rückgängig gemacht hast!

Ich könnte es leider vorher nicht diese Name nicht finden, aber danke, das du mir dabei geholfen hast!

Ich wünsche dir, mit deiner Familie einen schönen Sonntag noch!

Mit Freundlichen Grüßen Fabianbuecheler
Fabian007 (2025-06-22 11:14:34+00:00): Hallo aw_LT,

Sorry, das ich den Parkplatz leider falsch hintergelegt habe und danke, das du mir mit den Änderungen von mir Rückgängig gemacht hast!

Ich konnte es leider vorher nicht dieser Name leider nicht finden, aber danke, das du mir dabei geholfen hast!

Ich wünsche dir, mit deiner Familie einen schönen Sonntag noch!

Mit Freundlichen Grüßen Fabianbuecheler
Fabian007 (2025-06-22 11:15:28+00:00): Sorry, das ich den Parkplatz leider falsch hintergelegt habe und danke, das du mir mit den Änderungen von mir Rückgängig gemacht hast!

Ich konnte es leider vorher nicht dieser Name nicht finden, aber danke, das du mir dabei geholfen hast!

Ich wünsche dir, mit deiner Familie einen schönen Sonntag noch!

Mit Freundlichen Grüßen Fabianbuecheler
micheleOSM3 (2025-06-16 17:13:11+00:00): ciao, i codici alfanumerici dei sentieri CAI sono in minuscolo, quindi 238A andrebbe scritto 238a, se hai visto segnavia con la A maiuscola, forse sono una semplificazione per la scrittura, ma non sono corretti.
gion274 (2025-06-16 18:31:52+00:00): ciao, se ti riferisci alla relazione, come vedi il ref l'ho lasciato con "a" minuscola come da wiki CAI, così come non ho modificato l' osmc:symbol. Diverso è il discorso per il symbol e symbol:it che devrebbe riportare quello che si trova scritto in loco esattamente com'è, d'altronde la wiki CAI cita: "puo’ essere utile anche per segnalare...la presenza di segni non standard". Non penso il CAI abbia commesso errori, la maiuscola sui cartelli è del tutto plausibile e lecito l'uso OSM sul symbol.
gion274 (2025-06-19 09:52:28+00:00): ciao, ho realizzato che probabilmente ti riferivi non alla relaziome ma al nodo 12917614637. Nella destination la wiki dice di riportare quello che è scritto nel cartello (quindi abbreviazioni incluse e rispetto delle maiuscole/minuscole) e nel cartello c'è scritto esattamente 238/A.
Tornando alle relazioni, devo corregermi, la wiki dice che il ref va scritto con i suffissi in MAIUSCOLO (quindi 238A non 238a). Non ho fatto query ma da uno sguardo sulle regioni del Nord Italia sembra che il FVG venga diffusamente mappato in modo contrario alla wiki.
aw_LT (2025-06-16 08:21:37+00:00): Was soll das sein? Die Bäckerei Ruetz hat keinen zweiten Namen.
aw_LT (2025-06-19 12:48:08+00:00): der Name wurde wieder entfernt, sofern es da eine Firma gibt, bitte auf separatem Node taggen