piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
fortera_au (2025-02-23 03:49:48+00:00): I've restored the deleted building in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162838337, please don't delete items that do exist just because you're not happy with the quality, instead improve them or leave them.
user_21880486 (2025-02-23 07:12:58+00:00): OpenStreetMap is about quality, not just quantity. If buildings have geometry that’s way off, leaving them on the map just adds noise and misleads users. I didn’t just delete them for fun—I removed data that didn’t meet the standards OSM strives for. It’s not about disliking someone’s work, it’s about maintaining the map’s integrity.
aharvey (2025-02-22 10:21:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162810447
user_21880486 (2025-02-22 10:53:07+00:00): Hi there,

The buildings I removed had way off geometry, and doesn't align with the expectation of quality for OpenStreetMap. Not quickly doing an import for Microsoft buildings. There were many like this in a large area from running an overpass turbo query. That aside, I removed it for quality assurance.

-computerOwl
NorthCrab_upload (2025-02-22 06:20:54+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/329177788

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
WieKo68 (2025-02-23 19:37:38+00:00): poprawione
aharvey (2025-02-22 10:20:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162810411
user_21880486 (2025-02-22 10:53:00+00:00): Hi there,

The buildings I removed had way off geometry, and doesn't align with the expectation of quality for OpenStreetMap. Not quickly doing an import for Microsoft buildings. There were many like this in a large area from running an overpass turbo query. That aside, I removed it for quality assurance.

-computerOwl
NorthCrab_upload (2025-02-22 06:20:54+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7652386339
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1095477865

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
aharvey (2025-02-22 10:05:56+00:00): Longstanding OpenStreetMap principals include

1. Do correct errors -> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Do_correct_errors

2. Don't remove objects that you don't need or like -> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_remove_objects_that_you_don't_need_or_like

In this case, the these existing building features are reasonable, and in my view they are pretty good. If you don't agree you're welcome to improve them, but don't delete others work just because you don't like it.

We'll revert this change, please avoid this going forward.
aharvey (2025-02-22 10:18:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162810358 due to the above mentioned reasons.
user_21880486 (2025-02-22 10:52:47+00:00): Hi there,

The buildings I removed had way off geometry, and doesn't align with the expectation of quality for OpenStreetMap. Not quickly doing an import for Microsoft buildings. There were many like this in a large area from running an overpass turbo query. That aside, I removed it for quality assurance.

-computerOwl
fortera_au (2025-02-23 03:30:26+00:00): I agree with aharvey, while some of these aren't perfect, some of the deleted ones are reasonably accurate.

Deleting the ones that are somewhat off isn't the right answer, either correct them, put a fixme tag on the problematic ones, leave a note, or see if someone in the community can help with fixing them.

They're still houses in those locations, and building outlines that need a bit of a touch up are better than not having them there at all.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162804346
kurisubrooks (2025-02-23 05:19:00+00:00): fortera and aharvey are correct here. please fix the buildings yourself if you don't think they're of a sufficient quality. data shouldn't be deleted
user_21880486 (2025-02-23 07:12:38+00:00): OpenStreetMap is about quality, not just quantity. If buildings have geometry that’s way off, leaving them on the map just adds noise and misleads users. I didn’t just delete them for fun—I removed data that didn’t meet the standards OSM strives for. It’s not about disliking someone’s work, it’s about maintaining the map’s integrity.
kurisubrooks (2025-02-23 07:21:17+00:00): While I understand your point of view, and there have been many cases where I would have liked to have done the same, this is not the OpenStreetMap way. 

As @aharvey provided links to, and as @fortera_au mentioned; if data is incorrect, you fix it, not delete it.
fortera_au (2025-02-23 07:21:58+00:00): It's not misleading for houses to be slightly off from what they are, as long as positioning is right. It's not perfect, but it's still accurate enough to remain in OSM.

If you're not happy with the accuracy of these buildings, then engage with the people adding them in, but once they've been added in, the right thing to do is to fix them, not delete them.
user_21880486 (2025-02-23 07:36:01+00:00): It's not just slightly off. It's way off.
fortera_au (2025-02-23 07:44:30+00:00): They're not perfect, but they're still accurate in that there's a house in that location. Even people can't map houses perfectly, I've corrected plenty that have been mapped manually.

Deleting those objects means that instead of knowing there's a house there, we now don't know that. That's a significant loss when you delete several streets worth.

If you're not happy with the minute level of inaccuracy from these buildings, either fix them up, or raise the issue with the people importing them.
kurisubrooks (2025-02-23 07:56:56+00:00): I just checked the buildings you had removed personally and they were of a completely standard quality that you would expect in the OSM database. It's humourous that you personally use an AI to add buildings for you, one that seems to only recognise sheds as buildings (changeset/162522492), in a completely erratic/sparse pattern that doesn't provide any sort of benefit to data consumers/end users, to be judging others for doing the same. If you're not happy with the quality of data in the OSM database, you're welcome to either fix it, or ignore it. You cannot remove data for reasons such as "low quality".
user_21880486 (2025-02-23 08:11:48+00:00): The buildings I add with AI are accurate. These weren’t. Regardless of their “erratic pattern,” adding buildings is still data.

Moreover, THESE buildings have severely incorrect geometry, as I’ve mentioned in my previous comments. You CAN remove data for low-quality buildings.
user_21880486 (2025-02-23 08:13:27+00:00): I believe there’s a line where data quality drops so low that it does more harm than good. Buildings with severely inaccurate geometry can mislead users and lower the map’s reliability. In those cases, I stand by the decision to remove them.
kurisubrooks (2025-02-23 08:16:50+00:00): Do you have a link to the policy you're referring to where it's accepted to remove data for low-quality buildings? I'd like to see what officially recognised/community-standard position you're referring to.
user_21880486 (2025-02-23 08:20:06+00:00): 
I realize now that my approach to handling low-quality buildings didn’t fully align with the community’s expectations. I was focused on improving the map’s overall accuracy but understand that deleting data—even if flawed—is not the preferred method here.
fortera_au (2025-02-23 08:21:58+00:00): I agree with kurisubrooks, you’ve got 3 mappers, including a former DWG member, who all disagree with these being deleted, I’d like to see where people have agreed that minor issues (that are still not that inaccurate and provide accurate data in that there are houses there) are worthy of straight out deletion instead of just fixing them.
kurisubrooks (2025-02-23 08:25:01+00:00): OpenStreetMap has a very documented way of handling most issues, and there have been issues with users in the past not being able to recognise the documentation and instead using their personal beliefs as their standard for contributing - I'm glad this is not the case here, and I applaud you for coming around. If you'd like some reading material on "standard practise", the two links that aharvey mentioned in his original comment are a great place to start. The wiki has very thorough information on what is expected 🙌🏻
janesk (2025-02-23 09:18:54+00:00): If the buildings aren't egregiously wrong I would certainly not remove them from the map even if they may not be as high quality as anyone would like. 

Obviously at a certain point data could become bad enough that you might consider it vandalism, at which point removing them would be justified. But I that obviously isn't the case here, and it would be a good idea to discuss this with other mappers before making a deletion.

If you don't feel existing building outlines are good enough, you should improve them yourself, rather than deleting them. It preserves the data and also importantly the history of the object.
Filip009 (2025-05-19 19:02:36+00:00): Zdravím, prečo to zrušenie zákazu? Je tam už vybudovaný oficiálny prechod?
大山かなめ (2025-02-22 07:04:32+00:00): 横断歩道ですが、歩行者用灯器の有無が判断できないため
先に片側だけ描かれていたcrossing=zebraを踏襲しています
大山かなめ (2025-02-22 07:05:42+00:00): 同じく、位置についてもBingと比べほんのり西寄りである既存の歩道に合わせています
evdence (2025-02-22 07:08:31+00:00): I deleted the original building way because geometry replacment had errors
richlv (2025-02-23 11:19:14+00:00): That seems suboptimal - what exact errors were those?
If there are errors, and the tool cannot be fixed, it is still suggested to keep the ways, for example, by applying the desired changes to the original way[s].
archie (2025-02-22 07:37:34+00:00): Please attach this data to the cliff which is allready in osm as a way (line) to the left of your node (point). Otherwise this would be a duplicate. Thanks
VesnaKriznar (2025-02-22 07:46:30+00:00): I use mapy.cz and I see that if this is s linear cliff it is not marked as a sight, that is why I used a special point - as cliff as there is in reality a point beneath the cliff with a "resting point" with table and benches.
archie (2025-02-22 08:47:25+00:00): Please do not mark duplicates. If it is a pickning table with a view, then mapp it as such, but not cliff as a node.
VesnaKriznar (2025-02-22 08:50:53+00:00): I understand. I corrected it. I added more fields to the cliff itself, so it is visible as a tourist attraction. I deleted the doubled input.
archie (2025-02-22 08:59:36+00:00): if the cliff or part of it is a viewpoint, you could add viewpoint=yes
VesnaKriznar (2025-02-22 09:04:36+00:00): There actually is a great view from above, but there is a steep unmarked path leading to it. Or if you are a climber, you can climb the rocks. So maybe it is not OK to mark a viewpoint  if it is dangerous to reach it.
archie (2025-02-22 09:33:31+00:00): yes, and by tagging viewpoint=yes you are avoiding tourism=viewpoint, the latter tag  implying that the usual  tourist can reach this viewpoint.
mos_next_door (2025-02-22 09:42:40+00:00): Добрый день.
addr:street:ru на домах избыточен, адресация должна идти по связке name улицы и addr:street дома, при наличии name:ru у улицы русскоязычная адресация сработает для всех домов. Но глобально это ничего не ломает, так что если очень хочется, ставьте.
addr: (2025-02-23 13:04:12+00:00): Спасибо за коментарий, это интересно. 
Думаю, это зависит от используемых алгоритмов. Не все так умеют, так что мы ставим.
jaki11 (2025-02-22 12:45:21+00:00): Trawa to obiekt trywialny bo dziko porasta każdy kawałek ziemi i rysowanie tego według mnie np na każdym rowie czy podwórku to straszne marnowanie czasu. Jest to całkowicie zbędne a do tego robi się pstrokato i nieprzejrzyście
Krzemyczek (2025-02-22 12:52:52+00:00): Hm, welp, ta, przeginam trochę. Ale są miejsca, gdzie warto przy tym usiąść
jaki11 (2025-02-22 13:09:00+00:00): jasne, w miejscach gdzie są łąki, czy trawa którą dodawałeś wokół zalewu jest jak najbardziej ok;) ale regułą w polsce jest mapowanie terenów wsi i miast tagiem landuse=residential, wystarczy popatrzeć na miejscowości w okolicy
Krzemyczek (2025-02-22 13:29:50+00:00): Które wyglądają nijako*
Postaram się efektywniej je dodawać niemniej
jaki11 (2025-02-22 13:44:14+00:00): widze ze można ci coś tłumaczyć a ty uparty dalej swoje.. szkoda że sie nie dogadamy
jeslop (2025-02-26 18:03:27+00:00): Reverted on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162982762
okadatsuneo (2025-02-22 08:27:43+00:00): コメントは港区の誤り
NorthCrab_upload (2025-02-22 08:51:03+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1361907329

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
josmougn (2025-04-09 15:29:40+00:00): bonjour, je n'arrive pas à voir les modifs faites mais le commentaire "Nettoyer les relations en doublon" m'inquiète un peu.
Je me souviens avoir déjà mis à jour l'EV3 au Port-aux-Cerises et là c'est tout cassé.
Attention il y a 2 itinéraires différents : "l'officiel" (lien 1) et l'associatif (lien 2).
lien 1 : https://www.scandiberique.fr/
lien 2 : https://eurovelo3.fr/
Hungerburg (2025-03-01 15:17:02+00:00): Hallo Cowboy, ist das so irgendwo dokumentiert, dass Wohngebiete an der Gehsteigkante enden/beginnen? zb https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1361006572

PS: Es hat in Österreich schon so einen Fall gegeben, wo Landnutzungsflächen dafür verwendet worden sind Verkehrsflächen quasi freizustellen. Das wurde mehrheitlich abgelehnt.
cowboyxup (2025-03-07 12:04:02+00:00): Hallo Hungerburg,

für Wohngebiete gibt es keine genaue Definition wo diese enden/beginnen. Verkehrsflächen sind übrigens als area:highway gemapped. Siehe französicher render Stiel.
Ich habe mich jetzt durch hunderte von Posts im Forum duchgelesen und konnte keine Defintion extrahieren. Herauskristalisiert hat sich: Gebiete nicht km^2 groß, aber auch nicht 20qm groß, keine Multipolygone. Es gibt keineine Konsens wo residential anfängt und endet. Jeder Mapper und in jedem Dorf/Stadt ist es anders gemapped.

Meine Intension ist es, wenn ich schon dabei bin die Straßen detailierter zu kartieren gleich die Wohngebiete mit groben Verläufen und großen Flächen in kleinere handlichere Flächen zu überführen. Wohnblocks sind im Stadtgebiet eine natürliche Einheit. 

Die Gehsteigkante ist ist aus folgenden Punkten gewählt:
1. Einfache auf Luftbildern auffindbare Trennung. Dadurch dass diese nahe an der Oberfläche liegt, gibt es keine Verzerrung durch Schräge draufsicht der Luftbilder. Bei Überdeckung duch Bäume/häuser ist diese Trennung trotzdem aus dem Tiris Geländemodell extrahierbar. 
2. Für area:highway ist es dieselbe Grenze, reduziert Aufwand beim mappen.
Hungerburg (2025-03-08 19:30:21+00:00): Ich hab das hier https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/wohngebiete-und-gehsteigkanten/127100 zur Diskussion gestellt.
Luen Warneke (2025-07-07 10:41:19+00:00): It seems way 962170119 no longer exists. There's no visible road, only wheat crops. It looks like it's farmland (private).
queerthoughts (2025-07-07 14:59:29+00:00): Please have a look at the discussion in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4230307 and Mapillary images from the area. There is no indication visible that access is restricted, which is why I added a `fixme=*` regarding the possibility of private property and didn't modify the `access=*` directly.

As to the area being full of crops, this is seasonal regardless of the crop, the path would be accessible during certain periods of the year. There's lots of cases like this in OSM. The poor trail visibility is also recorded in OSM.
Luen Warneke (2025-07-07 15:24:11+00:00): Thank you for your explanation. I was just curious and thought it could possibly be a seasonal pathway. Thanks for clarifying.
PierZen (2025-02-22 16:53:55+00:00): noeud déplacé / node moved + accessibilité ?
6,6210 km !
Taya_S (2025-02-23 12:07:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted as it dragged a random node halfway across the world

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162848861
大山かなめ (2025-02-23 12:57:35+00:00): 訂正：
sourceタグを間違えています。
街路写真は使わず、Bingを参照しました。
Scalarik (2025-06-03 11:29:04+00:00): Heippa, mielenkiinnosta kyselen että millä perusteella tämä muutos neighbourhood --> quarter tuli tehtyä?
VictorIE (2025-02-22 20:22:23+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18738428

building = detached;yes;farm_auxiliary;shed

Is this mean to be a relation?
eireidium (2025-02-23 12:25:51+00:00): I did not thanks for catching it. Inadvertently clicked create relation when squaring. It should be rectified now.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-02-22 10:10:57+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/node/12609326478

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
habi (2026-02-12 14:03:46+00:00): Hey.
Der Küchenladen ist schon seit 4 Jahren als https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9350559456/history erfasst.
Ich habe dein hier dazugefügtes Duplikat gelöscht.
Gruss,
habi
unh_ (2025-02-26 01:03:22+00:00): #btcmap
s777n (2025-02-22 16:45:04+00:00): Здравствуйте. Вы не только подвинули гидрант но еще и поломали дорогу и подвинули пешеходный переход на здание и передвинули магазин цветов. Ваша правку была удалена. Попробуйте еще раз.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-02-22 10:41:01+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/node/12609376447

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Vistamar (2025-02-23 16:11:59+00:00): Przepraszam, ale w Polsce zwyczajowo numeruje się po prostu wiejskie domy. Nie ma nazw ulic z numerami domów. Dlatego w nazwach ulic zawsze podaje się nazwę miejscowości.  Adres jest poprawny.
EdLoach (2025-02-24 17:39:10+00:00): Thank you. I think from the changeset they might relate to this note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2325384 If I'm correct, can the note be closed do you think?
catch56 (2025-02-24 18:06:41+00:00): It's definitely the same set of affected footpaths, I'm sure I didn't do a perfect job of mapping the new ones, but probably issues with that could be resolved in their own right. Not sure how to resolve a note though - haven't done that before on OSM.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-08 00:09:00+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164656299
gscholz (2025-03-09 08:57:15+00:00): Hi  joedal-osm,
this changeset has creates errors in the OSM database regading self intersecting ways:


https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=-1.39623&lat=9.15803&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=162811460

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2025-03-11 07:46:04+00:00): Hi joedal-osm, 
this error still exists, can I get your feedback here?
Guido
tevildo_ (2025-02-22 11:52:30+00:00): Промените по водната каскада изглежда неправилна, допълнително геометрията беше пречертана от точен чертеж, а редактираната част от нея в същинската част на площада очевидно не може да е на базата на Esri изображения, защото е засенчена от растителност.
tevildo_ (2025-02-22 11:53:21+00:00): Дори да не беше, резолюцията на esri world imagery не позволява работа в подобен детайл.
tevildo_ (2025-02-22 11:58:28+00:00): Преместените пътни знаци около кръговото на Ботев и Симеон Велики също са грешни – част от тях не съществуват, а останалата не са на място.
tevildo_ (2025-02-22 11:59:00+00:00): Промените в геометрията на останалата част от площада също не съвпадат.
foreigner037 (2025-02-22 12:36:39+00:00): Доста информация на един път.

1. Водната каскада не съм я пипал, единствено обърнах посоката на преливниците защото реката тече в обратната посока
2. Знаците само ги преместих защото иначе са върху пътя и пречат на ways. Ако смяташ, че не съществуват, можеш да ги махнеш.
3. За геометрията на площада нямам идеята какъв точно проблем визираш. Единствено го долепих до сградите.
foreigner037 (2025-02-22 12:41:31+00:00): Всъщност май разбрах за коя каскада говориш. Там съм сменил small_pond с amenity = fountain и на последната каскада махнах level, защото това е за етажи на сгради, не слоеве на обекти.
TrickyFoxy (2025-02-22 22:31:35+00:00): 👋 Это действительно охотничья вышка?
tevildo_ (2025-02-22 11:42:23+00:00): Здрасти, какъв източник ползваш за адресите и имената на улиците в центъра?
foreigner037 (2025-02-22 12:38:59+00:00): Кадастъра. Само не го взимай за чиста монета че не винаги адресите и улиците отговарят.
NeisBot (2025-02-22 17:01:07+00:00): Hello, thank you for your contribution.

I noticed that some of the tags and descriptions you've used appear to be related to #SEO #spam. I recommend reading the following page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Spam

Could you please confirm if your map edits here were intentional?

#MapWithoutSpam #TagSmartNotSpam
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-13 10:14:40+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/162898552
dreua (2025-02-24 17:16:29+00:00): Besten Dank :)
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-07 06:13:41+00:00): DWG revert - poor quality mapping

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164617601
felipeeugenio (2025-02-22 12:42:22+00:00): Id	Contributor	Tmstmp UTC	Action	Comment
4636594	felipeeugenio	2025-02-22 13:40	closed	ok
4636648	felipeeugenio	2025-02-22 13:40	closed	ok
4636649	felipeeugenio	2025-02-22 13:40	closed	ok
4636596	felipeeugenio	2025-02-22 13:40	closed	ok
4636597	felipeeugenio	2025-02-22 13:40	closed	ok
4636650	felipeeugenio	2025-02-22 13:40	closed	ok
4636651	felipeeugenio	2025-02-22 13:40	closed	ok
4636652	felipeeugenio	2025-02-22 13:40	closed	ok
4636598	felipeeugenio	2025-02-22 13:40	closed	ok
4636592	felipeeugenio	2025-02-22 13:40	closed	ok
4636593	felipeeugenio	2025-02-22 13:40	closed	ok
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-22 17:36:21+00:00): Hi Gzhegozh, welcome to OSM.

In the past 12 hours, you have made numerous name changes across various changesets. This included modifying names. Are these changes being made in coordination with the local community? Additionally, could you share more information about your sources?

I would appreciate a response.

Thank you.

You can find an overview of the recent changesets at the following link: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious?uid=11371364
Gzhegozh (2025-02-22 21:29:08+00:00): Hi Pitscheplatsch,  

I have updated the street names in Konotop based on the renaming orders issued by the Konotop City Council in 2023–2024, with the largest changes made on April 24, 2024 (one of the 11 orders from that day is linked here: https://konotop-rada.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/71.1-od-vid-24.04.2024.pdf). These renamings are part of the city's ongoing decommunization and derussification efforts and were carried out strictly per the official orders.

Kindly,
Gzhegozh
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-08 00:09:01+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164656299
lmagreault (2025-03-03 18:40:03+00:00): Attention : l'enceinte du lycée avait été passée en bâtiment (building=school). Corrigé.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162815668
foreigner037 (2025-02-22 15:45:06+00:00): Извинявай, но може ли да не връщаш целия набор на един път? Тук има доста повече промени от коментираните а и е доста неуважително към труда на другите