piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Frans S (2026-05-25 08:28:44+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Difficult to map here due to the poor imagery quality. Use Maxbox satellite imagery for a better contrast (after aligning with the Bing imagery.)
This building you mapped
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1520083736/history
is the front of a multistory building, which is mapped left to it.
Not a separate building.
You know how to map these buildings?

Check this video.
For buildings with a few floors, start watching from position 1 minute. 
https://youtu.be/Tpi-BTMVo1M
https://youtu.be/dsfUcslLtVc?si=bEHwRl1sxDI_GA0H
Best regards
DENelson83 (2026-06-06 01:56:02+00:00): way/346373797

No "name"="Detroit-Windsor Tunnel"?
eggie (2026-05-25 05:39:07+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
pwbriggs (2026-05-29 22:28:20+00:00): Another user has set this back to vegan only in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183376825. Please comment there to explain why you think this place is not exclusively vegan. Thanks!
mappinglander (2026-06-01 18:16:06+00:00): Merhaba,
Eğitim kurumu ofisi etiketi, üniversitelerin dışında kalan eğitim kurumları,enstitüler vb. için kullanılmaktadır. Üniversite ofisi etiketi bir üniversitenin içinde bulunan fakülte dekanlıkları, başkanlıklar, rektörlükler, enstitüler vs. için kullanılmaktadır. Bu etiketleri sadece bir bina için lütfen eklemeyiniz. Bu bina sadece üniversite binası, içinde herhangi bir idari bölüm bulunuyor mu? Örnekler için Openstreetmap Wikiye yahut dünya, Türkiye ve İzmir genelindeki iyi haritalanmış üniversitelere bakabilirsiniz. İyi günler dilerim,
Baloo Uriza (2026-05-25 13:52:06+00:00): We don't delete roads just because they're private, we put access=private on them instead.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183131775
justin5822 (2026-05-25 06:08:42+00:00): the aldot map is incorrect. CR 8 continues to CR 95 per bing streetside and NAD. CR 85 dead ends into CR 8
DunDan8 (2026-05-25 13:00:49+00:00): Kk, I'll try to cross reference more with NAD and Bing Streetside
TheSwavu (2026-06-04 09:26:44+00:00): Hello,

This revert seems to have messed up w92391509 https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/92391509

You might want to check that.

Thanks.
statelyelms (2026-05-27 01:32:42+00:00): H'lo 👋

Just wanted to let you know your changes accidentally broke the wood area near Geary. All fixed, but if you find that happens again, I've found it's best to look at the area's constituent parts as the renderer flips out if a way crosses over itself or isn't closed completely (as happened here).

That's all, just thought you might be interested. Cheers!

elms
User54234 (2026-05-27 17:23:51+00:00): Oh shoot, so sorry about that! I didn't notice that, but thanks for telling me. I'll make sure I don't do that again.
statelyelms (2026-05-27 17:38:44+00:00): Oh, don't worry too much! I've done it countless times, it's really hard to anticipate. Just try to repair it when it happens, if you notice.
User54234 (2026-05-27 17:55:01+00:00): ill look closer next time thanks.
Johannes Titor (2026-05-25 02:16:50+00:00): *Added more buildings
jm428 (2026-05-25 02:13:00+00:00): Source is survey not imagery
jm428 (2026-05-25 02:12:48+00:00): Source is survey not imagery
jm428 (2026-05-25 02:12:28+00:00): Source is survey not imagery
Taksine (2026-05-31 10:49:46+00:00): OSM不是游记，你的标注应当规范。
ChrissW-R1 (2026-05-27 22:36:07+00:00): Is this only a shoes store? Please check the tag "ahop".
Noelia<3 (2026-05-25 20:08:01+00:00): I visited this park in March 2026 and realized that the OSM routes were so different than the actual park map that I had to come back and fix it. My GPS track appears to match the official park map, which I consulted along the way: https://parks.alamancecountync.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2022/10/2022-Cedarock-Map-2022_LowWeb.pdf
okadatsuneo_import (2026-05-25 04:31:07+00:00): 51336780が正
mavl (2026-05-26 16:01:29+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок удалил существующие дороги. Пакет правок отменён.
Jordi MF (2026-05-26 17:45:52+00:00): Hola Adrián.

Estás modificando el tipo de edificio de forma incorrecta. Estos edificios son casas y deben de manternerse como "house". Si los cambias a building=yes, ya no se sabe de qué tipo de edificio se trata y se está perdiendo información en la base de datos. Por favor, mantén la tipología de edificio. Si no, en futuros casos, deberá de revertirse el changset completo para recuperar la información perdida.

Gracias y buen mapeo!
joost schouppe (2026-05-26 09:52:45+00:00): Je hebt hier de eigenschappen van het gebouw gewist. Meer info via https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/260474587
Владимир Новые Ключи (2026-05-25 05:43:21+00:00): Отмена! Не менять.
AndyB_66 (2026-06-10 13:36:25+00:00): Bzdura, na wczorajszym zdjęciu satelitarnym brak jakichkolwiek śladów budowy.
AndyB_66 (2026-06-10 13:42:34+00:00): reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183924967
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-06-12 12:20:33+00:00): and verted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184014149
TrickyFoxy (2026-07-16 14:23:30+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185848863
Mxdanger (2026-06-03 21:26:42+00:00): please use access=private to mark road as private. Fixed with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183614704
Dodko (2026-05-27 09:22:34+00:00): Znovu nesprávna a duplicitná adresa.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-06-26 12:52:39+00:00): You may be interested in https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bonn-underground-light-rail-is-railway-tram-stop-justified-there/144893
tux67 (2026-05-25 09:12:59+00:00): Hi,

kleiner Hinweis .. auf Bilder wie hier (unfreie Quelle, unklare Lizenz, wechselnde url) sollten wir nicht verlinken ;-) https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8813954093

Gruß
tux67
The Invisible Freak (2026-05-25 10:08:33+00:00): Ich habe lediglich ergänzt, dass dort auch Eis angeboten wird.
Der Link zum Bild war vorher schon da, funktioniert aber nicht mehr. Habe ihn daher gelöscht.
tux67 (2026-05-25 10:11:19+00:00): Entschuldige .. da hätte ich mal besser tiefer in die CS history schauen sollen ...
tux67 (2026-05-25 10:13:53+00:00): P.S.: Danke fürs löschen
MappingMore (2026-05-27 16:30:18+00:00): Partially Revert of 183094923
PlausibleParaphenalia (2026-05-25 07:28:39+00:00): I'm not entirely sure whether the road that goes underneath the building should be considered a "tunnel" or not, since it's just going underneath the roof of the gas station.

I don't really know, since I am new to this.
Petr Jenč (2026-06-27 20:32:40+00:00): damaging the work of a local mapper - restoration
salma_ayman (2026-06-28 11:49:05+00:00): In the future, we will contact with we when we need editing on your changes.
Princess_Aurora (2026-06-28 12:01:05+00:00): # contact with you
salma_ayman (2026-06-29 05:43:30+00:00): # contact with you
onterof (2026-05-30 09:21:17+00:00): Hi,
Bei an mehreren Stellen hast du eine Beschreibung ergänzt, dass es am 15.06.2023 nicht funktionierte.
Welchen Mehrwert soll so eine alte Information bringen? Oder ist das Datum evtl. nur falsch?
Die Wasserspender am Flughafen brauchen auch keinen Namen, der nur dasselbe sagt wie die tags.
Der Getränkeautomat -kostenpflichtig mit fee=no ist auch etwas widersprüchlich.
Grüße
Sébastien Pi (2026-05-27 20:27:09+00:00): Bonjour,

Le guidepost est plus sud (et n’est pas cartographié). L’information n’est pas sur le bon élément. Je vais corriger.
eerib (2026-05-25 19:36:22+00:00): Hello noblewarrior,

Thank you for your interest in OpenStreetMap and your first edit! I have improved this edit by reverting the deletions and instead marking the trails as access=private or access=no depending on if they're on privately held fee simple lands or on the railway crown tenure. This follows best practices as explained in the following wiki page.

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

Thank you, eerib
eggie (2026-05-25 07:58:17+00:00): Dag AH,

   Je hebt de website (nog) niet aangepast. Die is van de vorige eigenaar.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=183141222
 MVG
eggie
Jrachi (2026-05-26 06:16:39+00:00): Ciao.
Hai applicato un tratto di sentiero come demanding_mountain_hiking, citando la scarsa visibilità per la vegetazione, lasciando però il trail_visibility a good.
Non sono d'accordo.
Hai citato la wiki nella colonna "Requisiti".
Ma le colonne "Sentiero" e  "Terreno" non rispecchiano quello che dici.
Non ha tratti esposti o su terreno instabile. Il pericolo intrinseco non è diverso dal resto del percorso.
Ha bisogno di una pulita, ma arrivare all'Alpe d'Attia è decisamente lungo e non troviamo volontari per andarci!
È facile trovare chi dice che si sta chiudendo e che è diventato troppo difficile, ma, si sa, le lingue e le gambe sono parti del corpo che non comunicano.

Ivo
raccoss (2026-05-27 17:42:41+00:00): Ciao Ivo, mi spiace che tu abbia preso questo changeset come un attacco personale al notevole lavoro di manutenzione sentieri che credo che tu faccia in Val d'Ala con la tua sezione e che in sporadiche occasioni ho provato a fare anche io.

Posso confermarti che la mia lingua e le mie gambe comunicano benissimo. Non faccio fatica a fare una salita al Colle d'Attia e anche oltre e posso dire di avere una esperienza pluridecennale di trekking montano, per cui ogni tanto cerco di valutare i percorsi con occhio critico.

Innanzitutto: ho messo nelle note che la vegetazione si sta mangiando il sentiero solo in riferimento al sentiero non numerato che da Bal Maschè collega alla poderale che poi porta a Pian delle Pietre. Innanzitutto non è evidente l'inizio della traccia: bisogna attraversare il prato vicino agli alpeggi prima di trovare un segno, e poi in parecchi tratti del sentiero stanno crescendo alberelli che ormai hanno raggiunto l'altezza di 60/80 cm. E infatti quel tratto l'ho indicato come visibility=bad.

Per quanto riguarda il sentiero 238, non si può onestamente dire che il tratto tra Pian d'Attia e Alpe d'Attia sia uguale a quello che dall'Alpe va al Colle.
La prima parte è un sentiero largo in mezzo al bosco, la seconda invece è una salita su terreno misto a sfasciumi, più friabile, con pendenze tra i 30° e 40°. Magari non è la differenza tra un E ed un EE, ma visto che la scala di difficoltà svizzera adottata da OSM ha un livello di classificazione in più, considerando anche i tre tratti che hanno leggermente ceduto (il sentiero è come scivolato di 20/30 cm; è comunque apparentemente solido, ma non è una bella senzazione da vedere), non mi sembra peregrino passare da un T2 a un T3 in quello specifico tratto. Non si tratta di una mancanza di machismo (io non ho problemi ne' sui T3 ne' sui T4), ma di cercare di affinare la classificazione per evitare di trovarci dei merenderos con le scarpe da ginnastica che camminano facendo i video (e poi devono chiamare il Soccorso perchè sono volati giù di 5 metri). Poi non ci voglio fare le lotte di religione, se ti senti offeso dal T3, fai pure revert sul 238.

Riccardo
MatthiasMatthias (2026-07-24 06:22:48+00:00): hello. you removed all the data from Hotel Mermoz, but it is only closed temporarily for renovations. I will restore the details and set it to closed temporarily. please check if you did similar treatments on other elements as well.
MatthiasMatthias (2026-07-24 06:23:34+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3597332466/history
Mannivu (2026-05-25 09:51:01+00:00): Ciao, in realtà la mappatura era più corretta prima (al netto dell'altezza esagerata): in casi come questo, in cui nessuna parte sporge oltre l'impronta dell'edificio una relazione è superflua
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183142280
ivanbranco (2026-05-25 10:09:25+00:00): Yep, no need to make the outline as a multipolygon with parts as outers. A simple polygon is enough if there are no inners. Also "building:part=no" it's problematic, since it's treated by some 3D renderers (that do no parse different values) as a building:part.
Champi67 (2026-05-25 11:48:12+00:00): I disagree to have only 1 polygon because different parts of building does not have the same height, it will just hide all other parts. 
About "building:part=no" you're right, i had a doubt about this change, thx.
ivanbranco (2026-05-25 11:56:50+00:00): > I disagree to have only 1 polygon because different parts of building does not have the same height, it will just hide all other parts.

Where do you see this behaviour? The current standard is the "Simple 3D Buildings": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings
If a renderer doesn't render stuff properly, the renderer should be fixed, not our tagging be adapted to it (some people adds height=0 to the outline, for example...).
Champi67 (2026-05-25 12:05:15+00:00): Because they already exist and have some details provided. Why create another one over these ways that will hide them? 452560276, 452560284, 452560288, 452560300, 452560302.
Maybe relation is too much, but just restoring this way 1467764891 without looking the others has no sense.
ivanbranco (2026-05-25 12:18:45+00:00): that's how the schema works, one polygon for the outline, then fill it with building parts.

"The building outline represents the area of land covered by the union of all parts of the building."
"A building should have a single area tagged building=*."

"The entire building outline should be filled with building:part=* areas"

In general multipolygons "are used to represent areas (polygons), typically complex ones with holes inside, or consisting of multiple disjoint parts". This area didn't have holes or disjointed parts, so a multipolygon wasn't needed, as Mannivu noted.
PlausibleParaphenalia (2026-05-25 08:34:15+00:00): Previously the feature of the road was specified as a "Alley", I changed it to "Driveway".

Reasoning being, it is where people park. This is a shared parking area for residents of nearby homes.

While I believe this is reasonable, I stand to be corrected.
PlausibleParaphenalia (2026-05-25 08:38:38+00:00): I have also changed the way the driveway goes to "Hudson Avenue" as previously (it's even viewable on Bing Maps Aerial), there is a fence blocking the way.

As so, I have changed it to go through one of the other homes way to get into the shared driveway.

It might be hard to see, since there are a bunch of trees blocking the way and as so, I couldn't exactly get the exact positioning for the driveway
PlausibleParaphenalia (2026-05-25 08:40:24+00:00): The trees issue is also a problem with the detached garage of the home that was missing, as you can only see part of it on Bing Maps Aerial.
silversurfer83 (2026-05-27 20:18:14+00:00): Hi there :)

could you cite a source for your ref=* changes?

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183143451
Bat Wings (2026-05-29 08:37:53+00:00): Hi :)
My reference point is AIP Germany 02 DEC 21but how can ı use this situation ı couldnt find inside examples.
Cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183143451
silversurfer83 (2026-05-29 09:22:46+00:00): Thanks for the quick reply.

You wouldn't happen to have a link or are able to tell me the license of that source?
Bat Wings (2026-05-29 09:36:05+00:00): Yes ı can share  a link https://aip.dfs.de/BasicIFR/2026MAY14/pages/DCFBF32B6882837D3F7B4BE670543DE2.html
silversurfer83 (2026-05-29 18:38:32+00:00): Thank you

I believe this source is bot suitable for OSM so I believe this CS needs to be reverted and you must stop using this source.

Always(!) make sure the source has a license compatible to ODbL as used by OSM

https://ais.dfs.de/pilotservice/service/information/disclaimer/disclaimer.jsp

https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_Compatibility

Disagree? Please reach out
Bat Wings (2026-05-29 20:50:24+00:00): Thank you
I read this resource regarding the license which is clearly  stated.I only used it for this airport.I pay attention to  ODbL 
https://ais.dfs.de/pilotservice/service/information/
Thank you for your feedback.
silversurfer83 (2026-05-30 05:02:21+00:00): When I click your link I get a page with 
"Seite nicht gefunden"

The "Nutzungsbedingungen" link at the bottom at no paragraph allows for us to use the displayed data.

Please refer to the exact paragraph you believe to make this a legal source for OSM
Bat Wings (2026-05-30 09:12:55+00:00): Yes, Based on article 8, I thought I could use it; I could be wrong.

https://ais.dfs.de/pilotservice/service/information/disclaimer/disclaimer.jsp
I am deleting the changes I made to avoid potential licensing problems at this airport.
silversurfer83 (2026-05-30 09:21:46+00:00): Most of that article states that the data mustn't be used without permission.

It only states that they use OSM but that doesn't make it all free for us to use. OSM many times is "just" a baselayer and the additional data layers have completely different terms.

So thank you for always trying to keep OSM clean :)
Bat Wings (2026-05-30 10:49:03+00:00): Thank you for your kindness also,your informative approach :))
mueschel (2026-05-28 11:41:30+00:00): Bitte schau mal nach deinen alten Namen. Du benutzt keinen einfachen Bindestrich zwischen den Jahreszahlen, sondern einen längeren, der da falsch ist.
GiovanniPen (2026-05-25 09:12:03+00:00): Ciao, i civici non vanno sulla strada ma sugli edifici. Poi cosa vuol dire bonifica?
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-25 09:41:54+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/9418529702
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9418529701
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9418529700
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1107066415
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1107066421
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1107066422

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Antonino_Faro (2026-05-25 09:29:19+00:00): ciao, grazie per la modifica, guardando le immagini satellitari sembra un insieme di edifici, mi confermi che è tutto un unico edificio?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183144861
dott-Frasca-Trapani (2026-05-26 07:10:35+00:00): assolutamente sì, un unico edificio. l'ingresso principale è su Via Torrearsa, sul lato del Corso invece è ripetuto il logo BS su tutte le finestre (a memoria) del primo piano "nobile". non ho guardato lato via Turretta.
Antonino_Faro (2026-05-26 09:33:57+00:00): Ok, grazie mille per la conferma, sto facendo delle piccole correzioni per identificare meglio la banca.
limes11 (2026-05-26 21:36:27+00:00): Hallo

1521243347

berührt das outer der Relation. Das ist für Multipolygone nicht erlaubt. Daher bitte entweder das outer der Relation so anpassen, dass die Fläche nicht mehr im Wald liegt (und diese dann aus der Relation entfernen) oder die Fläche schlicht nicht als inner deklarieren. landuse=forest ist hier ja nicht falsch, die forstwirtschaftliche Nutzung bleibt solange erhalten, bis klar ist, dass die Fläche tatsächlich anders genutzt wird.

Viele Grüße
dgoetz988 (2026-05-30 16:48:29+00:00): hallo, limes11, danke für den Hinweis; und Danke an kartler175 für die Korrektur.
rempshaener (2026-05-25 18:53:25+00:00): Hallo,
auch wenn du es nur angepasst hast: Hydranten haben keine Namen.
Daher bei
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7817388376
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11585037977
bitte löschen.
Viele Grüße
ququruzka (2026-05-29 12:35:42+00:00): Вітаю.
Підкажіть, з якою метою ви вносите російські назви українських вулиць?
якими правилами користуєтесь?
Валентин Ян (2026-05-29 12:41:54+00:00): Вітаю!
Навпаки видаляю і особливо теги name:ru. В даному наборі змін вносив не нанесені об'єкти та перейменовані назви у Чорнобилі відповідно до https://koda.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/767-r-dodatok.pdf
fortera_au (2026-05-27 00:46:37+00:00): Hi, was removing Chicken from the name intentional? Their website still includes it.

Also, postcode and suburb aren't necessary in AU.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183146660
Comino (2026-05-27 06:27:35+00:00): Hi, 

I did not remove "Chicken" from the name! I updated everything based on ticket: https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-data/issues/20123

Please compare version 1 (from 3 years ago) with version 2.

Happy mapping,

Edwin Comino
BTC Map
fortera_au (2026-05-27 06:33:22+00:00): Somehow OSMCha had an invisible horizontal scroll that perfectly cut off the word Chicken, my apologies!
Comino (2026-05-27 06:41:18+00:00): No problem, these things happen.
:-)

Edwin Comino
BTC Map
eggie (2026-05-25 09:46:35+00:00): Dag op die Fiets... Het is beter en gebruikeijk om bedrijven op de (een) adresnode bij te taggen. Dus niet op de gebouwomtrek.
MVG
eggie
t_ja (2026-05-25 15:59:52+00:00): Ahoj,
na čo je dobré uvádzať do názvu "Rímskokatolícka cirkev", keď už je to zaznačené cez tag "denomination=roman_catholic"? Ani mestám sa neuvádza, že je to mesto, t.j. nie je "MESTO Žilina", ale iba "Žilina", taktiež nie je "Supermarket Lidl", ale opäť iba "Lidl".

Poprosím opraviť názvy na formát "Farnosť XYZ", pretože jednak to nie je po slovensky, to by muselo byť "Rímskokatolícka farnosť XYZ" alebo "Farnosť XYZ rímskokatolickej cirkvi", a tiež slovo "farnosť" nemá byť uprostred názvu s veľkým písmenom "F". Všetky tieto neduhy sa odstránia, pokiaľ bude meno len "Farnosť XYZ" 😉
Johlo6 (2026-05-26 12:19:21+00:00): Ahoj.
Vďaka za návrh. Každopádne stojí za úvahu a debatu.
Zatiaľ poprosím ponechať.

Oficiálny názov farností Rímskokatolíckej cirkvi na Slovensku je "Rímskokatolícka cirkev Farnosť XY", resp. "Rímskokatolícka cirkev, Farnosť XY". (viď RPO). Niektoré to v mape tak už mali, niektoré mali ešte starý názov ("Rímskokatolícky farský úrad" a pod.). Preto sme sa snažili to dať jednotne aspoň na území Žilinskej diecézy.
t_ja (2026-05-26 13:14:47+00:00): Vďaka za odpoveď.

Pozrel som len prvých 100 výsledkov, ale cirkev má v názvosloví svojich farností pekný bordel:
- väčšina síce má "farnosť" s malým "f", čo by malo byť aj gramaticky správne, ale zopár je ich aj s veľkým "F" (hlavne región od Ilavy po Čadcu, ktorý si zakresľoval)
- väčšina má čiarku v názve, čo už celkom dáva význam a len zopár je ich bez čiarky.

Môžme sa dohodnúť, že "name" bude obsahovať čiarku a malé "f", t.j. "Rímskokatolícka cirkev, farnosť XYZ", a do tagu "operator" pôjde plné meno právnickej osoby tak, ako je uvedné v registri právnických osôb (t.j. aj s chýbajúcou čiarkou alebo veľkým "F")?
A ak pridáš aj IČO (do tagu "ref:ico"), tak sa bude dať v budúcnosti použiť ako kľúč pri porovnávaní záznamov z RPO oproti dátam OSM...
Johlo6 (2026-05-26 18:14:42+00:00): Ja som to prešiel celé. A, žiaľ, je v tom väčší neporiadok, než som si myslel. (Škoda, že aj tie registre nemajú nejakú unifikovanú štruktúru, vyzeralo by to krajšie...)

Privázda ma to k tomu, že ten Tvoj pôvodný návrh je asi lepší. Nechať v "name" len "Farnosť XY", tým by to bolo aspoň na mape jednotné (teda v tejto oblasti); a plný názov podľa registra dať do niečoho iného - neviem či práve do "operator"? Alebo do "full_name"?
Nápad s ref:ico sa mi tiež páči.
t_ja (2026-05-26 18:29:48+00:00): Osobne by som to dal do tagu "operator", nakolko sa jedna o nazov prevadzkovatela.
Kludne mozes pouzit "full_name" alebo "official_name", vzdy sa to da v buducnosti pretagovat na nieco ine.
SomeoneElse (2026-05-25 15:02:37+00:00): Here you say that https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/8692572 is no longer disputed by Morocco.  What evidence do you have for that?
SomeoneElse (2026-05-25 15:01:34+00:00): Here you have changed the name of https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/8692572 from a mulitlingual version to just Spanish.  Did you discuss that with both the Spanish and Moroccan OSM communities?
SomeoneElse (2026-05-25 15:00:05+00:00): Here you have removed a couple of alt_names from Parsley Island https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/8692572 .  Can you explain why?