piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NeisBot (2026-04-07 14:06:16+00:00): 🌍 Welcome to OSM, Miki+-69.
Thanks for contributing!

To make collaboration easier and help others understand your edits, it’s best to add a short description of the changes you made. Clear comments help the community follow your work and provide better feedback. You can find tips on writing good comments here[1].

✅ Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Adjusted way geometry"
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment
AndyB_66 (2026-04-07 13:58:28+00:00): Zarówno "e", jak i nawet "Edit" to nie są poprawne opisy zestawów zmian - dostosuj się do zasad, proszę: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
AndyB_66 (2026-04-07 13:59:35+00:00): Both "e" and even "Edit" are not valid changeset descriptions - please follow the rules: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Supaplex (2026-04-08 03:33:38+00:00): 因為描繪非開放授權圖資而回退，請參見 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/topic/124651 累犯將送至 Data Working Group
NeisBot (2026-04-07 14:00:42+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 52 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1497369810 v2 | 52 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=181000786
DD1GJ (2026-04-07 15:55:12+00:00): Revert 181001064 181000925 181000786 181000629 180998543, Rundweg von Anfänger als neuer Weg über bereits bestehende Wege eingetragen
pitscheplatsch (2026-04-07 16:04:04+00:00): Danke @DD1GJ

Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181007331
Supaplex (2026-04-08 03:33:51+00:00): 因為描繪非開放授權圖資而回退，請參見 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/topic/124651 累犯將送至 Data Working Group
DD1GJ (2026-04-07 15:54:46+00:00): Revert 181001064 181000925 181000786 181000629 180998543, Rundweg von Anfänger als neuer Weg über bereits bestehende Wege eingetragen
habi (2026-04-07 20:28:17+00:00): I passed between the building and the zoo entrance, and thus didn't see where the postbox is located.
Thanks for taking care of this :)
Supaplex (2026-04-08 03:33:59+00:00): 因為描繪非開放授權圖資而回退，請參見 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/topic/124651 累犯將送至 Data Working Group
DodoGTA (2026-04-07 14:09:42+00:00): According to regia.lt (which most likely uses RC data that we have some kind of permission to use), Aitvarų g. is a real street name with real house addresses using it (so I'll have to revert the noname change)
DodoGTA (2026-04-07 14:14:02+00:00): I thought noname=yes was added instead of removed (so feel free to ignore the last comment)
Ainis Space (2026-04-07 14:31:11+00:00): Hi, so street names would be changed?
DodoGTA (2026-04-07 14:35:02+00:00): @Ainis Space The current ones are fine (I just made a wrong judgement)
impiaaa (2026-04-10 22:47:46+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap! Really, this object shouldn't have anything in the "name=" tag - see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions . Instead, "NVIDIA" could be added as the "operator=", and the "amenity=parking" is enough to describe it as a parking garage. Thanks for finding the issue!
NeisBot (2026-04-07 14:06:40+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 59 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1497369810 v3 | 52 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1497369809 v2 | 7 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=181001064
DD1GJ (2026-04-07 15:54:34+00:00): Revert 181001064 181000925 181000786 181000629 180998543, Rundweg von Anfänger als neuer Weg über bereits bestehende Wege eingetragen
DD1GJ (2026-04-07 15:54:52+00:00): Revert 181001064 181000925 181000786 181000629 180998543, Rundweg von Anfänger als neuer Weg über bereits bestehende Wege eingetragen
pitscheplatsch (2026-04-07 16:04:11+00:00): Danke @DD1GJ

Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181007331
DD1GJ (2026-04-07 16:09:09+00:00): Hallo Thomas, willkommen bei OSM. Du hattest den Rundweg als neuen Weg über bereits bestehende Wege gezeichnet, was in der Datenbank ein Chaos hinterlässt, Zur Vermeidung weiterer Konflikte habe ich daher alle Deine Änderungen komplett rückgängig gemacht.

Ich vermute, Du wolltest eine Karte für die im Mai und September geplanten Rundgänge erstellen. Verwende dafür bitte https://umap.openstreetmap.de/ . Die damit erstellten Karten kannst Du dann on- und offline ohne Copyrightprobleme verwenden. 

Melde Dich bitte bei weiteren Fragen.

Viele Grüße, Joachim

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf
infeeeee (2026-04-07 22:15:22+00:00): Fixed your latest changesets here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181022440

Please use the name:en=* tag for English names, and spell the names correctly! Thanks.
iandees (2026-04-07 15:28:47+00:00): Hello! I noticed that node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/272062927 was moved a long distance in this changeset. This is a common mistake that happens when you click on a point and drag to move the map. The point moves with your mouse instead of the map.

I moved things back to where they were before in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181005965, so no harm done!

To avoid this in the future:
- Try to click on an empty part of the map when you want to move around
- If you see a point move by mistake, press Ctrl+Z (or Cmd+Z on Mac) to undo it

Happy mapping!
Supaplex (2026-04-08 03:34:08+00:00): 因為描繪非開放授權圖資而回退，請參見 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/topic/124651 累犯將送至 Data Working Group
Strubbl (2026-07-30 21:07:39+00:00): Hi ludwich, ich habe diese Änderung mit CS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186669208 mal rückgängig gemacht, weil die Adressen hier neu vergeben werden. Die 25 und 27 wird es nicht mehr geben, dafür aber neu die vier Adressen Pennstraße 60a bis d.
Wenn die vor Ort angebracht sind, können wir sie genau einzeichnen.
Viele Grüße
Wildsharky (2026-04-13 11:35:24+00:00): Revert of 180995663
Supaplex (2026-04-08 03:34:15+00:00): 因為描繪非開放授權圖資而回退，請參見 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/topic/124651 累犯將送至 Data Working Group
NeisBot (2026-04-07 14:46:29+00:00): 🌍 Üdvözöljük az OSM-en, Ákos Kalmár.
Köszönjük a közreműködésed!

Hogy megkönnyítsük az együttműködést és segítsünk másoknak megérteni a szerkesztéseidet, a legjobb, ha rövid leírást adsz a változtatásokról, amelyeket végrehajtottál. Az egyértelmű megjegyzések segítik a közösséget abban, hogy kövessék a munkádat és jobb visszajelzést adjanak. Tanácsokat találhatsz a jó megjegyzések írásáról itt[1].

✅ Íme egy minta megjegyzés a térképszerkesztéseid alapján: "Frissítettem a házszámokat 33-ra, 35-re"
(Auto-translation)
---
🌍 Welcome to OSM, Ákos Kalmár.
Thanks for contributing!

To make collaboration easier and help others understand your edits, it’s best to add a short description of the changes you made. Clear comments help the community follow your work and provide better feedback. You can find tips on writing good comments here[1].

✅ Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Updated house numbers to 33, 35"
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment
AndyB_66 (2026-04-07 15:20:49+00:00): Zmiana wycofana, użytkownik zgłoszony do DWG.
ajmat (2026-04-09 04:10:03+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 181077078
EM_OSM (2026-04-13 19:45:31+00:00): Hi Smeorach, Can you provide the source quoted as I'm not sure that we should be deleting English versions of names, as this was a topic of discussion recently. With thanks.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/remove-english-from-gaeltacht-placenames/141301/56
smeòrach (2026-05-10 21:41:11+00:00): The original name was unsourced and I couldn't corroborate it with any map or other source. Most of the names provided for bogs in this area of Ireland by the user who added them are, I suspect, purely names of administrative usage, but those are mostly sourced so I haven't touched them. It would be good if someone could provide Irish names for those other bogs, if they exist.
Ltrlg (2026-04-17 10:52:47+00:00): Le nom est-il vraiment « Boulangerie Patisserie » ? En plus de l’usuelle remarque que ça ressemble plus à une description qu’un nom, la page liée dans website=* dit « Boulangerie de Soucelles » et ce qui semble être leur page Facebook montre une devanture avec « Artisan boulanger-pâtissier », ce qui tend à montrer qu’il n’y a pas vraiment de nom ?
Digitaleo (2026-04-17 15:02:44+00:00): Bonjour,

Je viens de vérifier : le nom officiel au SIRET est bien « BOULANGERIE PATISSERIE » (exploité par France Boulangerie), et « Soucelles » correspond à la localisation. Mais d'après ce que j'ai compris, ni une description d'activité ni une localisation ne font un bon name=*.

Rien de tout cela n'apparaît sur la devanture. En revanche, le logo officiel fourni par le propriétaire indique « K&F Bouedo », ce qui semble être le vrai nom d'usage.

Je fais la modification en ce sens.

Merci pour la remarque !
Ltrlg (2026-04-20 07:53:38+00:00): Merci pour votre réponse rapide et vos recherches 🙏
Supaplex (2026-04-08 03:34:22+00:00): 因為描繪非開放授權圖資而回退，請參見 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/topic/124651 累犯將送至 Data Working Group
Wildsharky (2026-04-13 10:58:57+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:181077455
Roboost_OSM (2026-04-07 14:57:15+00:00): This change was made by accident using the old tool how can i revert ??
Taya_S (2026-04-07 15:22:40+00:00): I recommend just manually removing the node with iD since it is just a single node. When more changesets are involved it might be easier to use the JOSM Reverter plugin.
qstep (2026-04-07 17:18:21+00:00): Üdv az OpenStreetMap-en! Kérlek a módosításaidhoz írj egy rövid leírást, hogy követhető legyen, mit szerkesztettél. 

Közel lévő és hasonló típusú szerkesztéseket egy nagyobb csomagban is felküldhetsz.

További jó térképezést!
NeisBot (2026-04-07 15:03:40+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 16 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1371206500 v2 | 6 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1132249821 v1 | 5 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1371206501 v5 | 5 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/10557402560 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=181004257
Jose Gonzalez99 (2026-04-07 15:09:11+00:00): This edit was done accidentally so please disregard. I’m still trying to figure out if I can delete it?
yelisey90 (2026-04-07 20:10:43+00:00): reverted the edit in full - this trail's visibility is really quite OK, since it's straight; but notice that it's tagged obstacle=vegetation
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181018664
NeisBot (2026-04-07 15:06:40+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 22 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/386394743 v2 | 11 crossings
https://osm.org/way/386394735 v1 | 11 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/3897149433 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=181004393
iandees (2026-04-07 15:29:00+00:00): Hello! I noticed that node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3897149433 was moved a long distance in this changeset. This is a common mistake that happens when you click on a point and drag to move the map. The point moves with your mouse instead of the map.

I moved things back to where they were before in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181005977, so no harm done!

To avoid this in the future:
- Try to click on an empty part of the map when you want to move around
- If you see a point move by mistake, press Ctrl+Z (or Cmd+Z on Mac) to undo it

Happy mapping!
Supaplex (2026-04-08 03:34:31+00:00): 因為描繪非開放授權圖資而回退，請參見 https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/topic/124651 累犯將送至 Data Working Group
AndyB_66 (2026-04-07 15:19:50+00:00): Zmiana wycofana, użytkownik zgłoszony do DWG.
ajmat (2026-04-08 12:07:21+00:00): Reverted in changeset id: 181045968
alaaan021 (2026-04-07 16:53:14+00:00): Olá. Qual critério foi utilizado para uma rua de comércio no centro da cidade ser considerada apenas residencial?
ErieCanal (2026-04-08 14:20:23+00:00): Hi alaaan021,
Thank you for reaching out, looking over this I agree that this can be changed from residential and I will reclassify this to tertiary instead.
alaaan021 (2026-04-08 14:24:32+00:00): Obrigado por analisar e editar novamente. Thank you
JeroenHoek (2026-04-07 15:46:57+00:00): Why? type=cluster is documented on the wiki on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place=archipelago

You also changed name=*, but that should be a combination of all languages spoken on the isles; not one arbitrarily chosen.
nebulousCarina (2026-04-07 16:32:43+00:00): Name should be in Frisian, it was Dutch before. If you want the official name to be Dutch, you could equally argue for German or Danish.

type=cluster is a proposal and much less used or supported than multipolygons. Also not all the Frisian isles are in one of the subgroups "east Frisian", "west Frisian", "north Frisian", so the cluster was incomplete
JeroenHoek (2026-04-07 16:37:25+00:00): name=* should be in the local languages combined (Frisian / Dutch / German / Danish) as per convention.
JeroenHoek (2026-04-07 16:38:14+00:00): Frisian is only spoken in Frisia by the way, so not suitable as sole name=* (I'm Frisian myself).
nebulousCarina (2026-04-07 16:45:17+00:00): Ah, my apologies, I see what you mean. I think 
Frisian also seems to be spoken in Heligoland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heligoland_Frisian and some of the North Frisian Islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Frisian_language
Furthermore we could add low German as well since it's also an official language. But I agree with your idea
tarkaljamale (2026-04-07 15:24:16+00:00): لقد أخطأت في الموقع اريد تعديله كيف
NeisBot (2026-04-07 15:27:45+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/793789003 v8

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Community center"
---
Por ejemplo, una versión más neutral y objetiva de tu texto podría ser: "Centro comunitario"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
dcapillae (2026-04-07 15:43:58+00:00): Hola.

Hay que diferenciar entre la asociación y el centro ciudadano. En OSM, cada objeto debe tener su propio elemento: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element.

He hecho las correcciones necesarias para diferenciar ambos en el mapa.

Asociación: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8328600675

Centro ciudadano: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/793789003
Wildsharky (2026-04-13 11:37:05+00:00): Revert of 181004490
Frans S (2026-04-08 09:31:13+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
A: Inaccurate mapping. 
B: Overlapping buildings.
C: Collected adjacent buildings and mapped it as 1 building.

E: Buildings not squared or rounded.
H: Included a yard of clearing.


Explanation can be found in this document which  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181006231
Strubbl (2026-04-07 16:51:08+00:00): Hallo hdf90, bitte höre auf, nicht existierende Straßenbahnlinien zu kartieren. Die gibt es seit Jahrzehnten nicht mehr.
Viele Grüße
iandees (2026-04-07 17:14:02+00:00): Hi! It looks like the website URL on way/92044592 may have been copied from Google Maps (it contained Google tracking parameters). Please be careful not to copy information from Google into OpenStreetMap, as Google's data is copyrighted.
dp7 (2026-04-07 16:30:15+00:00): Ciao, ti segnalo che la Grotta della Scappuccia è riconosciuta come tale nel catasto della Regione Marche:
https://ambiente.regione.marche.it/Ambiente/Natura/Turismosostenibile/CatastoGrotte.aspx

Non credo pertanto sia corretto cancellarla.
Mauro Buscarini (2026-04-08 10:30:55+00:00): Ringrazio per la segnalazione.
Tuttavia mi sembra che l’emergenza geologica di cui parliamo non sia una grotta, bensì una forra e pertanto come tale vada mappata, seguendo in questo modo il principio “Disegna ciò che trovi sul terreno” riportato nel capitolo “Buone pratiche” della guida per principianti di OSM.
Comunque puoi modificare come meglio credi.
dp7 (2026-04-08 13:21:43+00:00): Ciao Mauro,

grazie per la tua risposta. Condivido il principio "Disegna ciò che trovi sul terreno", ma non credo vada applicato in modo estremizzato: una cosa non esclude l'altra.

Hai fatto benissimo a mappare le due pareti/rupi contrapposte per rappresentare la forra, è condivisibile. Tuttavia, sulla destra orografica del torrente (lato sinistro guardando la mappa) si apre una cavità molto ampia, che è proprio quanto viene censito come Grotta della Scappuccia nel Catasto delle Grotte della Regione Marche. Non sono stato io a inserirla né su OSM né nel catasto, ma ritengo che la classificazione originale fosse corretta e rispettosa del principio.

Proporrei quindi di mantenere l'elemento grotta (che descrive una parte del luogo, non altrimenti rappresentata, in maniera coerente con la realtà documentale) e aggiungere eventualmente il tag description="forra..." per collegare le due informazioni. In questo modo convivono entrambe le letture: la forra (già mappata con le pareti) e la grotta (censita ufficialmente).

Che ne pensi?

Grazie per la collaborazione.
Mauro Buscarini (2026-04-09 08:10:42+00:00): La parete in riva destra, caratterizzata da forte aggetto, può essere considerata una grotta? Se è così, fai bene a mapparla come tale.
dp7 (2026-04-09 09:39:21+00:00): Dal punto di vista speleologico stretto probabilmente hai ragione. Io volevo solo segnalare che il catasto della Regione Marche la include tra le grotte, verosimilmente usando un’accezione più ampia che comprende anche questo grande antro scavato dall’acqua.

Detto questo, era mappata così da molti anni ed è segnalata come tale anche da altre fonti autorevoli (tra cui IGM), quindi mi sembrava corretto sollevare il dubbio — magari da condividere prima della cancellazione.
BCNorwich (2026-04-09 06:22:28+00:00): Hi, I've removed the duplicated sections of highways where a path is mapped on top of an existing highway. The duplication could cause routing problems. It's best to amend/correct any existing feature thus the history is maintained.

Regards Bernard
Andrex88 (2026-04-09 08:50:27+00:00): Hi, the problem with that is it doesn't make clear that the Public Right of Way (PRoW) starts at the Unclassified Road, rather than at the 'Service road' which could be misconstrued by someone as thinking that the 'service road' is private property, when in actual fact the PRoW shares the same line as the 'service road'.
BCNorwich (2026-04-09 10:23:40+00:00): Hi, the highway shouldn't have been duplicated; that was the main reason for my edit. Rather, the existing highway should be amended, which is what I've done.

I've amended the sections of service roads, Way: 741879990 and Way: 836464309, to reflect the Public Right of Way status. I added the tags:-
designation=public_footpath
foot=designated
prow-ref=Bro Garmon Footpath 5
Thus there can be no misconstruction of the service roads' public status.

Regards Bernard.
Strubbl (2026-04-07 16:51:16+00:00): Hallo hdf90, bitte höre auf, nicht existierende Straßenbahnlinien zu kartieren. Die gibt es seit Jahrzehnten nicht mehr.
Viele Grüße
aceman444 (2026-04-07 19:18:57+00:00): Tu na branu 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13713942504 ste dali access=permit? Kto tam moze ist? Pisete, ze vsetci len si musi vybavit povolenie.
vlakos555 (2026-04-07 20:08:26+00:00): Neviem niekedy čo tam dať. Je to v podstate pre zákazníkov keď mu povedia potiahnite to dnu. Inak tam chodia zamestnanci keď pristavuju vozidlá k výstave a pod. Takže asi "servise" ?
aceman444 (2026-04-07 20:37:52+00:00): Take ani nie je. Potom access=private, cize len komu da vlastnik suhlas. Neda kazdemu okoloiducemu, len zakaznikom a len niektorym. Ale ti maju aj velke parkovisko pred budovou.
NeisRevert (2026-04-12 10:06:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/181222010
where the comment is: "Remove testdata"
Digitaleo (2026-04-07 15:49:43+00:00): Je me suis permis de relancer et d'ajouter les informations que Digitaleo avait.
NeisBot (2026-04-07 15:56:24+00:00): 🌍 Bienvenue sur OSM, AAA85.
Merci de contribuer !

Pour faciliter la collaboration et aider les autres à comprendre tes modifications, il est préférable d'ajouter une courte description des changements que tu as effectués. Des commentaires clairs aident la communauté à suivre ton travail et à fournir des retours plus précis. Tu peux trouver des conseils pour écrire de bons commentaires ici[1].

✅ Voici un exemple de commentaire basé sur tes modifications de carte : "J'ai supprimé le tag de zone, j'ai ajouté l'attribut de bâtiment commercial"
(Auto-translation)
---
🌍 Welcome to OSM, AAA85.
Thanks for contributing!

To make collaboration easier and help others understand your edits, it’s best to add a short description of the changes you made. Clear comments help the community follow your work and provide better feedback. You can find tips on writing good comments here[1].

✅ Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Removed area tag, added retail building attribute"
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment
Tomas_J (2026-04-24 12:23:55+00:00): Zdar, prečo si mi toto zmazal?: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12949228022/history/2#map=19/48.438546/17.566343
nick12319685876 (2026-04-24 16:28:24+00:00): Sorry je to sukromna cesta
Tomas_J (2026-04-24 16:40:02+00:00): To vôbec nevadí.  Na označenie súkromnej cesty sa používa tag access=private. Vzhľadom na to , že prvok, ktorý si zmazal sa v skutočnosti ceste nachádza, vrátim späť tvoju zmenu a pridam tag access=private (aj keď na turning_circle to asi nie je štandardné).  Pozri prípadne dokumentáciu na Wiki osm ako sa znacia súkromné prístupy a prečo sa nemajú mazať prvky existujúce v realite. Mapovania zdar.
T..
nick12319685876 (2026-04-24 19:07:38+00:00): Dakujem