piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
burrscurr (2026-05-15 16:48:46+00:00): Ich habe die Umbenennung erst mal rückgängig gemacht. Mein vorheriger Kommentar gilt aber weiterhin; bei einer entsprechenden Begründung kann der name= oder ggf. der local_name= durchaus angepasst werden. Das sollte aber nicht einseitig und ohne vorherige Diskussion passieren.

Siehe auch die Hinweise https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5274306 und (vor ein paar Jahren) https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3356189.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182708844
olo81 (2026-03-16 05:23:42+00:00): Było dobrze. 
Nazwa opisowa do poprawy.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Nazwy
marczoutendijk (2026-03-18 19:55:53+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 180077000 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undocumented import
iandees (2026-03-13 19:07:56+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
Fraxi (2026-03-13 19:31:55+00:00): Здравейте! Благодаря за актуализацията на статута на този обект. Добре е в бъдеще с цел запазване на историята и евентуалното заемане на мястото от друг търговец, точката да не се изтрива, а таговете да се заменят с shop=vacant или disused:shop=yes например. Можете да прочетете повече по въпроса на https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dvacant. Както и по принцип от това уики да почерпите повече информация за практиките за картографиране в OSM.
NeisBot (2026-03-13 16:18:43+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/node/13645597991 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Real estate office"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisRevert (2026-03-21 17:33:23+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/180218650
(Clean up leftovers from previous edits)
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-17 07:28:10+00:00): Reverted adding SEO spam POI with advertising/malformed tags and explicit source=* of Google Maps, which is not allowed by both OSM and Google policies (see https://osm.wiki/Google ), in changeset 184212573

https://osm.org/changeset/184212573
marczoutendijk (2026-03-18 19:55:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 180077000 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undocumented import
eggie (2026-03-13 16:34:17+00:00): Dag Casper,
Je info heb ik verplaatst naar de adresnode.
Tag bedrijven svp bij op de adresnodes.
MVG
eggie
P_kawa (2026-03-14 15:56:52+00:00): Skoro ścieżka powstała w śladzie dawnej linii kolejowej, to z tego co wiem i co jest opisane również na wiki OSM można ją oznaczyć tagiem railway=abandoned itd. Rozumiem sytuację, w której teren po torach bardzo się zmienił i nie da się już odtworzyć przebiegu linii – wtedy faktycznie zwykle się jej nie dodaje albo rysuje osobną linię z railway=abandoned lub railway=razed. Wiem też, że oznaczanie tego bywa kwestią sporną.

W przypadku ścieżki rowerowej z Torunia do Złejwsi Wielkiej jej przebieg idzie prawie idealnie po starotorzu, a nawet w miejscach gdzie lekko od niego odchodzi, dawne tory były zaznaczone obok w swoim faktycznym przebiegu.

Zwracam na to uwagę, bo być może czegoś nie wiem, ale tutaj włożyłem sporo pracy (i nie tylko ja), żeby zarówno ścieżka rowerowa była poprawnie odwzorowana, jak i żeby przebieg dawnej linii kolejowej był zachowany.

Rozumiem natomiast usuwanie nazw ze ścieżek czy dróg – to jest inna kwestia. Chodzi mi tylko o sam przebieg starotorza. W Polsce i na świecie jest wiele miejsc, gdzie ścieżki rowerowe mają jednocześnie tag railway=abandoned, ponieważ biegną dokładnie po dawnym nasypie kolejowym.
kubahahaha (2026-03-16 20:30:18+00:00): Cześć.
Nie przyjrzałem się, że to mapowanie to dzieło jednej osoby i dlatego usunąłem to bez większego namysłu - uznałem, że tag nie jest do końca trafiony - railway=abandoned to raczej miejsce które nie zmieniło swojego przeznaczenia, a tory są mocno zdekompletowane, może coś takiego jak w Wieliczce za ostatnią stacją - szyny w deptaku: https://www.polrails.net/pkp-wieliczka-rynek-2022r/6358 - a przynajmniej ja tak rozumiem ten tag.

Jeżeli w terenie nie widać, pozostałości po linii, to nie do końca rozumiem po co utrzymywać tagowanie na zasadzie "tutaj kiedyś biegła linia kolejowa", są do tego OpenHistoricalMap, czy Baza Kolejowa, ale jeżeli ci zależy to nie upieram się żeby to koniecznie kasować.
Jakoś przyjęło się, że o ile nie mapujemy miejsc nieistniejących, to miejsce po torach czasem się zostawia. Nie do końca rozumiem po co, ale jak komuś zależy, to nie będę się upierał.

Mogę wycofać swój changeset (chyba że chcesz to zrobić samemu) i ja będę zadowolony jeżeli tylko skasujemy nazwy ze ścieżek - w ten sposób trafiłem na to miejsce ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5203218 )
P_kawa (2026-03-17 15:41:28+00:00): Dzięki za wyjaśnienie

W takim razie wycofam ten zestaw zmian ale usunę nazwy ze ścieżek. Zostawię railway=abandoned tam, gdzie ścieżka faktycznie biegnie po dawnym nasypie kolejowym, i jeszcze to dopracuję.
rohieb (2026-03-13 19:29:40+00:00): Warum ist das landuse=retail https://osm.org/way/1389397107 nun weg und stattdessen ein Blumenbeet in … Wierthe?!?

Objekt-IDs sollen nicht anderweitig neu benutzt werden. Wie ich schon an anderer Stelle erwähnt habe, ist es schwierig, deine Änderungen zu reviewen, weil man sich erstmal durch die "unnützen" Änderungen kämpfen muss, um die eigentlich gemeinten Änderungen zu erkennen.
Guideline dazu: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history
woodpeck (2026-03-13 20:14:32+00:00): rohieb hat recht - das ist ein ernsthaftes Problem. Wenn Du das absichtlich gemacht hast - mach es kümftig bitte nicht mehr. Wenn Du es aus Versehen gemacht hast, dann müssen wir gemeinsam versuchen, herauszufinden, wie das passiert. Vielleicht ein kaputtes Plugin?
Hb- (2026-03-14 03:17:39+00:00): Die Fläche way/1389397107 lag dort unter dem Einkaufszentrum Schloss-Arkaden und war inhaltlich überflüssig.
rohieb (2026-03-15 17:16:43+00:00): Wieso war die landuse=retail-Fläche dort inhaltlich überflüssig? Ich sehe hier keine andere landuse-Fläche, die die selbe Semantik ausdrückt.
Hb- (2026-03-15 19:46:14+00:00): Sie lag direkt unter dem Einkaufsgebäude
rohieb (2026-03-15 22:25:22+00:00): Ja und? landuse=* und building=* drücken verschiedene Dinge aus. Selbst wenn die landuse-Fläche direkt unter dem Gebäude liegt, werden Datennutzer von OSM-Daten sie auswerten können, auch wenn sie nicht an Gebäuden interessiert sind.
Hb- (2026-03-16 08:14:52+00:00): Für's Gebäude ist jetzt landuse=retail gesetzt.
marczoutendijk (2026-03-18 19:55:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 180077000 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for undocumented import
MarcoR (2026-07-12 13:29:31+00:00): Ciao!
Secondo una nota di un anonimo (note/5391015) il nome della piazzetta è Carlo Cassola (e non Carlo Sassola); ti ho disturbato perché pensavo che magari ti ricordi il nome di quel luogo e sei in grado di chiudere la nota o correggere il nome :)

Buon mapping,
Marco
ElectrosphereX (2026-07-12 16:29:41+00:00): Ciao, si il nome corretto è "Carlo Cassola", si tratta di un errore di battitura :) Grazie della segnalazione.

Buon mapping,
Ele
notmyproblem1 (2026-03-13 16:48:57+00:00): I confirm that, this edit 179819393, was made by me with JOSM

and also; I will continue to fix addr:city and things like that when osm server will be more chill
yelisey90 (2026-03-13 17:58:02+00:00): reverted with respect to roundabout: it has to be split into parts due to bus route https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15348534

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/179822805
nikusha (2026-03-14 07:48:26+00:00): ok
Sakari_N (2026-03-14 21:38:32+00:00): Hi,

Has this import been discussed in the Swedish OSM community? 


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_edits
riiga (2026-03-17 16:18:45+00:00): No, it hasn't. It should probably be reverted.
Sakari_N (2026-03-17 19:39:19+00:00): Hi riiga! I agree with your opinion about reverting. I was hesitant to outright revert these as they are outside of my typical area of editing.

Could you talk about these edits in the Swedish community (and possibly revert them)?
marczoutendijk (2026-03-17 20:05:20+00:00): DWG here:
Has there been any contact between you and the creator of these edits?

Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
marczoutendijk (2026-03-17 20:10:12+00:00): I have created a ticket for this case:
Ticket#2026031710000708


Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
Sakari_N (2026-03-17 20:15:44+00:00): Hi Marc! 

No there has not been any contact. Also I have not tried to reach out by any other way than this changesets comments. 

Thanks for creating a ticket.
marczoutendijk (2026-03-17 20:19:39+00:00): This case was also reported by another user. I asked them to read here also.
marczoutendijk (2026-03-17 20:23:13+00:00): See:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20009
marczoutendijk (2026-03-18 20:00:29+00:00): I have reverted all changesets made by magsimoe_swe that were created on or after 12 March 2026.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/180077000
marczoutendijk (2026-03-18 20:17:50+00:00): Is there a need to revert previous changesets also?
Because they are from longer ago, the changes of creating conflicts might be there.
riiga (2026-03-18 21:23:15+00:00): I don't think so. Thank you for the revert!
bxl-forever (2026-03-13 16:54:38+00:00): Hello,

Thanks for your latest edits.

I know you certainly want to help but… I need to tell you.  In Belgium, we do not repeat addresses on POI.  We have made considerable efforts in the last years to keep our addressing system clean.  Please do not add addresses on shops, this is not necessary and not wanted.

I repaired your latest edits, there is nothing more to do.  But please bear this in mind for future edits.

Have a nice day.
dzidek23 (2026-03-17 14:16:09+00:00): Hi IanAD123, 
Thanks for spotting the changed road name.
dzidek23 (2026-03-17 14:32:05+00:00): Hi Ian, you must be local to add this kind of detail the parish. Would you be able to add paths, gates and more detail to the churchyard?
felipeeugenio (2026-03-13 18:16:15+00:00): Hola. Borró un barrio completo y agregó un bar. Es un error? o el cabbio en verdad no existe?

saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179820349
dzidek23 (2026-03-17 14:53:36+00:00): Ian, would you know if this pipeline is still in use? and if so is this still fuel
Dimitar155 (2026-03-13 20:50:49+00:00): Express One шкаф за пратки ли имат там или пощенска кутия? Понеже съм виждал едни изцяло черни шкафове, но не съм видял да пише нещо на тях, поради което не съм им добавил шаблон.
sa62 (2026-03-15 21:44:09+00:00): Наскоро си получих доставка от там и си е шкаф за пратки за категория parcel locker като остналите около него.
Dimitar155 (2026-03-16 13:04:44+00:00): Коригирах го и добавих шаблон за този бранд шкаафове. Надявам се скоро да се появи в редактора.
felipeeugenio (2026-03-13 18:15:10+00:00): Hola.
Si una calle tiene las veredas separadas, al dibujarlas, uno debe agregar en la calle misma sidewalk=separate (en caso que ambas veredas esten dibujadas separadas de la calle) o sidewalk:left (o right)=separate o sidewalk:left (o right)=no según conrresponda. existe todo tipo e combinaciones.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179821100
Hb- (2026-03-14 12:21:51+00:00): Dieser node/11804037264 verbindet jetzt drei Räume/Gebäudeteile auf mehreren Geschossen miteinander. Das kann kaum richtig sein.
iandees (2026-03-13 19:08:30+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
LordGarySugar (2026-03-16 02:30:22+00:00): Hi, just a note to say you shouldn't add footpath numbers in 'ref' - prow_ref= is the only place this information should be recorded. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access_provisions_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_Rights_of_Way. ref= should be left blank for the vast majority of ways that are public footpaths. Thanks :)
notmyproblem1 (2026-03-13 17:44:04+00:00): I confirm that, this edit 179822080, was made by me with JOSM

and also; I will continue to fix addr:city and things like that when osm server will be more chill
notmyproblem1 (2026-03-13 17:44:12+00:00): oh wait I finished so no more
b-jazz (2026-03-16 05:14:39+00:00): Be careful marking out "rough" areas. They shouldn't extend deep into the trees. They also shouldn't intersect/touch other golf areas (like fairways and tees). Thanks.
gurglypipe (2026-03-13 18:22:25+00:00): Hi, I’d really like to know what basis you’re changing these road classifications on, as it doesn’t seem to align with the consensus on the wiki.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtertiary

Spot-checking some of the changes here:
 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108118886 is a back road between Nenthall and Nenthead and has passing places. The main road (A689) connects the two places more directly.
 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/154856542 is more likely a residential street (it has houses and a school)
 - The road from Slaggyford through Ayle goes over a single track bridge and is signed ‘Light traffic only’

None of those fit in with the guidance on the wiki.

What problem are you trying to solve, and what guidelines are you using for choosing road classification? If you’re trying to solve a specific problem then please give details and perhaps there’s some alternative tagging which needs adding to fix it, which fits with the general tagging consensus.

As it stands, these changes seem incorrect to me, and if you continue to not reply then I’ll need to escalate this. Problem solving comes from discussing problems :)
gurglypipe (2026-03-13 18:26:23+00:00): In fact, the roads near Coanwood were previously changed to highway=tertiary (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/100556040) and then those changes were reverted as invalid (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/100556298).
NG218 (2026-03-17 01:17:11+00:00): This change could have been split into two. Having one change spanning half of the globe is not necessary.
digitalfootprints (2026-03-19 11:28:39+00:00): Sorry, did it from my phone, didn’t realize I had the soccer field outstanding.
InsertUser (2026-03-20 17:51:47+00:00): I'm not sure what the Organic Maps interface shows, but using the name field for a general description of the object is generally discouraged. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only
ScrawnyMeowth1 (2026-03-13 21:10:04+00:00): Hey Omnific,

This feature seems a bit redundant to me. It's already encompassed by a WDFW nature preserve, and the parking lot is labeled with the access area name. I'm also not sure if this meets the wiki definition of a park, since it's closer to a nature preserve or recreation ground. I'll leave it up to you though.
Omnific (2026-03-14 00:55:27+00:00): Hey,

Fair enough, I'm deleting it. Thanks, seems like a sensible suggestion. 

The classification is a bit difficult because it should qualify as an amenity of some kind, rather than just landuse=recreation. Specifically because these areas are designed to facilitate water recreation and are not there for the purposes of nature preservation, a preserve didn't seem right either. I checked around, and it looks like most WDFW water access areas on the map are mapped as parks, but I struggled with that same question.
mueschel (2026-03-14 09:19:05+00:00): Hi,
you added "FIX_ME = YES" on 13000 objects. Was this a mistake?
Jvitegem (2026-03-14 09:40:34+00:00): Oh yes, that is definitely a mistake.

I will correct it immediately.
Thanks for your attentiveness.
EZRouting (2026-03-13 19:56:11+00:00): I think I misread what relations mean. You can take a left turn from N Las Vegas to East Craig, and the forward relation- i thought it meant no turns and forward only.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-03-13 21:10:00+00:00): Route relations aren't the same thing as turn restriction relations. Continuing forward on Craig Road (onto Fitzgerald Boulevard) leads you straight into the Nellis Air Force Base, which is restricted territory. The "No right turn" relations are for the slip lanes.
iandees (2026-03-13 19:09:44+00:00): Hi! It looks like the website URL on node/10788804251 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.
fluffycupcakes (2026-03-13 19:03:16+00:00): Hello. Why did you remove this path? Could you explain why do you consider it useless? Usually you shouldn't remove features that exist on the ground if you think they are not useful to anyone.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/179823773
ja5366 (2026-03-13 21:48:28+00:00): Hi. I will revert the change and add private tag instead, since this crosses over private property. This is some sort of informal land access track. I don’t believe this should be routable path for cyclists and walkers, which is the implication of the “path” tag. I’m not sure what value this adds, but I understand deleting it wasn’t the right approach. Apologies.
fluffycupcakes (2026-03-14 10:27:23+00:00): This seems to be a good way to handle it. Thanks!
NeisBot (2026-03-13 18:33:46+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/node/13645862306 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Fysiotherapiepraktijk Soda Bodyfit"
---
Bijvoorbeeld, een meer neutrale en feitelijke versie van je tekst kon zijn: "Fysiotherapiepraktijk Soda Bodyfit"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-22 05:33:02+00:00): 🗑️ Element deleted by https://osm.org/changeset/179824978
NeisBot (2026-03-13 18:45:42+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/node/13645867162 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Marine dock supply store"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-22 05:33:08+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element by https://osm.org/changeset/179824644
iandees (2026-03-13 19:10:06+00:00): Hi! It looks like a node in this changeset was accidentally moved. This can happen when panning the map. The node has been moved back to its previous position.
NeisBot (2026-03-13 19:00:45+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/node/13645862306 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "fysiotherapiepraktijk"
---
Bijvoorbeeld, een meer neutrale en feitelijke versie van je tekst kon zijn: "fysiotherapiepraktijk"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisReview (2026-03-22 05:33:09+00:00): 🗑️ Element deleted by https://osm.org/changeset/179824978
Grass-snake (2026-03-14 21:50:13+00:00): Здравствуйте, Ваша правка была отменена, так как запрещено копировать из Яндекс карт (кроме панорам).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%A0%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B0_1.3.1
aceman444 (2026-03-17 23:03:18+00:00): Zdravim, ta cuklotrasa je fyzicky oddelena od hlavnej cesty Furdekovej? Ci su tam parkovacie miesta? Alebo preco su jej jazdne pruhy zakreslene samostatnou ciarou?

A ten odbocovaci pruh https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1488662823 je tiez preco samostatnou ciarkou? Aj ten je oddeleny? Nie su k tomu niekde nejake fotky?
Dakujem.
Jožo Schwarz (2026-03-18 07:50:06+00:00): Ahoj, na miestach, kde je trasa značená ako highway=cycleway je trasa síce na jednej asfaltovej ploche, ale fyzicky oddelená parkovacím pásom. Medzi parkovacím pásom a pásom pre cyklistov je ešte dodatočný buffer. Zároveň platí, že z tohto cyklistického pásu sa dá na niektorých miestach odbočiť na priľahlé parkovisko, ale zo súbežnej cesty nie (čo je ďalších dôvod pre zvolené tagovanie). Okrem toho pri vyústení Haanovej bude možnosť vôjsť na cyklotrasu (parkovací pás tam bude prerušený). To by sa nedalo vyznačiť, ak by bola trasa súčasťou cesty, keďže fyzicky síce je, ale funkčne nie je.

Spomínaný odbočovací pruh je oddelený preto, lebo som nevedel lepšie otagovať existujúci stav. Pred danou križovatkou sú totiž v jednom smere dva (ochranné) pruhy pre cyklistov: jeden v rámci odbočovacieho pruhu vpravo, druhý v rámci pravého priameho pruhu. Nejaký nápad, ako to otagovať v rámci jednej way?

Vo všeobecnosti teda platí, že som sa tagovaním snažil čo najpresnejšie zachytiť existujúci stav bez straty detailov.

Fotografie mám, skúsim ich v priebehu najbližších dní dohrať napr. na Freemap, dám sem vedieť.

Dovtedy pre lepšiu predstavu toho, čo píšem vyššie, projekt sa dá pozrieť https://paas.sk/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/POD-Furdekova-ul.pdf, myslím, že celkom sedí so skutočnosťou.
aceman444 (2026-03-22 15:01:35+00:00): Super, dakujem za info. Mozno by sa potom tie parkovacie pruhy dali zakreslit medzi cestu a cyklocestu, aby bolo zrejme preco su oddelene. Ak je odbocovaci pruh doprava niecim oddeleny od smeru rovno a nie len plnou ciarou (pisete nejake ochranne pruhy), tak by to mohlo byt aj dobre. Pockam na tie fotky, dakujem.
eggie (2026-03-13 20:05:05+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback Een adres is eigenlijk niet nodig. Er is al een adresnode. Geen spatie in de postcode. De naam van de gemeente ontbrak.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
trial (2026-03-13 21:12:23+00:00): unclassified, tu es bien généreux, vu que ça va sur un chemin d'exploitation dont l'autre branche est aussi chemin d'exploitation, non ?
lann (2026-03-15 10:04:38+00:00): Tu as raison. Tout était faux.
Au lieu de commenter les modifications, pourquoi tu ne corriges pas ce qui ne va pas ?
eggie (2026-03-13 20:06:43+00:00): Green,

Probeer svp op de adresnode bij te taggen. Geen spatie in postcode svp.
Info samengevoegd met adresnode.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2026-03-13 20:07:21+00:00): Info samengevoegd
eggie (2026-03-13 20:08:08+00:00): Info samengevoegd. Poi op gebouw gezet