piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
GeoVern (2026-05-28 22:17:58+00:00): I meant Roslyn Terrace, not Roslyn Place. Roslyn Place is not a real street in the City of Evanston and I will be deleting it next.
GeoVern (2026-05-28 22:35:39+00:00): Correction: Roslyn Place is the correct name, Roslyn Terrace is not a valid street. I've made a separate edit to fix that issue.
DwarfNebula_ (2026-05-28 23:30:44+00:00): Thanks voor het aanvullen, ik had nog niet de tijd gehad om ze allemaal op te pakken :)
jodd (2026-07-05 16:36:24+00:00): Das ist ja interessant. Von welchem Anbieter ist das Telefon? Die Telekom hat ja alle Telefone abgeschalten.
Dimitar155 (2026-05-29 11:44:26+00:00): Hi MapMagics,

This turn relation is needed since you aren't allowed to make a u turn if you are coming from the tunnel. The only allowed turns are left and straight on but this is at the intersection which is a few meters to the NW.

Happy mapping,
Dimitar
MapMagics (2026-06-02 00:20:19+00:00): Thank you for reaching out. There appears to be a u-turn restriction added in [node 207560490](https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/207560490), but given that [way 751152529](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/751152529) and [way 157694432](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/157694432) are not directly attached to relevant node to the northeast, adding a u-turn restriction or only straight on turn restriction between these makes sense. I can add that turn restriction back in. Thank you for comments and insight on this matter.
fortera_au (2026-05-29 01:00:01+00:00): When you say this doesn't officially exist, is there some kind of spot here where you can stop still? If so, then it should probably remain mapped in some form. Removing the parking is fair, the rest_stop there's arguments either way in that it's not officially one, but it's somewhat become one. The highway should remain, maybe as a short highway=track if anything, but there is something there that exists (according to aerial imagery at least).
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183327243
steerage250 (2026-05-29 02:29:33+00:00): you are correct.  I should have just deleted the amenity=parking.  Please revert the track if have the skills to do so.
NaSH (2026-05-28 23:57:01+00:00): oups ! il s'agit de fix osmose
pootriarch (2026-05-28 23:14:06+00:00): bike route 45 relation looks like a mess. it has bits of northbound and southbound octavia mixed in, and lots of gaps. i made sure to fix my own split, but is the route supposed to be linear? a loop?
greatnameguys2472 (2026-05-30 20:59:54+00:00): Hi, you mentioned in your note that you source the name from Google Streetview, but that data is copyrighted and not allowed on OSM. I went ahead and reverted this change
RVR015 (2026-05-29 18:40:49+00:00): Hello I noticed that some of your edits have typos in them. For example, 'frewway' vs 'freeway'. Can you please review your name changes to ensure they are correct? Thank you.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-05-30 06:53:32+00:00): Oh. "Frewway" is 100% a typo. I meant "Freeway."
felipeeugenio (2026-05-30 13:51:07+00:00): Hola. Bienvenido a la comunidad OSM Chile. Gracias por sus ediciones.

en general bien todo, pero ojo con la ortografía y con borrar de cuajo calles. Si es necesario modificar lo que hay, se puede hacer, pero por favor no borrarlas para agregar nuevas. Tuve que recuperar algunas.

Una sola duda: Cual e sla fuente de toda esta información?

Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183327708
rodrigoe1998 (2026-05-30 14:07:05+00:00): Hola estimado, la fuente es Google map y corroborado en terreno. Soy del sector.
Los cambio asociados son para un sistema de despachos de emergencias asociado a apenstreetmap
felipeeugenio (2026-05-30 14:44:49+00:00): Hola. gracias por responder. Por favro corroborar los datos presencialmente. Google no es una fuente permitida para mapear en OSM. Los derechos de autor existentes en ambos lados hacen totalmente incompatible el traspaso de información de Google a OSM. (https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ "2.1.5. Can I copy data from Google?")

Para nombres de calles por favor usar el sistema de mapas del SII, que nos ha sido autorizado.


Saludos
rodrigoe1998 (2026-05-30 14:49:42+00:00): Fueron revisadas presencialmente, vivo en el sector. Además es una villa nueva por eso tiene nombres nuevos, los cuales no son continuidad de calles aledañas antiguas.
felipeeugenio (2026-05-30 14:57:49+00:00): Hola. Sí, si no hay problema con sus conocimientos locales y nadie está dudando de sus intenciones.
Lo único es que por favor no tome información de Google.

Está invitado a unirse al chat de la comunidad chilena de maperos en Telegram (app muy similar a whatsapp). Puede hacerlo en el siguiente link: https://t.me/OSMcl


Le debería llegar luego un mail de bienvenida explicando un poco la comunidad.

saludos
Glassman (2026-05-30 00:24:22+00:00): #TIP: Street names are spelled out in OSM because software has a hard time unabbreviating
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183327935
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2026-05-29 22:26:59+00:00): reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183376996
Fizzie-DWG (2026-05-29 23:40:28+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20731
Xavizard Knight (2026-05-29 00:06:48+00:00): Changeset per treure les etiquetes "area=yes" de diversos objectes que ja tenen alguna etiqueta area:highway=, area:amenity=, area:man_made=, area:power=, area:railway=, area:aeroway= and area:public_transport=.

Amb excepcions per a objectes amb etiquetes highway=, indoor=, amenity=, man_made=, power=, railway=, aeroway= o public_transport= (per evitar trencar indoor mappings o zones peatonals, per exemple).

Selecció feta sols a Valls, La Riba, Vallmoll, Constantí, Tarragona i a l'aeroport de Reus perquè aquestes són les zones a on més he mapejat.

Consulta d'Overpass:
[out:xml][timeout:25];

(
{{geocodeArea:Valls}};
{{geocodeArea:La Riba}};
{{geocodeArea:Vallmoll}};
{{geocodeArea:Aeroport de Reus}};
{{geocodeArea:Constantí}};
{{geocodeArea:Tarragona}};
) -> .searchArea;

(
nwr["area:highway"]["area"="yes"][!"highway"][!"indoor"](area.searchArea);
nwr["area:amenity"]["area"="yes"][!"amenity"](area.searchArea);
nwr["area:man_made"]["area"="yes"][!"man_made"](area.searchArea);
nwr["area:power"]["area"="yes"][!"power"](area.searchArea);
nwr["area:railway"]["area"="yes"][!"railway"](area.searchArea);
nwr["area:aeroway"]["area"="yes"][!"aeroway"](area.searchArea);
nwr["area:public_transport"]["area"="yes"][!"public_transport"](area.searchArea);
);

(._;>;);
out meta;

Cerca del JOSM:
"area"="yes" type:way OR type:relation
FajrAl (2026-05-29 02:13:35+00:00): Can you confirm that the street name is Jalan Pura Dalem Kemenuh? Not Jalan Ir. Sutami?
raskoln1k0v (2026-06-08 07:59:41+00:00): my mistake. i have updated it
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-29 04:46:19+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Is the name real?
Casa (482296432), v5
FajrAl (2026-05-29 02:11:10+00:00): Indomaret and Alfamart (not Alphamart) are minimarket, should be tagged as convenience store.
Akrimullah (2026-05-29 10:29:00+00:00): @EmmerLikeThePlant I just updated the correct name and add some additional info
FajrAl (2026-05-29 02:06:53+00:00): Ikuti tutorial interaktifnya dulu di iD editornya.
Akrimullah (2026-05-29 10:37:52+00:00): nama dummynya di garis sudah di hapus ya... mungkin bisa di cek lg itu nama objek apa
MJ Ray (2026-06-04 16:33:50+00:00): Hi - you've tagged King's Boulevard https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/807924984 as proposed:bicycle=yes but what's the source for that? It currently has large A-boards telling cyclists not to cycle and private security enforcement. The local council don't recognise it as a road. Is there any statement from the owner of what is presumably a private road? Thanks.
MacLondon (2026-06-04 21:19:13+00:00): Hi,
https://www.gillespies.co.uk/stories/green-light-for-kings-boulevard-pedestrianisation gives details of the intentions for here. (There are plenty of bicycle stands along here.)

The direct crossing to Granary Square will become a toucan crossing, though possible not until the north end of King's Boulevard opens up.
SomeoneElse (2026-05-29 10:05:15+00:00): Oops - looks like this broke a bunch of relations such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11064743#map=20/53.3295359/-6.5297889 .  I've split the bridge in two where the boundary joined and removed the extra bit from the 15 relations.
Personally I find editing relations in Vespucci very complicated (although the author of Vespucci does not - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/cloning-copying-a-relation-or-route/142949/15 ).
Cheers,
Andy
Brían (2026-05-29 10:45:10+00:00): Hi Andy, thanks for noticing this!
I haven't really looked into editing relations in detail, so since it showed the relations as having been modified I thought it just did it all correctly automatically!...
Editing relations seems complicated to me too, guess I'l have to learn about it now finally
lunar_jaws812 (2026-05-30 18:13:51+00:00): Hi cubbe8,

Why did you reverse this changeset? https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183315483

Your changeset comment says "correction to alignments" but in my changeset, I aligned sidewalks to MassGIS 2025 aerial imagery; your changeset reverted the sidewalk to a state where it no longer aligns with aerial imagery.

Furthermore, my changeset updated crossings, curbs, stop signs, etc. using not only MassGIS 2025 aerial imagery, but also Mapillary streetside imagery from 2025 onward. Your revert should not be deleting correct data from the map.
lunar_jaws812 (2026-05-30 18:16:00+00:00): For example, for these nodes, I added data that you can compare against the tagged mapillary images.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3841513805/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3841552436/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12032602052/history

Your revert deleted valid data from these nodes that was verified by relatively recent streetside imagery.
cubbe8 (2026-05-30 18:20:34+00:00): I’ll add the curbs back, but Mapbox satellite aligns  better with GPS trace here.
lunar_jaws812 (2026-05-30 18:24:05+00:00): I understand that some time has passed since those aerial and streetside images were taken. If the changes that I made were out-of-date, I'd appreciate if your revert comment explained this reasoning, rather than simply saying "correction to alignments." As far as I can tell from 2025 imagery, the alignments I made and data I added were valid, so it would help me considerably to know if/when this 2025 imagery is obsolete.
lunar_jaws812 (2026-05-30 18:25:45+00:00): Hi cubbe8,

Thanks for your response; in the future, I'll use Mapbox for aligning with sidewalks and roads in this area. And thank you for adding the node data back to the curbs, stop signs, etc.
lunar_jaws812 (2026-05-30 18:32:26+00:00): Oh yeah, some ways got deleted during the revert too. I used streetside imagery to confirm the surfaces on some segments of sidewalk, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1524104611/history

And I'd also added some crossings, which got deleted by the revert, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1524104614/history

And traffic island curbs, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1524104618/history

Sorry for the hassle
Glassman (2026-05-30 00:26:39+00:00): #TIP: square bldgs by selecting the outline then just type a "q"
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183331395
kingkingHK (2026-05-30 06:39:33+00:00): Do not start an edit war. Everything has been explained already in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182762861

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183385051
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-29 04:59:39+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
Are the names real?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13892982095
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/152424873
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 03:35:53+00:00): DWG revert - import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185570526
Ltrlg (2026-05-29 07:14:09+00:00): Bienvenue sur OpenStreetMap 👋

Si je n’ai pas de problème avec ce changement, j’ai quelques questions sur la forme.

Premièrement, il existe un code de conduite pour ce type de modifications automatisées : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Code_de_conduite_des_modifications_automatisées. En particulier, celui-ci recommande une discussion préalable, mais vous ne donnez aucun lien permettant de consulter celle-ci. A-t-elle eu lieu ?

D’autre part, ce type de modification étant assez inhabituel pour un nouveau compte, êtes-vous missionné par une société ? Si c’est le cas, veuillez consulter et respecter cet autre code de conduite : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Organised_Editing_Guidelines.

Enfin, votre script semble avoir un problème avec les frontières : je ne crois pas que la France ait annexé de région espagnole (changeset/183334965), suisse (changeset/183335074), belge (changeset/183334768) ou italienne (changeset/183335066) récemment. Il serait judicieux de corriger ce problème si vous prévoyez de renouveler ce type de modifications.
Ltrlg (2026-05-29 15:25:37+00:00): Nous sommes désormais trois à vous avoir posé (publiquement) des questions sans avoir de réponses de votre part.

La question de la source utilisée pour vos modification (soulevée par @woodpeck et @Syl dans les deux autres fils) notamment, si elle ne reçoit pas de réponse, peut mener à l’annulation complète de vos modifications.

Comme je doute que vous travailliez pour voir le résultat supprimé, je vous conseille de rapidement comprendre ce qui est attendu de vous ici et de répondre aux questions qui vous ont été posées.
Kri_ttt (2026-05-29 06:11:36+00:00): สค.5031 เป็นเลขสายทาง (road reference) ไม่ใช่ส่วนหนึ่งของชื่อถนน จึงไม่ควรรวมไว้ใน name= โดยปัจจุบันมีการระบุเลขสายทางนี้ไว้ใน ref= อยู่แล้ว ซึ่งเป็นตำแหน่งที่เหมาะสมตามรูปแบบการแท็กของ OpenStreetMap ครับ
pwbriggs (2026-05-29 19:29:19+00:00): Thanks. In OpenStreetMap at least in the United States, we include the country code (1) and use hyphens for every group, like so: +1-206-708-6637.

I've updated this one's format. Thanks for the contribution!
Jrachi (2026-05-30 11:17:32+00:00): Ciao.
La relazione che hai modificato è un percorso della Rete Escursionistrica Regione Piemonte ed è anche nel Catasto Nazionale della Rete Escusionistica Italiana.

Il proprietario sarà stato contrariato ma se non vuole il passaggio degli escursionisti deve rivolgersi all'autorità competente (comune) per chiedere lo spostamento del percorso.
Non so nel tuo paese ma una strada di campagna è highway=track e access=private riguarda solo i veicoli.
Se non esistono restrizioni specifiche i pedoni hanno sempre il diritto di passaggio sulla viabilità minore.
Procedo con il revert e attendo tue notizie se ritieni opportuno dare maggiori indicazioni ch eposso usare per comunicare alle autorità competenti del possibile problema alla Rete Escursionistica.

Ivo
Joe Cahill (2026-05-30 17:55:10+00:00): Greetings,

I have several questions, perhaps you can improve my understanding : 
1) does Italian law have a mechanism to allocate a portion of a privately owned property for public use, perhaps dedicating a pathway in the vegetation between the fence and this woman's house as a public pathway?
2) Is there a publicly viewable map showing private property boundaries in Piemonte? This would help me understand better this woman's situation.
3) Are there email addresses for the officers of the Rete Escursionistrica Regione Piemonte and the Catasto Nazionale della Rete Escusionistica Italiana that this woman can tell the officer in the Comune of Neive about so that her situation can be discussed? This woman said she had written to some address for an app that a hiker showed her but it appeared to me that she did not know what more she could do.

The portion of the pathway North from the end of the street to her structures is two dirt tracks in grass. The portion of the pathway from her home to the junction at the North is grass visually similar to the other portions of her property and the mapped pathway goes next to her home.

Thank you, Joe
Jrachi (2026-05-30 18:39:44+00:00): Ti ringrazio dell'attenzione, avrò bisogno di qualche giorno per comunicare con le autorità competenti della situazione in oggetto.
La legge italiana è abbastanza chiara, ma purtroppo si scontra con realtà particolari che non seguono il percorso storico in cui in cui i sentieri sono su terreno privato ma vincolati al passaggio pubblico.
Purtroppo capita che un proprietario scopra che un "sentiero" pubblico passa nel proprio terreno e non sappia a chi rivolgersi, o cosa fare se il passaggio viene abusato da ciclisti o motociclisti (in Piemonte la legge specifica che un sentiero è destinato ai pedoni ed è vietato al traffico motorizzato, una regola spesso violata per pura ignoranza).
Mi prendo cuore di esaminare la situazione e di contattare il CAI locale, attraverso la SOSEC (struttura del CAI) ed in seguito capire se contattare il comune di Neive per chiarire il problema.
In un altra occasione il comune, in accordo con il CAI, ha provveduto a modificare il percorso e ad affiggere la segnaletica per limitare l'uso del sentiero a chi non fa pratica di escursionismo (a piedi si, in bici o moto no!)

Ivo
Joe Cahill (2026-05-31 04:59:27+00:00): Grazie. Joe
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 03:35:54+00:00): DWG revert - import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185570526
Kri_ttt (2026-05-29 06:11:20+00:00): สค.5031 เป็นเลขสายทาง (road reference) ไม่ใช่ส่วนหนึ่งของชื่อถนน จึงไม่ควรรวมไว้ใน name= โดยปัจจุบันมีการระบุเลขสายทางนี้ไว้ใน ref= อยู่แล้ว ซึ่งเป็นตำแหน่งที่เหมาะสมตามรูปแบบการแท็กของ OpenStreetMap ครับ
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 03:35:55+00:00): DWG revert - import from unauthorised source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185570526
arjunaraoc (2026-06-26 07:25:30+00:00): Welcome to OSM.   Please visit  India page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India) and  join OSM India Telegram channel (https://t.me/OSMIndia). This app requires that I review everything as good or bad. There is no in between. When I mark it as bad, it may only be that it doesn't fit the OSM tagging scheme. Please see my additional comments for help in resolving the issue. If you can't resolve, please respond to the discussion on changset, so that another contributor can help fix it. Description tag values should not be generic, as other tags deal with the generic information. residual=rural does not seem applicable as your mapping is in urban area.  Some building  ways (exanmple:https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/807452501) are too big and satellite image does not show single building.  Please learn more about OSM and fix the issues.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183336105
VA00 (2026-06-21 03:14:04+00:00): W jakim sensie błędnych? Wieżyczki wyburzono, nie ma ich już?
Destabilizacja (2026-06-21 04:02:54+00:00): Chodzi o to że to nie są wieże tylko słupy ogrodzeniowe w formie wieżyczek. Zgodnie z dokumentacją wieża to budynek. I wprowadzanie tu znaczników wieży wprowadza w błąd jakoby były tu jakieś wielkie konstrukcje a jest to tylko bardziej rozbudowany słup, element ogrodzenia.
VA00 (2026-06-21 04:35:37+00:00): Ale to jest kwestia tagowania. Wg. polskiej wiki, jeżeli wieża jest budynkiem, dajemy building=yes. Nie znam żadnego lepszego tagu na te obiekty, bardzo charakterystyczne i rzucające się w oczy. Na orto rzucają długie, wyraźne cienie. Jeżeli potraktujemy je jako "słupy ogrodzeniowe", to byłby to man_made=utility_pole - jeszcze mniej pasuje.
VA00 (2026-06-21 04:37:14+00:00): Może https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcolumn ?
Destabilizacja (2026-06-21 05:52:08+00:00): Myślę że kolumna man_made=column mogło by pasować. I tak widzę po dokumentacji że nie będzie się to zobrazowywać na mapie. Tak do końca to to kolumna też nie jest... Ja bym to zostawił. Tego typu ogrodzeń przy kościołach jest pełno i nie zauważyłem aby je mapowano. Ale jeżeli chcesz to zmień. A niektóre te słupy wcześniej zobrazowywały się jako takie grube czarne kropki, może to jakieś rozwiązanie?
Tris_1220 (2026-05-29 13:30:08+00:00): An sich ist das Ziel der OpenStreetMap den jetzt Zustand darzustellen und nicht den Zustand von vor 40 Jahren. Für solche Daten, wie in diesem Beispiel die Ölhafenbahn ist die OpenHistoricalMap (https://www.openhistoricalmap.org) zu empfehlen. In dieser besteht der alte Trassenverlauf der Ölhafenbahn sogar schon https://www.openhistoricalmap.org/way/201304722. Warnung die OpenHistoricalMap hat eine andere Lizenz als die OpenStreetMap.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Tris_1220
rempshaener (2026-05-31 09:31:40+00:00): Hallo,

du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Zu https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9945309356:
Löschwasserentnahmestellen haben keine Namen, daher bitte löschen; auch description ist redundant. Die Position dürfte falsch sein, sie liegt mitten im Gewässer, müsste aber am Rand liegen, dort, wo sie im besten Fall auch ausgewiesen ist. Die Angabe von water_source=
pond wäre sinnvoll.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13893215062:
Bitte description und name entfernen, die Angabe von water_source=ditch wäre sinnvoll.

Bei Fragen bitte melden.
Viele Grüße
ssundell (2026-06-13 20:24:53+00:00): Onko tuo Lastutien jälkeinen osuus Isolukontien kelvistä oikeasti jalkakäytävä? Ts. onko se merkitty jalkakäytäväksi, vai puuttuuko siitä vain risteyksen jälkeen pyörätien merkki? Ei sillä, että epäilisin kaupungin kykyä merkitä väylänsä oikein...

Tuossa kadullahan on nyt se tilanne, että itse kadulle puolestaan on merkitty `bicycle=use_sidepath`, joten OSM:n merkintöjen mukaan tuosta risteyksestä pohjoiseen ei saa pyörällä liikkua lainkaan.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183337700
Kovoschiz (2026-05-29 11:14:23+00:00): This is based on only connecting Expressway, similar to `=motorway_link` 
There's already `motorway=no`
Kovoschiz (2026-05-29 11:18:25+00:00): This definition is necessary as Tunnel Area can exist in between Expressway, resulting in illogical function of `highway=` 
Thus the exact legal extent is described by `motorway=`
Kovoschiz (2026-05-29 11:19:08+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hong_Kong/Transport/Road#Classifications
_vincenttan (2026-05-29 14:49:03+00:00): accroding to the link below, this road is not motor way: https://www.td.gov.hk/en/road_safety/road_users_code/index/chapter_5_for_all_drivers/expressways_and_trunk_road_/
Kovoschiz (2026-05-29 18:23:18+00:00): Yes, we know. Can you re-read the above?
_vincenttan (2026-05-30 00:36:11+00:00): sorry, I'm new to osm, thank you for claiming this
_vincenttan (2026-05-30 00:46:24+00:00): And also very sorry for miseditting of Eastern Harbour Crosssing and Tai Lam Tunnel (from motorway to trunk)
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-29 08:41:42+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/way/1420817062

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Piskvor (2026-05-29 10:14:04+00:00): Review as requested:

Hello, 

Please be more careful next time. 

You removed a memorial plaque and address elements, for no apparent reason. 

Also, I have moved the guesthouse to a separate node, and fixed the tag to tourism=guest_house.

Fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183346693

Anyway, thanks for adding more information to the map.
FroschForscher (2026-05-29 21:16:38+00:00): The supermarket in Victoria is now outdoors and no longer a building. intended?
tiger (2026-05-30 06:43:46+00:00): Something went wrong with that changeset. Should have been two to start with... Fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out.
Kovoschiz (2026-05-29 11:14:38+00:00): This is based on only connecting Expressway, similar to `=motorway_link`
There's already `motorway=no`