piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
geobytes (2025-09-25 19:24:02+00:00): He visto que en el changeset #171220443 se eliminaron 216 objetos creados por otros usuarios y la única descripción es “falso”.

Según las imágenes satelitales y de calle disponibles, esos objetos siguen presentes y están correctamente ubicados, por lo que no hay una razón evidente para borrarlos.
Si alguna de esas características tiene una etiqueta incorrecta o necesita ajustes, la práctica recomendada en OSM es editar la etiqueta o añadir la información faltante, no suprimir el trabajo de otro mapper.
¿Podrías ampliar la motivación de la eliminación y, en caso de que haya problemas con la clasificación, indicar qué etiquetas deberían modificarse? Con una descripción más detallada podemos evitar malentendidos y asegurar que el mapa siga siendo coherente para todos.
Hugoren Martinako (2025-09-26 06:54:47+00:00): Conjunto de cambios revertido. Ver https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/usuarios-editando-en-espana-bajo-sospecha-vandalismo-malas-practicas-y-otros/2510/128

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172469951
mueschel (2025-08-31 09:55:11+00:00): Hi,
you added some new gtfs tags here:
gtfs:stop_id:Alto

It might be better to prefix them with the region, like most of them:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/gtfs:stop_id#similar

I.e.
gtfs:stop_id:FR-NOR-Alto
geobytes (2025-09-25 19:29:34+00:00): He visto que en el changeset #171221267 se eliminaron 332 objetos creados por otros usuarios y la única descripción es “actualizar jardin”.

Según las imágenes satelitales y de calle disponibles, esos objetos siguen presentes y están correctamente ubicados, por lo que no hay una razón evidente para borrarlos.
Si alguna de esas características tiene una etiqueta incorrecta o necesita ajustes, la práctica recomendada en OSM es editar la etiqueta o añadir la información faltante, no suprimir el trabajo de otro mapper.
¿Podrías ampliar la motivación de la eliminación y, en caso de que haya problemas con la clasificación, indicar qué etiquetas deberían modificarse? Con una descripción más detallada podemos evitar malentendidos y asegurar que el mapa siga siendo coherente para todos.
buy_osmand (2025-08-30 11:23:46+00:00): ٱلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ, 
as-salāmu ʿalaykum,

in addition, i would like to support this edit with the review of the previous mapper's action https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/154634809, where the changeset tags are interpreted to be insufficient to be accepted as valid orthophoto tracing. 

Hence ,"mass deletion" flag raised of this changeset 171221344 has effectively been put to rest.

 AlhamdullilahirRabil'aalaameen❗❕
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171221344
geobytes (2025-09-25 19:22:01+00:00): He visto que en el changeset #171221467 se eliminaron 516 objetos creados por otros usuarios y la única descripción es “actualizar jardin”.

Según las imágenes satelitales y de calle disponibles, esos objetos siguen presentes y están correctamente ubicados, por lo que no hay una razón evidente para borrarlos.
Si alguna de esas características tiene una etiqueta incorrecta o necesita ajustes, la práctica recomendada en OSM es editar la etiqueta o añadir la información faltante, no suprimir el trabajo de otro mapper.
¿Podrías ampliar la motivación de la eliminación y, en caso de que haya problemas con la clasificación, indicar qué etiquetas deberían modificarse? Con una descripción más detallada podemos evitar malentendidos y asegurar que el mapa siga siendo coherente para todos.
geobytes (2025-09-25 19:28:18+00:00): He visto que en el changeset #171221534 se eliminaron 109 objetos creados por otros usuarios y la única descripción es “actualizar jardin”.

Según las imágenes satelitales y de calle disponibles, esos objetos siguen presentes y están correctamente ubicados, por lo que no hay una razón evidente para borrarlos.
Si alguna de esas características tiene una etiqueta incorrecta o necesita ajustes, la práctica recomendada en OSM es editar la etiqueta o añadir la información faltante, no suprimir el trabajo de otro mapper.
¿Podrías ampliar la motivación de la eliminación y, en caso de que haya problemas con la clasificación, indicar qué etiquetas deberían modificarse? Con una descripción más detallada podemos evitar malentendidos y asegurar que el mapa siga siendo coherente para todos.
geobytes (2025-09-25 19:29:06+00:00): He visto que en el changeset #171221894 se eliminaron 388 objetos creados por otros usuarios y la única descripción es “actualizar jardin”.

Según las imágenes satelitales y de calle disponibles, esos objetos siguen presentes y están correctamente ubicados, por lo que no hay una razón evidente para borrarlos.
Si alguna de esas características tiene una etiqueta incorrecta o necesita ajustes, la práctica recomendada en OSM es editar la etiqueta o añadir la información faltante, no suprimir el trabajo de otro mapper.
¿Podrías ampliar la motivación de la eliminación y, en caso de que haya problemas con la clasificación, indicar qué etiquetas deberían modificarse? Con una descripción más detallada podemos evitar malentendidos y asegurar que el mapa siga siendo coherente para todos.
Hugoren Martinako (2025-09-26 06:54:48+00:00): Conjunto de cambios revertido. Ver https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/usuarios-editando-en-espana-bajo-sospecha-vandalismo-malas-practicas-y-otros/2510/128

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172469951
TrickyFoxy (2025-09-02 09:38:20+00:00): Но у здания номер 16...
silversurfer83 (2025-09-02 18:46:57+00:00): Hi

du hast hier einige Eigenschaften ergänzt, die an den Hausumriss gehören (building:*=* und roof:*=*). Magst du das bitte korrigieren?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171223319
rskedgell (2025-08-30 13:08:44+00:00): (Review requested)

For overgrown sections, there are some alternatives to deletion which may apply here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overgrown
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:obstacle
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility

If you feel that any of those apply, it's probably worth adding a check_date tag as well.
JassKurn (2025-09-02 00:57:55+00:00): This type of problem has been discussed on the UK section of the OSM Community Forum. I've linked to the post I made because it has a few links. The discussion went off-topic.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/marking-a-prow-as-a-bad-idea/113487/6
Filip009 (2025-08-31 15:40:26+00:00): Hello, please use proper changeset comments https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
HellMap (2025-08-30 18:15:08+00:00): Hello,

I undid your change here because the default speed limit is not 90. It is the default 50 within urban/city limit with 90 being an exception for cars and motorcycles specifically. This is already fully correctly tagged in subkeys matching what the traffic signs show.
samuelzammit (2025-08-30 14:03:37+00:00): sources: survey + https://bieta.org/site-map/
martien-176 (2025-08-30 13:29:57+00:00): Hi, thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. You requested a review of your mappings. 

The buildings you mapped are well done as to their location. 

Next time, you can improve by avoiding mapping several buildings as one building. Every building must be traced separately. Zoom in as close as possible to see the outline of the buildings, hit each corner of the building carefully. Look for shadows, open ground, changes in roof color and vegetation to differentiate buildings.

Please check out these sources for more info: 
- Buildings--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o
- Roads--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBLwb2nisJQ 
- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit

Thanks so much for your contribution, Martien, HOT global validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171225419
Fizzie-DWG (2025-10-23 06:27:20+00:00): DWG revert, apparent sockpuppet, poor quality mapping, unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173657220
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-18 19:00:58+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2813758765/history has fixme = yes that was added in this edit
What requires fixing here? fixme=yes is not particularly clear, and maybe problem got fixed since then?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-18 19:02:02+00:00): and yes, FIX_ME was there previously - but if it is contentless, then maybe better to get rid of it?
mottiger (2025-08-30 13:22:53+00:00): Sorry für das grosse Changeset, da ist mir ein kleiner Fehler passiert.
martien-176 (2025-08-30 13:20:49+00:00): Hi,  thanks for mapping. You requested a review of your mappings. 

Your buildings are well mapped. Good location, square corners and precise outline. 

Thanks and regards, Martien, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171226979
mueschel (2025-09-04 18:22:55+00:00): Hi,
you added the new tag "gas:cylinder" here. What size of container is that? There are already a few 
'fuel:gas:bottled' tags used in other places that might fit here as well.
Sebastian Pleško (2025-09-04 20:01:48+00:00): like 10 L LPG, I think I have seen also larger but yeah, normal household ones.
mueschel (2025-09-05 17:46:15+00:00): Here the standard is AFAIK 11 kg, but I think that's the size also on sales in the places with a "fuel:gas:bottled" tag.
McKulkin (2026-04-05 00:13:02+00:00): I doubt there's a sign maker in Mtirala national park. Could you clarify, please?
eggie (2025-08-30 13:44:11+00:00): Dag Merlin,

Wanneer iets private is dan zal de toegang =permissive kunnen zijn en niet per defintie = yes.
Ik zie net dat je permissive aanpast naar yes.
Overigens routeert permssive ook.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-08-30 13:50:12+00:00): Dag BFK,

Tegenwoordig zijn we weer voorzichtiger geworden met alles op slot zetten met destination.
Brandgangen worden meestal gemapt als highway=footway met footway=alley
Dat is voldoende. 

Fietsen zal meestal niet de bedoeling zijn. 
Wanneer er een bordje staat alleen voor bewoners is het wellicht wel destination.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dalley
MVG
eggie
BlauweFietsKetting (2025-08-30 19:26:37+00:00): Hi Eggie, dankjewel voor je feedback, ik zal dit aanpassen bij de achterpaden die ik heb toegevoegd.
eggie (2025-08-30 19:38:41+00:00): Top!
eggie (2025-08-30 13:34:19+00:00): Dag JR  
Netjes ingetekend!
Je kunt voortaan beter gebouwen laten importeren via het forum voor zover ze nog niet periodiek zijn geupdated. Dat kan in dit draadje ;
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bag-importverzoeken/3394/3705

De format van de postcode is zonder spatie en Groningen is niet met hoofdletters. Ik heb het aangepast.

MVG
eggie
JR_Nl (2025-08-30 15:18:49+00:00): Dank voor de tip. Ik zal me nog verdiepen in het automatisch laten importeren van BAG data.

Ik ging er van uit dat er periodiek geautomatiseerd BAG data geïmporteerd wordt, maar dat dit blijkbaar geen feilloos proces is. Enerzijds worden regelmatig gebouwen al ingetekend terwijl er slechts een bouwvergunning verleend is en er nog geen bouwsporen op de grond te vinden zijn. Anderzijds zijn sommige gebouwen nog niet ingetekend, terwijl ze zowel op de grond als in de BAG al bestaan.
eggie (2025-08-30 15:30:17+00:00): Yep... De BAG loopt soms voor .. soms achter.
Je kunt via de BAG viewer een terugmelding doen. 
Wanneer je aangeeft dat een gebouw er al staat al ondanks Bouwvergunning afgegeven dan wordt soms wel geïmporteerd.
In principe wordt alleen geïmporteerd bij 'bouw gestart'. 
Dit gebouw kan welliswaar geïmporteerd woren maar is nog niet ingemeten. Het staat ook nog niet in de BGT. 
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/?searchQuery=aalborgweg&objectId=0014100040032525&theme=BRT+Achtergrond&geometry.x=237972.32299999997&geometry.y=579988.5009999999&zoomlevel=14.60946243010003&bijbehorendeAdressen=Pand

Bij import van niet ingemeten panden krijg je soms wonderlijke gedrochten. 

Dus laat maar even zo. 

Het ligt ook aan het Kadaster per regio hoe uptodate ze zijn.

Wellicht heeft de BAG importeur gewacht tot het gebouw ingemeten zou zijn.
Groet
eggie
VLD549 (2025-09-17 15:17:45+00:00): Hi, I was asked to verify name changes. With the link provided I get to the site mentioning café otje and camperranch. I don't see 'Camp F' though, could you elaborate?

Thank you in advance!
Galaxis007 (2025-09-17 16:47:28+00:00): Yes its a campsite,  for approx 25 campers from bicto small, price wepayed in september 2persons and a camper included 230 volt and wifi price 20€ a night. Its open the whole year, also good facilities shower ext all in, regards Ed
Galaxis007 (2025-09-17 16:52:47+00:00): https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.cafeotje.nl/&ved=2ahUKEwi4z4XQoOCPAxXwSkEAHZA8DgQQFnoECCUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1z4Vo1nxfe5Kzr58idq_Yc
samuelzammit (2025-08-30 14:03:31+00:00): sources: survey + https://bieta.org/site-map/
Zedna (2025-08-30 13:41:56+00:00): pokus
Zedna (2025-08-30 13:42:16+00:00): pokus 2
ExoMal (2025-09-02 16:10:15+00:00): It looks like something bugged out in Every Door and you submitted the same edits multiple times across multiple changesets, now there's several (~7) duplicates of a bunch of stuff (like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13108537012). I've removed the excess nodes I've come across but I don't know how many more there are.
SmithyScotland (2025-09-02 16:57:53+00:00): Thanks for letting me know.  I've found another.  Will raise a bug report in Everydoor.
SmithyScotland (2025-09-02 17:10:19+00:00): Git issue raised here

https://github.com/Zverik/every_door/issues/967
samuelzammit (2025-08-30 14:03:23+00:00): sources: survey + https://bieta.org/site-map/
eteb3 (2026-07-27 17:24:28+00:00): Hi mueschel

Thanks for these tag updates - almost certainly all of them are my tags.

Just to note that there is a charity register in each of the UK's legal jurisdictions. In my view, charities in England & Wales should have ref:GB-EAW: as prefix and infix. 

See discussion here, if you're not aware:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/what-tags-for-charity-registration-numbers/144218

Your change is an improvement on what I had, ofc. If you're doing such improvements again, would it be worth using the jurisdiction-specific country code?

Thanks anyway

eteb3
mueschel (2026-07-27 18:06:58+00:00): Please feel free to adjust the tags further - in the meantime the tag evolved further. 
ref:GB-EAW:charity is rather new, but definitely a good thing. Taginfo lists quite a few 'charity' tags that could need some rework to be more specific:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=charity
A-dg6 (2025-08-30 14:18:10+00:00): Voetpad toegevoegd, tags van wegen en parkeerplaatsen verbeterd
aTarom (2025-08-30 18:18:00+00:00): Hola, retiro el tag
nostr=npub1ry47yh9c8x9peeck8j2l0h37adydp0jzwcgepsg8er9xs4wtkmcsa4fj8c
en
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7899431276/history
si no es un error dime, saludos.
2FakTor (2025-08-30 21:25:09+00:00): Estaba probando si el tag era admitido. Estaría bien poder añadir a los perfiles de los comercios alguna referencia a la posible huella en nostr que tuvieran. Perfil, contacto, etc. Un saludo
aTarom (2025-08-30 21:47:50+00:00): disculpa mi desconocimiento del tema, que tal sería este que esta en uso:
"contact:nostr"
en
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11793794335
Saludos
2FakTor (2025-09-03 08:22:46+00:00): Lo probaré de añadir a ver que tal, muchas gracias
sykul (2025-08-31 09:00:44+00:00): Bonjour, merci pour la mise à jour. Les horaires ont-ils aussi changé?
OziMat (2025-08-31 10:44:14+00:00): Bonjour. Après vérification, les horaires ont un peu évoluées. J'ai mis à jour les détails du point.
OziMat (2025-08-31 10:44:43+00:00): Bonjour. Après vérification, les horaires ont un peu évoluées. J'ai mis à jour les détails du point.
sykul (2025-08-31 11:59:06+00:00): Très bien, bonne journée.
StC (2025-08-30 20:55:58+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a brisé la continuité d'un itinéraire pédestre qui passe par là. Je vais tenter la réparation.
StC (2025-08-30 21:02:42+00:00): En fait, les modifications des chemins semblent très approximatives. Pourquoi avoir raccourci le way 721326677, qui semblait à peu près fidèle ? Qu'avez-vous utilisé comme sources ?
sgtbrobee (2025-08-30 21:02:46+00:00): Mince je ne l'avais pas vu. Sinon on peut juste revenir au changeset d'avant et je fairais en sorte de ne pas les casser.
StC (2025-08-30 21:20:23+00:00): J'ai fait de mon mieux avec Strava et le LIDAR HD pour améliorer les chemins.
sgtbrobee (2025-09-01 16:34:25+00:00): Comme source j'avais un tracé GPS que j'ai fait a pied avec mon tel. 

C'est bon pour les relations du coup? Je ne ne sais pas si je peux revert un changeset sur iD.

Et je n'étais même pas au courant des cartes LiDAR sur osm, quel outil génial. Merci.
StC (2025-09-01 20:22:16+00:00): Bonjour,

de nos jours, une trace GPS isolée est rarement très haut dans la hiérarchie de fiabilité des sources disponibles. Strava et désormais le LIDAR HD sont souvent plus précis (ou le RTK, mais ça demande de l'équipement).

J'ai fait de mon mieux pour les relations. Ca serait sympa de vérifier que c'est cohérent avec les observations de terrain.

Ca fait environ deux semaines que le MNT et le MNS à base de LIDAR HD sont disponibles dans iD, c'est donc très récent.
vrix (2025-09-01 07:57:29+00:00): Hi ramthelinefeed, I believe that one of the latest changeset on Newry (either the node 663428001 or the relation 4676275), accidentally broke something.

The relation can't be found on Nominatim anymore i.e. https://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/ui/details.html?osmtype=R&osmid=4676275 returns a 404

Could you please double check if something's wrong? Thank you
ramthelinefeed (2025-09-01 08:11:51+00:00): Yeah I decided to remove the 'place=city' relation, and use the node to designate the city. (Previously the node was being use as 'label' in the relation.)  The OSM wiki's guidance is not dogmatic on the issue, but I felt the boundary relation had just been drawn empirically as a 'residential' area, using the satellite imagery, and it didn't correspond to any actual legal/administrative boundaries (either electorally or for local government). So I just left it purely as a (residential) land-use designation.  
Maybe Nominatum needs a day or two to refresh its cache, or however it works?
ramthelinefeed (2025-09-01 08:13:21+00:00): (Meanwhile, in terms of administrative boundaries, there are already are accurate boundary relations for Newry, Mourne & Down District Council, and the 'DEAs' and wards that it is divided into.)
AndyB_66 (2025-10-09 07:50:06+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:Dobr%C3%A9_koment%C3%A1%C5%99e_sad_zm%C4%9Bn
brassica (2025-08-30 14:55:49+00:00): Info ook van https://www.openingstijden-post.nl/PostNL%20Postkantoor%20Utrecht%20Glory%20tabakspeciaalzaak/3551%20CR/Utrecht/dtvrtH8UnCcXGxm8
yitimox (2025-08-31 14:22:27+00:00): kardeş 2 yıl önce istanbulda kafana göre düzenleme yapmışsın bak banlattıracaksın kendini yapma bir daha
HaritaDuzenlemeHesabi (2025-09-02 03:36:49+00:00): Merhaba. Köyün eski adı zaten mevcut. Bkz: node/8949494630. Değişiklikler herhangi bir renderer'da görünsün diye yapılmamalıdır. Değişiklik yaptığınız yerde resmi olarak iki ayrı mahalle(Atatürk ve Fatih) bulunmakta. Değişikliğinizi gerçeğe aykırı olduğu için geri aldım.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171340823
GrabSG_AndyAng (2025-09-03 10:40:25+00:00): Hello B972025,
This is a bad edit, the roads have been there for years and is being used for routing purposes to RWS Casino
GrabSG_zack (2025-09-03 10:46:24+00:00): You mass deleted some ground -verified basement roads. Basement network are common across SG. This is super wrong.
B252697 (2025-09-03 10:52:35+00:00): Hi Andy,

Thank you for your comment. 
RWS is a popular area with many features already displayed on the map and many buildings are in close proximity. As such, the map features on OSM map around RWS area are already very dense. Adding thick road displays on top of the already dense feature makes the map look extremely overwhelming.

Please feel free to make any edits that you think are necessary on your end. I just hope there can be balance so that the map does not look too overwhelmed. Hope we can all keep this in view. Thank you.
buy_osmand (2025-09-04 01:52:22+00:00): bismillahirRahmaanirRaheem,  
to corporate persons GrabSG_zack, GrabSG_AndyAng, 
is that all you can offer to the local mapping community of the Republik of Singapura❓

How can we solve this peacefully❓I still want osm map to not be confusing ‼ in clearer words, i stand with the edits By B972025 (changeset author) ‼
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171233115
B252697 (2025-09-04 02:00:49+00:00): Hi, if I may clarify, I’m not against GrabSG_Zack and GrabSG_AndyAng. I understand the perspectives they have shared and appreciate their efforts to ensure mapping routes are comprehensive.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171233115
B252697 (2025-09-04 02:09:03+00:00): I agree and am ok with adding key routes back, especially those that are essential for navigation. I agree with GrabSG_Zack and GrabSG_AndyAng that it’s important, too. 

What I hope and appreciate moving forward is that we have discretion when mapping and perhaps no need to map out every single carpark pathway in detail if it doesn’t help in map navigation.  Ultimately, those are that driving to malls might also be walking around the mall areas after they park their vehicles. If the map is too bloated with many heavy road inlays, it might be not helpful for them, too.

If we can all be mindful not to make the map look too bloated with excessive details (i.e. overmapping), I believe we will all win.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171233115
cronoser (2026-03-12 23:50:34+00:00): corregidas etiquetas
Supaplex030 (2025-09-21 19:32:16+00:00): Hallo, die Einziehung der Simplonstraße und Gabriel-Max-Straße/Umsetzung dieser Maßnahme ist noch nicht passiert, daher sollten wir das auch noch nicht in OSM mappen. Bekanntlich kann sowas gern auch mal noch länger dauern, selbst wenn es – wie hier – bereits im Amtsblatt angekündigt wurde.

Also besser warten, bis es wirklich umgesetzt wurde oder im Zweifelsfall einfach eine Notiz hinterlassen (gibt es in diesem Fall bereits: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4919919)

lg, Alex
Supaplex030 (2025-09-21 19:33:04+00:00): P.S.: Achso, ich habe die Änderungen bereits zurückgesetzt. Lasst uns die Augen offen halten, wann es hier wirklich soweit ist.
Emil1887 (2025-09-21 21:00:37+00:00): Alles klar, danke. Die Boulevardpresse hatte bereits von einer Sperrung berichtet. Naja, selbst Schuld, wenn man denen glaubt.
martien-176 (2025-08-30 18:55:40+00:00): Hi,  thanks for mapping. You requested a review of your mappings. 

Your buildings are well mapped. Good location, square corners and precise outline. 

Thanks and regards, Martien, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/171233800
habi (2025-10-17 10:32:49+00:00): Ciao EuroScout
Du hast hier ein StreetComplete-Bild in den `image`-Tag verpackt.
Die Bilder werden - sobald die dazugehörige OSM Notiz erledigt ist - vom StreetComplete-Server gelöscht.
Deshalb funktionert hier image 	https://streetcomplete.app/p/302171.jpg nicht mehr und ich habe das entfernt.
Gruss,
habi
eggie (2025-08-30 15:42:00+00:00): Hi Alexander, 


Seems okay to me. 

Greetz,
eggie
Mapping_Maślice (2025-11-10 15:06:09+00:00): way/1426051272 wygląda na niepotrzebne, bo jest node/12029559056, zresztą tagowanie 'leisure=yes' jest powszechnym błędem wg wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leisure?uselang=en#Common_tagging_mistakes
pavvv (2025-11-10 15:15:23+00:00): Chciałem, żeby sama Przystań Maślice była oznaczona oddzielnym obiektem obejmującym całą przystań, ale naprawdę nie wiem jakiego tagu tu użyć. Mimo wszystko to nie to samo co Przystań Maślice Food & Drink.
Mapping_Maślice (2025-11-10 16:13:11+00:00): node/12029559056 i node/12819896236 to są dwa osobne obiekty.