piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-17 23:21:59+00:00): OK, that will take a bit more time. Lets start with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27597535/history or https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/osm-deep-history/#/way/41189769

problem is not with whether it is secondary or primary but because change was motivated by official road classification

while road classes in official classification (either of them) do not match to OSM one, this is documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:highway#Warto%C5%9Bci and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Drogi#Klasyfikacja_dr%C3%B3g

this is also listed at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/International_highway_classification_equivalence#Examples_of_cases_contradicting_simple_rules

disclaimer: I authored that

mandatory discussion of changes to high road classes is described and documented for example at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Znakowanie_dr%C3%B3g_w_Polsce#Drogi_samochodowe

A tiny bit ironically added by Pavv in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Pl:Znakowanie_dr%C3%B3g_w_Polsce&diff=prev&oldid=2919811 very recently there but this is in general supported and was documented somewhere else already (cannot find it right now)

--------------------

would this be considered sufficient?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-17 23:22:20+00:00): (for this specific account and this edit, I remember we have few more accounts)
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-17 23:41:43+00:00): In general problem here is less with that specific road has some innate primariness and user retagged it to trunk despite it not having trunkiness.

Typically it is not about road being discussed and community reaching conclusion.

Rather the problem is that some mappers (especially Temat-Droga) refused to discuss anything and tried to force their preferred tagging. In unending parade of new accounts. Or with flood of changes.
And then tried to block return to status quo by demanding discussion over each change. Or redoing it again in edit war.
So general strategy was to make 6 changes, and hope that people will revert only some or it will end in an endless discussion.
To combat that Polish community at this point expects discussion to happen BEFORE =trunk is edited, otherwise anyone can revert it for any reason.

So it is more about "totally new account appears, makes changes to from =secondary to =trunk in their first or second edit, continues this kind of editing". https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/FILszew/history is one just appeared BTW

So in "more unexplained undiscussed nonsense trunk category changes" main problem is 'undiscussed' part and it may be overly procedural and it is a bit tricky to provide proof of no discussion except discussion not taking place.
On account of it being not discussed proving 'nonsense' is tricky - I would need to start several discussions for that, as these edits being not discussed are main problem.
And that is just too much, whole point of "make discussion first" is to move burden on road class warriors.

Hopefully this answers a bit why I though "no discussion happened, nothing linked in changeset" is considered as offense in itself?

Maybe I am overtouchy and it is perfectly normal newbie edit to fiddle with highway=secondary to highway=trunk on long road distance on the second edit?
SomeoneElse (2025-11-17 23:53:01+00:00): > would this be considered sufficient?

Thanks - I now have one more object to keep an eye on, and something to point at when it changes.

> osm.org/user/FILszew/history is one just appeared BTW

Again, the same questions - what have they changed that does not match the Polish community's majority view of what road classes should be in Poland, and why?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-17 23:59:58+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339597002/history - Philet2137 and Pan_palat removed ref=5 solely because some official documents supposedly changed

it was still signed last time anyone checked it, and they are not even disputing this (just changing stuff with "official paper says otherwise" as sole reason)

note: at some point removal of ref=5 may be a valid edit, especially after S3 road is opened, 5 road will be likely actually degraded
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-18 00:03:40+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1329312751/history - here it is clearly not highway=trunk

Philet2137 is this time basing edit on a different type of official paper, E-road routing

for some reason E75 was not moved to A1/S7 and still goes through city center

luckily for residents it is not anymore very important road, definitely not on national scale so highway=trunk is extremely dubious - especially with "E75 is there" as sole justification
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-18 00:07:23+00:00): (are additional listings like that needed or is it enough for now? I prefer to not spend too long on that, unless it would be useful)
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-18 00:11:54+00:00): and to be clear, this type of confusion would be perfectly fine and not bannable offence if these would be new people

but I strongly suspect that these accounts are operated by a single person
user_5359 (2025-11-17 08:28:13+00:00): Welcome to OSM! 
Please be careful! You moved the node https://www.osm.org/node/3186044335 more than 100 meters. Please check the correct position. If you need help, you are welcome!
theoasisca (2025-11-17 08:35:09+00:00): Hello, I believe it is at the correct position. Thank you!
maro21 (2025-11-22 15:12:17+00:00): Please edit one city in one changeset. If you edit more than one country please use English in the comment of your changeset.
Toli99 (2025-11-23 10:02:27+00:00): Thank you for your comment. It seems like there was an error. I will take your comment into consideration.
nick1993 (2025-11-19 16:20:59+00:00): Ernesto, potresti fare un pelino piu' di attenzione quando crei nuovi rii / fossi? Ricordati di inserire anche i ponti e / o i canali di scolo sotterrati a livello -1
ernestoandolfi (2025-11-19 21:01:22+00:00): Ciao Nick. Ci metto tutta la mia attenzione e controllo sempre che Josm non dia avvertimenti di cose da correggere. Inserendo solo corsi d'acqua lavoro solo su quelli mettendo sempre il layer -1 sotto le strade. Nella quantità potrebbe scapparmi qualcosa.  ma tu correggi pure se trovi la dimenticanza. Te ne ringrazio. Personalmente penso che sia meglio un torrente segnato in mappa in più che  un errore piccolo sull'incrocio con la strada. Un caro saluto e buona mappatura. Matteo
Langlaeufer (2025-11-17 14:33:22+00:00): Hi,
ist mir nicht klar geworden, warum du die Radspur auf bei diesem Stück auf der einen Seite entfernt hast. sieht doch genauso aus wie auf der gesamten Kreuzungen und es gibt rote Streifen für beide Richtungen, oder hat sich etwas geändert? Gruß Langläufer
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174737688
eggie (2025-11-16 18:21:15+00:00): Dag  ItaliA1delSole,

Je vraagt feedback.. Lijkt me oke als er bebording staat met Alleen Bestemmingsverkeer.
MVG
eggie
Hufkratzer (2025-11-16 20:27:08+00:00): Hi,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1448720840 does not look like a horse riding centre (leisure=horse_riding); it looks like a horse riding arena. These should be tagged with leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian; example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/279520062
See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_to_map_a#Riding_centre_(equestrian)
Termininja (2025-11-17 20:18:14+00:00): Updated, Thanks
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-01-27 20:27:03+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13308652440/history has railway = waste_disposal that was added in this edit
Would amenity=waste_disposal access=private fit here well?
Linie29 (2026-01-28 08:03:41+00:00): Hi! No not in this case. The only other tag would be "waste=brown_water/chemical_toilet".
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging
Eduardo17172 (2025-11-16 18:11:20+00:00): Se agregaron cambios en nombres de calles y las señales.
Agrego fuentes: 
1. https://www.bibliotecanacionaldigital.gob.cl/bnd/628/w3-propertyvalue-1019364.html
2. https://www.artistasvisualeschilenos.cl/658/w3-printer-40224.html
Lokai (2025-11-17 06:29:09+00:00): Hallo,

beim letzten CS ist etwas schief gelaufen. 
Die B427 bei Reichenbach NW von Busenberg hat nun einen deutlichen Knick. Ich vermute, dass der Knoten versehentlich verschoben wurde.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7066010328#map=17/49.136719/7.806011
Bitte korrigieren. Danke.

Gruß
L.
Lokai (2025-11-17 06:34:21+00:00): Der von dir genannte kleine Kreisverkehr bei Rumbach ist tatsächlich ein kleiner Kreisverkehr ein mini roundabout und kein echter KV mit einem nicht befahrbaren Zentrum.. Der war richtig gezeichnet.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmini_roundabout
Pfälzer669 (2025-11-17 19:32:31+00:00): Genau, der überfahrbare Minikreisel war gemäß Wiki richtig als solcher gemappt (Punkt).

Lokai, vielen Dank für den Teilrevert aufgrund der weiteren Fehler an der B 427 und der Straße "im Grün" in Bruchweiler.
DressyPear4 (2025-12-16 18:22:23+00:00): Essas vias
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593926438#map=18/-22.315924/-49.065719
do shopping, por que foram alteradas para residencial?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174739103
Ikem O (2025-11-16 22:55:43+00:00): Added new-build address
BCNorwich (2025-11-17 06:13:43+00:00): Tweaked the address tags to OSM practice.
BCNorwich (2025-11-17 06:15:09+00:00): Sorry I forgot to say Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Regards Bernard.
pitfire (2025-11-17 03:11:09+00:00): Hi leonlül,
die Vergabe von Hs. Nummern sollte nur einmal pro Grundstück erfolgen. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Adressen#Rechtliche_Situation_in_Deutschland

VG pitfire
streckenkundler (2025-11-18 17:30:36+00:00): Hei,
hier ist dir beim Kölsaer Busch ein Geometriefehler passiert: touching Rings. Das habe ich mit CS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174824840 behoben, diese Fehler sind zwar nicht immer, wie hier bei Landuse-Polygonen aber vermeidbar. Eigentlich müsste des ganze MP https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/282351 zerpflückt werden, da auch Teilflächen entalten sind, die Grünland bzw. Weideflächen sind... Man siehr teilweise sogar die Kühe... Was dann natürlich flöten geht, ist der Name "Kölsaer Busch" an der Fläche... Das dann evt. als separaten Punkt mit place=locality?

Grüße,

Sven
Suricata (2025-11-21 18:50:06+00:00): Hallo Sven, 
vielen Dank für Deine Korrektur. Komisch, beim Hochladen wurde mir kein Fehler angezeigt. Natürlich hast Du recht. Eigentlich ist es ganz normale Wiese/Felder/Gebüsch. Wenn man nach Kölsaer Busch recherchiert, bekommt man das angezeigt: "Es handelt sich um ein lokales Waldstück, das für die Naherholung und das örtliche Gemeinschaftsleben von Bedeutung ist..." An Ende wäre es wahrscheinlich richtiger, den Wald nördlich als Kölsaer Busch zu betiteln und die Wiesen Wiesen sein zu lassen und entsprechend zu optimieren. Wenn Du auch der Meinung bist, würde ich das in Angriff nehmen. Wir waren nämlich vor einiger Zeit mit den Rädern dort unterwegs, es gibt ziemlich viele Caches dort zu suchen :-) daher ist mir das Terrain gut bekannt.
Grüße
Uwe
streckenkundler (2025-11-21 20:24:00+00:00): Hei Uwe,

...ich hab mal geschaut... 
Kartendienste wie z.B. https://maps.arcanum.com/de/map/europe-19century-secondsurvey/?layers=osm%2C158&bbox=1463627.0957438773%2C6724375.880157913%2C1478732.9634587355%2C6730643.716477298
kennen den Namen nicht... Das Alkis in Brandenburg kennt das auch nicht: https://bb-viewer.geobasis-bb.de/?layerIDs=237,9001,9000,149,159&visibility=true,true,true,true,true&transparency=0,0,0,0,0&center=376339.2496096441,5717177.13744825&zoomlevel=10

Für mich heißt das aber alles nichts. 
In OSM angekommen ist es mit CS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/2761631#map=14/51.59099/13.21612

Der User Teddy80 scheint auch noch gelegentlich aktiv zu sein...

Aus meiner Erfahrung heraus würde ich den Namen aber mindestens als lokalen Namen sehen. Ich werde ihn mal anschreiben...

Viele Grüße,

Sven
NeisBot (2025-11-17 06:18:29+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.

In total, I detected 18 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
- https://osm.org/way/42998026 | crossings=7
- https://osm.org/way/42998027 | crossings=7

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=174739817
NeisBot (2025-11-17 06:18:29+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.

In total, I detected 6 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
- https://osm.org/way/42998025 | crossings=4

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=174739874
Vinber-Pro (2026-02-03 10:15:11+00:00): bonjour,
j'ai vu cela https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5690929225 , il y a bien des doublons, il va y avoir une repasse à faire avec les gens du cpts.

cela va sans doute tendre vers 1 lieu avec les médecins et les divers rpps pour associer les pros et le cabinet !

nous testons, essayons !

à plus
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-11-17 14:57:06+00:00): Hi!

Motorways in the Montreal region were all aligned using precise geodesic data. Please do not move or realign them. Bing and ESRI aerial photos are not aligned correctly right now. Wi will realign them as they were. Thanks!
NeisBot (2025-11-17 06:18:30+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.

In total, I detected 62 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
- https://osm.org/way/1036049974 | crossings=20
- https://osm.org/way/616325808 | crossings=22
- https://osm.org/way/615000520 | crossings=20

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=174740618
eggie (2025-11-16 19:16:15+00:00): Dag Bram. Lijkt me oke..

Is het kunstwerk Boerke van Balkum
niet meer aanwezig. Je hebt het verwijderd.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=174740938

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-11-16 19:17:26+00:00): Ahh.. Je hebt het verplaatst.
Soms gaat dat ongemerkt omdat je met de kaart schuift in editmodus.
Wellicht nog even checken.
Bramba01 (2025-11-16 19:22:41+00:00): Op de kaart stond hij niet helemaal op de goede plek en daarom heb ik hem verplaats, ik zal er morgen eens langsfietsen om te kijken of hij nu helemaal goed staat.
eggie (2025-11-16 19:44:35+00:00): Oke  bewust verplaatst is prima...
Mapse
eggie
streckenkundler (2025-11-16 19:20:28+00:00): Hei, ach, auch Landschleicher im RBB Brandenburg geschaut... Toll!

Danke,  Sven
Dawid2849 (2025-12-02 22:50:30+00:00): Dziękuję :)
Glassman (2025-11-18 03:31:16+00:00): #TIP: We spell out street names in OSM because software has a hard time with abbreviations.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174741112
kallisti5 (2025-11-16 19:26:44+00:00): These are all confirmed in person and can be clearly confirmed on google street view.
user_5359 (2025-11-17 08:14:25+00:00): Hello! Please use access=yes instead of access=Yes (corrected).
LordGarySugar (2025-11-29 15:39:09+00:00): Thanks for fixing up lots of these!
NeisBot (2025-11-17 06:18:30+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.

In total, I detected 15 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
- https://osm.org/way/611541525 | crossings=9
- https://osm.org/way/611541528 | crossings=6

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=174741504
pitscheplatsch (2025-11-19 09:25:41+00:00): Have been corrected by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174765818
user_5359 (2025-11-17 08:54:53+00:00): Hello! Just because a path is closed to the public does not mean that the path has disappeared. Therefore, the (incorrectly spelled) key was:highway is incorrect. You have sufficiently documented that the path may not be used by the public.
Tibo05200 (2025-11-17 11:12:34+00:00): yes but no because takes on many platform this data still seem to appear as free path... as documented here: 

https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/suppression-recurrente-de-chemins-sur-terrains-prives-dans-le-05/31488/23

so until we find a more convenient solution, i'll just supress them
user_5359 (2025-11-17 11:26:01+00:00): I only had some of the posts translated, but the statement regarding vandalism is correct. 
As mentioned in the forum, we are working on raising awareness of the problem among map manufacturers (the successor product), especially with regard to the frequency of updates. 
But none of this justifies the action taken. This also applies to the incorrect spelling of ‘was : highway’; the correct spelling would be ‘was:highway’. Incidentally, in such cases, I always recommend adding a corresponding key note with a reference to the forum discussion.
Tibo05200 (2025-11-17 11:39:12+00:00): maybe nothing jutifies my action but i'm a farmer, not a user of OSM, i'd like not have to use it, this takes my time and my energy both online and IRL. so i may not use it correctly.

 the path that i just supress before modifying this one have been drawn while it dont exist and need the crossing of 2 permanently electrified fence. so i'll justifie my action regarding to the harassement and the injustice i face.

i can't and donc want to put "private properties" panel every thirty meters IRL or put webcam everywhere to avoid fence destroying or opening (with the eventuality of losing cattle)

i'm in search of solution, but for now i'll supress it as soon as i can.
eggie (2025-11-16 19:48:07+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback...  Bedrijven taggen we in OSM bij op de adresnode.. Dus niet op de gebouwomtrek. Ik pas even wat aan. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2025-11-16 19:56:44+00:00): Dag VDG,

Wellicht een vergissing. Het verwijderde gebouw heb ik teruggeplaatst.
Dat is er gewoon. 
De vijver heb ik wel weggehaald.
Wellicht was dat de bedoeling?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-11-17 09:38:49+00:00): Dag brassica...   De vermelding had al geen effect in OSM, want de aard van het bedrijf staat er ook niet op.
Zolang de afhandeling duurt zo maar even laten.

MVG
eggie
brassica (2025-11-20 20:16:35+00:00): Ah ok, bedankt voor de toelichting.
bxl-forever (2025-11-17 20:21:59+00:00): ## REVERTED CHANGESET

There is no university named "Sint-Lucas Herenwoning".

This is not a university.
This is just a students’ residence.
söm4324 (2025-12-02 10:52:55+00:00): Hallo hoxel,

ich habe gerade von diesem Änderungssatz an einigen Gebäuden das roof:orientation korrigiert. Nachdem der Änderungssatz noch recht frisch ist, wollt ich zumindest drauf hinweisen, damit keine weiteren falschen roof:orientation eingetragen werden.

Hintergrund ist, dass roof:orientation nur entweder 'along' oder 'across' beinhalten kann und aussagt, in welche Richtung der Dachfirst verläuft. Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:roof:orientation

Das ist bei 'gabled'-Dächern auch ausreichend. Falls bei anderen Dachformen (z.B. 'skillion') tatsächlich eine Richtungsangabe benötigt wird, wird roof:direction benutzt. Hier dann wahlweise mit einer Gradzahl oder der Himmelsrichtung in einzelnen Großbuchstaben, z.B. N oder SW, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:roof:direction

Du benutzt bereits JOSM als guten Editor, der sollte bei solchen abweichenden Werten eigentlich eine Warnung ausgeben. Am besten beim nächsten Mal drauf achten.

So, genug der vielen Wort und fröhliches Weitermappen! :o)
pavvv (2025-11-16 20:55:03+00:00): Shouldn't it be trunk instead of motorway?
tsinoitisoppo (2025-11-16 21:07:28+00:00): someone more experienced should check those
4004 (2025-11-16 22:42:04+00:00): trunk works. also probably need to remove "access=no", I've done it at Bruzhi
4004 (2025-11-16 22:42:52+00:00): trunk works. also probably need to remove "access=no", I've done it at Bruzhi
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/174742741
theDM (2025-11-16 23:42:17+00:00): You should have removed was:highway tag, because this road became primary again.
NeisBot (2025-11-17 06:18:30+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.

In total, I detected 29 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
- https://osm.org/way/183910686 | crossings=13
- https://osm.org/way/919066223 | crossings=10
- https://osm.org/way/555484190 | crossings=3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=174742928
pitscheplatsch (2025-11-19 09:32:52+00:00): Have been corrected by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174801496
eggie (2025-11-16 22:31:52+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
ilias_ (2025-11-16 21:03:54+00:00): There's already a relation for the Autoroute Transmaghrébine that's more than 11 years old https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4125637

You created a duplicate. Instead, please add the ways to the already-existing relation.
Youness_ss (2025-11-16 22:26:19+00:00): I don't knew that the relation exist.
I'll delete the old one and replace it with the new one.
Thank you for your note!
Udarian (2025-11-16 23:04:25+00:00): I am unsure if just outlining a boat is a correct usage of amenity=boat_rental even if it is just one. 
Also the building you added is within a different, already mapped building, either map these as building:part or do not add them next time

Happy mapping,
Udar
alinaspiv469 (2025-11-16 23:41:06+00:00): Got it! Thanks for pointing this out. With the boat, for some reason, I was not able to find a feature that just had "boat," but I'll be more attentive next time
Udarian (2025-11-17 22:47:28+00:00): generally we do not map features that move around allot like cars, planes, trains and boats as they do not generally stay put, unless they are part of a monument were they would remain mostly still. You can map the piers and mooring points etc. if you want more info see the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Marine_navigation.
scai (2025-11-21 07:55:41+00:00): Hi CiconiaOSM,

das war leider nicht korrekt. teilAuto hat kürzlich die Geschäftsform geändert und ist jetzt nicht mehr Mobility Center GmbH sondern teilAuto eG. Ich hatte das vorher extra geändert :) Es schadet nicht, auch mal in den Verlauf des Elements zu schauen. Ich korrigiere es wieder.

Grüße
Alex
CiconiaOSM (2025-11-22 15:11:57+00:00): Hi Alex,
danke für Deine Nachricht. Das tut mir leid, ich hatte Deinen Eintrag leider vorher nicht gelesen. Mir ist aber gerade wieder aufgefallen, dass im ID-Editor bei der betroffenen teilAuto-Station wieder der Hinweis aufploppt, dass es nicht "wie in ein standardkonformes Objekt" aussieht und die Rück-Umwandlung des Operator-Tag zu Mobility Center automatisch vorgeschlagen wird (wie bei mir damals). Vermutlich wird der inzwischen aktualisierte Wikidata-Eintrag unter der Nr. Q2400658 nicht korrekt vom Editor in OSM übernommen? Ich vermag das aber nicht anzupassen..
Viele Grüße zurück und nochmal herzlichen Dank für Dein Feedback,
Andreas