piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
HirschKauz (2024-04-24 12:21:26+00:00): Hallihallo G aus E!  
Seit einiger Zeit gibt es ein neues Mapping-Schema für Parkplätze entlang der Straße - sie mal hier: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Street_parking  
Seitdem wird vermieden neue Parkplätze entlang der Straße einzuzeichnen (bestehende werden nur umgetaggt) und dann an der Straße mit  parking:*=separate  (* ersetzen durch left oder right)
Grüße aus Bergheim
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150414740
NorthCrab_upload (2024-04-23 20:30:19+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.

"Maniewo":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/580224058
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/580224062
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/580224063
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/580224064
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/580224065
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/580224067
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/580224074
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/580224075
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/580224076
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/656355690
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1200003971

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2024-04-23 20:50:31+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/1032081337

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
MxxCon (2024-04-26 03:40:47+00:00): Hello.
When dealing with buildings and building:part, please remember to move nycdoitt:bin= tag to the correct feature.
I fixed this one for you. 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150415412
JessAk71 (2024-04-26 13:36:47+00:00): Thank you MxxCon for fixing that! I forgot to transfer that tag over. Thanks again.
eggie (2024-04-24 06:21:00+00:00): Dag jvdoever

Tip...  De gebouwnaam kan beter op de gebouwomtrek gezet worden. Op de adresnode doet deze niets.
Je edits
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=150415449

Ook bestaat er de mogelijkheid om een vlak landuse=farm_yard in te tekeken bij een boerenbedrijf en daar de naam op te zetten zoals bij Wendelzoele
MVG
eggie
tekim (2024-04-24 00:15:55+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150419147
Kovoschiz (2024-04-24 04:26:57+00:00): `bridge=yes` + `indoor=yes` would be a a walkway on a bridge indoors. It would further be interpreted as indoors of the landscape deck here, which doesn't have an indoors space. `covered=yes` is for the top only. They don't describe the sides.
Kovoschiz (2024-04-24 04:32:38+00:00): Admittedly, `=covered` is used for "covered" wooden bridge. But that could be `covered=yes` + `bridge:material=wood` . `indoor=yes` don't fit for these, unless you consider these to be `building=bridge` , which is inapplicable. 
As a side note, a "skyway" is connecting the higher levels of buildings. That's difficult to define here, as the bus terminal side is not very indoors.
Kovoschiz (2024-04-24 04:33:44+00:00): Originally, it wasn't defined for timber only https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=1550838#Bridge_key:_ways_and_relations
Kovoschiz (2024-04-24 04:36:34+00:00): If these are defined as `bridge=yes` + `indoor=yes` (what's the use of `covered=yes` then?) , it creates the question of why aren't fully enclosed `bridge=covered` the same? The presence of openings that aren't covered by windows?
Kovoschiz (2024-04-24 04:39:48+00:00): It's unclear how others deal with them, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covered_bridge#Roofed_bridges 
The 2 Vietnam examples seem to be "covered bridges" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covered_bridge#Roofed
Kovoschiz (2024-04-24 05:59:56+00:00): For clarity, what I had in mind:
One-sided enclosed footbridges: Kwun Tong Apm, Quarry Bay Station Taikoo Place, Standard Chartered Bank Battery Path 
Long `=viaduct` type examples: Tsuen Wan Station Discovery Park 

Of course, many other `bridge=covered` are mistakes...

If something is considered a `building=bridge`, thus `indoor=yes` , logically the `bridge=yes` might be redundant. This is especially the case in more significant `building=bridge` (depending on interpretation` ) eg IFC across Man Cheung St as actual "buildings" with shops inside.
Kovoschiz (2024-04-24 06:30:22+00:00): On the contrary, there are footbridges between buildings that aren't enclosed, eg Central Elevated Walkway between Hang Seng and 100 QRC (considering Exchange Square section to be a separate section). Or they may connect between "outdoors" part at the top of  the podium (Can't think of an example yet, but Yeung Uk Rd Market has an outdoor hub at NIna Square). Then these may not be `building=bridge` .
tekim (2024-04-24 00:16:16+00:00): Reverting a changeset that used a source that is not allowed.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150419150
Gina Banyard (2024-05-06 00:18:01+00:00): Another source for this is from TfL itself: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-4088-2324
eggie (2024-04-24 06:39:05+00:00): Dag Gerth  https://gezondheidscentrumlunteren.nl/
zal meer zijn dan alleen een apotheek.
Wellicht beter amenity=doctors toevoegen ipv pharmacy en evt de apotheek op een aparte node zetten met de naam van de apotheek.?

MVG
eggie
H4N5-antw (2024-04-25 07:07:28+00:00): Waarde Tonny, 

altijd aardig, en soms leerzaam, gesloten notes te bekijken; zie in onderstaande een man-made=bridge welke op lucht recent veeleer een dam lijkt, met verse steenstorting? Daarbij niet waar te nemen of er een culvert onder ... ? 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275411203#map=17/51.18389/4.84934

Verder kijkend : weet u zeker dat ruiters -te paard-  toegelaten zijn op trapjes https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=511199114561157 - deze lijken niet bestand tegen gewicht willekeurig enig paard, nog afgezien van vlondervloer https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=446516320965195 ? 

Met overigens vriendelijke groet, en dank dat u mee helpt de kaart bij te houden, 

Hans
dentonny (2024-04-25 20:52:53+00:00): Hey Hans,

Bij nader inzien heb ik idd iets te snel mijn conclusie getrokken dat dit een brug was. Bij nader inzien vermoed ik dat je gelijk hebt ivm een dam.

Wat je bedoelt met ruiters/paarden ben ik even niet mee?

iig al bedankt voor de extra paar ogen!

mvg
H4N5-antw (2024-04-26 10:17:31+00:00): Waarde DenTonny, 

Merkte, rondkijkend, en met mijn vele edit-omissies in 't achterhoofd, de onderdoorgang Ringlaan / Oud-Strijderslaan op, en de toegang voor ruiters

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/419932611 werd door u 9mnd geleden aangepast van highway=footway (waar fiets en ruiter=unspecified) naar path, waarbij horse=yes vanzelf werd toegevoegd, ditto 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/419932611 van highway=steps > path , ook daarbij werd horse=yes vanzelf toegevoegd 

dat doet de vraag opkomen hoe die ruiter te paard -danwel de begeleider van dat paard- de steps https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1193043466 op- of afgeleidt : heb ook in 't circus geen paard zulke treden zien ... ; 

daarnaast lijken de treden op https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=526766472704466 niet berekend op het gewicht van een paard (zo'n 400 tot 900kg volgens Bing) - al of niet bereden? 

Over de beschikbare headroom laat ik mij niet uit : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=675889950960228 geeft indruk dat onderzijde brugliggers op 10 treden @ 20cm of zo = 2m hoogte ligt, terwijl ruiter te paard vaak boven mij uittorent. 

Uit dit relaas zal u ondertussen duidelijk zijn waarom ik weinig edits in- danwel uitvoer? 

Met als immer vriendelijke groet, 
Hans
dentonny (2024-04-26 22:04:50+00:00): Dag Hans,

Als je gewoon had gezegd dat bij een path automatisch een horse=yes wordt verondersteld had je uzelf een halfuur tijd bespaart met tekst en (grappige?) voorbeelden te geven.

De reden waarom ik van footway een path heb gemaakt is omdat ik persoonlijk vind dat een footway meer een stedelijk karakter heeft, zeker als er verkeersbord bijstaat, en dus paadjes op 'den buiten' meer path toepasselijk is. Dit is natuurlijk één mening, het staat u vrij om daar niet mee akkoord te gaan.

Ik geef gerust toe dat ik niet met elke access tag toe voeg en al zeker niet de tag voor ruiters.

In de toekomst zal ik er proberen rekening mee te houden als een ruiter ergens niet over of onder kan. Ik veronderstel dat je ondertussen de access tag hebt toegevoegd? Tenzij je liever uw tijd steekt in het proberen grappig te zijn.

Met vriendelijke groet
Glassman (2024-04-30 20:33:28+00:00): Please use a descriptive changeset comment like you have done in your other edits.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150416470
hoserab (2024-04-24 00:03:48+00:00): Sigh... Why did you add these "disused" highway on/offramps at the Hwy22/Hwy1 interchange? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412765, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412765
*They don't exist*, the old ramps were demolished; why are you putting them back?

Why did you create this road route relation? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17508556/ It's not "Range Road 30", and if ever was it hasn't been signed that way in decades.

Why did you add these "emergency access" service roads? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412786, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412787 
They don't exist anymore: they were merely temporary roads to divert traffic while the freeway was being built.

Do these paths exist: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412794, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412795, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412796, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412797, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412798, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412799, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412800, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412801, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412802, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275412803 ? As far as I know they don't.

Why did you upgrade these roads from driveways to "minor/unclassified" roads, when I know for a fact they're just driveways, and I already fixed this fictitious tagging once before? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32100255, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1233655984, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42963818
hoserab (2024-04-24 00:06:19+00:00): Can someone revert this entire changeset...?
Ewrt1 (2024-04-25 02:18:22+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150472562
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-05-06 10:33:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 150958078, 150958067 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits by serial block evader.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16020 and e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150718330
AdrienHegy (2024-04-23 21:54:14+00:00): Changeset envoyé trop rapidement :
Vasteville + Acqueville + Flottemanville-Hague + Tonneville
GinaroZ (2024-04-29 11:02:58+00:00): I've reverted this and changed it to landuse=brownfield
Kovirii (2024-04-23 22:27:12+00:00): foam
DD1GJ (2024-04-23 22:14:02+00:00): Revert, Bachverlauf wurde "verzuogen, Hotel wurde "zerstört", Arzt bitte richtig als Punkt eintragen.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf
maro21 (2024-04-24 19:31:14+00:00): Skąd nazwa "Wrocław Główny"?
Destabilizacja (2024-04-24 19:38:58+00:00): Stacja Wrocław Główny ciągnie się od samej osi stacji przy dworcu aż do ulicy Armii Krajowej, gdzie są wskaźniki granicy stacji i zaczyna się szlak kolejowy.  Wszystkie te grupy torów są formalnie stacją o takiej nazwie.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-06-19 07:59:01+00:00): "Wszystkie te grupy torów są formalnie stacją o takiej nazwie."

Tyle że obszar https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17601712 nie jest tak normalnie nazywany, to jakaś nazwa wewnętrzna kolejowa

to na 
description=Stacja kolejowa Wrocław Główny 
zasługuje
może co najwyżej
official_name=Stacja kolejowa Wrocław Główny 
czy 
ref=Stacja kolejowa Wrocław Główny 
czy wymyślić coś typu
internal_name=Stacja kolejowa Wrocław Główny
pavvv (2024-06-19 12:05:34+00:00): To, że przeciętny mieszkaniec nie mający pojęcia o kolei tak tego nie nazywa nie oznacza, że obszar nie ma takiej nazwy. Te wszystkie zaproponowane tagi są wymyślone na siłę, żeby nazwa się nie renderowała.
maro21 (2024-06-19 21:19:25+00:00): Zgadzam się z pavvvem.
aTarom (2024-04-24 06:58:08+00:00): Hola, gràcies per editar, el tag
"ED3YAD438.975 MHz FM -7.6 MHz (RU718 - R83) JN11BN Ràdio Club Sabadell"="ED3YAD"
pot ser
"communication:amateur_radio:callsign"="ED3YAD"?
a
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11840735337/history
Salutacions
bhietsch (2024-08-08 13:49:10+00:00): Again, please don't use the name=* key for descriptors. highway=cycleway and abandoned:highway=residential perfectly describe what you're seeing on the ground. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1274747417

I understand you may want this information to render on the map, but this is a bad practice that should be avoided. See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Good_practice
"The names should be restricted to the name of the item in question only and should not include additional information not contained in the official name such as categories, types, descriptions, addresses, refs, or notes."
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-04-23 22:34:32+00:00): also added service roads
SomeoneElse (2024-05-05 09:15:16+00:00): Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here.  I'm looking at the changes to https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/727060307 here and it seems a bit odd.  You've removed the official name, added a name:ar and name:en that match the name set a couple of changesets ago, but left bridge:name, bridge:name:ar and bridge:name:en set to slightly different things.
If the official name of the bridge isn't what you removed, what is it?
Best Regards, Andy
SomeoneElse (2024-05-05 09:17:53+00:00): Interestingly https://www.facebook.com/100086442774117/posts/401927786031977 suggests "Italian Bridge" as an alt_name but also suggests "The New Tanuma Bridge" as the name...
idealistic22K (2024-05-05 09:46:19+00:00): Both names are correct, but the common name among the Basra community and the Iraqi people in general is the Italian Bridge, even among municipal workers, some government officials, companies, etc., but only in government correspondence is the name of the New Tanuma Bridge mentioned, and rarely among people, followed by the word Italian Bridge for distinction.
SomeoneElse (2024-05-15 20:59:28+00:00): Thanks
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-30 13:12:55+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275433821/history has waterway = brook that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What you meant by waterway=brook? Is not using https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream intentional and wanted here? How waterway=brook differs from waterway=stream in this case?
Syl (2024-04-24 08:12:59+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai enlevé le lien étant donné que ce n'est pas le site officiel.
KevinOs (2024-04-24 05:11:16+00:00): Just to confirm, are you sure about the transfer of AGLC's Connect Logistics warehouse to Bison Transport? I haven't come across any news or references to it, and I pass by the area often.
TrickyFoxy (2024-04-28 19:44:04+00:00): 👋 Поправьте, пожалуйста, адрес магазина
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/274913493
woodpeck (2024-04-24 07:26:02+00:00): Hello D-Man100, in this changeset you have deleted a number of features that clearly exist on the ground, for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/746559010 (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=150419941&zoom=16&lat=39.37226&lon=-104.91184&layers=B000000TTTFT) - please review and undelete where appropriate.
D-Man100 (2024-05-10 16:03:06+00:00): Which feature(s) are you specifically mentioning? If you're referring to the double-tracks criss-crossing the Ridgeline Open Space, those were used years ago to build the trail system and are no longer open for public use and only used by the Town for emergency access. Some double-tracks are also on private property. These were showing up on other mapping platforms using OSM as being viable running/biking routes.
jtracey (2024-04-24 01:28:50+00:00): Resolves https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4210564
WoodWoseWulf (2024-04-25 03:14:45+00:00): Hello, this is not a beach. This is a playground. If the surface is sand, you can add that tag.
Allison P (2024-04-25 16:14:22+00:00): There is a new Pokémon that spawns on sand. I wonder if that might be connected in some fashion...
zorglubu (2024-04-24 08:47:17+00:00): Bonjour,
j'ai déplacé le centre de santé au sud de l'Ehpad. Adresse trouvée dans finess.esante.gouv.fr
Merci.
tastrax (2024-04-24 04:14:58+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features 

To get the + symbol on a mobile device numeric keypad I reckon you will need to do a LONG press on the zero.
I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-04-24 21:34:16+00:00): Please don't delete roads
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150420758
fortera_au (2024-04-24 06:17:03+00:00): Hi JiafuYang, service roads should be tagged as highway=service, highway=unclassified is meant to be somewhat equivalent to highway=residential but for non-residential areas.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150421286
Glassman (2024-04-30 20:35:24+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150422413
Hufkratzer (2024-04-24 10:41:21+00:00): Hi,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1275471505 looks like a building but it is not tagged like a building and therefore not rendered like a building. (seems to be a common mistake in your area). If the building is for indoor horseback riding you may use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building=riding_hall.. If the whole farm is larger than this building, it is better to map the farm as a separate object, compare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dhorse_riding, example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/486850438
Tex2002ans (2024-05-02 22:19:30+00:00): Thanks. I am very new to OpenStreetMap. (Only started 2 weeks ago!)

I'll adjust this similar to the one you linked to. Thanks. :)

- - -

Note: This was the very first horseriding place I ran across too, so guess I just chose:

- Horesback Riding

in ID, and assumed it was for buildings.

(I was just marking all buildings in the area as best as I could, comparing/verifying data with Google Maps.)

Absolutely crazy the amount of granular detail you can go down to in some of these building types.

Thanks again. :)
Hufkratzer (2024-05-02 23:26:59+00:00): Most (80%) buildings are just tagged building=yes, see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/building#values
Tex2002ans (2024-05-07 02:14:34+00:00): There was a similar horseriding place a few towns over:

- https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=18/40.66984/-75.71313

Do you believe that one is tagged correctly too?

(I tried to tag the arenas as well according to the Wiki + I checked images on their site to try and see what the inside of that building was.)
Hufkratzer (2024-05-07 08:04:14+00:00): That looks correct to me. Instead of website=... you could use contact:facebook=... here, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact:facebook
Tex2002ans (2024-05-08 07:35:47+00:00): Thanks. I'll adjust that in my next changeset.
jhaluska80 (2024-04-24 05:28:31+00:00): Glad you updated them, the power infrastructure is somewhat of a mystery to me.
literan (2024-04-24 17:03:19+00:00): неверный формат адреса - пропущен пробел

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%90%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B0#%D0%9D%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2
map per (2024-04-26 07:35:34+00:00): Hallo domoni,

warum hast du hier mehrere Seitenstraßen der Kirchstockacher Str. gelöscht? (vgl. https://osmlab.github.io/changeset-map/#150423889)

Gibt es die Straßen nicht mehr oder hast du die aus Versehen gelöscht.

Viele Grüße
map per
map per (2024-05-07 19:15:09+00:00): @domoni: Ich hab einen Großteil der Änderung zurückgesetzt.
InsertUser (2024-04-26 16:37:29+00:00): What is the source for this edit?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150424498
MistiVolcano (2024-04-29 06:53:25+00:00): Hi InsertUser. The street name was provided by a Maps user who is local to the area. The name appears appropriate based on the naming scheme of surrounding streets
Ltrlg (2024-04-24 08:17:12+00:00): Merci !
osmviborg (2024-04-24 06:29:29+00:00): Hej. Veje/indkørsler der er private tagges med 'access=private'. Det er gjort nu. Lav være med at slette vejene, de er der jo.
Glassman (2024-04-30 20:41:04+00:00): Instead of removing objects then adding them back - it's better to update the existing geometry - which save the history of the object.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150425354
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2024-04-24 10:14:03+00:00): Why a node in Quebec was changed in this changeset?
Glassman (2024-04-30 20:40:00+00:00): I'm not sure what you mean by cycleway=track. Check out https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway for adding bike lanes.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/150425929
utopiatopia (2024-05-01 00:15:08+00:00): It seems correct. There is a bike lane/track on both sides of the road, heading the same direction as traffic. It’s also separated by grade (same height as the sidewalk) and vegetation between the road and the lane/track. It does “share” space with pedestrians, however the cycle lane is slightly blue and there are clear markings showing where cyclists and pedestrians should go.
Glassman (2024-05-01 00:28:49+00:00): Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't see it on the latest imagery.
B252697 (2025-09-18 14:18:37+00:00): I believe some of these condo roads might be car parking aisles. Would be great if these roads can be tagged with service = carpark aisle too! :) 

Some others in the OSM community shared with me that it would be good for condo roads which are parking spaces to have service = parking aisle. I think the condo roads might be too overemphasised if those which are actually car parking aisles don’t have the service = carpark aisle tag. At low zooms I find that these roads largely obscure the condo features.
mavl (2024-04-24 14:58:53+00:00): Здравствуйте. Номера домов в OpenStreetMap указывают в виде:  
"113 к1" (с пробелом).  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%90%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B0#%D0%9D%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2
osmviborg (2024-04-24 07:10:54+00:00): Mange tak for det venlige svar🙁
Реdактор (2024-04-29 03:19:55+00:00): По документам это дорога регионального значения