piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2025-04-19 17:17:28+00:00): Thx Hans,

Ik heb het aangepast.

Gr eggie
Rodrigo Rega (2025-04-20 21:00:34+00:00): Boas.

Cónstache que a referencia é "8797 Elev. Augas"? Ó ser unha referencia non deberia traducirse.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165148495
Monchinho (2025-04-21 17:57:33+00:00): Ah, pois entón desculpas, pensaba que era un erro. Corrixo.
Tatti Barletta (2025-04-19 19:43:10+00:00): Scusa ma non riesco a capire. Vedo un'area senza tipologia con il nome "Commerciale", cosa volevi fare?
NorthCrab_upload (2025-04-19 11:40:50+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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/1378882100

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2025-04-30 01:24:21+00:00): Please attach speed cameras to the road.

Or create a maxspeed enforcement relation.

See:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dspeed_camera
Silk interest (2025-04-30 12:47:58+00:00): I would gladly do that, but I’m a bit new, so I’m not quite sure how to do it correctly. Is it by setting the tags like this:
description=Lillesjö
direction=111
enforcement=maxspeed
highway=speed_camera
maxspeed=80
type=enforcement
eggie (2025-04-19 14:37:21+00:00): Dag apollo ..shop=market staat nergens beschreven.
Wat is het voor een winkel? 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop

MVG
eggie
charles chilufya (2025-04-20 22:24:22+00:00): Can not see the backrest here, local knowledge?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165151156
gurglypipe (2025-04-20 22:30:10+00:00): Yes, this was surveyed in person using StreetComplete.
Monchinho (2025-04-19 14:38:14+00:00): Ola, Rodrigo. Vexo que o castro da parroquia da esquerda, Aspai, si está aí situado. O que non sei é se existe o que está na dereita, parroquia de Parada. Tampouco deberían ter a mesma referencia e é sospeito o mesmo nome. En GN o de Parada non aparece, non sei se noutras fontes estará. Se estiver deberíase corrixir nome e referencia.

Saúde, boa finde.
Rodrigo Rega (2025-04-19 17:18:11+00:00): Boas,

O concello ten inventariados estos dous castros con diferentes localizacións pero coa mesma referencia e nomes.

Un saudo.
Monchinho (2025-04-19 21:43:33+00:00): Vale, daquela queda así. Saúde.
HellMap (2025-06-13 18:52:03+00:00): Čau,

Es šos https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1378893167 nomainīju uz plant nursery kā blīvas jaunaudzes. Es gan nebiju klāt piebraucis. Tu norādīji, ka no survey, tāpēc gribēju pārliecināties, ka te nav kas jauns, un ka es nejaucu, kas tie ir.
Pēteris Caune (2025-06-16 13:17:42+00:00): Paldies, jā, tā būs precīzāk. Es liku "forest" ar domu, ka tas ir cilvēku veidots, nevis savā vaļā audzis mežs, bet pant_nursery atbilst labāk.
brdrsrsu (2025-09-25 11:41:07+00:00): Поздрав, овај датасет има велики проблем са квалитетом. Живим у Суботици, и канте се или не налазе на обележеним местима, или су уцртане на неким сулудим местима: насред Максима Горког, насред Сомборског пута, на зеленој површини иза оградице у парку на Тргу републике (део који није предвиђен да се гази)... У читавим улицама је уцртано углавном само једна канта са једне, и једна са друге стране. Па онда, у Змај Јовиној код аутобуског стајалишта су уцртане 3 канте...

Уколико не може да се драстично поправи квалитет датасета, те исправи положај уцртаних канти, мислим да је најбоље да се обрише цели датасет, па да ручно уносим(о) постојеће канте када и где их угледамо на терену.
brdrsrsu (2025-10-10 20:43:26+00:00): Обзиром да се указани проблем игнорише неколико недеља, а од старта није испоштована предвиђена процедура јавне расправе пре импортовања, проследићу тему на форум наше ОСМ заједнице.
eggie (2025-04-19 14:29:01+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
cyclist789 (2025-04-19 13:52:27+00:00): "Vandparken" stammer fra:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35008335

Gad vide, hvorfor den blev markeret dér. Måske tog vidste man ikke, hvad "water_park" betyder?
Linus W Frische (2025-04-19 13:55:59+00:00): Der er ifølge hjemmesiden en vinterbadeklub ved havnen. Måske var forsøgte vedkommende at markere den?
Jarek 🚲 (2026-04-21 03:55:38+00:00): Hi, just wondering if you remember why you downgraded a small chunk of southbound Highway 406 right at its southern end here? As far as I can tell, nothing about the road changes at the spot where you split it off?
eggie (2025-04-19 14:31:06+00:00): Je hebt hier de hoofdtag verwijderd?
barrier=gate
barrier=   hoor je dan niet te verwijderen. 
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-04-19 14:33:22+00:00): Maar up to you..
9_tab (2026-04-20 20:33:10+00:00): What was the basis for this edit? 

Why did you delete the buildings? 

There is a note complaining about it: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5258755
habi (2026-04-21 08:31:45+00:00): @9_tab: No building was deleted, but the three buildings were merged to one.
@imagoiq: Since the addresses in https://qa.poole.ch/addresses/GWR/6621_all.osm.zip are `addr:street=Rue Liotard` here (and located on the west side of the building(s)), I split the building back and added the address data to the single buildings, keeping all your updated regarding the ownership.
habi (2026-04-21 08:36:49+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181615389
9_tab (2026-04-21 17:07:12+00:00): Well, as you more or less reverted the edit, the merged feature wasn't a single building .. the three we had were indeed removed. Maybe  imagoiq has a good explanation for their change, but I find this type of editing problematic.
imagoiq (2026-04-21 19:21:56+00:00): Sorry for the mistake about the wrong `addr:street`. I guess I made a wrong data manipulation at that time.

About the merge of the building, I'm still thinking that it should be a unique building way. First, the owner considers it as a single building with multiple entrances (as you can see here, for example: https://gchg.ch/immeuble/liothard-41-45/)
Secondly, the roof is a single part, as you can see from the picture. If it's not one building, I don't know how you tag it (I'm thinking about `building:part` but according to the wiki, it's made to split a building not reunite multiple ones) . If it's a single one `roof:shape=hipped` is quite appropriate, in my opinion.

Let me know if you have arguments against this change.
habi (2026-04-21 19:49:44+00:00): > About the merge of the building, I'm still thinking that it should be a unique building way.

The building (entrances) are listed with three different [EGID], here's a direct link to the entrance 43: https://map.geo.admin.ch/?ch.bfs.gebaeude_wohnungs_register=1016021_0
So according to the housing stats these are three buildings...
We also see that a lot in Bern, where buildings look as a single building from the outside, but have different EGIDs (and outlines in the cadastral survey) and are most often mapped as touching `building`-outlines.

This seems to boil down to local preference in mapping, which I'll preferentially leave to you both to figure out :)

[EGID]: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/fr/home/registres/registre-personnes/harmonisation-registres/egid-ewid.html
imagoiq (2026-04-21 19:56:58+00:00): Interesting, I'm ok to leave it as 3 buildings, but do you have any idea how to precise the roof:shape than? Do you use a relation or something else?
9_tab (2026-04-22 11:23:58+00:00): >  First, the owner considers it as a single building with multiple entrances (as you can see here, for example: https://gchg.ch/immeuble/liothard-41-45/ ) 

I don't think "Liothard" is edited by the owner. Presumably it would be able to spell the street name. If this was the source for the edit, I find this suboptimal. Did you query all buildings on that website and try to make it fit with OSM?
imagoiq (2026-04-22 12:29:55+00:00): "for example" is an important keyword in my sentence. The website is not from the owner if you look carefully but an association grouping multiple cooperative owner. People can be make typo. And this is not the source of my edit, just a simple way to share you some information (it's called the internet, I think).

Another way to look at it, is what we see on the ground (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice), I see a unique building personally.

Why do you have to be systematically so threating in your message?
9_tab (2026-04-22 22:22:22+00:00): I asked for the basis and a clear explanation for your edit; https://gchg.ch is what we got. If you feel challenged by questions about your mapping, I understand that can be frustrating, but being defensive isn't helpful. Saying "the internet" isn't a sufficiently specific source for an OSM edit.

FPLC has a nice overview of cooperatively owned properties and lists all three. I find the approach fairly consistent with other buildings in Geneva.
imagoiq (2026-04-23 08:28:03+00:00): FPLC is based on EGID I guess. On my first argument, as said habi, there is no clear choice either we take the ground's perspective (it looks like a unique building and I guess people are speaking about a unique building in the spoken language) or the more formal way. As I said, I'm not totally opposed to using EGID (even if I'm not totally convinced we should totally match what the government does). Just tell me how to add a `roof:shape`.

@habi you are talking about local preferences. But I wonder if this shouldn't be discussed for the whole country in community.openstreetmap.org? Maybe it already has been? If I take the perspective of a newcomer, I think most of the people wouldn't know about EGID. It could be frustrating.

@habi Would it be a way to use `building:part` to combine both approaches?
9_tab (2026-04-26 13:16:35+00:00): I would understand "ground" truth as actually surveying it myself on site, rather than looking at the ground on a copy-pasted aerial view at a misspelled webpage of a federation about its members.

If you seek ways for improvements when hestitating between using one building or several buildings then you should consider adding also building:part for each in the first case. If your task requires you to have one OSM feature for the "barre d'immeubles" you could also draw a way around them or use a relation. Deleting just to match the requirement seems to me like a bad approach.

What owners or operators consider a "bâtiment" rarely matches an OSM building and even when it does, we might not able to map it as such as they might not own or operator it in its entirety.

It appears to me that "owner" cannot be surveyed on the ground (in Switzerland). Even if there is a plaque "owner" it's likely outdated or imprecise.

I don't see any editing of roofs in the changeset so the question seems off topic.
imagoiq (2026-04-26 13:38:04+00:00): Discussion to be continued here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-to-map-a-swiss-building/143327
9_tab (2026-04-26 13:56:52+00:00): I think for this changeset, we would still want a clear answer on the initial question.
imagoiq (2026-04-26 15:06:52+00:00): > I don't see any editing of roofs in the changeset so the question seems off topic.

Could you please map the shape of the roof?
9_tab (2026-04-26 15:49:31+00:00): Once answered, I will try.
imagoiq (2026-04-26 16:07:00+00:00): Why don't you want to participate to the thread in community.openstreetmap.org?
9_tab (2026-04-27 09:03:20+00:00): The question appears to be irrelevant to that thread. 

I note that you don't want to provide a clear answer about the basis for your edit.
habi (2026-04-27 10:33:58+00:00): > What was the basis for this edit?
> Why did you delete the buildings? 

The three buildings were merged by @imagoiq, so it's evident that two outlines are deleted.

> Maybe imagoiq has a good explanation for their change, but I find this type of editing problematic.

They explained nicely what was going done, the only "problematic" thing I see here is the typo or copy-paste blunder with the address data, which was hinted at in https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5258755, which did *not* complain about the building outline itself, but about the wrong address data. This has now been corrected.
habi (2026-04-27 10:40:18+00:00): > @habi you are talking about local preferences. But I wonder if this shouldn't be discussed for the whole country in community.openstreetmap.org? Maybe it already has been? If I take the perspective of a newcomer, I think most of the people wouldn't know about EGID. It could be frustrating.

Absolutely frustrating, I agree. And also difficult to "get right", even for us in small Switzerland. That's why I hinted at local preference, which is also connected to "locally available" data. In Bern for example, we have access to the Katasterplan (land register map (?)) for editing OSM. There, single buildings are outlined matching the EGID and are very often mapped as such.
This leads to discussions like https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127114902, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/151822609, and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/138394803 where non-local editors merged building outlines.
I honestly think that this issue is not solvable country-wide.
habi (2026-04-27 10:46:22+00:00): @9_tab:

> I don't see any editing of roofs in the changeset so the question seems off topic.

The question comes up when mapping the block as one or three buildings, so it's relevant here.

If the case here I think this cannot be solved withouth having *one* `building=appartements` outline encompassing all three EGID buildings that look like one building on the ground, so exactly like @imagoiq merged the outlines in this changeset.

And - as said here and before also in other channels - please try to be a bit less confrontative in your messages, we're all here in your free time and voluntarily.
9_tab (2026-04-27 11:10:00+00:00): I got the same impression from @imagoiq .. even more so in the forum. Maybe I should report their conduct there.

The roof issue is relatively easy to do, but I haven't noticed imagoiq editing roofs, so it might as well be a rhetorical question, one I don't want to volunteer time for.
9_tab (2026-04-27 11:15:02+00:00): > What was the basis for this edit? 
Add owner to a single feature instead of three just describes the edit it doesn't explain what it was based on. This could be a survey, gchg.ch .. etc.

> I honestly think that this issue is not solvable country-wide.
Seems obvious.
habi (2026-04-27 13:02:25+00:00): > The question appears to be irrelevant to that thread.

Not the merging of the building, which is very relevant here.

> I note that you don't want to provide a clear answer about the basis for your edit.

As far as I can tell, @imagoiq is looking at data of cooperatives owning buildings, and updating these. They explained that several times already, and I think explained it well.
habi (2026-04-27 13:06:33+00:00): > I got the same impression from @imagoiq .. even more so in the forum. Maybe I should report their conduct there.

You are absolutely free to do so.
As a moderator of the Swiss category I will "stay out of" that particular case (in German "in den Ausstand treten", since you've also mentioned that about my communication), but I'm willing to tell you that there were several reports concerning your communication style in the forum from several different users and none about imagoiq. You're free to make of these "numbers" what you want.
9_tab (2026-04-27 13:17:30+00:00): > As far as I can tell, @imagoiq is looking at data of cooperatives owning buildings, and updating these. They explained that several times already, and I think explained it well.

So can you summarize the sources for this changeset?
habi (2026-04-27 19:12:35+00:00): No, because @imagoiq mentioned their source.
Omissions do happen, and it's good if sources can be mentioned/cited afterwards.
bl4rcus (2025-04-21 09:04:08+00:00): Die Haltestelle "Auma, Marktberg" existiert nur in Fahrtrichtung Norden (bergab Richtung Auma Markt). Für Buslinien Richtung Süden ist der Ein- und Umstiegspunkt an der Haltestelle "Auma, Markt".
aighes (2025-04-25 23:05:21+00:00): Danke für deinen Hinweis. Habe das Problem soeben behoben.
opendcc (2026-02-12 14:44:45+00:00): Bitte Vorsicht bei nicht ortsfesten Swimmingpools. (OSM nutzen auch Feuerwehren und die wollen dann schon mal einen Pool aussaugen - blöd, wenn der nur temporär da ist).

Servus
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-04-15 16:14:13+00:00): gdzieś była dyskusja na forum nad tą edycją?
felipeeugenio (2025-04-20 16:37:46+00:00): Hola. Vamos a revisar la información de sus ediciones. Pero por lo pronto; en el nodo se agregan los habitantes de la ciudad, no de la comuna entera.

Saludos
Jrachi (2025-04-27 09:51:46+00:00): Ciao.
Sulla relazione del 354 ha i tolto il tag route=hiking.
Non ha molto senso!
Si è trattato di un errore?

Ivo
LuRe84 (2025-04-27 10:17:50+00:00): Ciao, il cambiamento è stato necessario perché la relazione inserita in precedenza non era corretta. Qualche giorno fa stavo verificando i sentieri dei Monti della Laga e i relativi gradi di difficoltà. Tra questi errori era presente anche il sentiero 354. Probabilmente durante la correzione il tag è stato rimosso; ora è stato reinserito con la relazione corretta. Dovrebbe essere visibile a breve.
Jrachi (2025-04-27 10:50:24+00:00): Grazie.
Ma, cosa intendi con "Dovrebbe essere visibile a breve"?
Openstreetmap è un database, non una mappa!
LuRe84 (2025-04-27 10:55:44+00:00): La relazione corretta. Nel messaggio precedente pensavo fosse chiaro essendo lingua italiana. 

Buona giornata
Jrachi (2025-04-27 11:32:14+00:00): Scusa, pensavo tu fossi il solito neomappatore che usando solo iD confonde la visibilità sulla mappa con la presenza di un dato.

Ivo
LuRe84 (2025-04-27 11:37:28+00:00): Figurati, non preoccuparti assolutamente! Diciamo che ho effettuato qualche modifica sulla mappa, ma non come te da quello che vedo dal profilo. 😂

Per ogni cosa scrivi pure e ancora buona giornata!!
NorthCrab_upload (2025-04-19 15:00:56+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/node/12768612911

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Metzor (2025-04-20 06:03:14+00:00): Danke fürs Reparieren!
Norbert Dichter (2025-04-19 20:30:51+00:00): Hello, thanks for mapping and welcome to HOT. Thank you for your contribution. The buildings you mapped are well done as to their location. But pay attention to the squareness of the corners. Always draw buildings as square and precise as you can. Then add the Building feature type. And last, right click it and click the square icon. Or just hit the Q-key.
Also please keep in mind: many buildings are very close but do not actually touch each other, try to map them close to each other without letting them connect or share nodes with each other, roads, or residential area outlines. In the iD web editor, holding down the "alt" key will keep nodes from "snapping" to each other and accidentally connecting.  Thanks so much for your contribution, Norbert 'Nodi' Dichter, HOT validator.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165158387
Dimitar155 (2025-04-22 12:57:19+00:00): Здравей Termininja,

Името на "квартала" се води "жилищна група Южен парк" (виж isofmap,bg).

Поздрави,
Митко
mavl (2026-05-03 05:38:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 182142872 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20224].
eggie (2025-04-19 17:18:46+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
NorthCrab_upload (2025-04-19 15:40:57+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

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/1206283781

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Senihtu (2025-04-20 17:25:57+00:00): Schöne neue Schranke :-) 
Darf da der Bus durch?
Frohe Ostern!
KartoGrapHiti (2025-04-20 20:33:47+00:00): Ich habe es angepasst. Frohe Ostern.
Rogoyski (2025-07-12 21:00:17+00:00): W Komendzie SOK jest jakiś aparat telefoniczny, którym można zadzwonić po SOK?
NorthCrab_upload (2025-04-19 16:20:59+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nieprawidłowa wartość addr:postcode. Kod pocztowy powinien być formatu XX-XXX, gdzie X oznacza cyfrę.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/352342844

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Fischkopp0815 (2025-04-20 00:26:42+00:00): In OpenStreetMap ist "name" ausschließlich für den eigentlichen Namen eines Objekts gedacht. Es ist nicht dafür gedacht, Beschreibungen, Typen oder andere Informationen zu enthalten.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen#name_ist_nur_der_Name. 

"amenity=dentist" sagt schon aus,dass es eine Zahnarztpraxis ist. Ich habe name wieder entfernt.

Ich habe "Zahnarztpraxis" wieder entfernt
ivanbranco (2025-04-19 18:21:13+00:00): Ciao,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12768797798

questo é davvero un parco?
MxxCon (2025-04-21 03:08:44+00:00): Hello.
Strictly speaking, these changes are technically incorrect. By the official definition, Manhattan border is all of island of Manhattan plus all the water to the land of Brooklyn and Queens.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165162966
Dawid2849 (2025-04-19 17:04:31+00:00): Źródło: https://zdw-lublin.logintrade.net/zapytania_email,158590,5929d4f83ef0b1fad3dd9365bf2c00b4.html
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2025-04-30 01:23:19+00:00): Please attach speed cameras to the road.

Or create a maxspeed enforcement relation.

See:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dspeed_camera
Anonix35 (2025-04-30 07:42:33+00:00): I changed that. Thanks
PagoInBitcoin (2025-04-19 18:12:24+00:00): OK sorry. the owner did not want to enter the precise location.
habi (2025-05-25 08:40:35+00:00): Ciao Antonia
Hier hast du dem Hotel den Zusatz (31. Geburtstag) gegeben.
Du weisst vielleicht nicht, dass Änderungen in OpenStreetMap mit Organic Maps weltweit öffentlich sind.
Das hat nun unter Anderem die Folge, dass der Name im SBB-Fahrplan auftaucht: https://pasteimg.com/image/ima-0db4c1b.B5tr0
Ich habe das wieder geändert.
Gruss aus Bern,
Habi

PS: Happy Birthday :)
habi (2025-05-25 20:12:20+00:00): PPS: Ich wollte es ändern, aber Simon Poole war schneller: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166724343
vmicho (2025-06-07 08:11:57+00:00): Hi. This is a split ↖↗.
So either we add turn lanes or change both highways to highway or slink. Otherwise the righ split will be interpreted as exit and the left part as abolutely nothing.
vmicho (2025-06-07 09:07:26+00:00): I've changed the link to highway, should solve nav. issues.
Please consider also the map logic before changing tags/geometry ;)