piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Marek-M (2025-03-02 19:32:50+00:00): Co masz na myśli wg map urzędu? Czy ta droga wygląda inaczej niż na ortofotomapie?
Marek-M (2025-03-02 19:47:46+00:00): Jak rozumiem, to problem jest ze skrzyżowaniem dróg Lubińsk/Cekcyn/Brzozie? Czyżby zostało ono przebudowane zgodnie tą dokumentacją poniżej Jeżeli tak, to mogę skorygować to bez problemu.

To skrzyżowanie poprawiałem jednak w innym Changeset https://www.osm.org/changeset/163064017#map=19/53.569904/18.039967 i nie wyglądało ono tak jak w poniższej dokumentacji. Akurat była tam naszkicowana zupełnie inna organizacja ruchu.

https://i.imgur.com/gpsXJMO.jpeg
Marek-M (2025-03-04 17:21:27+00:00): @robibrojek - wypowiesz się w temacie? Nie bywam tam, więc chciałbym dowiedzieć się jaki błąd popełniłem. Chyba jesteś z tej okolicy, więc Twoja wiedza będzie lepsza niż moja.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-02 12:22:05+00:00): Hello!

You used
mooring=none
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18765488/history

Have you maybe meant
mooring=no
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?

If it is a mistake - can you fix it?
sef43 (2025-06-04 10:34:23+00:00): I only saw this today.
I had wanted to express that this was a ruin of a watermill sawing wood, that at a later date had been used without the waterwheel. I don't quite know how to tag this correctly. However the sawmill tag should not get out of use.

The mooring tag is good as 'no' I suppose, mooring here is definitely not advisable (as the water is very wild if it is calm), no sign though.
Wulfmorn (2025-06-04 13:25:59+00:00): The sawmill is just historic data and isnt relevant to whether you can go there by boat or not. The question of mooring is current situation. mooring=no is probably the correct tag and sufficient to express the situation. However, it is already tagged "access=no" which probably covers the mooring situation quite well.
sef43 (2025-06-12 18:44:25+00:00): Should key:mooring be removed then?
d3mol3k (2025-03-01 09:02:46+00:00): Są ale:
"“nż” w kółeczku to nie jest część nazwy, tylko informacja o tym, że przystanek jest na żądanie. Na stronie i w aplikacjach do zbiorkomu jest nazwa bez “nż”, więc nazwa w OSM też nie powinna tego zawierać" 
Wejdź na mapę przystankow zditm i kliknij w kazdy przystanek i zobacz jaka jest ich nazwa.
d3mol3k (2025-03-01 12:22:39+00:00): Wycofałem Twoja edycję do wartości poprawnych z nazwami oficjalnymi przystanków gdzie pozbawione są liter "nż" w ich nazwie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-03-23 10:16:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163979213 where the changeset comment is: Following on from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163963906 , and see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/about-mapping-features-with-computer-vision/127790 - reverting some 'AI detected swimming pools', some of dubious quality.
karr4s (2025-08-05 06:51:19+00:00): Salut Enzo,
Toi qui est un expert és-cheminement piétons, comment répondrais-tu aux deux notes Rue Neuve Bourge l'Abbé ? Y-a-t-il un tag qui permet d'indiquer la continuité d'un cheminement piéton sans indiquer de passage en tant que tel (et éviter les quêtes Street Complete) ?
Nzau (2025-08-08 19:39:22+00:00): Salut,
Tu parles de ces notes ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4892449
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4892451

On a décidé de mapper les "fausses traversées" puisqu'elles sont naturellement empruntées par les piétons.
Le combot actuel de tags me semble bien (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12626246824) je ne sais pas quelle question pose SC.
Il faut peut-être ajuster les tags pour ne plus avoir cette quête ?

Au plaisir d'en discuter,
Bonne soirée.
Mart Raudsepp (2025-03-03 19:37:26+00:00): The maximum speed on this section is 70 km/h, not 50 km/h as before the change.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2025-03-03 20:00:53+00:00): @Mart Raudsepp 
check the conditional tag

maxspeed=70
maxspeed:conditional=50 @ (07:00-19:00)

I don't see why it was changed though, maybe there was missing speed limit added in some other place and this was made consistent with it.

But I'd prefer if we'd use the one which is both lower and during which more cars pass as the main one for simple data consumers.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2025-02-28 22:07:15+00:00): How is this a fix?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-03-31 20:19:55+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12626160443/history has amenity = fixme that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What kind of object is here? Is it a shop? What kind of a shop?
MihaelIvanjek (2025-03-01 10:33:08+00:00): Reverting because of an unnecessary split #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163082723
Baloo Uriza (2025-03-01 07:21:32+00:00): Road refs should use ref=* regardless of network.  Also you straight up deleted some refs without replacing them with another tag.  There's some good stuff here but this might need a do-over.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163063568
rsavoye (2025-03-01 14:20:05+00:00): This was just the first pass. There was a long discussion on the tagging list to use ref:usfs for USFS numbers (and ref:blm), and ref for county roads, so that's what I use. Updating the county road refs is next, although I'm starting in Colorado. The next pass will catch anything missed in the first pass.
Baloo Uriza (2025-03-01 16:12:30+00:00): All three just use "ref=", nothing even consumes ref:usfs or ref:blm...I was on that thread.
rsavoye (2025-03-01 18:34:46+00:00): I went back and reviewed that thread on the tagging list. Using ref:usfs is mentioned several times, and even suggested it's usage: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047463.html

However using a semi-colon is also mentioned several times, so to me there isn't a clear decision one way or the other. It'd be easy to make that change to semi-colons when I conflate county refs, I'm not 100% sure it's necessary. I'm flexible.

This is a good discussion to have before I make another pass through the data.
Baloo Uriza (2025-03-01 19:38:42+00:00): Fair enough, though I'm not sure that really went anywhere in practice and could be a bit of a "don't break the renderer" moment?  I'm certainly on team semicolon when multiple refs apply (though ultimately I think this information doesn't belong on the way, it belongs on the route relation).
rsavoye (2025-03-01 20:11:31+00:00): I minor note, very few of the MVUM highways in OSM are in a route relation, just highway segments. I thought it was "don't map for the display". :-)

I modified my data cleaning software to reverse this when I make another pass through the data and use the semi-colon since it would be nice to have the reference numbers get displayed along with the name.
Baloo Uriza (2025-03-01 21:30:20+00:00): True, though the spirit of "don't map for the renderer" is also "don't break it" since the only real difference between forest service networks and non forest service networks is the network.  That's where my head's at on it at least.
rsavoye (2025-03-03 16:05:40+00:00): To me the only difference is which apparatus to respond in. I reversed the ref:usfs change in Cimarron NF (Kansas), that broke the refs from displaying, now working my way through Colorado again.
surveyor54 (2025-03-01 08:40:29+00:00): Hi smartsmartie,
der Name des Ortsbezirks (Stadtteil) ist Gelnhausen-Mitte.
Siehe die Hauptsatzung der Stadt Gelnhausen §5.

https://www.gelnhausen.de/rathaus-politik/buergerservice-satzungen/satzungen-haushalt/hauptsatzung.pdf?cid=jwz

Viele Grüße
surveyor54
smartsmartie (2025-03-01 21:30:56+00:00): Hallo surveyor54,

der Stadtteil heißt Gelnhausen-Mitte, das ist richtig. Dieser Knoten steht aber für die ganze Stadt (place=town) im Gegensatz zu Stadtteilen (z.B. place=suburb). Die Benennung hatte dazu geführt, dass Gelnhausen als ganze Stadt auf der Karte mit "Gelnhausen-Mitte" beschriftet war.
Hier sind die Tags genauer voneinander abgegrenzt:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:place

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:place%3Dtown

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:place%3Dsuburb

Am besten wären vermutlich zwei verschiedene Knoten für die Stadt als Ganzes und den Stadtteil Gelnhausen-Mitte.

Viele Grüße und einen schönen Abend!
smartsmartie
surveyor54 (2025-03-02 08:19:07+00:00): Hallo smartsmartie,

es besteht für das Gesamtgebiet Gelnhausen und für jeden Stadtteil eine Relation.
In der Relation für das Gesamtgebiet gibt es ein node mit dem Namen,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9510770084#map=19/50.204367/9.199752

der leider nicht gerendert wird. Wir taggen aber nicht für die Renderer, sondern wenn möglich nach Wiki.

In einer Overpassabfrage kann man sich die nodes anzeigen lassen:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1ZCj

Da gab es vor deiner Zeit einen Thread, der da Thema behandelte.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/grenzrelation-und-place-node-gemeinden-eines-landkreises/85468/18

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Gemeindegrenze#Relation_anlegen

Ich habe mich damals für dieses Tagging entschieden, wie auch Jo_Cassel es in Hessen angewendet hat. 

Viele Grüße
surveyor54
smartsmartie (2025-03-02 16:37:20+00:00): Hallo surveyor54,

vielen Dank für dein Engagement beim Kartieren der Gemeinden. Das ist viel Wert.

Du hast vollkommen Recht, dass für die Datenbank und nicht den Renderer kartiert werden muss. Dabei orientiere ich mich am Wiki. Da sind wir uns also einig.

Die von dir erwähnte Relation für das gesamte Stadtgebiet mit dem Knoten 9510770084 "Gelnhausen" gehört zur Kategorie "Administratively declared places" und ist korrekt kartiert, denke ich (auch im Sinne eurer Unterhaltung von 2018):

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Administratively_declared_places

Der von mir bearbeitete Knoten gehört aber zur Kategorie "Populated settlements, urban and rural":

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements,_urban_and_rural

Er steht für die ganze Stadt, nicht nur einen Stadtteil:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aplace%3Dtown

Evtl. habe ich das Wiki falsch verstanden? Ich vermute, da hast schon sehr viel Erfahrung im Kartieren von Gemeinden. Kannst du mir deine Interpretation des Wiki erklären? Ich finde im verlinkten Artikel zu "place=town" keinen Hinweis, dass es sich um einen Stadtteil handeln darf.
smartsmartie (2025-03-02 16:37:50+00:00): Viele Grüße und einen schönen Abend!
smartsmartie
woodpeck (2025-09-22 23:48:13+00:00): Siehe auch https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gelnhausen-label-auf-osm-carto/135961
TrickyFoxy (2025-03-01 01:10:51+00:00): 👋 Не нужно добавлять названия вида «Дом». Это понятно из тега building=house
TrickyFoxy (2025-03-01 01:13:05+00:00): Ещё, после того как нарисовали здание не забывайте нажимать Q, чтобы выпрямить его
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-03-05 23:16:23+00:00): reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163264878
Max-Kritic (2025-03-05 23:33:26+00:00): Il faut le réimporter proprement du cadastre !
citrula (2025-03-01 02:20:15+00:00): I'm not sure I understand what the purpose of this multipolygon is - aren't they two separate buildings?
Langlaeufer (2025-03-03 07:14:22+00:00): hi, wenn es ein echter Trampelpfad ist (nicht baulich angelegt) , kannst du noch informal=yes hinzufügen, Grüße Langläufer
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163064412
nikusha (2025-03-01 08:50:45+00:00): WTF are You doing? Look at the misplaced roads You returned.
nikusha (2025-03-01 08:52:40+00:00): https://ibb.co/xK3GYgct
https://ibb.co/V0bkP5gx
yelisey90 (2025-03-01 09:17:30+00:00): If the edit included only the shifting of node positions, I definitely wouldn't have reverted it. But it also changed "tracktype" — and most inexplicably removed "surface" — to give an impression that the road has an artificially improved surface, while the roads in question are with natural surface. In my perception, this is a more valuable piece of information. If you would be able to separate the changes, that would be really good!
nikusha (2025-03-01 09:31:29+00:00): More valuable information is whether the road is driveable by 4X4 crossover, Full 4X4 or modified 4X4 var. 

The road may have improved surface, but completely undriveable by crossover.
LordGarySugar (2025-03-01 13:33:31+00:00): Hi, thanks for adding all these housenames! Just a note, for residential buildings the housename should go in the Address -> house name box, this way if a house has a name and a number both will display together on the map!
NotAWomble (2025-03-01 14:24:49+00:00): Thanks! It's my first time doing this, I'll get it right next time. Appreciate the help.
user_5359 (2025-04-08 06:19:00+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/node/12513977731 (one of sixty-eight objects). Did you mean source:population:tribe instead of source:populattion:tribe?
sfrank (2025-04-10 17:05:29+00:00): Hello,
Many Thanks.
Correct, I will fix it.
sfrank (2025-04-10 17:39:13+00:00): I hope, I had fixed all.
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-28 20:48:29+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.

I guess something went wrong here?
GenericUsername4 (2025-04-23 16:41:21+00:00): Hello. I'm sorry, I just saw this. What was the issue you noticed?
Hb- (2026-02-24 09:40:09+00:00): Bitte beim Rück-Umzug der Hundefriseurin nicht nur den node/4425323510 verschieben, sondern gerne auch die addr:street usw. ändern. Erledigt mit changeset/178978951
Glassman (2025-02-28 19:45:11+00:00): i have reverted this edit. This is not what the community has agreed on. Please see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-of-mexico/124571 and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico before editing the name of this feature. Undiscussed changes will be reverted.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163066448
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-08 02:05:32+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164657773
NorthCrab_upload (2025-02-28 19:40:52+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/1363657351

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Jakka (2025-02-28 19:51:45+00:00): In openstreetmap zetten we namen van bestaande gebouwen diensten en niet wat er geweest is.
Glassman (2025-02-28 19:45:21+00:00): i have reverted this edit. This is not what the community has agreed on. Please see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-of-mexico/124571 and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico before editing the name of this feature. Undiscussed changes will be reverted.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163066760
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-08 02:05:33+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164657773
Thiskal (2025-02-28 20:10:37+00:00): Shut the fuck up bitch
Fizzie-DWG (2025-03-01 03:17:49+00:00): Hi, CF. Thanks for trying but just leave them till we revert the whole lot. Thanks, DWG
Taya_S (2025-03-01 06:29:57+00:00): reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163077293
NorthCrab_upload (2025-02-28 20:00:45+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12626345202

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
dieterdreist (2025-12-01 22:41:24+00:00): Hi, there is no footway or sidewalk here https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1363660984 , and there wasn't either in the past. How did you assess there is one? Sometimes I have the impression people were just adding sidewalks to any road regardless whether it has one or not, because I find many sidewalks which are not existing.
Taya_S (2025-03-01 06:34:15+00:00): reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163077354
pavvv (2025-02-28 20:25:03+00:00): Ach, ten Bolt… Dzięki.
NinaNesterovaOSM (2025-02-28 20:51:00+00:00): You have added a trffic sign for the unsuitable for motors sign. But there is nothing to see. What?
SomeoneElse (2025-02-28 21:51:05+00:00): I've added two nodes, both of which have pictures:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12626336200 is an "Unsuitable for Motors" sign pointing south.  There's a picture of the sign.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12626377501 is a place where there is _no_ sign on the track pointing east.  There's a picture showing that there is no sign.

Does that answer your question?
NinaNesterovaOSM (2025-02-28 21:57:59+00:00): Nope. I could not be block for possible vandals.
SomeoneElse (2025-02-28 22:02:28+00:00): Can you try replying to https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-bot-like-comments-on-changesets/126587/7 in the forum?
NinaNesterovaOSM (2025-02-28 22:09:15+00:00): Yes,  It is already posted.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/odd-bot-like-comments-on-changesets/126587/7
Frans S (2025-03-08 10:37:10+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Where a road crosses a hedge, please make a gap in the hedge where it crosses.
Please tag roads which connect settlements as unclassified. And often unpaved.
Best regards
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-01 07:16:34+00:00): Reverted
NeisBot (2025-03-01 07:19:43+00:00): Hello and welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits, particularly those concerning the names you've utilized.

It seems that some of these names are a bit unusual.

#NameCheck #NeisLab
SomeoneElse2 (2025-03-13 11:39:53+00:00): Oops - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1363664264 wasn't joined to the service road here.
I also filled in the gap in the Centenery Way.
Thiskal (2025-02-28 20:22:31+00:00): bitch
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-01 07:13:33+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163076802
pitscheplatsch (2025-03-01 07:14:23+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/163076057
watmildon (2025-03-07 00:56:57+00:00): Stumbled on this. Great work! Always happy to see folks in the map on the east side. Definitely let me know if you have any questions.

Happy mapping!
sejohnson (2025-02-28 21:03:52+00:00): You need to square your buildings!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/163068576
b-jazz (2025-03-01 17:45:35+00:00): Hi Stykman17, thanks for your contributions. In case you weren't aware, fairways that completely enclose objects like fairways and sandtraps should be turned into multipolygons. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

Thanks.
Dino Michelini (2025-03-03 12:12:20+00:00): Caro Claudio prima di caricare in OSM tracciati molto approssimativi e oltretutto sbagliati sarebbe opportuno documentarsi. Il tracciato che carichi in OSM desunto dalla pagina di Wikipedia non  corrisponde ai siti dei basolati trovati della Via Clodia. Ti invito a documentarti meglio leggendo i testi scientifici  e i siti internet riportati nella bibliografia dello studio “Antica Via Clodia” pag. 78-84 e, quindi, dopo attenta riflessione cancellare questa relazione con le geometrie perché nulla ha a che vedere con l’antica strada romana. Grazie. Riferimenti:
https://www.incass.it/antica-via-clodia/
https://independent.academia.edu/DinoMichelini
Claudio Tam (2025-03-03 12:25:21+00:00): Buongiorno!
Ti ringrazio della segnalazione costruttiva e gradita, osm vive di collaborazione tra gli utenti.
Come avrai notato, nel tracciato che ho inserito è presente una nota osm che indica che il tracciato è approssimativo e che le modifiche al tracciato sono molto benvenute, in pieno spirito di collaborazione.
L'antica via Clodia è lunga centinaia di km, non sarebbe possibile né sensato inserire l'intero tracciato, preciso al meglio delle conoscenze mondiali, in un solo changeset.
Quando hai disponibilità puoi correggere gli errori trovati, anche a rate, non tutti nello stesso changeset, partendo dai più semplici, arrivando ai più controversi allegando eventualmente delle note osm. Anche io procederò in questo senso a piccoli passi, migliorando ogni volta la qualità dell'informazione. La cancellazione dell'intera informazione, anche se parziale o imprecisa, non mi sembra opportuna.

Saluti,
Claudio Tam (2025-03-03 12:32:28+00:00): Ah dimenticavo!
Il tracciato che ho aggiunto è quello storico dell'epoca. Non è quello percorribile ad oggi.
In parte i due tracciati coincidono, in pare non coincidono.
ivanbranco (2025-03-03 12:55:28+00:00): Scusate, non me ne intendo, ma vedo start_date=400. Ci sono ancora segni visibili di questi elementi? In caso contrario, non sarebbe un elemento più adatto a OpenHistoricalMap piuttosto?
ivanbranco (2025-03-03 12:56:03+00:00): *ma vedo end_date=400.
Dino Michelini (2025-03-03 13:43:10+00:00): Provo a rispondere con ordine. Per Claudio Tam. Sulla Clodia ci studio e lavoro da almeno una decina di anni e non mi serve l’introduzione (“L'antica via Clodia è lunga centinaia di km…”) ma andiamo al sodo della quesitone. Il tracciato di questa relazione va cancellato per due ragioni: 1) della antica strada romana rimangono solo elementi frammentati e puntuali, quindi, non ha senso disegnare una route e highway da Roselle a Roma che presuppongono una strada continua priva di interruzioni; 2) in OSM si mappa ciò che esiste e si trova sul terreno non quello di ipotesi fantasiose mal documentate che lasciano il tempo che trovano… Quello che esiste della Via Clodia è stato già mappato in OSM e non serve aggiungere altro a meno di ulteriori rinvenimenti archeologici. Scrivi, inoltre, “Il tracciato che ho aggiunto è quello storico dell'epoca…” ma è una affermazione falsa e priva di ogni dato scientifico che la supporti (Wikipedia non è una fonte attendibile). Repetita iuvant: prima di scrive sciocchezze documentati meglio e leggi per intero lo studio (non fermati al titolo) che è stato vagliato da importati professori/ricercatori universitari, esperti di etruscologia e sovraintendenti.  Scrivi “Quando hai disponibilità puoi correggere gli errori trovati, …” bene sappi che non perderò  tempo nel venire in contro alla tua proposta che, seppur in buona fede, dimostra di non conoscere l’argomento e il lavoro da me svolto in OSM. Per ivanbranco ti confermo i tag data sono sbagliati. La Via Clodia  viene realizzata nel II sec. a.C.  ed è stata utilizzata fino al XVIII sec. d.C. (ho ritrovato documenti di archivio che lo dimostrato. Durante questo periodo per consentire la percorrenza vi sono stati innumerevoli rifacimenti del fondo stradale che hanno comportato spesso la perdita del basolato (riutilizzato in altre opere edili come il caso di Oriolo Romano) e nei tratti diventati impraticabili per cause naturali si sono adottate varianti al percorso originario.
Đuro Jiří (2025-03-02 08:26:59+00:00): Ciao jioele,
in questo chadget hai aggiunto due volte skate park ,una volta come nodo (con nome "Skatepark Gorizia"), seconda come l'area (con nome "Skatepark parco della Valletta del Corno"). Inoltre in entrambi i casi con indirizzo. Tra l'altro hai cancellato foresta. Corretto 
In FVG sono immagini Esri World più attuali rispetto a Bing Maps Aerial.

https://t.me/+uCPMZf61adtiNDQ8 
Se ti serve aiuto.
Saluti e buon divertimento
NorthCrab_upload (2025-02-28 21:20:51+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/257024003

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
TrickyFoxy (2025-02-28 21:41:27+00:00): Reverted
NinaNesterovaOSM (2025-02-28 21:52:08+00:00): Thank you for reversion, TrickyFoxy.

I am neutral speaking russian, ukrainian, english, germanese, and more languages.

I could not be ban.