Pretty cool.

In this changeset a new place=village was added with name:hu=Oltfalva (see node/11469986032#map=17/46.40044/25.75348&layers=PN).

I was trying to track down this village in order to provide it a Romanian name as well, but I cannot seem to identify it. SIRUTA does not list this village either.

I see that Techirghiol was marked as a municipality/commune (name:prefix=Comuna) in relation/10520337/history/1 .

Everything I found about this locality is that it's considered a town, including SIruta, not a commune/municipality.

Am I missing something? In the meantime, I'll remove municipality status and let it to town.

I see this changeset introduces a new way with the name "Wrong way!!": way/1259305881

Why is it the wrong way?

Pressed "Enter" too soon: Remove redundant name="Bloc" for apartment block

Thank you as well!

Thank you for the information, @rarad74.

I was able to find the sign as well and it does say "C.V.A Centru Nord" without any other prefix such as "Str." (although I haven't come across this prefix before).

In this case the name is fully correct.

@rarad74, could you please confirm the name of this road? way/26518188

What does C.V.A. in „C.V.A. Centru Nord” stand for?

@ibz, could you please confirm the name of this street?

Is it „Strada Bulucești” or does the name mean something else? I was unable to find the street name through other means.

@PLGedit, in node/11417766348 you have added a `place=village` with the name "Gáborok pataka".

Can you please confirm the existence of this village? I was not able to identify it. Also the name translated with Google Translate is "Gáborok stream" (doesn't sound like the name of a village).

In the meantime I've downgraded it to a `place=hamlet` since I don't think it's an official location.

@GBAB, thank you for the detailed information and sorry for the delayed response.

If I understood correctly, we have:

The Commune (contains both villages): Plăieșii de Jos / Kászon
The Sourthern part: Plăieșii de Jos / Kászonaltíz
The Northern part: Plăieșii de Sus / Kászonfeltíz

From your links, I believe there is only one thing to address: the link to the commune should not be node/460203951 since that refers to the Node corresponding to the Southern part (note place=village).

The commune itself is actually the parent relationship relation/14879161#map=11/46.2352/26.1358 (place=municipality). And it has the proper name.

In this case, I believe the node node/10574578601 should be deleted since we already have the node for the southern part (node/460203951).

I've removed the node node/10574578601 in changeset/145420155 and applied the name change to the village node.

The whole goal of this would be not to have another place node (with only name:hu since I believe we already have the nodes + relationships for all three entities).

Let me know if you agree with this change or if we need to discuss it.

Source: https://iemi.uoradea.ro/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Harta-Campus-scaled.jpg

osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edits/ElianD/Improve_street_prefixes_in_Romania

The reasoning behind this is that the street names were imported from another data source, but the name of the street does not fit any other map or street imagery. Maybe the name was added in the input dataset because there was no way to mark the street as not having a name; in OSM, we can.

See changeset/142108686 for more info.

@gisbihor, some of the nodes such as node/9949195354 have a "null" value for "fire_hydrant:position" and "fire_hydrant:pressure". Is this normal?

@GBAB, can you please confirm the role of this `place=village`: node/10574578601

It seems quite close to node/460203951.

Not sure that I can understand the difference between "Kászon" and "Kászonaltíz".

See osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edits/ElianD/Improve_street_prefixes_in_Romania for more info.

See osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edits/ElianD/Improve_street_prefixes_in_Romania for more info.

See osm.wiki/Mechanical_Edits/ElianD/Improve_street_prefixes_in_Romania for more info.