This giant changeset contains several duplicates.

I removed the following nodes, which were obvious duplicates of existing data:
node/13059373501/history
node/13059373401/history
node/13059373804/history
node/13059374801/history

Also, several places in Barcelona seem to have been added on top of existing shops. Unless multiple businesses squeeze in the same space, there might be more fixes to do here.

Hello,

Thanks for having spotted a missing building.

In the future, please never trace buildings from aerial imagery: in Belgium we have very accurate numerical imagery that shows the correct outline of buildings (contrary to aerial images which are distorted and change every year).

Your edit was redone, by tracing on Digitaal Vlaanderen GRB.

Banksy museum is already on the map, please do not add duplicates.
node/9883229587

We fixed your edit and moved the point to its new location + new opening hours.

Hello, ollegol,

Such a short changeset description makes it difficult to understand what errors had to be fixed here. It does not seem very obvious.

What we see here is that you removed "cycleway:both=no" from several roads, e.g. way/23170443/history or way/328162350/history,
Those were tags which you added yourself in an earlier StreetComplete session.

cycleway:both=no means that there is no special infrastructure for cyclists, i.e. no paintings, nor lane nor cycle track.

Upon examining Mapillary and aerial imagery from the various streets you modified, it looks like those tags were good. It is not obvious why you are undoing your own previous work.

Same for your other changeset two minutes earlier: deleting apparent good map data and naming this a "correction".

Can you please briefly explain if there is something special going up here. Has something changed recently in this area?

Thanks.

Hello, and welcome to OSM.

The building is not yet referred on the UrbIS reference map.

The last picture we have is this one from June 2024 and there wasn’t any building at all; it is quite unlikely they could finish it in hardly one year.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=394642963603423

I fixed this edit to retag it as a future residential area + fixed errors in the way addresses were written.

Thanks.

Hello,

There were already two address points inside this building.
node/3448561211
node/3448561210

We never write the addresses on building outlines when there are several addresses.

I tested in SCEE to reproduce the problem: it is possible to force address duplication with the Places layer… but it will show the existing address points anyway. Should you come across similar situations in the future, I suggest you ignore the quest entirely. This will avoid data corruption in the database.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Hello,

I had a look at this edit.

From what I see, most houses here have two floors + one from the roof:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=794311514909889

In OSM, we tag the situation like this: building:levels=2 + roof:levels=1, and not building:levels=3.

Can I suggest you read the documentation again; maybe you did not know about this page.
roof:levels=*

Thanks for the better changeset titles, by the way!

Hello,

May I encourage you to please write useful titles to the changes you push to the OSM database.

"very insignificant edits", "miscellaneous changes" or "more random changes" are completely unhelpful for other mappers who want to understand why you started editing an area.

You are welcome if you want to improve the map, but please describe in a few words what you did.

What I see in this changeset is that you added the "direction" key to 5 give-way signs.

You may be interested to know that, whereas this key is required for two-way roads, it is absolutely unnecessary here—this is the reason why we didn’t add it in the first place, it is not because we forgot—because those are… one-way roads. Navigation will only use them in the same direction, therefore there is no ambiguity to warn drivers of an oncoming give-way sign here.

Have a nice day.

@trial is right.

People might have been puzzled because the changeset title does not match the content; it would have been clearer to make one changeset for the local changes in FR-59 and one for the typo fix.

For anyone wondering: the huge size of this changeset is because the user modified a tag in relation/2202162; the bounding box is as large as the relation itself, which contains France and its overseas territories in the Carribean, Africa and Oceania.

Oh yes, you are right, they are deleted, so the problem is already solved. Well done!

Hello, and welcome to OSM.

A bit of warning here. Please never redraw buildings on OSM by following aerial imagery.

Buildings are traced by following the official outlines. You can find a preview as "Digital Vlaanderen GRB" in the list of backgrounds.

Aerial imagery is distorted and does not show reality.

Also, we do not repeat postcode and gemeentenaam on every address in OSM, this is not necessary because we already have full coverage of postcode and city areas. This calculation is automatic.

We had to undo your edit.

Hello,

I saw you wanted a review here.

The iD editor warned that you changed the train tracks… because indeed you added or removed signals. But that is normal. If we add or remove nodes to a way in OSM, the way itself changes.

I reviewed the geometry of the tracks and I can tell you that your edit seems fine; the overall geometry of the railway tracks is okay.

I don’t know about the location of signals but I observe that signals with ref=2 and ref=4 are very close to each other (21 cm). Perhaps you may want to have a second look.
node/7241012390
node/11741716500

## REVERTED CHANGESET
Duplicate POI.
This café was added in May 2025, a few weeks before your edit. It looks like you are using outdated data from Organic Maps.

## REVERTED CHANGESET
Duplicate information

Incidently, I had created entry Q111035324 myself and had tagged is as a neighbourhood… until you changed it into a plateau.

I would be grateful to you if you could take care of fixing the wikidata entries; I understand we need two separate entries here, so that we can link each OSM object to one.

What is the correct value then? Does a wikidata entry exist for the neighbourhood?

For those who wonder what this giant "no comment" changeset is: It includes geometry changes to buildings in both Sao Paulo (Brazil) and Chemnitz (Germany).

Hello, and welcome to OSM.

Thanks for this. Unfortunately, we had to redo your edit.

This restaurant replaces the former place on the same location. The correct way to map in OSM is to start from the former place and update the tags (business type, name, hours…) and not create the new one: otherwise the map looks like old and new are sharing the same building.

Don’t worry, it’s already fixed.

Hello,

UrbIS is the authoritative reference for adresses within the Brussels-Capital Region. (UrbisAdm is one of the viewers.) Addresses in OSM are imported from UrbIS.

The edit was flagged as potentially suspicious because you are a new account and you moved a lot of addresses, and even erased some. Moving an official address to another building or deleting an address should normally never happen. When new users do that, it is often a mistake.

On the other hand, errors in UrbIS can occasionally happen. If people can properly document them, it is okay to change the map—and we also warn the municipalities, so that the UrbIS database can be updated accordingly. I key principle of OSM verifiability by third parties.

Can you provide some documentation confirming the change, maybe a few photos showing the building and numbers printed on the doors (in a way that we can match one picture with the others). That could serve as evidence if there is something to change here.

Thanks.