Thanks voor het resolven van de notes! Benieuwd, welke bron heb je hiervoor gebruikt? Ben je zelf hier geweest, of heb je bepaalde luchtfoto's gebruikt?

Hartelijk dank hiervoor!

Dziekuje za survey złote tarasy!

Hoi dvdhoven, bedankt voor al je toevoegingen en bijdragen! Wel een kleine opmerking, zou je misschien iets specifiekere comments aan je changeset kunnen toevoegen? Een commentaar als 'wat kleine dingen' is niet echt veelzeggend...

Hartelijk dank voor het toevoegen van de namen op de Beukenhorst-Zuid! Ik heb inmiddels ook de namen in de rest van de Beukenhorst toegevoegd. Volgende stap De Hoek?

Hartelijk dank!

Hartelijk dank voor het toevoegen van deze winkels in prinsenbeek!

Bedankt, dat ziet er een stuk beter uit!

Hartelijk dank voor het toevoegen van de paden achter de huizen in Delft. Erg nuttig!

Zou nu opgelost moeten zijn.

Bedankt voor de correctie hiervan! De situatie is een beetje vaag bebord, maar het klopt inderdaad wat je gedaan hebt.

Hartelijk dank hiervoor!

This is not a mechanical edit as all locations have been personally surveyed by me and reviewed individually.

Woops, thanks for catching! Corrected now.

I didn't split the building myself, I only added the note 'No retail banking here'.

I think the building was split by eastender in osm.org/changeset/33280045.

Are the two businesses physically split in the two buildings as indicated? In that case, I can understand there is a point in modelling it as two buildings. If the two companies are not physically split, or for example each have a couple of floors of the entire building, splitting the building does not make sense to me.

Dziękuję bardzo!

Bedankt, goed werk!

Responded here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-January/020720.html

Antiquité is the French word for antiques, so I think we can safely assume this is in fact a spelling error - admittedly a spelling error that created another valid English word.

The changeset we are discussing is, in my opinion, clearly an improvement to the map. But the intent of this changeset is not only to improve the map, but also to improve the way we map.

We have clearly different views on what is the best way for OpenStreetMap to function. I believe that your strong opposition to mechanical edits and standardization is harmful for the project. As far as I understand, you in turn believe that my mechanical edits are harmful for the project. Given the comments on the talk-gb mailing lists, both our positions have support within the community.

I don't think it is necessarily bad to have a conflict, as you call it, about an edit, especially when the conflict is about a very minor change (a single apostrophe) that is representative for our difference of opinion on a wider scale. Having the conflict reduced to a concrete and small case makes it in my opinion easier to discuss, and also makes potential involvement of the DWG (in case you were to decide to involve them) easier.

Please don't confuse that with a personal conflict - I appreciate the constructive discussion we have had, and I very much appreciate the work you're doing for OSM.