(coincidentally (?) someone else already changed this name now)

Hi - thanks for updating Leiden! The new restaurant on Breestraat 117, is it really called "Stadslokaal Burgerzaken"? There's a different place nearby (Breestraat 123) called "Burgerzaken", and when I passed 117 today it just said "Stadslokaal". So - are you confident about the name you added?

Hello. Thank you for mapping! However, the buildings that you have drawn are not very precise - we'd like proper outlines, the correct size, and also the correct shape (rectangular)

Ah, my mistake, the name SeaTech is used in multiple places. However, why do you annotate "not:name=Bât. M"? The name "Bât. M" is annotated on the building

This building is not SeaTech. SeaTech is the building slightly south-west of here (I visited recently). I will update the naming, using the same format as the other campus buildings.

Thanks for checking. In British English, "card"=="cardboard", but I'm afraid this edit was a long time ago so I don't knwo what exactly is handled here. I see from taginfo https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/search?q=recycling that "recycling:cardboard=yes" would be the modern tag for this...

Thanks. I agree with your edit. I don't know of a better "landuse", though perhaps it's appropriate to remove landuse, and replace it with surface=concrete access=public, while keeping the name?

Hi peregrination - we surveyed this area recently and I can't find much evidence for this "Armada Green Park". Is it locally known? The concreted area is there, and open, but the previously "scrub" part seems to be under construction (as car park?). It doesn't seem to justify a designation of leisure=park to me. Do you have further info? If not, I'll de-park it.

Interesting! Thanks

Ah, maybe I misunderstood it - I couldn't tell what it was and decided it was some kind of processing substation. Please feel free to edit...

Thanks. I've raised it as an issue here: https://github.com/simonpoole/beautified-JOSM-preset/issues/209

Here: osm.org/node/7858088791

7 GW? Are you sure?! I might have to come and visit this :) osm.org/changeset/90137025

Dank je wel voor de edit!

Weet je of je met de boot onder het winkelcentrum door kan?

Hi - for the solar power on the shop, is "49.50" perhaps "49.50 kW"?

Great. All the best - Dan

Start date of "2016-098" for relation 11250343 is probably a mistake - I'm not sure what date was intended. Are you able to resolve this one please?

Hi Jez - you edited the capacity of this one from 18 to 21.6 MW. The tag still says the source is REPD, but I presume you've a different source for that?

I don't know the true value myself - I notice that both of the REPD entries are for 18 MW and both were approved (in different years), so I'm not sure if that's to be interpreted as 2 x 18 or 1 x 18 in practice.

Cheers!

Hi - you've mapped two solar panels with a capacity of "2 W". Is that really true? It's an incredibly small value. Perhaps you meant "2 kW"?

(node/6387828821 and node/6387828809)