Hello
I remember seeing recently a link to an rss feed on dev server for
changesets in defined bbox.
Is this feature already on prod?
I need this to identify strange disappearance of data...
Thank you!
--
Tomas Straupis
___
talk mailing
(thunderbird, akregator).
Alternatively maybe there is another feed doing just that?
Thank you
--
Tomas Straupis
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
...
--
Tomas Straupis
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
how or for what purpose was a trace
done.
P.S.S. I do understand that the best source for mapping such natural
features would be aerial photos, but until or where those are not
available or are available in bad detail...
--
Tomas Straupis
___
talk
Hello
Is there an app to calculate length of given types of ways in .osm file?
To get something like this:
Total length of highways: 10km
Total length of footpaths: 2km
Total length of railways: 5km
Thank you
--
Tomas Straupis
Hello
Is it just me or is osm-length-2.pl (latest version from svn) unable
to calculate way lengths using latest data from geofabrik? (I've tried
with Lithuanian and South African data, the later one produces some
length, but only on some ways).
--
Tomas Straupis
http://www.ted.com/talks/lalitesh_katragadda_making_maps_to_fight_disaster_build_economies.html
No comments so far...
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Hello
Is anybody else experiencing landsat problems in JOSM?
For about three days now landsat images are not available to JOSM.
http://onearth.jpl.nasa.gov/ says something about evil „repetitive
requests for non-cached, small WMS tiles“. Does that mean no more
landsat in JOSM?
--
Tomas
2010-07-30 Roman Neumüller:
yeah, I'm having the same issues (Read timed out)
Just got information that landsat images are loaded on windows and
are NOT loaded on linux... So apparently this is NOT a data source
problem.
--
Tomas Straupis
___
talk
Hello
Is there a possibility to add custom tileserver url to JOSM so that
this tile server is used in download map data dialog?
P.S. I do NOT mean the imagery layer behind the downloaded data.
Thank you
--
Tomas Straupis
___
talk mailing list
doing the same using imagery pane in
preferences)
3. Restarted JOSM
And still my Imagery menu has 8 entries for background imageries
while download dialog has only 6 (and there are entries which are in
image menu but not in download dialog and vice versa...)
Thank you
--
Tomas Straupis
Does imagery.tms.add_to_slippymap_chooser show as true in
preferences? (I've not checked to see if this is relevant by the
way, but it seems likely)
Yes, it is set to true.
--
Tomas Straupis
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http
Hello
2012-10-03 Paweł Paprota wrote:
I read the proposal and to be honest I'm not sure about the hypothesis
(Early contact increases mapper engagement). For me it would seem kind
of creepy if a website that I've just registered and done something on
contacted me personally saying You've
2012-10-20 Alex Rollin wrote:
Sometimes both are done, too, adding the way and the node both.
How to track them once added?
If the same amenity is added as an area and a node inside that area,
keepright.at will identify it as an error.
--
Tomas
Hello
How often are osm website (www.openstreetmap.org) translations
taken/updated from transwiki trunk?
Or is there something else to be done other than translating more
than 35% in transwiki?
Thank you
--
Tomas Straupis
___
talk mailing
or similar).
--
Tomas Straupis
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Thank you for you opinions. Now I understand it better.
Perhaps one for a country-specific rendering on a local site?
Yes, this is what is done.
--
Tomas Straupis
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org
OsmAnd has had online/offline simple editing feature for years and
still there were no problems with that. Therefore my guess would be
that mapsme does not make it clear to users that they are actually
editing the global/common database, not their local "favourites".
--
Tomas
My question/proposal was about what to do with failed proposals in
general. That is:
1. How to identify a "failed" proposal
2. What to do with it
My proposal for point 1 is:
If after say two years new schema does not get at least equal tagging
count as the old schema - proposal failed.
My
> I am generally against such harsh measures, if a new way to tag
> has advantages, it has them even if only 20% of applicable objects
> are tagged with it. And 20% endorsement isn't actually a fail IMHO.
So after a new scheme to tag X is introduced we have two schemes
valid at the same time
>> My main point is to get back to reservoir/basin being tagged as "landuse"
> why would that be desirable?
There will always be more than one opinion on which naming of tags
is "better" because there is no "universal best way" (unless it's
"42").
What I'm striving for is STABILITY for
There is one bad convergence on this.
While I can also observe that in Lithuania in last month there was a
huge increase in mapsme "edits" and 50% of those are straight bullshit
(like adding as an artwork objects like "my crib", "place I fish",
adding cyrillic names to name tag in Lithuania
2016-06-19 23:35 GMT+03:00 Ilya Zverev:
> <...> the proposal about water=* was
> accepted by 16 mappers, and if you have a problem with that, then I agree
> that we should change our proposal process, but in all these years nobody
> has even started.
Accepted by 16(!) wiki editors but ignored
>> Water proposal tried to change the tagging:
>> landuse=reservoir => natural=water|water=reservoir
>> And in general all water landuse=x => natural=water|water=x (basin, pond
>> etc.)
>> waterway=riverbank => natural=water|water=riverbank
> No.
> The water proposal didn't change or
> You need to decide if you want to abolish the water=* or if you just
> prefer using waterway=riverbank instead of natural=water +
> water=river - which does not in any way conflict with the water=* tag.
Once again: I do not want to abolish water=*.
My main point is to get back to
> I'd like to add to this that on a semantic / natural language level,
> waterway=riverbank (deliberately ignoring long standing, widespread use and
> acceptance) would seem to indicate a riverbank, i.e. the bank of a river, or
> in other words, the area along a river, which will occassionally but
> actually the way it was before HAD big issues, you could not even state if
> something was a lake or just the basin of a fountain (most kind of water
> areas just mapped as natural=water).
Everything what can be mapped with new water schema can be (and is)
mapped with old schema.
The
> You are either deliberately or due to misinformation distorting things
> here. The water=* is widely used and accepted, there are >700k uses in
> line with the proposal (an additional 255k for the deprecated
> water=intermittent).
>
> The waterway=riverbank tag is considered equivalent to
> Speakig of that, I have MAPS.ME installed on my Android and it's supposed
> the app has a voice navigation system but it doesn't work. Any thoughts on
> that?
Maybe because it has a nickname CRAPS.ME and lots of mappers hate it? :-)
___
talk mailing
Hello
2017-02-03 15:44 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe wrote:
> With the Belgian community, we're making some careful progress into getting
> government to really integrate OSM/VGI into their data management efforts.
> So not talking about background maps here, real data contribution or
> community
>> There are literally hundrets of building which have 4 edges as nodes
>> but them beeing connected over cross so that a construct like a
>> butterfly resembles.
>
> Any chance of a link to an example?
I guess Florian ment geometries like this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/460032394
Another interesting example are polygons like this:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/400182030
Polygon geometry is fine here, but it has one pointless node close
to one of the nodes. Pointless because it does not influence the final
geometry of the polygon.
And if you look around there
2017-02-18 16:26 GMT+02:00 Dave F wrote:
> Why do you believe this to be a problem? It may be pointless, but not an
> error.
As I pointed out there is no problem with geometry. So yes, it is
not an error.
But import(?) with lots of errors in ETL or source data.
--
Tomas
There was a flow of undiscussed automated wikidata additions in Lithuania
with problems. I asked for discussion before automated changes. I was given
a promise that a discussion will follow. But there was no discussion. And
automated changes resumed. I see it as violation of automated edit rules
> This all conversation confort my (un-educated, I confess) idea of the
> uselessness of cross referencing the Wikipedia ecosystem with OSM with OSM
> tags.
>
> Automated addition of wikidata id to OSM objects seems worthy, so why not
> doing it on the fly instead of writing it to the database?
Let's get on the higher level first.
There are two ways of doing it from the process perspective:
1) EDIT->TEST->COMMIT
2) EDIT->COMMIT->TEST
The first one gives higher quality but also discourages edits and
maybe even prohibits edits in areas with no/few "checkers".
So obviously the way to go
> Is your process documented anywhere and is the code available?
There is a "help" page, but it is in Lithuanian... Maybe google
translate can help:
http://patrulis.openmap.lt/pagalba.html
Code (php+postgresql) is very basic and dirty (i'm not a web
developer) and I didn't have time to put
> Interesting, I didn't know such patrolling took place at a country scale in
> OSM. Have you revert/re-map stats?
No, such stats are not collected. And it would be hard to do that,
because it is not yes/no. Sometimes it's just a minor problem,
sometimes it is something much worse. Until
2017-10-14 15:57 GMT+03:00 Jochen Topf wrote:
> Do I understand this correctly? You are creating tags in the OSM
> database for your private tool? I hope there is some misunderstanding
> here, because that isn't acceptable behaviour.
The problem is much much larger.
This whole wikidata
Lets take an example. History of this hillfort:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1717783246/history
What happened here:
1. I've added a hillfort object "Žagarės piliakalnis" (Žagarės hillfort).
2. Med fixed wikipedia tag (removed underscores - good change, my
mistake fixed).
3. I've
I guess the point is that:
1. Its ok to play with some pet-tag like wikidata
2. Its not a WORK to automatically update one osm tag according to another
osm tag (anybody can do it online/locally/etc). It adds NO value.
3. It is totally unacceptable to introduce idea that wikipedia tag could be
>> It is mostly because you pushed the effort, not beaucse of
>> "advantage of wikidata". The same fixing has already been done for
>> YEARS before your effors based on wikipedia tags only.
>
>
> Tomas, you claimed that "It adds NO value." This is demonstrably wrong. You
> are right that the
2017-10-01 20:04 GMT+03:00 Yuri Astrakhan:
>> 2. Its not a WORK to automatically update one osm tag according to another
>> osm tag (anybody can do it online/locally/etc). It adds NO value.
>
> It adds HUGE value, as was repeatably shown. Thanks to Wikidata IDs, the
> community was able to see and
>> So you have two tables of same structure. Voila. You can compare
>> anything (title, coordinates), in any direction with some
>> approximation if needed etc. No OSM wikidata involved at all.
>
> Thomas, this will not work. Matching wikidata & osm by coordinates is
> useless, because the
> Tomas, this is what I understand from what you are saying:
> * You download a geotagging wikidata dump and generate a table with
> latitude, longitude, and a wiki page title.
> * You also generate the same table from OSM for all nodes, ways (using geo
> centroid?), and relations (using ??)
> *
> p.s. OSM is a community project, not a programmers project, it's about
> people, not software :-)
Totally agree. If some script can automatically add new tag
(wikidata) without any actual WORK needed, then it is pointless,
anybody can run an auto-update script.
When ordinary (non geek)
>> There was a link to disambiguation page which was detected using
>> other tool which is not using wikidata.
> Could you point me to that tool?
It is a local Lithuanian tool. But here you can have a look at results:
http://patrulis.openmap.lt/wikipedia.html
> That's exactly my point. I
> IMHO there are semantic implications in the key, as has been said many
> times, <...>
And that is subjective -> nobody is wrong -> everybody is right ->
everybody thinks THEIR proposal is the right one -> this topic is not
settled for so many years -> I suggest doing a compromise and agreeing
2017-11-02 11:24 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis wrote:
> The current situation is not helping in producing useful maps. Too
> often I find myself in a residential area with large gardens and trees
> when I expected to find a real forest based on what OSM is displaying.
This is exactly why I started the
2017-11-02 11:49 GMT+02:00 Lester Caine wrote:
>> P.S. And all I wanted was to talk about topology rules... BTW: here is
>> an example of topology rules in Lithuania:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Lithuania/Topology_rules
>
> <...> In your rules #2 and #5 seem to be at odds?
Currently according to taginfo the most popular are:
natural=wood 4,5M
landuse=forest 3,5M
others are way behind. for example landcover=trees - 11000 objects...
So maybe there is a point to choose one of the two popular tags and be
done with it?
If anybody wants more detail - subtags could be
What was the reason NOT to use vector tiles?
As that would solve most of the problems discussed in this thread.
--
Tomas
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
2017-10-25 14:03 GMT+03:00 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> For a long time I wanted to hear opinion on the topic of topology rules.
> most important is IMHO: when do you share nodes, and when not.
> <...>
Thank you for notes about the rules, I will think about it at least
for local rules.
2017-10-24 15:56 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote:
> Why, in this case is it better to have Wikipedia links in OSM point to
> disambiguation page instead of link Hillfort 1 in OSM to Hillfort 1 in
> Wikipedia, link Hillfort 2 accordingly and fix Wikipedia doubts in
> Wikipedia?
So that the case is
2017-10-25 6:53 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote:
> You mean "stop any editing, cause we need two weeks or two years to make
> sure refs are correct and we don't have any other means to remember about
> the problem than to leave some obvious mistake everyone will trip over until
> we are sure about
2017-10-25 8:56 GMT+03:00 Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Roland, thanks for the links. Local knowledge is very important, but lets
> not make it into a sacred cow at the cost of common sense. I have not been
> to every single street in New York City. I am nearly 100% sure that all
> editors has edited
Hello
For a long time I wanted to hear opinion on the topic of topology rules.
By "topology rules" here I mean just simple rules such as:
* polygon X should not overlap polygon Y
* polygon X should always be above polygon Y
* point X should be not further from line Y than D
etc.
Some info on how/why forest/wood tagging is used in Lithuania. I will
not give specific tags (forest vs wood, landuse vs natural etc),
because in my opinion that is a secondary issue. Let's say we have
tags F1 and F2.
F1 is for general forests. Those are the ones depicted on small scale
maps
> In; F1 there are the words "general landuse polygons"
>
> F2 there are the words "residential, commercial, industrial zones" that
> clearly imply land use.
>
> So your discussion is clearly about land use? Fine - that is ok.
No. It is about virtual layers, calculated from OSM data for
2017-10-27 12:25 GMT+03:00 Dave F wrote:
> You appear to be differentiating based on size & location which, seeing
> OSM's output is visual & geospatial seems unnecessary.
If we make no such distinction, then in order to be topographically
correct, we would have to "cut out" (create
2017-10-22 23:20 GMT+03:00 Ryszard Mikke wrote:
> So, to sum up:
> 1) There was a link to disambiguation page that no one has corrected until
> it was detected by Yuri's tool.
There was a link to disambiguation page which was detected using
other tool which is not using wikidata. That other
>>Fine. Let's say in higher level there is only one "forest". Then my
>> topic moves one layer down and stays exactly the same otherwise.
>>What I'm talking is about virtual hierarchy.
>>OSM tagging comes AFTER that.
>
> As I map & tag what I see in reality; could you expand on what
2017-10-25 16:40 GMT+03:00 Stefan Keller wrote:
> 1. My ceterum-censeo is, that we really need a polygon type in OSM.
> This would make mapping, and many written and unwritten(!) rules much
> easier (not to forget software).
What exactly are we missing on this polygon topic?
Because
2017-10-27 22:44 GMT+03:00 Warin wrote:
> What you are talking about looks to be the rendering into layers and which
> layer comes higher than the other.
>
> That is the choice of the render and what could be higher in one rendering
> could be the lower in another rendering.
While I agree with
2018-02-17 11:56 GMT+02:00 Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:
> For instance, reviews. I hope it will not come to what there is at some
> commercial maps, when one adds say a building and then has to wait for a
> month that an almighty moderator approves it, so that it appears on the map.
This is an
Germany is not the "whole world". If you have multiple datasets for
addresses then you have to decide, and physical check could be the solution
for your country because of registry collision, whatever German community
decides.
In Lithuania there is one and only one official source for ANY
Ad absurdum argument: can you invent your own street name or even placename
and expect post, police, ambulance, firefighters, taxi to arrive (on time
or at all)?
Thank you for example anyway, I would have never ever believed such a thing
could be true in GERMANY. (No sarcasm) in post soviet
2018-12-11, an, 16:41 Rory McCann rašė:
> On 11/12/2018 12:38, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>>If someone puts a label "Military academy" on their house, would we
>> map it as an actual military academy?
>
> No, but you would put "addr:housename=Mi
2018-12-12, tr 19:18 Richard Fairhurst rašė:
> Tomas Straupis wrote:
> > Ad absurdum argument: can you invent your own street name or even
> > placename and expect post, police, ambulance, firefighters, taxi to
> > arrive (on time or at all)?
>
> Sure, in the UK, y
2018-12-12, tr, 15:47 Andy Townsend rašė:
> If you're looking for a project that essentially mirrors "official" data
> without actually checking that its valid then OpenStreetMap might not be
> the project for you.
I was never for indiscriminate, automated imports without manual
checks.
2018-12-11, an, 12:06 Frederik Ramm rašė:
> Non-physical (non-observable) things should definitely be the exception
> in OSM, and it is my opinion that each class of non-physical things we
> add needs a very good reason for adding them.
I agree, but that is a different question. My suggestion
Hello
I think we should settle the question of how "ground truth" or
"verifiability" applies to NON-PHYSICAL objects (it is clear with
physical objects). Because currently I see at least two opinions:
1. Non-physical objects are mapped by observing/verifying their
REFLECTION in physical
2018-12-11, an, 13:27 Jochen Topf rašė:
> It seems you haven't understood the on-the-ground rule 5 years ago and
> you still haven't. For all intents and purposes there is such an
> address. Mail will arrive there, people can find the house when looking
> for it.
Mail will not arrive there as
> Note i have explained to Tomas in length the meaning of the concept of
> verifiability for not directly physically manifested statements in
>
> http://blog.imagico.de/verifiability-and-the-wikipediarization-of-openstreetmap/#comments
>
> Using the example of a bus stop without signs or shelter i
2018-12-17, pr, 11:00 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
> for admin boundaries there will often be at least 2 "true" document
> sources: one for each party / side. They are also often observable,
> at least punctually.
I wonder, of those saying that it is a peace of cake to map country
boundaries by
2018-12-15, št, 13:57 Andy Townsend rašė:
> If I want to find the border
> between Ireland and Northern Ireland, for example, I might not (yet)
> find anything stopping me driving through but I will see something along
> the lines of "speed limits now in mph" or the reverse.
And then the
Discussions about mapping invented addresses shows exactly what I
wanted to say: we get drowned in endless pointless
counter-counter-examples of counter-examples. Rules would have to be
invented for addresses separately, and then separately for each
country or even more detailed. We once again get
2018-11-23, pn, 18:23 Andy Townsend rašė:
> Yuri, I suspect that literally every statement that the DWG has made
> throughout this process has said exactly the opposite of what you've
> just suggested that we said.
You're saying DWG position is that it IS acceptable to have
overlapping country
> I fear that this is only "kicking the can down the road" though because
> we'd likely have - just as we have with names - one "default" set of
> boundaries where we say "that's the one you get if you don't ask for any
> particular one", and the fight would then be on which one that is going
2018-11-23, pn, 11:19 Oleksiy Muzalyev rašė:
> The topic of territorial claims is very complicated, long lasting, and
> painful. It involves not only such relatively remote and insignificant
> cases as Hans Island, Sudan, Croatia, Crimea, Pakistan, etc. cases, but
> also the industrial developed
2018-11-23, pn, 18:57 Andy Townsend rašė:
> Where that best matches the situation on the ground about who has
> control, yes.
Ok. So do I understand OSMF position is this:
1. There are no technical problems with having international
boundaries overlapping and representing official position
Could you ealborate more on why you mention permanent id here? I see your
idea, but do not understand how it is connected to permanent id problem.
There were some tests done regarding permanent id in Lithuania, but those
were regarding places of interest.
If this has something in common, I could
2018-11-20, an, 20:58 Christoph Hormann rašė:
> This is not a workable approach as an universal rule. The volume of
> boundary relation overlap world wide would be enormeous. You would
> have a significant number of boundaries that have no practical meaning
> today. Some countries have pretty
Are we looking for a solution of existing problem?
Or thinking of hypothetical future problems and how they could
potentially be harder (but not impossible) to solve using proposed
solution? With a purpose of declaring it "too difficult" so "lets do
nothing"?
Most of us are happy to live in
> From a practical point of view different applications such as OSMand take a
> snapshot of the database at a point in time.
> How would your proposal work with these derivatives and there are quite a few
> including the odd one that gets updated once or year or so.
Sorry, I did not
>>Do you know a country which has a fluctuating representation of its
>> borders say in schoolbooks?
>
> In my lifetime, lots - countries (and I don't mean where boundaries
> changed, but the external recogition of them did). For example, the US
> only recognised the People's Republic of
Hello
I think this needs more attention and should not be silently buried
in archives.
OSMF/DWG has sided with Moscow to recognise illegal annexation of
Ukraine's territory - Crimea.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea
Note that there was a
Youre saying something written in pdf is more important than huge practical
and reputational damage done?
Pdf cannot be wrong and it does not matter that OpenStreetMap loses a lot
of opportunities and probable contributors?
What will ordinary people understand from this decision? Will they read
Congratulations to Ukraine celebrating the Day of Dignity.
You HAVE a strong backbone!
This thread is depleated.
Bye
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
2018-11-21, tr, 16:04 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> Taken together it means that Crimea (territory occupied by Russia) should be
> marked
> as de facto within Russia.
On OSM-Carto map - it could be so.
But I see no objective reasons why this should be the case in the
data. Data could represent
2018-11-20, an, 14:33 john whelan rašė:
> I think you have expressed your opinion but unfortunately whilst difficult
> for you to accept traditionally OSM maps a certain way and has done
> for sometime even though many governments and others would wish
> we did something else.
Can you give an
2018-11-20, an, 12:42 Elena ``of Valhalla'' rašė:
> looking at a map where Crimea is part of Ukraine may lead people to plan
> a trip to it, only to be stopped and possibly questioned.
But going to Crimea without Ukrainian visa (and not via Ukraine
controlled territory) would have legal
> If you ask students to contribute to the map and at the same time say
> "btw they are in favour of evil Russian aggression" then of course
> students (at least in Lithuania) will give it the thumbs-down. But if
> you patiently explain the "on-the-ground rule" and that using this rule
> has many
2018-11-20, an, 19:59 Rory McCann rašė:
> How should we decide which way to map disputed borders?!
As it was mapped a week ago: BOTH ways (included in BOTH country polygons).
If required - disputed territory (polygon geometry) can be mapped as
"disputed=yes" with a tag
2019-04-07, sk, 17:47 Bryce Jasmer rašė:
> Can you give some examples of what the OSM normals are and how iD differs
> from them?
There is no way (other than writing tags directly) to tag reservoirs
as landuse=reservoir (original and still wider used water tagging
scheme), iD insists on
2019-04-07, sk, 19:06 Bryce Jasmer rašė:
> The wiki page for landuse=reservoir says:
> "Description: Ambiguous and better alternatives exist, see water=reservoir"
> So, is iD wrong to use this, or is the wiki incorrect?
Wiki is incorrect. Even "creator" of "everything blue is
natural=water"
2019-03-01, pn, 17:55 Christoph Hormann rašė:
> As long as data sources you use have been produced by people who got
> paid for their work (through either taxpayer money or private
> investments) the discussion is moot - that is not the same league, that
> isn't even the same sport. You give
2019-03-01, pn 16:25, Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> For full screen map two lines of text is perfectly OK.
>
Two lines for ONE source, then additional lines for other sources. That is
not OK.
Plus corners are good spots for action places, it is not OK when
attribution occupies two corners.
It
I, being a mapper in the first place, do not put OSM contribution visible
by default on webmaps I create (only after pressing data source link),
because when you have more than one data source, it is not practical to
show that much info.
My second source is altitude data (hillshade, contours,
2019-06-29, št, 11:58 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> (1) Have you (or someone else) tried making issue on iD bugtracker requesting
> revert
> and explaining why it should be done?
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6589
> (2) I see significant benefit of natural=water + water=*
This is
1 - 100 of 673 matches
Mail list logo
