*it is already fixed in the program

Thanks, I did notice this after the first batch so it is already in the program. I will manually fix these cases. There are also cases where name is added to a map, do you have any proposals on how to map that? or should I just go with `name` there

I don't want to ignore the name field completely, at least not for now. In case of benches, ignoring may result in losing some important names for tourist location / historic event / etc. benches. At least that's a case for Czech Republic, in my are we have:
- bench named after first patient who died because of Covid
- benches in each city where a popular singer had his last tour

The dataset also mentions the POI at way/117269161 got "closed", but I'm skipping import of closed elements for now, because it's hard to implement it exactly because of cases like this, where bakery and building are tagged together...

I manually resolved this issue, thanks for noticing. Right now I'm at ~1/17th of the backlog, so the remaining cases shouldn't be that hard to audit.

No luck with that field...

Looking at the dataset, most of the changes do seem validated, I couldn't find any obvious errors or intentionally wrong data except for misusing the `name` field, so i would assume this comes from Mapy.com's conventions drifting from those in OSM. Do you think it would be acceptable to add `fixme:mapycom:proposed:name`=`de Eekhof` instead of `name` for elements where misuse of the field is common like benches or parcel lockers? We already use this syntax with elements where a `name` tag is already present in OSM to not overwrite good values and we are working on a minimal web tool to audit and resolve these cases.

Hi, not sure if this is an automated message or not, but thanks for noticing anyway. I did a manual review but totally missed this is a parcel locker. These rules are basically global so i guess i can just add a check for that.

I also may have misinterpreted one field in the dataset with an ambiguous name that could signal the contribution is verified. Will investigate that before pushing anything more from the backlog.

Thanks,
Vojtěch Fošnár

Sorry for the spam of bad contributions then, I tried my best reviewing them but I miss the local context. I will review them again with this knowledge and revert what doesn't make sense.

I also may have misinterpreted one field in the dataset with an ambiguous name that could signal the contribution is verified. Will investigate that before pushing anything more from the backlog.

Hi, thanks for the feedback.

By streetname you mean name of a nearby street or a name people use to call this bench but is not official?

This is an attempt at restoring contributions from Mapy.com. Their maps outside of Czech Republic are primarily based on OSM and they used to contribute their changes back to OSM directly themselves. Since around the end of 2025 they chose to stop this process and instead publish their changes as geojson on their website. These changes, as far as we have been told through unofficial channels, should be validated by Mapy.com mappers and the only drift is supposed to be in how they structure their data compared to OSM.

Given this context, do you see any automated way this error can be prevented in the future, or would only a human review help in this case?

Thanks, Vojtěch Fošnár