piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
zluuzki (2022-03-08 19:30:15+00:00): I also think it has something to do with showing respect to each other. Personally, I just like to map such things, I enjoy looking for relationships between the old tracks and their remains.
Look, there are also many mapping practices that I don't like at all. For example, micromapping. When you map every single space in a parking lot. Or every flower pot in a 3D-mapped shopping center. This data takes a long time to load. It is extremely difficult to work with, especially if you are new. And yet I tolerate it - because there are people who put work into it, and it doesn't break anything. Just as these tracks - they don't break anything either, nor are they "false data". On the contrary - OSM-applications like Openrailwaymap thereby become actively more complete and simply ...better. But removing these tracks now ... i just don't see what is gained by doing this.
CorruptComputer (2022-03-08 19:46:23+00:00): I'm not trying to disrespect you or the work you've done at all. In fact I'm quite thankful for the overwhelming majority of it.

However I do think its important to curate the data that is here, and to make sure that it is all still true and relevant. As far as I am aware, and I've gotten the same sentiment from most people I've interacted with, OSM is to map what is currently on the ground. If its there, it should be here. If its not there, it shouldn't be here. Simple as that.

However some of this historical data, while it is valuable to have available somewhere, doesn't really fit with OSM very well and I think that it just fits better in OHM than it does here.


Actually using OHM could be quite an advantage for you as well, since if the data is entered there properly you could go back and check what the rail network looked like at specific times in the past.
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-03-08 22:28:42+00:00): If you need to check historic maps to map something and cannot do it based on a field survey, then it should not be mapped in OSM
woodpeck (2022-03-09 15:05:26+00:00): See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118239176 for a DWG comment. The removal of these abandoned/razed railway lines was a good edit. We are not a historic railway atlas.
zluuzki (2022-03-10 05:55:20+00:00): "OSM is to map what is currently on the ground" - yes, the traces are on the ground.
"If you need to check historic maps to map something and cannot do it based on a field survey" - really now? I have to mention the maps, because you seem to think that the remaining tracks and all other obvious traces there were placed for fun or something.
eggie (2022-03-08 13:50:05+00:00): Dag Janet.. Dit is dus de adresnode die je had verwijderd.
Ik zal deze herstellen. 
Je info samengevoegd met de adresnode van het Kadaster. 
Probeer bij te taggen op de bestaande adresnodes.

MVG
eggie
Dimitar155 (2022-03-08 18:22:28+00:00): Може ли да не добавяш описателни имена на сградите, след като вече са били тагнати като такива? Например https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/469477281 не се нуждае от име "гаражи" (същото важи и за останалите сгради в района).

Не е нужно и да дублираш имената и номерата на улиците както си направил на https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1036485253 тъй като тези сервизни улици не носят името на главната улица.

Личната информация, която си добавил на https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/469480168 не би следвало да я има.
praeteritum (2023-06-06 05:05:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 136996739.
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
Ydel (2023-04-20 12:06:00+00:00): Bonjour Éric,
Même chose que précédemment.
Te rappel la raison pour laquelle tu as passé ce pylône en power=tower;substation?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1790790731
Merci,
Yann
praeteritum (2023-06-06 05:05:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 136996727.
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
eggie (2022-03-08 14:28:34+00:00): Dag MM  Het is niet de bedoeling om overal oneway=no te taggen. 

Dat is default.
Alleen als je bang bent dat een medemapper oneway=yes gaat taggen voegen we oneway=no toe.
Bv op een tweerichtingrotonde voor fietsers of een parallelfietspad
MVG
eggie
praeteritum (2023-06-05 03:29:38+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 136953209.
eggie (2022-03-08 14:21:43+00:00): Welkom bij OSM,

Alleen name= doet niet zo veel in OSM  Ook de aard van het bedrijf kun je toevoegen.
office=company  ?
MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-03-08 14:23:53+00:00): office=company toegevoegd + website
Commodoortje (2022-04-02 10:47:12+00:00): Hoi Zutphen, ik zie dat je goed bezig bent!.
Wellicht is het handig dat je in de nieuwbouwwijk, waar je de construction wegen hebt aangepast naar residential. De tag connstruction=residential even verwijdert, ook in de nabije omgeving.
Mocht je hulp nodig hebben, hoor ik het graag.
Commodoortje (2022-04-02 10:49:38+00:00): Bijvoorbeeld:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/646491774
Commodoortje (2022-04-02 11:18:05+00:00): Deze is wat complexer, je hebt per ongeluk 2 wegen over elkaar heen getekend. Dit geeft problemen bij navigatie. Ik begrijp dat je dit niet bewust doet. Vandaar dat ik in een filmpje laat zien wat er aan de hand is.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/646491774

Bekijk het filmpje om het te laten zien, hoe ik het op los.
https://youtu.be/NQuoZiDknzU
Commodoortje (2022-04-02 11:21:27+00:00): Onderstaande link van het filmpje is de juiste, excuus voor mijn verkeerde link.

https://youtu.be/tYgV7PH5Dok
Silva1989 (2022-03-31 14:39:57+00:00): Thanks you for this update!
topolusitania (2022-03-31 16:39:15+00:00): As far as I remember, in a local visit I got the idea that this is a natural=water,  water= reservoir for human consumption / irrigation.  Is called Lagoa do Cangueiro . Photos here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=6317523541622768&set=pcb.6317533791621743&type=3&theater
Friendly_Ghost (2022-03-31 19:10:32+00:00): Always happy to help! 

I'm only armchair mapping, so if you think water=reservoir is more fitting in this case, by all means feel free to adjust it :)
jpennycook (2022-03-08 17:06:11+00:00): Hi!
There is no golf course here - it's a building site for a housing estate. 

Jon
woodpeck_repair (2022-03-08 20:08:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 118250223 where the changeset comment is: revert fictional golf course mapping, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5752
habi (2022-03-10 09:19:59+00:00): Hey.
In this (and other changesets) you've added several ways tagged as `wterway=unclassified` which is an unknown tag (and seems to be a typo of `waterway`.

Additionally, I fail to see/detect a *lot* of the unclassified highways you've added here.

Can you correct the typo in the tags and clean up the area a bit?

Greetings from Switzerland,
habi
habi (2022-03-10 09:24:14+00:00): You also failed to connect most of the highways you've added with each other, rendering them essentially useless.
eggie (2022-03-08 15:52:55+00:00): Dag Bert.. Je vraagt feedback  Lijkt mij oke zo. 
Gr eggie
Patr1k_P (2022-03-09 15:42:05+00:00): obchody sa znacia prislusnou znackou, nestaci napisat len nazov, to iste obecny urad

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59198325
praeteritum (2023-06-04 20:12:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 136946877.
user_5359 (2022-03-09 11:07:33+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/445623101 (example one of two). What is the meaning of the tag BETECKNING = -1?
Msiipola (2022-03-09 11:48:31+00:00): It's an erroneous tag. I have deleted those I found and uploaded correction.
If you find any more, message me.
woodpeck (2022-03-09 15:00:42+00:00): Dear Hiausirg, the removal of abandoned and built-over railway lines (which you have reverted here) was a good edit. Our general rule is that we map what is visible on the ground and this applies to railway lines as well. Sometimes an abandoned/razed railway line in the countryside can still be "visible" to someone who knows how to read the signs even if the tracks are gone, and we tolerate a railway=abandoned/razed in these cases. But many of the ways you have restored here are purely of historical interest, long since buried under houses or other new development. Such railway lines have no place in OSM - you will need to find other ways to record railway history than OSM.
woodpeck (2022-03-09 15:01:12+00:00): (Forgot to mention - this issue tracked at DWG Ticket#2022030810000143)
zluuzki (2022-03-09 18:40:17+00:00): Many? Now you have gone crazy. The only overbuilt tracks in this edit are way 971353152/3. And since when are they overbuilt? Long ago? No, since 2020. All other restored tracks have very clear traces, the tracks at the round warehouses have even some rails still in the ground - a trace can't be more obvious.

So, "Many of the ways ... long since buried under houses or other new development." is another blatant lie from an admin/moderator. This is incredible.
CorruptComputer (2022-03-10 12:58:02+00:00): You have reverted these changes again, even after being confirmed here from a DWG member that this data doesn't belong in OSM. changeset/118304173
zluuzki (2022-03-10 14:32:09+00:00): Of course i reverted it - on the other CS, i said if the tracks are deleted again without good reasons, i'll restore them.

He has nothing to decide here - only if it would be obvious vandalism or copyright violations. He can provide his input on the matter. However, since this input are just lies/obvious untruths, I certainly won't listen to it.
ZeLonewolf (2022-03-10 15:33:10+00:00): For anyone confused by this discussion, it's a continuation of the discussion on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118237480
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-03-31 09:38:00+00:00): > And since when are they overbuilt? Long ago? No, since 2020

It does not matter. If track was torn down and traces were fully erased then ideally it would be fully deleted from OSM on the same day.
Patr1k_P (2022-03-09 15:55:35+00:00): davaj vacsi pozor, tu si zmazal budovy ktore mali aj adresy...vratil som ich naspat...okrem toho treba sa snazit objekty najprv upravit aby sa zachovala historia
Samuel Chávez (2022-03-08 15:24:24+00:00): Este comentario contiene evidencias o pruebas que demuestran que la edición hecha a la ruta 113 es válida.

 Los primeros dos enlaces muestran que en ésta residencial ingresa la ruta 113 desde 2016.

(https://m.facebook.com/1593966010914546/photos/a.1593982587579555/1593982500912897/?type=3&source=48&__tn__=EH-R)

(https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0jxeBrYz1uUmaVxoTqCap54zftNWFvJqL5Q9VHQNt7tWLa1XSy4KEWa6TGHy7dxMtl&id=1593966010914546&m_entstream_source=timeline&__tn__=-R)

El tercer enlace contiene una conversación donde le consulto al community manager de la página oficial en Facebook de residencial San Miguel si hasta la fecha de ese mensaje la ruta 113 todavía ingresa a ese lugar.

(https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=952213268759044&id=273005966679781&m_entstream_source=timeline)

Y el último enlace muestra una foto donde aparece una de las paradas que existen en residencial San Miguel para la ruta 113 que se ubica en la calle principal de la urbanización y al fondo se puede apreciar los dos accesos que existen a este lugar de entrada y salida, los que están vigilados.

(https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yplmsgpF0pUYjaEOvLo9q5h6v2uZUVvj/view?usp=drivesdk)
Samuel Chávez (2022-03-08 23:13:10+00:00): Éstas son más imágenes que demuestran que mis ediciones son 100% correctas:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yY1XnOBhPv8rM1CFmc-Jr_oLMsL2qRw3/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yZ1Ry18EvdKEoaH46gnOnv4SmlX98Gsc/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ydhXpL3DY-aIbUWPj-yP5d04lwM-CDfu/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yadC9Ac-45kwawKbwEYw-6qAYukWU78i/view?usp=drivesdk
porfiriopaiz (2022-03-14 00:06:55+00:00): ¿De qué sirve que esta información sea cierta si en el proceso de agregar la información lo único que haces es romper la relación de la ruta?

Por enésima vez te pido que dejes de modificar la información de transporte público, tus ediciones siempre dejan mucho qué desear y solo dan más trabajo.

¿Es tan difícil de entender?

En este changeset tuve que modificar el nombre del operador porque se te ocurrio que era buena idea hacer esa modificación en la relaciones que editaste.

Es como que siempre quisieras tener la últma palabrar sobre todo. Que comportamiento tan infantil.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6456811

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118449138
Samuel Chávez (2022-03-14 15:47:20+00:00): Hola Porfirio pues bueno yo uso OSM Inspector la herramienta de validación de datos online para revisar si existen relaciones rotas y según ésta herramienta el que el nombre del operador sea diferente en la relación de transporte público con el del route máster no rompe la relación y eso lo se yo porque por más de dos años yo tenía diferentes el nombre del operador en el route master y en las relaciones de transporte público de la ruta 401 que creé y ésta herramienta no me mostró que esa diferencia hubiese roto la relación. 

Si quieres puedo probarlo con la misma ruta 401 para probar si ésta herramienta refleja que ese cambio altero la ruta, es un error u omisión de mi parte eso debo de admitirlo pero no afecta al nivel que tu dices es un error menor y no crítico que afecte la visualización de los datos en aplicaciones como Osmand.

En el siguiente enlace te muestro un ejemplo de relaciones que se encuentran rotas y me gustaría que les hecharas un vistazo para corregirlas usando JOSM: (http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=-85.94020&lat=12.92615&zoom=13&overlays=ptv2_routes_invalid,ptv2_error_,ptv2_error_ways,ptv2_error_nodes)

Porfirio recuerdo que me dijistes que ustedes habían validado los datos en el campo y que aunque yo conociera la ruta mi aporte era no era correcto. 

Yo no tenía planeado hacer esta edición primero porque no vivo en Ciudad Sandino y en segundo lugar porque no salgo para evitar contagiarme por el Covid-19 pero debido a que tuve que retirar una encomienda de la terminal la 113 media cuadra arriba a mano derecha pero me bajé a más de un kilómetro de la terminal porque a como sabes la información que estaba en el mapa no era correcta. 

¿Qué es peor Porfirio, el error de haber olvidado cambiar el operador a la relación maestra y que no afecta el estado de la ruta o hacer que alguien pierda su tiempo y gasté más dinero al esperar otra ruta que lo lleve al destino que debió haber llegado si hubiera sabido que allí no era el lugar que debía bajarse?

Porfirio dices que deje de editar las cosas pero si te dijera que corrigieras algo no lo vas a hacer y sabes a lo que me refiero. No vas a corregir lo que yo te diga aunque te presente pruebas que sustenten lo que diga.

Finalmente te diré Porfirio que si  Mapanica me hubiese ayudado cuando les pedí ayuda para restaurar la ruta 104  que fue borrada (si yo restauré la información con ayuda del DWG) no estaría en este momento escribiendo éste mensaje. 
Si Porfirio, así es, si no me hubiesen hecho esperar tres meses sin respuesta a mi petición de corregir lo que yo había eliminado, yo no me hubiera interesado en aprender más sobre OSM y sólo estaría creando solamente PDIs. No les hubiera tomado ni media hora con sus potentes computadoras y conocimiento de OSM que tienen.
praeteritum (2023-06-03 06:55:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 136891648.
praeteritum (2023-06-02 06:45:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 136854667.
praeteritum (2023-06-01 05:47:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 136813404.
Lokai (2022-04-17 06:33:37+00:00): Hallo,

als du vom path die Oberfläche kartiert hast, war der path gut zu erkennen?

Gruß
eggie (2022-03-08 15:27:38+00:00): Dag I C   Je  vraagt feedback...  Lijkt me oke zo.
De node heb ik iets meer naar het gebouw gelegd. Op de recente luchtfoto is de 'bieb' te zien. 
MVG
eggie
user_2066394 (2022-03-08 20:06:41+00:00): Wenn die Gebäude einfach gelöscht werden, ist der Ort schwer nachvollziehbar.
Ist dort Baustelle, Brachland oder stehen schon neue Häuser, die im Luftbild noch nicht sichtbar sind?

Alternativ kann man abgerissene Gebäude mit
demolished:building=*
eintragen, als Platzhalter für die weitere Bearbeitung.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lifecycle_prefix
praeteritum (2023-05-31 06:30:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 136772914.
Larmax (2022-03-09 15:05:50+00:00): Moi, level=* tägissä maantasossa oleva kerros on aina 0
papamoai (2022-03-10 08:37:52+00:00): Kiitos. Korjasin.
TheNet1996 (2022-03-10 03:03:12+00:00): Hallo Hibenny,
kannst du bitte diese Änderung überprüfen?
Hier hast du einen Strand (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1038277716) angelegt obwohl an gleicher Stelle schon eine Schotterfläche (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/552791202) existiert.

Aus meiner Sicht ist das kein Strand, da sich die Fläche nicht oberhalb der Uferlinie befindet und oftmals, bei höherem Pegelstand der Wertach, unter Wasser befindet.

Siehe auch:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:natural=beach

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:natural=shingle

Danke & Grüße
Mike
Hibenny (2022-03-10 13:40:50+00:00): Hey Mike,

Hab’s gelöscht, danke für den Hinweis.

Ben
Patr1k_P (2022-03-13 16:27:51+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1038277962

tuto cestu si pridal zbytocne, pretoze pretoze stacilo tu povodnu len trocha upravit

...to iste si spravil aj tu, stacilo len upravit

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1038275128
PierreV79 (2022-03-10 11:29:23+00:00): bonjour, pour les chaussées à travers les rivières (waterway=weir), j'ai vu que tu les as repris via osmose sur ce groupe de modif. Par contre j'ai aucune idée de ce qui n'allai pas? Car je comptait continuer a compléter les waterway=weir en surfacique étant donné que je suis kayakiste et les utilisant régulièrement... Jusqu'à présent je les avait indiqué uniquement avec un "point".
Merci d'avance de tes indications pour mes prochaines modifs
ËdzëronK (2022-03-11 15:12:29+00:00): oui, euh... osmose détecte les weir comme des cours d'eau fermer, je sais pas si j'en est modifier beaucoup mais si tu fais des modif plus précise il faut les gardés, j'ai peut-être ajouter des point sur les croisement entre le weir et le cour d'eau principal.
PierreV79 (2022-03-11 17:16:44+00:00): ca a l'air d'être cela, il manquait les points d'intersection avec le filaire du waterway=river que tu as rajouté.
Merci, je ferait attention pour les prochains
praeteritum (2023-05-30 06:33:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 136727440.
praeteritum (2023-05-29 05:42:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 136680057.
gscholz (2022-03-09 05:39:33+00:00): Hi Aziz PMI Boyolali,
your recent changeset has creates errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=110.59308&lat=-7.53454&zoom=14&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points,single_node_in_way,duplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=118240419

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
AntMadeira (2022-03-09 16:35:45+00:00): Olá, fdominguesolr.
Bem-vindo ao OpenStreetMap!

Vi que tens adicionado nomes de ruas em Oleiros, que estava mesmo a precisar.
No entanto, chamo a atenção de que os nomes devem estar sempre por extenso e "Rua" também, ou seja, tudo o que são abreviaturas deve estar por extenso.
Para mais informações, consulta esta wiki [1]ou entra no canal Telegram da comunidade portuguesa de OSM [2].

Qualquer dúvida, estou ao dispor.

Cumprimentos,
António Madeira.

[1] - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Boas_pr%C3%A1ticas
[2] - https://t.me/OSMPortugal
Leo Slager (2022-03-11 00:03:33+00:00): Nu is de kerk niet meer zichtbaar op de kaart.
Op de outline in de relatie behoort tenminste building=yes te staan !
En alle andere tags zouden daar ook rustig kunnen blijven staan.
Misschien de wiki nog eens doorlezen ?
En ja, osmose zit er wel eens vaker naast !
martiensch (2022-03-11 08:02:22+00:00): Hoi Leo,

Kalm aan! Extra uitroeptekens zijn niet nodig.

Ik heb de aanpassing teruggedraaid middels changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118351753
en zal eens in de wiki gaan zoeken.

Osmose (en keepright) zitten er soms wel eens naast, maar het zijn handige tools. Er staan genoeg kleine foutjes op de kaart die aandacht verdienen.

Groeten,

Martien
martiensch (2022-03-11 08:05:32+00:00): gevonden: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:building

ik zie mijn fout (van drie jaar geleden): ik heb op de relatie de tags van het gebouw gezet en osmose zal daar over gestruikeld zijn. Ik zal dat straks nog aanpassen, eerst aan het werk :)
user_5359 (2022-03-13 05:59:11+00:00): Hello! Please check my try to correct your object https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1038280383/history.
user_5359 (2022-03-19 08:06:26+00:00): Willkommen bei OSM! Kurze Frage: Welche Sprache meinst Du mit language:tu? Das Kürzel ist im Standard ISO-639-1 nicht verwendet. 
Solltest Du türkisch meinen, dann wäre das Kürzel für die Sprache tk (siehe https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_ISO-639-1-Codes).

Wenn Du Hilfe bei der Korrektur brauchst, melde Dich ruhig hier!
marczoutendijk (2022-04-04 19:02:37+00:00): You made a typing error: condomium should be condominium (but I fixed that). 
But you have a lot of highways running through the buildings!
Like this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/583384017

Is that correct?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-04-20 14:20:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 150265070, 150261530, 150261385, 150261427, 150261374, 150261398, 150261463, 150262164, 150264883, 150261443, 150265293, 150265518, 150263711, 150261692, 150263544, 150263148, 150264695, 150263349, 150262918, 150264472, 150264284, 150261551, 150264090, 150262527, 150262687, 150263890, 150261413, 150261488, 150261509 where the changeset comment is: No reply to https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15936 , so we've taken a guess at what was likely derived from Google Earth (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/149290548 admits to that use)
AkuAnakTimur (2022-06-19 01:22:49+00:00): Hi! I'm aware that this edit was from three months ago. FYI "Jalan Raya" in English simply literally means a generic "major highway". During editing, if you might happen to read my notes (look for the note tag), I used to look for street signs and unfortunately, I failed to confirm any sightings, hence, this stretch of highway is left "unnamed". Thanks for your time.
Claudio Salvatore Fabrizzi (2022-08-07 19:16:57+00:00): Sehr geehrter Herr ma-rt-in,

ich zitiere aus der Seite https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Demergency_access_point :

"Merkmale, die in diesem Zusammenhang verwendet werden
[...]
name=* zur Angabe des Namens des Rettungspunkt"

Ob "name" für "Eigenname" steht, kann ich Ihnen nicht sagen. Aber wenn sie der Meinung sind, dass das Tag "name" nicht in Verbindung mit highway=emergency_access_point verwendet werden sollte, dann sollten sie das an anderer Stelle diskutieren und nicht einfach die Tags löschen.

Warum ist der von mir erfasste Name "Ihr Standort im Notfall" eine Werbe-Aufschrift, wenn genau das auf den Schildern dieser Rettungspunkte steht? Ich kann Ihnen gerne mal ein Foto eines solchen Schilds zusenden.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Claudio Fabrizzi