piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Supaplex030 (2022-12-11 17:10:07+00:00): Ich habe es mal mit Abbiegerelationen versucht (es sind 4, nicht 2 - in jede mögliche Richtung eine). Das Problem dabei ist, dass das Routing durch den mittleren Schnittpunkt läuft, an dem eigentlich ein Poller stehen sollte. Den hab ich dort nun auch mal eingetragen. Ein Poller müsste im Routing aber eigentlich als motor_vehicle=no interpretiert werden - und ich weiß nicht, ob das auch beim Abbiegen gilt... Müssen wir mal ausprobieren. Extra einen "vehicle=yes"-access zu setzen mit Verweis auf die Abbiegerelationen fände ich auch schräg...
syntex (2022-12-10 21:51:19+00:00): Napisałem że są krzywe kształty, zignorowałeś to. Ta edycja jest zła. Chodniki są krzywo, cały teren to nie jest trawa, nie poprawiłeś kszałtów budynków a mikromapujesz. I dokleiłeś to wszystko do błędnych kształtów budynków. Wycofałem ten zestaw zmian.
FraukeLeo (2023-10-30 08:51:15+00:00): Hallo Jo321, du meinst es gut, aber ich glaube nicht, dass es Sinn des Parkplatz-Objekts ist, jede kleine Lücke an der Straße, wo man auch nur ein (!) Auto hinstellen kann, als separaten Parkplatz zu mappen. Hier gibt es jetzt Hunderte von Mikro-Parkplätzen, und die "richtigen" Parkplätze, also größere zum Abstellen von Fahrzeugen ausgewiesene Flächen, gehen darin unter. Richtig brauchbar für jemand Ortsfremdes, der einen Parkplatz sucht, ist das so jedenfalls nicht. Wenn du Einzelstellplätze wenigstens capacity=1 getaggt hättest, dann könnte man diese bei der Auswertung übergehen. Parken am Straßenrand wird an den Straßenway getaggt, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Street_parking . Einzelstellplätze, die eindeutig zu einem Privatgrundstück gehören, würde ich gar nicht mappen, aber wenn, dann bitte mit access=private.
FraukeLeo (2023-12-03 19:48:13+00:00): Ergänzung: Ich hab das hier mal im Forum zur Diskussion gestellt: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/parkplatz-micromapping/106669 
Du kannst dich gern daran beteiligen.
gscholz (2022-12-24 07:17:07+00:00): Hi Abdullah Al Werfalli,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=13.18626&lat=32.88517&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=129945637

This kind of errors irritate routing software and looks ugly on the maps. Can you please fix this?

You may also like to educate yourself about how to edit cycleways which are part of a road:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway

Kind regards
Guido
Eman_Mehrez (2023-01-01 14:21:16+00:00): Hello gscholz;
I fixed this overlapped that Abdullah Al Werfalli made.
Regards
Eman_Mehrez
Tilia_J (2023-01-03 20:13:42+00:00): Changeset teruggedraaid. Locatie is rechtstreeks overgenomen van https://climbfinder.com/nl/beklimmingen/menthenberg. Is een beklimming en geen heuvel, daarnaast is er sprake van sprake van auteursrechtenschending: https://climbfinder.com/nl/voorwaarden

"Het is niet toegestaan informatie op deze website te kopiëren, te downloaden of op enigerlei wijze openbaar te maken, te verspreiden of te verveelvoudigen zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van climbfinder of de rechtmatige toestemming van de rechthebbende."
VictorIE (2023-11-03 00:10:10+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?node=5070464941

If this is the pedestrian entrance to the car park, with no vehicular access, it should be marked as entrance=yes OR entrance=main NOT amenity=parking_entrance, which would be for cars.
kjon (2022-12-10 21:44:05+00:00): Ist dual_carriageway=yes nicht eher für (autobahnähnliche) Schnellstraßen gedacht?
Supaplex030 (2022-12-10 21:56:27+00:00): Im OSM-Kontext wurde es eigentlich insbesondere auch für "klassische" urbanen Straßen eingeführt - primär die Hauptstraßen, aber nicht nur. Bei Schnellstraßen und Autobahnen ist - wenn sie oneways sind - ja meistens ohnehin klar, dass sie in diese Kategorie fallen.

Aber in der Tat ist die Dokumentation noch mau und es gibt nur sehr wenige die es verwenden.

Aber es ist verdammt praktisch :) (z.B. wenn man mal die Länge des Straßennetzes ermitteln will - da würden nämlich sonst die ganzen Zweirichtungsfahrbahnen doppelt reinfallen und es ist utopisch, das geometrisch zu lösen). lg, Alex
Supaplex030 (2022-12-10 21:57:19+00:00): Achso, auch die Wikiseite zum Key ist schwer zu finden: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:dual_carriageway%3Dyes
Supaplex030 (2022-12-10 22:20:26+00:00): (siehe auch https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129926888)
Tilia_J (2022-12-11 07:38:51+00:00): Je hebt deze heuvel niet op het hoogste punt in de omgeving gezet en mij is een heuvel met dezelfde naam van het landgoed niet bekend.

Hoe kom je aan deze naam en locatie?
Tilia_J (2023-01-03 20:03:26+00:00): Bij geen reactie: Heuvel "Lichtenbeek" verwijderd, hier is geen specifieke heuvel, evenmin met deze naam en hoogtepunt is van topotijdreis (TOP25) overgenomen.
Tilia_J (2022-12-11 08:07:03+00:00): Ik heb de naam boersberg verwijderd aangezien ik die andere door jou geplaatste heuvel met de naam "Boersberg" al heb moeten verplaatsen.

Voor een flink aantal door jou toegevoegde heuvels geldt dat ze soms honderden meters verkeerd geplaatst waren op lagere punten.

De bedoeling van openstreetmap is dat je daadwerkelijk verifieert wat je toevoegt zonder deze klakkeloos uit andere bronnen over te nemen of op je GPS te vertrouwen.

Zie viewer actueel hoogtebestand NL:

Lagen:
Laag AHN3 DTM blauw / groen / oranje dynamisch transparant 0%
AHN3 DTM hillshade, transparant 0%

https://ahn.arcgisonline.nl/ahnviewer/
syntex (2022-12-16 22:11:32+00:00): Ale powinno być old_name dodane
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-01-11 06:13:42+00:00): Zekniesz na https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3513268 ?
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-01-11 06:15:04+00:00): i https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3513265 ?
habi (2022-12-11 07:55:37+00:00): Ciao Beth.
Please keep your changes confined to a small geographic region, this makes reviewing them (as requested here) much simpler.
Happy mapping,
habi
:-} (2022-12-11 08:09:40+00:00): Są błędy
NorthCrab (2022-12-11 08:39:48+00:00): @ez_maserituozu171 proszę uargumentuj swoją wypowiedź
gektor1488 (2022-12-11 14:41:21+00:00): please, do not map military objects during the war in Ukraine
Beton Krai (2022-12-12 19:39:38+00:00): Hello!

As was already said previously, please do not mess with addresses and fill up changeset history, since any changes made will be reverted/fixed by latvia-bot, as was already done with the house here.
Thanks

(Translated)
(Översatt)

Hej!

Som redan sagts tidigare, var snäll och strunta i att mixtra med adresser och fylla på historiken över ändringar, eftersom alla ändringar som görs kommer att återställas/rättas av latvia-bot, vilket redan har gjorts med huset här.
Tack
mariotomo (2022-12-27 15:22:04+00:00): el techo que has borrado yo puedo observarlo en la foto aérea. estás seguro que estés mejorando el mapa, y no removiendo información incompleta?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129948841
mariotomo (2022-12-27 15:19:38+00:00): hola. por favor abre un hilo de debate en el community.osm.org, para esta clase de cambios. creo que no está bien cambiar "automáticamente" material→fence_type.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129948949
mariotomo (2022-12-27 15:11:05+00:00): loc_name es para el nombré así como lo usa la gente del lugar. la clave estaba mal y le preguntamos al autor si quería revisarlo. creo que mejor borrar el campo y ya. no creo tenga sentido guardar este valor con abreviaciones en un campo así nada mas para evitar que el QA de osmose nos diga que hace falta mejorar el objeto.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129949000
mariotomo (2022-12-27 15:09:04+00:00): según el wiki, para los valores concrete y metal, mejor la clave material que fence_type. o sea mejor antes que después de tu edición. qué fue que te motivó hacer el cambio que aportaste?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129949018
gscholz (2022-12-31 08:21:35+00:00): Hi Vinicius,
this changeset has destroyed the boundary relation of "Roça Grande":

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-49.22089&lat=-25.34271&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=129949380

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8838313/history#map=14/-25.3432/-49.2238

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
Vinicius Moraes (2023-01-01 22:41:01+00:00): Hello! I just fixed the relation.
Cheers!
jaap de vries (2022-12-12 15:30:23+00:00): Hier zou je beter kunnen vermelden, meerdere bedrijfsnamen aangepast, een afkorting is niet veel zeggend tenzij iedereen weet dat je bv over de ns hebt,
NorthCrab (2022-12-11 05:08:20+00:00): Witaj, poprosiliście o weryfikacje.

Chyba przydałoby się przy okazji przenieść również ten punkt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1604751265/history. Wygląda jakby on należał do tej platformy.

Pozdrawiam!
Carto_Graph (2022-12-11 22:19:22+00:00): Building со зданий убирать не нужно.
tastrax (2023-02-03 05:48:51+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features 

To get the + symbol on a mobile device numeric keypad I reckon you will need to do a LONG press on the zero.
I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
tordans (2022-12-11 08:21:50+00:00): Hallo @Fahrschule Smile, danke, dass ihr zu OpenStreetMap beitragt.

Ich habe diese Dinge korrigiert im Rahmen von https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129954851
- Die Website brauchte das Protokoll
- Die Telefonnummer brauchte die internationale Vorwahl
- Das Element brauchte einen Primär-Tag, der es als Fahrschule sichtbar macht
- Die Öffnungszeiten mussten im Format angepasst werden (gutes Tool dafür http://osmlab.github.io/jsopeninghours/)

Wenn ihr etwas Leerlauf habt, freuen wir uns natürlich, wenn ihr auch noch ein paar Geschäfte in eurer Umgebung aktualisiert – es gibt immer was zu tun :-). — Tipp: https://every-door.app/ fürs Handy ist dafür sehr gut geeignet.

VG
3ngineer (2023-01-27 04:31:07+00:00): Hi, I think the tags in this relation are correct, but I think it should be deleted. First, service currently does not exist on this track. And second, when the subway opens, the Millennium line will just be extended. A new relation is not required.
save2desk (2022-12-20 06:50:04+00:00): Ответ по источнику данных так и не получен, откатил весь пакет.
kkw02959 (2022-12-31 05:31:25+00:00): Порядковые числительные записываются римскими цифрами, а не арабскими
save2desk (2022-12-31 09:20:36+00:00): В такой спорной ситуации изменение названия микрорайона стоит подкрепить ссылкой на какой-нибудь неоспоримый государственный источник. Кроме того, альтернативный вариант стоит оставить в поле alt_name для улучшения работы поиска.
aldimond (2022-12-11 19:13:47+00:00): These "cycle paths" are part of the street and were already represented by tags on the street segments. Per OSM Wiki and discussions on mailing lists and in Slack it is generally preferred not to map bike lanes along streets as separate ways unless there's no other correct way to do it, which isn't the case for very straightforward lanes like these.
aldimond (2022-12-11 19:38:59+00:00): (There are a bunch of cases around Seattle where bike paths follow streets for significant lengths but are part of longer trails with names different from the streets represented on local signage, that don't share intersections with the streets they follow, etc., and in these cases it can make sense to maintain separate ways. The Burke-Gilman Trail has several segments like this; you could argue the entire Green Lake outer loop falls in this category. There are also a lot of bike lanes represented as separate ways around Seattle that I disagree with but don't want to mess with because of their complexity (to be clear the excess complexity they cause is bad, I just don't want to mess with it). Here it's a much more straightforward situation -- these lanes are simply part of the street.)
the_sink (2022-12-11 20:50:04+00:00): I see, I guess in hindsight that makes far more sense as it reduces the overall complexity of the map. Thanks for the info, I'll try to read up on some of the wiki information more in the future before making edits.

I'm still somewhat new to making manual edits on OSM - is there any straightforward way I can undo this changeset or would the best option be to just manually remove the cycle paths?
aldimond (2022-12-11 23:14:53+00:00): I don't think there's an easy undo, so probably just removing them is best. Thanks!
mcliquid (2022-12-11 13:49:51+00:00): Hi Bluenote49,
Ciao Beth.
Please keep your changes confined to a small geographic region, this makes reviewing them much simpler.
Thank you!
PT-53 (2022-12-18 09:56:01+00:00): Hallo Jo321,
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz - wohl versehentlich - bei diesen 2 Abbiegebeschränkungen
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1954490/history
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1125770/history
das from-bzw. to-Mitglied gelöscht.

Siehe hierzu
Wiki Turn Restriction:
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Relation:restriction
QS-Tool Turn Restriction:
- https://ahorn.lima-city.de/tr/?zoom=14&lat=48.14624&lon=9.61501&layer=Grayscale&overlays=TTT

Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?
Fragende Grüße

PS: 
Für Fragen / Anmerkungen / Rückmeldungen bitte diesen Änderungssatz aufrufen und in das leere Feld unterhalb Diskussion als neuen Kommentar eintragen.
MxxCon (2022-12-13 23:37:18+00:00): Aren't entrances gates located at the previous nodes locations?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129950232
Michael Alvarez (2022-12-13 23:42:07+00:00): Hmm… you’re right. I should’ve added fencing.
Warin61 (2022-12-11 23:31:00+00:00): Hi,
Tagging these areas as 'leaf_type=leafless' mean there are no trees with leaves there? I would  think these areas would be of mixed types?
Herman Lee (2022-12-12 01:55:11+00:00): 该修改集已退回
s6mables (2022-12-12 20:56:05+00:00): Hallo,

der Funkmast ist nun doppelt eingetragen, etwas weiter süd-westlich war bereits ein Node vorhanden. Die Position konnte ich damals nicht genau verorten. Vielleicht macht es Sinn, einen der beiden Nodes durch den anderen zu ersetzen, je nachdem welcher genau(er) an der echten Position liegt.

Viele Grüße
user_10241830 (2022-12-13 02:50:45+00:00): Hallo,

danke für den Hinweis. Den bestehenden Funkmast hab ich einfach nur übersehen, weil in JOSM das dunkle Symbol des Funkmastes gegen den dunklen Hintergrund des Waldes fast nicht zu erkennen ist. Der neue Node ist nach Maxar ausgerichtet und sollte passen, ich habe deshalb den alten Node an die Position des neuen Nodes verschoben und den neuen Node gelöscht.
NorthCrab (2022-12-11 05:10:10+00:00): Witaj, poprosiliście o weryfikacje.
Numer telefonu powinien zawierać prefix +48 (prawdopodobnie). Bez takiego prefixu wartość jest niezgodna z aktualnym standardem. Więcej informacji: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone?uselang=en

Pozdrawiam!
NorthCrab (2022-12-11 05:10:52+00:00): PS.
Tak samo strona internetowa powinna zaczynać się z http:// albo https://
michael60101 (2022-12-13 00:20:29+00:00): You do not need to add a name to an item unless it actually has a name.
starsep (2022-12-11 08:49:14+00:00): Cześć, ta zmiana wydaje mi się błędna.
Rolę stop powinien dostać punkt na drodze z public_transport=stop_position, nie przystanek przy drodze z public_transport=platform

Zobacz https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Buses oraz https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bus-ztm-warszawa/5105
NorthCrab (2022-12-11 08:56:30+00:00): Wycofałem w https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129955525

Sorry! Będę uważał.
LuxuryCoop (2022-12-11 07:11:32+00:00): 이렇게나 건물을 많이 그려주시다니... 진심으로 감사드립니다!
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2022-12-18 08:59:25+00:00): 朋友你好我想问一下，你在这四个BUCT四个字的雕像上加的name:ms是啥情况？
我看你在非常批量的加简繁中文，请问您是繁体中文母语者吗？因为我担心这里面有一对多问题没有转换，比如“规划四路”里的“规划”，我记得在台湾繁体那边一般称为“計画”？
总之我觉得您最好给出对您大规模的可能是自动化的编辑一些合理解释
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129952106
cnvery (2022-12-19 19:40:00+00:00): 我是简繁中文使用者，本人不是自动化编辑，是一对一精准修改的。

对于马路繁体的名称，目前不做任何台湾繁体的转换，只对字体本身的简繁转换，以免造成误解。比如你提及的“规划四路”里的“规划”，如果翻译成“計画四路”，这会造成误解和繁体版搜索不到"规划四路"。

谢谢！
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2023-08-11 16:19:48+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10236622701/history

真的吗？手动转的时候自然会明白，这里花家地南里的里，换成繁体依然是里（或者有人也说是裡）
而且如果一个地名写的并不规范，只是一股脑全都转换，后续要改的时候还要手动维护多个values，未免过于冗杂。

这个问题是在 https://t.me/osmchina/93467/112712 中由其他编辑者提出来的
Kovoschiz (2022-12-11 05:19:21+00:00): Although it is Exit 2, it should be treated as  `=motorway`  main line. Otherwise, the main tunnel has to be `=motorway_link` as well.
jmarchon (2022-12-11 04:49:23+00:00): Sorry for the large bbox
Kovoschiz (2022-12-11 05:16:04+00:00): Tunnel Area is at the eastern end of the interchange. It is possible have `noref=yes` `=motorway`.
tastrax (2022-12-13 00:20:39+00:00): Hi there - please take some extra time with your mapping and remember to "square' buildings by using the Q key after adding the building tag. This will be a lot of work for others to correct in the future.
LuxuryCoop (2022-12-11 06:58:14+00:00): 안녕하세요! 오픈스트리트맵에 기여해 주셔서 감사드립니다.
바뀜집합 검토 요청을 주셔서 확인해 본 결과, 문제가 없습니다.
앞으로도 꾸준한 기여 부탁드립니다!
Diacritic (2022-12-13 01:50:42+00:00): Hi Ant!

Unfortunately, the license for MetroMap is incompatible with OpenStreetMap's license, and it cannot be used when contributing to OSM.

Since I informed you of this two months ago, You have continues to contribute a data using this incompatible source. This data may need to be redacted due to license compatibility issues.

A list of compatible sources is here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Sources
Dian.
AntBurnett (2022-12-13 03:32:00+00:00): Hi Dian, thank you for this message. I did not see your prior message - apologies. Changeset 129952488 has been completely reverted.  I have ongoing discussions with Metromap about how my organisation's license allows the use of their data for my various OSM-specific projects. I will seek their comment on how to resolve this potential issue going forward.
Diacritic (2022-12-13 07:55:28+00:00): Thanks Ant,

Best of luck to you for resolving this issue. There are a lot of editors who would love to utilise Metromap as well.
AntBurnett (2022-12-13 09:57:12+00:00): Hi again Diacritic,

I can confirm, after consulting with Metromap today, that my organisation has specific written permission to use Metromap imagery for NSW-based projects.

I agree, it is wonderful imagery and is resulting in greatly improved geometries and outcomes for users in NSW.

We are now investigating updating the list of compatible data sources to include specific exceptions.

Happy mapping,

Ant
melb_guy (2022-12-13 21:57:49+00:00): Sounds like progress. Is there any chance this can be expanded more broadly. I sent off an enquiry to MetroMap a few weeks ago with no response. Mapping in Victoria for example is being held back due to the lack of up to date imagery.
aharvey (2022-12-13 22:42:33+00:00): Hi Ant, can you share any more detail? We would like to be sure that you do have the rights to publish Metromap derived data without restriction. A permission to use Metromap imagery for your own organisational projects, is not the same as rights to publish derived data without restriction.
tastrax (2022-12-14 07:22:51+00:00): Hi Ant, ask them specifically if you can use the imagery to digitise features into OpenStreetMap. I would love to see the response.
AntBurnett (2022-12-14 09:22:38+00:00): This discussion is getting quite a level of interest. It is clear that mappers appreciate the quality of the Metromap imagery and its usefulness to OSM communities around Australia. 

With respect to my use: I made it very clear how my organisation was intending to use their imagery with regards to OSM before committing any changesets. We outlined the projects that were underway or scheduled, and sought written permission before using it. From Metromap yesterday - "inform {username} that you do have permission to use our imagery to create vector data that you put on OSM." The person who made the original approval is on leave and will reconfirm in light of this discussion upon their return. 

Now whether other users in other states can attain similar permission is a separate question entirely, and not one that I can preempt. Hopefully this discussion can demonstrate the demand in other states.
tastrax (2022-12-14 10:22:01+00:00): Thanks Ant - I suspect folks are just concerned that the community cant verify what sort of permissions have been granted, for what sort of feature edits/digitising. Without seeing the actual permissions/licencing, we cant tell if your edits fit within the permissions granted to OpenStreetMap (not your company/Project). We will await the documentation but until then it would be wise to limit your edits as it would be a large effort to revert lots of changesets, especially if it takes some time and other folks edit your changes.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-05-28 03:17:50+00:00): Hello Ant. We've just received another query re your use of Metromap info, so am following up to see what progress you made with the required documentation. If it's not confidential between you & them, we would also like a copy of it, to put everyone's minds at rest! Thanks, Graeme Fitzpatrick, OSMF Data Working Group
AntBurnett (2023-05-30 01:56:55+00:00): Thank you, Graeme. We are now arranging for documentation on Metromap letterhead to confirm what has already been confirmed several times in email between my organisation and Metromap.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-05 23:20:03+00:00): Hello AB. Following up again on this documentation, thanks.
Kovoschiz (2022-12-11 05:21:52+00:00): No it does not! It is not public.
hd_scania (2022-12-11 08:40:24+00:00): Then why is that line not yet open to public also w/in the availability of Tseung-lam tunnels at whose east next to today?
That section entirely isn’t affected by the still-under-the-works Routes T2 with Cha-kwa-leng tunnels at whose west next to
Finally are you aware when will the above section from EHT to Cha-kwa-leng rd be open?
zyxzyx (2022-12-11 09:08:46+00:00): この編集は、道路線形を壊しているようです。
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6564282777#map=19/39.36751/141.89204
user_6110846 (2022-12-12 05:14:41+00:00): https://andrushkivska-gromada.gov.ua/docs/1260940/
user_6110846 (2022-12-12 05:14:50+00:00): https://andrushkivska-gromada.gov.ua/docs/1260940/
Calistemon (2023-01-05 02:50:01+00:00): I'm not sure why the Wikidata item for the locality of Manypeaks, Q21896816, was disabled in this edit. Looking at my sources (https://nationalmap.gov.au and https://maps.slip.wa.gov.au/landgate/locate/), the relation on OSM is the very same one as on Wikidata, the boundaries match on the maps. The connection between them seems valid. They are still linked as such on Wikidata but the unlinking on OSM now has “broken” the map on the English Wikipedia. I have relinked it.
TheSwavu (2023-01-05 03:05:32+00:00): Q21896816 is the wikidata item for the settlement of Manypeaks. This relation is the bounded locality of Manypeaks which is not the same thing. You should put the wikidata item on the place node.