piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
woodpeck_repair (2017-09-05 22:18:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 51764077, 51763240 where the changeset comment is: Revert undiscussed mass removal of 'oneway=yes' on roundabouts performed by user Grauer after seeing this flagged on Osmose; after complaints from the Dutch community the user asked DWG to help with revert.
user_5359 (2017-08-28 10:36:48+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have revert your changeset because your business is not a golf leisure. Please try again to mark the place of your business (and not the area) to add your business information.
gileri (2017-08-28 19:50:09+00:00): Bonjour,

Je pense qu'il y a une coquille sur ce chemin :

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/518683072

La largeur est à 0.
gormur (2017-09-10 22:55:54+00:00): Hei!
Ta en titt på https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7513926 Her ser det ut som at navn har kommet inn i natural-taggen. Er det noe i kildedataene, eller noe feil i importen?
Reitstoen (2017-09-11 22:34:57+00:00): Hei! Bra observert! Takk! :) Fikset.
Er nok bare en glipp ved tagging av meg. Autocomplete som har gått litt fort.
Øyene er ikke en del av kildedata. De er kun et hull i sjøen, og way'en er tagget med kilde og dato.
wille (2017-08-28 10:03:22+00:00): oi, Lucas

A proposta já foi aprovada?

abçs,
wille
315Lukas (2017-10-08 00:43:19+00:00): I'm afraid you edited node 3046740611 incorrectly. (496 is not Germanys code)
Grillo (2017-08-27 21:24:38+00:00): Hej Linus!

Notera att många av dina redigeringar bryter mot OSM-norm och har gjort datan i Veberöd sämre än vad den var innan. Jag inser att dina intentioner var goda, men var vänlig ta det lite lugnare i framtiden och läs ordentligt på på wikin om hur kartering normalt genomförs. Titta även i andra orter för att se hur det brukar vara. Veberöd var väldigt väl karterat tidigare och exempelvis att rita två vägar för olika riktningar på en väg, där vägbanorna inte är skilda från varandra, är inte något som görs.

Jag kommer att återställa dina redigeringar, men du får gärna kontakta mig eller någon annan för att ställa frågor. Bästa kontaktvägen är antingen den svenska maillistan på https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-se eller IRC-kanalen på irc.oftc.net #talk-se

MVH Andreas
M!dgard (2017-08-27 15:49:44+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changeset 51485122.
trigpoint (2017-08-30 18:40:36+00:00): Hi. This edit appears to be mechanical, did you follow the guidelines at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct, where was the discussion.

The reason I ask is that I can se you did not check the changes you were making as 
ways 385848816 & 385848826 are now tagged as roundabouts whereas they can be clearly seen to be mini-roundabouts on bing imagery and should be remapped as nodes.
aaronsta (2017-08-31 04:00:16+00:00): Hi trigpoint,
Each way was tagged by hand. This is not an automated edit as described by the link your provided, although the use of an editing program (automation) increased the speed of the process. To verify the validity of the intersection, each change made in the edit including tagging was done by hand. Without a very good reason (like there was no roundabout or road there) the original geometry was left untouched. At these intersections the road has been split by some user. It seemed inappropriate to recombine it in places due to the presence of a median. As the purpose of this edit was to remove tagging errors (highway=mini_roundabout on a way) and not to change geometry, there were two potential changes which could have been made; the highway=mini_roundabout moved to a node (and geometry of the roundabout (only) changed) or the way made a highway=roundabout (mini_roundabout being a valid subset of roundabout). So again as it was not the purpose of this edit to change geometry, and errors would have been created by changing the geometry of the adjoining ways, this was changed to highway=roundabout.
aaronsta (2017-08-31 04:00:56+00:00): Correction to previous: your > you
gileri (2017-08-28 19:05:53+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue sur OSM !

En regardant sur le Cadastre et BANO, la rue ne semble être qu'une impasse privée (ce que semble indiquer le nom "Impasse_67").

Si c'est le cas, il faudrait enlever son nom, ainsi que les tags addr:*, et plutôt mettre highway=service au lieu de highway=residential.
kozlorf (2017-08-29 11:35:04+00:00): Source: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kozlorf/traces/2488224
DaveF (2017-08-27 16:58:17+00:00): Hi
Welcome to OSM
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/422677745
Are you certain this isn't an area on which to to play sports any more? Parks are usually public areas of grass not a hard standing area..
Mike Baggaley (2017-08-28 12:37:05+00:00): HI, is way 519115289 actually named Draycott Terrace Back Access the name seems more like a description? Also, maxspeed=>5 looks as if it might be a typo.

Regards,
Mike
naoliv (2017-12-07 04:33:31+00:00): Olá, andresgarcia_am.
Nesta sua edição você criou 2 proibições de retorno onde a origem e o destino são iguais (ou seja, você falou que é proibido fazer um retorno na própria rua). Com algumas poucas exceções, criar este tipo de proibição de retorno na própria rua não é correto e nem necessário. Evite criar este tipo de proibição. Em caso de dúvida, entre em contato com a comunidade através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
DaveF (2020-02-24 00:08:09+00:00): Hi
is this definitely a public footpath with a prow_ref?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/519116935/history
dudone (2020-02-26 20:15:45+00:00): It is at the north end but it looks like I got carried away.  I have changed the low section to permissive.

Dudley
M!dgard (2017-08-27 20:34:32+00:00): Wanneer heb je dat gesurveyed? Volgens mij klopt het al niet meer.

We zijn die dingen trouwens net wég aan het doen, vrijdag gaat de A11 open.

Gelieve de geometrie van de wegen zeker met rust te laten, die kan je beter zien met nieuwere beelden van Informatie Vlaanderen, uit het "werkbestand" dat publiek beschikbaar is. Ik heb ze daarop uitgelijnd.
M!dgard (2017-08-27 20:39:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 51492034 where the changeset comment is: Revert addition of temporary roads and deteriorating of road geometry
JosV (2017-08-29 16:46:44+00:00): Deze aanpassingen gebeeurden op basis van een rit op vrijdag 25 augustus, wat volgens mij toch zeer recent is. Ik heb ondertussen ook al vernomen dat dit stuk autostrade op vrijdag opengesteld wordt.
Ik wou het maar even laten weten.
M!dgard (2017-08-30 11:01:42+00:00): Dank u wel voor uw uitleg. Het is volgens mij veranderd tussen 25 en 26 augustus, want op die dag mochten fietsers op de A11 rijden. Ik ben er geweest, evenwel niet op dit westelijke stuk.

Inderdaad, dit nieuwe stuk A11 gaat op 1 september open! Op de mailinglijst en het Riot-kanaal zijn we er al even over bezig geweest. Ik zorg ervoor dat dit zeker op 31 augustus opengesteld staat in OSM, zodat de kaart van OsmAnd de autostrade open heeft.
kozlorf (2017-08-29 11:34:56+00:00): Source: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kozlorf/traces/2488224
keithonearth (2019-01-26 03:39:02+00:00): This edit contains at least one error, this (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/309854489) building contained one address, when in fact it has 3 separate addresses. I've fixed it by moving the addresses to nodes.
keithonearth (2019-02-14 05:50:00+00:00): Another address error I've fixed on this building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102521333
keithonearth (2019-02-18 04:34:41+00:00): This one too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/109684770
Frans S (2018-09-28 14:15:34+00:00): Hi Maja,  I am reviewing tasks of this project and see buildings mapped by you in a somewhat odd way. I think you map a building as 2 buildings together and join them with the ctr J key. Please remove the left over nodes in the middle of the ways.
Square them than with the Q key
Thanks
Frans S (2018-09-28 14:17:50+00:00): Hi Maja, forgot to mention it. press the x key , put a node on a way and move a part aside
Just 2 handlings, and always squared.
maja_turkalj (2018-09-28 14:43:00+00:00): Hi  Frans S,
I am not sure what exact buildings are in question. Most of the buildings were not mapped as 2 buildings together. If you zoom closely enough, you will see that this is not the case. You can attach a screenshot of the buildings in question, because to the best of my effort, I could not locate the buildings you were writing about. Maybe I am missing something here. Also, L shaped buildings were mapped as one building. However, I manage to find few buildings without proper squaring, so I corrected this. Many Thanks.
majkaz (2018-01-05 10:13:21+00:00): Ahoj,
můžeš prosím zkontrolovat rozcestník DC363? Je tam patrně chybně name -> operator a operator chybí.
Díky.
Milancer (2018-01-05 10:19:24+00:00): Ahoj, díky za upozornění, opraveno.
https://api.openstreetmap.cz/img/guidepost/drazd_vyhl_odb_DC363.jpg
naoliv (2017-12-07 04:33:35+00:00): Olá, andresgarcia_am.
Nesta sua edição você criou uma proibição de retorno onde a origem e o destino são iguais (ou seja, você falou que é proibido fazer um retorno na própria rua). Com algumas poucas exceções, criar este tipo de proibição de retorno na própria rua não é correto e nem necessário. Evite criar este tipo de proibição. Em caso de dúvida, entre em contato com a comunidade através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
user_5359 (2021-01-13 17:20:05+00:00): Hello! Please check the node https://www.osm.org/node/5062531049: Did you mean maxspeed=40 instead massage=40?
mavl (2017-08-28 14:51:34+00:00): Hello. You used the editor of the maps.me program for modification on the map recently. Your changes were added on OpenStreetMap [http://www.openstreetmap.org].  
  
You added name in English. Tobolsk is russian city. Are you sure that this monument has English name?  
  
More information about names to OpenStreetMap [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names]
keithonearth (2017-09-29 23:01:11+00:00): This edit changes the address of a building I visited from 12 E 10th, to 2617 Ontario Street. (The building at the SW corner of 10th and Victoria, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331422481). I added the this changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/45201188. As I noted in the changeset tag, the source was a survey. 

What is the source of your info mappered1? Please do add a source tag to the changeset. If you would like me to explain how to do it with iD, I'd be only too happy to.
keithonearth (2017-10-27 19:33:28+00:00): I've changed the address back to 12 W10th, after visiting the site again, and double checking that I didn't make a mistake last time. 

I do feel that it was inappropriate to change the address I'd added with "survey" as my source, without adding a source of your own.
keithonearth (2018-12-31 06:35:48+00:00): Additionally a building (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331422458) had an address tagged on the building outline, but in fact the building contained at least two addresses. I've fixed it, after doing a site survey.
keithonearth (2019-03-21 01:48:42+00:00): And this one too: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331422517/history
keithonearth (2019-03-21 02:07:43+00:00): And another one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/331422538/history
naoliv (2017-12-07 04:33:26+00:00): Olá, andresgarcia_am.
Nesta sua edição você criou uma proibição de retorno onde a origem e o destino são iguais (ou seja, você falou que é proibido fazer um retorno na própria rua). Com algumas poucas exceções, criar este tipo de proibição de retorno na própria rua não é correto e nem necessário. Evite criar este tipo de proibição. Em caso de dúvida, entre em contato com a comunidade através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
DoDoMR (2017-08-27 19:15:59+00:00): Handelt es sich bei den von Dir eingetragenen Löschwasserentnahmestellen um "offizielle" Entnahmestellen (sind diese also entsprechend gekennzeichnet), oder sind das "mögliche" Entnahmestellen.

Außerdem möchte ich bezweifeln, dass die entsprechenden Löschwasserteiche aus so heißen; dass es sich um Löschwasserteiche handelt, wurde bereits durch emergency=... gekennzeichnet; ebenso das Volumen. 

Der von Dir eingebene Tag "Maße" ist so nicht in OSM vorgesehen; besser wäre es die Maße entweder in "note"; oder in "description" einzutragen.
derPoldi (2017-08-28 13:43:35+00:00): Hallo, 
da ich neu bin bin ich für jeden Rat dankbar.
Die Löschwasserbehälter und der Löschwasserteich mit den Angaben des Volumens sind schon Richtig, offiziell sind Sie auch, wobei wir die Kennzeichnungen bei drei Entnahmestellen noch erneuern müssen.

Für weitere Anmerkungen und Tipps bedanke ich mich schon mal.
DoDoMR (2017-08-28 14:15:07+00:00): Hallo,
was hier sicherlich unterschieden werden muss, ist zunächst der Löschwasserteich selbst und die Entnahmestelle. Der Löschwasserteich selbst wäre zunächst entsprechend den Gegebenheiten als Wasserfläche zu taggen. Zusätzlich dann entsprechend mit emergency=fire_water_pond. Aus diesem Tagging ergibt sich, dass es ein Löschwasserteich ist und muss nicht zusätlich noch als name getagged werden. Das Volumen könnte dann ebenfalls in die description aufgenommen werden.
Ähnlich verhält es sich bei den Löschwasserbehältern, die mit emergency=water_tank zu taggen wären. Auch hiergibt sich aus dem Tagging, dass es sich um einen Löschwasserbehälter handelt und muss daher nicht zusätzlich noch als name getagged werden. Auch hier könnte das Volumen in description aufgenommen werden.

Für die Feuerwehr am wichtigesten wäre hier m.E. die Entnahmestelle, die dann mit emergency=fire_hydrant zu taggen wäre.

Entsprechende Einzelheiten findest Du u.a. hier: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:emergency
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_hydrant

Das Problem hinsichtlich der Benamung ist nämlich, dass es sicherlich auch größere Gewässer gibt, die gleichzeitig auch der Löschwasserentnahme dienen (z.B. Aartalsee). Hier wäre der name bereits entsprechend vorbelegt und könnte nicht noch zusätzlich mit "Löschwasserteich" belegt werden. Daher sollte eine Benamung vermieden werden, die sich aus dem sonstigen Tagging ergibt. Du benennst ja auch keine Ruhebank mit "Ruhebank", da diese mit amenty=bench getagged würde.

Bei konkreten Fragen, kannst Du Dich aber auch gerne "privat" über das OSM-Nachrichtensystem an mich wenden.

Viele Grüße,
Thorsten
kozlorf (2017-08-29 11:34:48+00:00): Source: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kozlorf/traces/2488224
SafwatHalaby (2017-09-13 05:56:48+00:00): It looks like a shift-edit. Perhaps your imagery was mis-aligned?
kozlorf (2017-08-29 11:34:37+00:00): Source: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kozlorf/traces/2488224
Marek Żylewski (2017-09-19 15:46:34+00:00): Łącznik Mochnaniec Bunsha jest otwarty dla ruchu a OSM blokuje ruch samochodowy przez to skrzyżowanie (nawigowanie z Busha do Mochnaniec i z powrotem prowadzi dookoła przez ulicę Szymonowica. W edycji mapy nie znalazłem przyczyny. Autora zmian proszę o korektę
maraf24 (2017-09-21 12:24:06+00:00): OSRM nie prowadzi a Mapzen prowadzi.
Czyli jest to nieodświeżona baza w OSRM.
eggie (2020-06-03 10:11:11+00:00): Nu een bijdrage in Nederland... daarom .. Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Hjart (2017-08-28 09:35:19+00:00): Jeg har justeret lidt tilbage så det passer bedre med øvrige gps spor + Strava heatmaps. Bemærk at man aldrig skal stole for meget på individuelle gps spor: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Accuracy_of_GPS_data
Hjart (2017-08-28 09:38:53+00:00): Bemærk også at det i JOSM er muligt at se nys uploadede gps spor (jeg kan se dit, mange tak) + Strava heatmaps
zstadler (2017-09-26 16:12:58+00:00): HI!
.
Thanks you for contributing to OSM. Some of the features you added have no tags. Can identify what they are:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/519142163
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/519142164
and in a separate changeset also
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/519143287
.
Thanks!
zstadler (2021-07-11 20:57:31+00:00): Fixed and removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53529148 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53529135 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53529124
naoliv (2017-12-07 04:36:34+00:00): Olá, andresgarcia_am.
Nesta sua edição você criou uma proibição de retorno onde a origem e o destino são iguais (ou seja, você falou que é proibido fazer um retorno na própria rua). Com algumas poucas exceções, criar este tipo de proibição de retorno na própria rua não é correto e nem necessário. Evite criar este tipo de proibição. Em caso de dúvida, entre em contato com a comunidade através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
SomeoneElse (2017-10-31 15:15:17+00:00): Hello,
Did you create http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/3765 and http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/3766 ?  If so, you might want to have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/53348097 and the mailing list thread at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-October/079378.html .
Best Regards,
Andy
highflyer74 (2017-08-28 06:53:24+00:00): Auch hier: leider verwendest Du teilweise völlig unpassende Tags.

Telefonnummern werden in OSM im internationalen Format geschrieben. Also +49 xxx xxxxxx. Auch dies habe ich Dir bereits erklärt.
bergaufsee (2017-08-29 20:53:46+00:00): Hallo Verkehrsrot,
die neuen Bing-Sat-Bilder haben leider einen leichten Versatz von wenigen Metern (siehe hierzu z.B. auch http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2017/07/wochennotiz-nr-364/ ). Genau um diesen hast du auch die Zufahrt zum Bredower Luch von der L161 verschoben. Dies würde ich gern wieder zurückbiegen, würde auch mit meinen gpx Dateien dann wieder passen, Mapbox Satellitenbild scheint hier besser zu passen...
Auch halte ich surface=ground im Bredower Luch für nicht passend, das wäre ja naturbelassen, ist aber schon mit einem nicht unerheblichen Schotteranteil, würde also gravel eintragen, compacted war natürlich auch falsch :)
Bernd
Verkehrsrot (2017-08-29 21:21:50+00:00): Bin die Strecke letztes WoE mit dem Rad gefahren, und hatte mich nicht nach Bing sondern nach meiner GPS-Aufzeichnung ge-re-mapped (GPS Track ist hochgeladen). Aber wenn Du über genauere Daten verfügst, feel free!

Unter "compacted" stelle ich mir was anderes vor, aber vielleicht schaue ich da zu sehr nach Schweden und in's Baltikum...
bergaufsee (2017-08-29 21:59:39+00:00): danke für die schnelle Antwort, schau ich mir mal an. Ich war Mo da und hab mich dann mal vom Knotenpunkt 66 laut Wegweiser nach Süden zur 65 gemacht - nicht empfehlenswert!!! Beschilderung ist falsch :)
bergaufsee (2017-10-01 18:16:33+00:00): Ich bin jetzt endlich mal dazu gekommen die o.a. Anpassungen vorzunehmen. Dazu bin ich auch extra mal (schon fast wieder n Monat her) den Kreuzungsbereich zu Fuß ein Stück weit abgelaufen um genauere gpx-Daten zu erhalten und wie schon vermutet sind die neuen Bing-Bilder hier deutlich daneben und in diesem Bereich erstaunlicherweise Mapbox durchaus sehr paßgenau (hab ich an anderer Stelle auch schon anders gesehen).
Bitte nicht persönlich nehmen, ich habe das hier nur mal zum Anlaß genommen um mir selbst ein Bild von den in den Foren erwähntem Bing-Versatz zu machen.
NBosm (2017-08-27 21:57:41+00:00): Geen probleem, waar is een duidelijke eenduidige bron over hoe zaken aan te geven...

Er zijn rond Almere wel meer byzondere wegen te vinden.
Ik wordt af en toe over fietspaden geleid (met auto routering) omdat bij nader inzien blijkt dat die als Fietspad, Alles mag erover zijn gemarkeerd.
naoliv (2017-08-27 23:52:28+00:00): gpscol, os nomes das ruas você está obtendo de onde, por favor?
gpscol (2017-08-29 16:44:36+00:00): Boa tarde Naoliv.

Obtive na Prefeitura o mapa oficial da cidade, os nomes foram extraídos desta fonte. 

Abraço
M!dgard (2017-08-27 20:39:17+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 51484870, 51487008.
Thomas8122 (2017-08-29 12:42:53+00:00): hab dieses Changeset rückgängig gemacht, da es schon korrekte Öffnungszeiten kaputt gemacht hat, btw. 'Namen geändert' stimmt ja wohl nicht
ViriatoLusitano (2017-08-27 21:42:28+00:00): Obrigado pela ajuda.
SanityChek (2017-08-28 10:54:14+00:00): I'm not quite sure what's happened, but it looks like your recent revert has confused many of the paths associated with the parliament building, and just touching it seems to make it worse. Things that should be connected are. Is it possible to roll back to a stable state before this point?
TheSwavu (2017-08-28 11:01:34+00:00): Something went wrong with the reverter plugin and it's only partially reverted the changeset. I'm still trying to figure out if there is a way to get it to undo all of the changes in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/51485067, or if I should revert this changeset and try another approach.
SanityChek (2017-08-28 11:07:34+00:00): Personally I'd be OK with reverting things till it's stable again. I've been gradually trying to make a reasonable Parliament building with the limited capabilities of simple 3D building - but its mainly a case of working round the bugs (building.part and skillion roofs don't work well). I was nearly there....
SanityChek (2017-08-28 11:59:43+00:00): Personally I'd be OK with reverting things till it's stable again. I've been gradually trying to make a reasonable Parliament building with the limited capabilities of simple 3D building - but its mainly a case of working round the bugs (building.part and skillion roofs don't work well). I was nearly there....
TheSwavu (2017-08-30 08:41:05+00:00): OK. I have reverted this changeset and all of the downstream dependent changesets.

I have done a check, using Overpass, of the data inside State Circle and it is now identical to what is was just before this changeset.

Anything that's broken now is due to changeset  #51485067.

Once again apologies for breaking your data. I still don't know why the reverter didn't fully revert the changeset.
SanityChek (2017-08-30 22:55:24+00:00): Many thanks, I'll have to crack on now and get it finished into a stable state - then make sure there's a backup !
TheSwavu (2017-08-30 23:59:30+00:00): There's always a backup:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API/Overpass_QL#Attic_data_.28.22date.22.29

That's how I checked to make sure everything had gone back to how it was just before this changeset.
ZeroJeden (2017-08-28 12:11:14+00:00): Problem w tym że oznakowanie pionowe na miejscu mówi co innego. Przy wjeździe w granice rezerwatu stoi znak jedynie z zakazem ruchu konnego, a dopiero na skrzyżowaniu ścieżek 200m dalej, już w środku rezerwatu, stoi znak zakazu ruchu rowerowego. Na drogach publicznych sprawa byłaby jasna - to znaki zastane na miejscu decydują o dostępności, a nie regulaminy niedostępne dla użytkowników na miejscu. Oczywiście w sytuacji rezerwatu sprawa jest mniej jednoznaczna.
Rafal-R (2017-08-29 22:24:45+00:00): Nie jest mniej jednoznaczna. Rowerem w rezerwatach można się poruszać wyłącznie po wytyczonych szlakach. Skoro brakuje znaku informującego o dopuszczeniu ruchu rowerowego, to nie powinno się tam wjeżdżać rowerem. Tę sprawę reguluje ustawa o ochronie przyrody. Wstęp jest dopuszczony wyłącznie na oznakowane szlaki.