piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Polarbear (2020-06-06 23:02:08+00:00): Hallo !bm,
Flurstücke geben die Eigentumsverhältnisse wieder, leisure=park die Nutzung. Das ist nicht notwendigerweise identisch, gibt aber wichtige Hinweise. 
Der Park findet aus gartenarchitektonischer Sicht mit dem Gebäude way 453832399 seinen westlichen Abschluss. Das sieht auch das Denkmalamt so, wie wir aus der dort verlinkten Karte ( https://fbinter.stadt-berlin.de/fb/index.jsp?loginkey=zoomToMapById&mapId=denkmal@senstadt&Id=FLD_09046182 ) entnehmen können und lizenzrechtlich in Berlin auch dürfen. Auf der Grundlage hast du ja auch den Zipfel im Nordwesten mit einbezogen, da stimme ich dir gern zu.
Hingegen sehe ich keinen Anhaltspunkt, warum Flurstück 283 (way 276797459) Teil des Parkes sein sollte. 
In der K5 trennt die beiden eine Strichpunktlinie (deren Bedeutung noch zu klären wäre).
In der historischen Geoportal-Karte "Berlin um 1986" ist 286 als Baumbestand dem Wohnquartier zugerechnet.
In mapillary geht eine Aufzeichnung durch, dort sehe ich keine Ausschilderung, und die Grünfläche sieht landschaftlich auch eher dem Wohnblock zugehörig aus. 

Viele Grüsse
Leo Slager (2020-03-21 00:40:55+00:00): Dat is geen bezwaar. Inmiddels is de tag ruim 9500 keer op de kaart gezet, dus er is duidelijk wel behoefte aan.
Paashaas (2020-03-22 11:38:20+00:00): Okay, dank voor je bericht, ik dacht al, er is wel vraag naar :)
user_5359 (2020-03-20 20:02:09+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Don't add a key, if you don't know the value (e.g. horse=unknown).
Constable (2020-03-28 07:04:13+00:00): Ciao, perché hai rimosso questa strada forestale? https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=82443071
gu104pa360 (2020-03-28 08:48:58+00:00): gran parte di questa strada non esiste
Constable (2020-03-28 09:28:42+00:00): ok, geoportale regionale e immagini aeree sembrano confermare. Grazie
eteb3 (2021-09-03 22:25:43+00:00): Hi abc26324

Could I ask about the retaining wall you've put here? My info is that it doesn't form a boundary of the bus station with the north-south arm as you have it - it just runs E-W on the longer 'side' you have put.

Thanks
gscscnd (2020-03-22 16:40:42+00:00): 1. Do czego mają służyć węzły z tagiem noexit: <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7313167011> i <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7313167037>?
2. Droga <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783121156/history>: highway=track implikuje m.in. bicycle=yes i foot=yes. Poprawione w <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82488322>.
gscscnd (2020-03-31 07:29:54+00:00): 3. Utworzyłeś węzeł <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7313166995> jako połączenie linii energetycznej <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306655947> i toru <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783121154>. W rzeczywistości te obiekty nie mają punktu wspólnego. W JOSM możesz użyć narzędzia „Odłącz węzeł od linii” (Alt+J), żeby to poprawić (odłącz węzeł od linii energetycznej, niech zostanie na torze).
czubi (2020-03-20 19:01:07+00:00): Sieht das noch so aus wie auf dem Bild? 
http://gasthausrennsteig.de/
Dann sind da auch nicht 2 Schutzhütten sondern nur eine und der von dir getaggten Shelter sind 2 überdachte Picknicplätze
Balewupp (2020-03-20 20:12:54+00:00): Es gibt einen Picknicplatz(R-Möbel), eine offene Schutzhütte und, wenn du das so siehst, einen überdachten Picknicplatz.
Alles ok.
Wie kann man einen Rettungspunkt der Rettungskette Forst darstellen?
czubi (2020-03-20 20:21:59+00:00): ich habe sie dir nebeneinander gemacht. mal den bereich neu laden. dann kannst du sie sehen und an die richtige stelle verschieben
czubi (2020-03-20 18:32:18+00:00): das HAus heist nicht so, eher die GAststätte oder?
Balewupp (2020-03-20 18:46:00+00:00): Beides heißt Waldschänke (auch Waldschenke) Dreiherrnstein (ohne 3. e)
czubi (2020-03-20 18:50:23+00:00): nö.
http://geo.hlipp.de/photo/45564
Balewupp (2020-03-20 18:52:55+00:00): Was „nö“??
czubi (2020-03-20 19:06:20+00:00): Nö sollte heißen draussen am Haus steht nur Dreiherrnstein und sonst nichts.
Das Haus heisst demnach also Dreiherrnstein und die Gaststätte Waldschänke Dreiherrnstein.
Balewupp (2020-03-20 20:16:55+00:00): Genau.
Die Örtlichkeit heißt Dreiherrenstein, die Kneipe Dreiherrnstein, so wie das wir Einheimischen sagen.
czubi (2020-03-20 20:27:49+00:00): Wenn du sowas abbilden willst stehen dir noch loc_name und reg_name zur Verfügung.
loc_name für local und reg_name für regional
erickdeoliveiraleal (2020-06-11 18:18:27+00:00): algumas restrições eram obsoletas, a via unica ja resolve o problema
muralito (2020-03-21 19:00:48+00:00): No, no no. The road is "residential" as our standar and wiki says.

"tertiary" are Magallanes and Minas, but not this street.

What makes you think otherwise?

You should not force network consistency, as it isnt consitent in the real world.
CapAhab (2020-03-23 18:08:18+00:00): I made this classification update to connect Guayabo with Canelones and Maldonado

I will set it back to residential
gscscnd (2020-03-22 16:24:27+00:00): 1. Przesunąłeś węzeł <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1601551762> o 400 m znacząco zmieniając przebieg drogi <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/299839601>. Poprawione w <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82487794>.
2. Droga <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783125345>: tag highway=path implikuje m.in. bicycle=yes, foot=yes, horse=yes i motor_vehicle=no. access=yes nie bardzo pasuje do highway=path. Podzieliłem drogę na dwie części: <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/82487961>.
eggie (2020-03-20 19:13:32+00:00): review.. Dag All in One... Goed dat je zaken actueel maakt. Je zou nog kunnen toevoegen de specificatie van highway=construction met   construction=??  unclassified??
construction wil zeggen dat er al aan de weg wordt gewerkt. Is er nog niets te zien dan highway=proposed
MVG,
Eggie
Luzandro (2020-03-21 07:28:46+00:00): Hallo Manfred,

bitte verwende für solche Kommentare die Hinweis/Fehler-Meldung und vergib keine Eigennamen auf irgendwelche Punkte in der Umgebung
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2125991

Wenn überhaupt könnte man es als Notiz speichern (im iD-Editor im Browser unter "Feld hinzufügen" "Notiz" eingeben), dann aber auch auf den entsprechenden Endpunkt des Weges und nicht auf einen daneben, der nichts mit dem Weg zu tun hat. In dem Fall finde ich es aber generell nicht angebracht.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:note

LG Andreas
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/82444162
Manfred_WW (2020-03-21 20:07:15+00:00): Vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Der Punkt sollte wieder gelöscht werden!
Mein Absicht war es, dieses Teilstück des Wienerwaldachters zu markieren. 
Aber so passiert es eben, wenn man nach dem Prinzip "Trial and Error " arbeitet.
Paul_012 (2020-08-20 09:09:38+00:00): The "windmill" on Si Lom Rd. is a sculpture, not an actual functioning windmill. Partially reverted.
km2bp (2020-08-20 18:38:04+00:00): Thanks for correcting. Always show the exact place to which you have your attention. The changelog contains many places. I had to look for this windmill


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2089581694/history
Paul_012 (2020-08-21 20:38:43+00:00): Sorry about that; it's quite a well-known local landmark and I incorrectly assumed that the description would be adequate.
km2bp (2020-08-21 20:43:44+00:00): No problem  There is a photo attached to the windmill and one photo replaces 1000 words of description
czubi (2020-03-21 09:20:40+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7313670643

Die Schranke musst du Auf die Straße setzen und mit der Straße verbinden. Sonst weis der Router nicht das er da stoppen muss
czubi (2020-03-21 09:22:19+00:00): eine Schranke hat automatisch access=no impliziert. Du musst also die erlaubten Verkehre freigeben.
In dem FAll vermutlich foot=yes und bicyle=yes
czubi (2020-03-21 09:22:55+00:00): Sachen mit no brauchst du nicht dranschreiben
Balewupp (2020-03-21 09:27:00+00:00): Hab ich erledigt
muralito (2020-03-21 18:56:26+00:00): No please. This is residential.

How many times should i say that there is not such concept as "network consistency" in Uruguay. Do not try to force, as it is not real.
CapAhab (2020-03-23 17:29:34+00:00): Sorry about this change, I see in Mapillary this is indeed best classified as residential
Hjart (2020-03-21 08:41:32+00:00): They are shown here though: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7004036160
Enock4seth (2022-10-02 21:23:14+00:00): I am not sure how you came up with https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/783148500 and others here, can you please clarify or you are just fantasy mapping?
user_3022894 (2020-03-28 21:28:53+00:00): Hi Maracuja,
darf ich dir einen Tipp geben? Zu https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6504862560 : Bushaltestellen neben der Straße sind immer public_transport=platform, keine stop_position. stop_positions müssen immer auf der Straße liegen. Bei Änderungen von Bushalte-Punkten wäre ich allerdings erst mal vorsichtig, da die Relationen dann oft mit geändert werden müssen und das etwas komplizierter ist, wenn ich das mal so sagen darf. Viele Grüße, Lukas
Maracuja (2020-03-28 23:19:58+00:00): Hi Lukas,
danke für den Kommentar. Ich habe die Bushaltestelle nochmal überarbeitet und auf dem Bürgersteig eine public_transport=platform hinzugefügt, sowie den fehlerhaften Node entfernt, da dort schon eine stop_position an der richtigen Stelle auf der Straße platziert ist.
Viele Grüße, Marajuca aka Tim
user_3022894 (2020-03-29 10:41:16+00:00): Hi Tim, 
super, danke dir!
Viele Grüße, Lukas
chlenix (2020-03-20 23:15:17+00:00): А зачем заменять тип дороги? Разве там не жилая зона?
chlenix (2020-03-20 23:20:31+00:00): Якщо знак «Житлова зона» відсутній, потрібно використовувати наступну комбінацію теґів: highway=residential (чи highway=service для дворових зон, прилеглих територій) + living_street=yes
chlenix (2020-03-20 23:24:42+00:00): вроде понял про это: Теґ highway=living_street використовується лише для тих, і тільки тих, доріг, які позначені відповідним знаком «Житлова зона»!
Vinber (2020-03-21 11:17:31+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue dans OpenStreetMap,

un petit mot ici pour faciliter votre arrivée : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:WikiProject_France/bienvenue

Cas particulier / Si vous êtes en seconde, en cours de SNT, veuillez faire suivre à votre enseignant-e le lien suivant https://dane.ac-lyon.fr/spip/spip.php?article628 (par avance merci !).

Dans tous les cas, n'hésitez pas à répondre, poser des questions, ...

Vincent

PS : 2 liens souvent utiles : 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bonnes_pratiques#N.27utilisez_pas_de_tag_name_pour_d.C3.A9crire_des_choses.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bonnes_pratiques#Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications
Vinber (2020-03-21 11:18:38+00:00): Les noms sont plutôt écrits avec une majuscule au début puis en minuscule !
GATINE -> Gatine
TOURGARNIER -> Tourgarnier
Je vous laisse faire ?
lethiop_1 (2020-03-21 11:49:11+00:00): J'ai tout mis en majuscule comme sur les panneaux. Il faut que je change du coup?
Vinber (2020-03-21 11:53:03+00:00): Oui, l'usage est effectivement de mettre plutôt la majuscule en début et en minuscule ensuite : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Toponymes,_odonymes#Odonymes.2C_noms_de_voies_de_communication

D'ailleurs si vous regardez un peu au sud, la Rue de la Gatine est "correcte".

Bienvenu et si vous avez des questions n'hésitez pas !
MicDK (2020-03-21 11:10:18+00:00): Hey,

Names can be used for nodes, ways and areas: Please see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name

I have for six years been naming buildings (areas) used by only one company with the companys name.

In buildings with more then one company I use tags with the companys name.

I'm following the convention, so please do not start deleting all my company names on building with solely one company.
archie (2020-03-21 19:32:07+00:00): What you say is certainly right for buildings which are retail/commercial/industrial but not adequate for builings for residential use or in a residential area. But you are right, it looks nice on carto with those lables. Consider if you did it wrong for six years. 
While you are at it, what about fixing all those mp-errors which you caused. See: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=10.62342&lat=55.01135&zoom=12
MicDK (2020-03-22 14:39:44+00:00): I'm following the convention and the way hundreds of other mappers are doing it. It has nothing to do with mapping to look nice. It has to do with avoiding a lot of unnecessary tags with information that can be given under the specifikations for the building.

Please note the buildings you have tampered with are in an industrial - not in a residential area. And that they not are buildings designated for living.

Please consider stop correcting things you think are wrong, just because they're not mapped as you would have mapped it.

And please stop using "whataboutism" to support your personal views. Don't use cheap tricks in an attemp to strenghten your arguments.

I'm working in the same area and I'm ongoing correcting all observed changes and errors. But I will not do it all the time. I want to map. 

It's not wrong to tag the way you do. It's just an alternative solution to the way I do it. Let's accept that!
MicDK (2020-03-21 11:10:25+00:00): Hey,

Names can be used for nodes, ways and areas: Please see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name

I have for six years been naming buildings (areas) used by only one company with the companys name.

In buildings with more then one company I use tags with the companys name.

I'm following the convention, so please do not start deleting all my company names on building with solely one company.
archie (2020-03-21 19:31:54+00:00): What you say is certainly right for buildings which are retail/commercial/industrial but not adequate for builings for residential use or in a residential area. But you are right, it looks nice on carto with those lables. Consider if you did it wrong for six years. 
While you are at it, what about fixing all those mp-errors which you caused. See: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=10.62342&lat=55.01135&zoom=12
MicDK (2020-03-22 14:01:51+00:00): I checked it up. The company Ind-Tryk has moved, so tag is deleted.
archie (2020-03-23 00:18:08+00:00): So, Ind-Tryk has moved and you did not retag the building because the name "Ind-Tryk" is associated with the business rather than with the building? This is precisely my point. 

As to your "following the convention"; if you make a search with overpass limited to only Fyn you will notice that there are only 4 (four) buildings (non-retail/industrial/commercial) which are tagged the way you do. All of these user/editors have - as you do have - less experience. 
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/543244201
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/543244199
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/544959072
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/544959073

The majority of businesses/crafts wihtin residential buildings are tagged as I advocate, on a node inside the building: 

- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4709601705
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5418124652
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5909785699
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6682091011
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3884140820
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7189098378
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4823363940
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3404320564
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7228416818
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3888090611
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3884140822
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4962359381

... there are a few more, check it yourself. All these latter taggings where made by more experienced users/editors than yourself. So you are not following convention and practise at all.
MicDK (2020-03-23 08:01:52+00:00): Sorry to say, but just because you would like to tag in another way, doesn't mean an you are right. You just want to be right and that is not the same thing. 

I am following the convention om how to use names. Names can be used on tags, lines and areas. I am using it on areas in cases like this. You're using it on tags.

Both approaches are according to the conventions. Neither is marked as wrong in Osmose or in OSMInspector. And I will not use valuable time to find multiple examples on the map that supports my way of doing things. 

That's it. End of discussion. Instead of using your time and energy on fokusing on details which are not exactly as you want them to be, look for actual faults or missing things in the map and correct them.
MicDK (2020-03-21 11:09:57+00:00): Hey,

Names can be used for nodes, ways and areas: Please see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name

I have for six years been naming buildings (areas) used by only one company with the companys name.

In buildings with more then one company I use tags with the companys name.

I'm following the convention, so please do not start deleting all my company names on building with solely one company.
archie (2020-03-21 19:32:17+00:00): What you say is certainly right for buildings which are retail/commercial/industrial but not adequate for builings for residential use or in a residential area. But you are right, it looks nice on carto with those lables. Consider if you did it wrong for six years. 
While you are at it, what about fixing all those mp-errors which you caused. See: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=10.62342&lat=55.01135&zoom=12
MicDK (2020-03-22 14:40:44+00:00): I'm following the convention and the way hundreds of other mappers are doing it. It has nothing to do with mapping to look nice. It has to do with avoiding a lot of unnecessary tags with information that can be given under the specifikations for the building.

Please note the buildings you have tampered with are in an industrial - not in a residential area. And that they not are buildings designated for living.

Please consider stop correcting things you think are wrong, just because they're not mapped as you would have mapped it.

And please stop using "whataboutism" to support your personal views. Don't use cheap tricks in an attemp to strenghten your arguments.

I'm working in the same area and I'm ongoing correcting all observed changes and errors. But I will not do it all the time. I want to map.

It's not wrong to tag the way you do. It's just an alternative solution to the way I do it. Let's accept that!
archie (2020-03-22 17:01:55+00:00): Well as I collect it two of the "virksomheder" are in residential area of Strammelse.
MicDK (2020-03-23 08:03:52+00:00): It's not uncommon to have "holes" inside residential areas with f.x. commercial and industrial areas.
archie (2020-03-23 08:30:08+00:00): You are telling me
VictorIE (2020-03-22 21:35:09+00:00): Duplicated buildings in this area, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783164145
eggie (2020-03-20 21:41:12+00:00): Dag Dannox,
Wegen zolas  op een parkeerplaats zullen niet highway=unclassified zijn. ...Eerder highway=service service=parking_aile
Kijk nog even naar de Mira vlak bij de rotonde. 
Eigenlijk zijn alle niet doorgaande straten in woonwijken highway=residential
Niet te verwarren met doorgaande straten in woonwijken waar de hoofdmoot van het verkeer doorloopt. Dat is unclassified.


Je edits.http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=82447164

Wellicht heb je hier iets aan. Nederlandse wiki wegentagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:The_Netherlands_roads_tagging
Gr eggie
Dannox (2020-03-20 21:47:15+00:00): Ahja. Ik ben het alleen vergeten vlakbij de rotonde. Ik heb dit volgens mij bij de andere twee parkeerplaatsen wel gedaan.. Bedankt in elk geval!
eggie (2020-03-20 22:16:17+00:00): Het wordt nog wat daar. :)
Om te voorkomen dat zo'n gebouw weer  met de zelfde vaart terugkomt in OSM  bij periodieke import kun je het beste een terugmelding doen via de site van het Kadaster. "Gebouw niet aangetroffen" https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=mira%208%20veld&resultOffset=0&objectId=0861100000365365&geometry.x=155670.69099573&geometry.y=380255.59399851&zoomlevel=7&detailsObjectId=
Doe je dat zelf?
Gr eggie
Dannox (2020-03-20 22:25:06+00:00): Bij deze gedaan. Bedankt voor de info!
VictorIE (2020-03-22 21:34:48+00:00): Duplicated buildings in this area, e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/783169740
DeBigC (2020-03-22 22:06:30+00:00): Sorted out now
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-01 15:37:51+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/540519467/history has sport=team_handball that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
Would sport=handball (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dhandball ) be fitting at least equally well?
5R-MFT (2024-02-01 22:07:55+00:00): updated to sport=handball
Colin Smale (2020-03-22 17:35:55+00:00): Why did you delete the bus stops on Chertsey Rd? An explanation would be good.
rskedgell (2020-03-29 12:54:04+00:00): I'm rather more concerned about the creation of the imaginary River Midway (now deleted).
SomeoneElse (2022-08-26 21:39:42+00:00): Hello Traaker_L,

Just to confirm - does the source here "Kaart Ground Survey 2020" mean that you definitely surveyed all of these on the ground?  The reason that I ask is that some of these ways (such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/568421816/history ) had names from a source that isn't compatible with OSM.  If you've actually surveyed e.g. "Jalan Ixora 2" here, then we won't need to remove the name, but if you've only expanded it from "Jl. Ixora 2" then we will.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.
Baconcrisp (2022-09-12 14:32:40+00:00): Hello Andy,

Traaker_L is no longer with Kaart, but I can answer your question on their behalf.

We did do a ground survey in 2020, but we didn't drive every street. It looks like we only drove the primary in this area we can be found here: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=5.351674779389882&lng=100.53981115708291&z=15.444986080692127&focus=map&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=1643680066020456&x=NaN&y=NaN&zoom=0. I checked the history of the way in question and it looks like the name was added by user:dudnickiy and Traaker_L expanded the name. You can remove these names as we cannot confirm it with our ground imagery.


Please let us know if we can help you with anything else!

Baconcrisp
SomeoneElse (2022-09-12 14:35:15+00:00): Thanks - I'll sort that out.
vespax (2022-09-12 14:53:43+00:00): I'll note, it appears the names were extended out to residential roads based on naming convention in the area. Meaning that systematic assumptions may be used to fill out road names based on numeric naming conventions.  I can't say exactly for this area, but in many parts of the region that can be an accurate approach to filling in missing road names. Thanks for your attention to the issue regardless of outcome.
SomeoneElse (2022-09-25 09:56:02+00:00): Thanks - I've removed the names in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126609024 .
One more question - some names in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74061896 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73730163 were changed "prior to Kaart ground survey".  Did that survey happen and did it verify the names?
vespax (2022-09-26 14:12:51+00:00): Kaart conducted the survey in 2020, with an objection of adding new names by visual verification to street missing names. Streets that had previous names would be left as they were tagged or updated with a new observed name.
SomeoneElse (2022-09-26 14:18:50+00:00): Great - so that means I can assume that the name of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/300116093/history has been verified on the ground?
The name before your survey was from an unknown (we suspect incompatible) source, but if your survey has validated the name, then the name is OK to keep, as it has been surveyed.
vespax (2022-09-26 15:57:08+00:00): On that specific way I can not say with certainty we looked at the road. Most often there will be Mapillary nearby since we run cameras continuously (unless a camera fails and turns off for some technical issue). For the way you linked to, the closest mapillary image is on the main road and not captured by Kaart. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=951301192336980