piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
miepure (2015-08-02 08:21:26+00:00): Yea, I connected 'Strada Constanta' with 'Piata Avram Iancu' and ' Bulevardul 21 Decembrie 1989' on the same node, so that routing is not affected. Before, the little segment connecting 'Piata Avram Iancu' and 'Strada Constanta' was not quite correct as there was no lane separator between the two.
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-08-01 22:04:19+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/315201838#map=19/54.38507/18.46557 - to jest rondo czy tylko zawrotka?
bo nie wiem czy dodać junction=roundabout...
adamkami1 (2015-08-06 18:35:33+00:00): Właśnie usunąłem z tej zawrotki junction=rundabout. Po pierwsze brak tam znaku ronda, po drugie znajduje się to na zakończeniu drogi serwisowej na terenie BCB Business Park, dalej są tylko pola, co to za rondo z jednym wjazdem będącym równocześnie zjazdem. Byłem tam rowerem i sprawdzałem naocznie jak to wygląda.
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-08-06 18:56:36+00:00): W takim razie podzieliłem to kółko na dwie części, żeby ta zawrotka nie zawracała głowy swoim istnieniem.
DeBigC (2021-07-30 11:36:34+00:00): Spring Garden Street as it touches Annesley Place has a little shopping district, which indeed deserves a landuse, but it seems to be having a polygon identity crisis as it trims around the building edges - impossible. The other problem, unless there is a different railway embankment to what my poor Mapillary suggests is that the commercial landuse veers out over/under the bridge to the west. What do you reckon?
VictorIE (2021-07-30 14:11:22+00:00): The railway there is a series of arches and bridges, It is only embankment west of Bsallybough Road.

My impression was that Kelly's (mapped as 3 buildings, 2 landuse) was all one site from North Strand to west of the railway, likely including under the railway arches. They could be given a single landuse=retail

My recollection from 2014-2015 was there were two different, but related, Kelly's brandings.

Foley's Motors (mapped as a node and landuse) should be a single object.

The other shops, facing North Strand deserve their own landuse=retail - that should avoid any confusion with Kelly's.
GerdP (2015-10-18 17:13:10+00:00): please review:
the tag name=Harselaarseweg
appears on some highway=service 
roads. 
way 337957201 has invalid tag
highway=service;unclassified
GerdP (2015-10-28 07:47:46+00:00): I tried to fix it, see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34920359
mhrana98 (2019-07-30 06:56:19+00:00): Hey Thank you for your contribution on OSM platform, Here, when I am working I have seen that, you have used natural=water, water=canal for tagging a canal body. But in our country we are using waterway=riverbank to identify waterway bodies. If you need more information about this type of tagging, you can visit http://www.imagico.de/map/osm_water_en.php Keep mapping. Thank you.
Seandebasti (2019-07-30 16:02:09+00:00): Yes, I know. In earlier ages of my contribution time I used canal, because it wasused by others. But since I realized its an older tag I used riverbank.thx
Seandebasti (2019-07-30 16:05:16+00:00): but actually in this changeset Iaready used riverbank (look in the chronics) so where did you see my error? ( I wanna see my mistake to correct and understand)
mhrana98 (2019-07-31 04:40:27+00:00): I've changed your work. Here is screenshot see your mistake.
Thank You

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PMmTD_hcISw8NVhHH8G0Q17O8Dwd3c0X?usp=sharing
muralito (2015-08-11 03:25:35+00:00): Hola. ¿Porque borraste esta calle de servicio? ¿Tampoco existe mas?
trial (2015-10-10 20:49:33+00:00): Hi, you've changed the border_type from eez to administrative, this is wrong, as the sea-side territorial boundary is the 12 NM, not the 200 NM boundary. As stated in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dmaritime#Territorial_sea_.2812.C2.A0nm_zone.29 :
This line should also be member of the border relation surrounding the country.
jptolosa (2015-10-13 17:05:50+00:00): Hi, the line surrounding the country 200 nm offshore wasn't made by me. I've just changed the tags of this line from eez to territorial according peruvian laws (Peru is not suscribed to UNCLOS). But my change doesn't affect rendering.
Greetings.
trial (2015-10-13 20:10:10+00:00): Hi, that's exactly what I'm saying: the 200 NM (i.e. the previous version) as eez is correct.
It's the eez border, and it was correct.
Do you mean that Peru considers its eez as being territorial water?
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters, you're right but the rules for boundaries (at least on shore!) is to set the highest tag in the hierarchy (if a boundary separates two districts of two countries, the level is set to country).
Using this rule, the border_type should remain eez.
http://www.marineregions.org/eezdetails.php?eez_id=138 shows the eez, and that's correct.
Moreover according to http://www.indexmundi.com/peru/maritime_claims.html, its a claim, not a decision.

BTW, I was looking at eez already described in OSM, using overpassturbo :
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/c0B
And suddendly I saw the (to me at least) strange territorial water of Peru.
If you don't say boundary_type=administrative the display is not correct?
Then the renderers have to be updated, not the data - I mean 200 NM=EEZ).
jptolosa (2015-10-13 22:06:11+00:00): OK, you're right. I change 200 nm boundary to eez. However, this change doesn't affect osm render, because the countries are "enclosed" by a boundary relation: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary

The problem is the robot-generated-12nm-border from Peru coast was deleted by other user, I think.
trial (2015-10-14 19:11:22+00:00): indeed, for two reasons, the one you said and the one I said (eez are not rendered, not even on OpenSeaMap... yet).
Normally we should create a UNCLOS territorial water, describe Peru using this 12 NM border, add a "second Peru" for the claimed part, right? It would be neutral.
4rch (2015-11-10 22:15:03+00:00): Peru hasn't ratified the "Law of the Sea" so it isn't bound to the 12 nm rule for territorial waters.
The Peruvian territorial waters currently measures 200 nautical miles (see Peruvian laws, ICJ decision Chile vs. Peru, etc.) Please be careful when you edit boundaries. Thanks.
http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/table_summary_of_claims.pdf

Greetings from Germany!
jptolosa (2015-11-10 23:55:44+00:00): According [OSM rules](http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dmaritime#Territorial_sea_.2812.C2.A0nm_zone.29) territorial water is 12nm for all countries. 200 nm of territorial sea is only a claim and OSM should be a neutral map. Other countries that claims 200nm of territorial sea appears until 12 nm solely. Why Peru is the exception? Please consider this before making your last change.
trial (2015-11-11 16:06:13+00:00): as  jptolosa87 said, this is a claim and 4rch refers to a claim too. Being neutral doesn't mean to accept the de facto invasion of the EEZ! Grüße aus Frankreich/Greetings from France (apologize for the strange language - German - today it's the celebration of the end of WWI - a good day for trying to deescalate potential conflicts)
4rch (2015-11-11 19:33:23+00:00): @jptolosa87: This is a informations page, these are no rules. I've written some parts of this page and I can say that you've misunderstood what I've written on this page.
4rch (2015-11-11 19:35:02+00:00): @trial: 12 nautical miles limit of Chile, etc. is also a claim. All boundaries in the world are just claims.
trial (2015-11-11 21:39:40+00:00): @4rch
no, there are international agreements and conventions, for instance the outer limit of a EEZ is 200 NM from the baseline (by default), for territorial waters it's usually 12 NM, 6 or 3 in some areas. That some countries may want something different (like the 200 NM extension of territorial waters), shouldn't be reflected by OSM expect if there is some consensus. If the referenced document, you can see for instance Ireland, UK and France making a common proposal for their shared waters.
About your comment to jptolosa87, I think you should explain what in why and maybe reformulate this part on the wiki (may be you did in a pm).
4rch (2015-11-11 21:43:59+00:00): @trial: Peru hasn't ratified the convention (UNCLOS) so it isn't bound to it. As you've already said, the territorial waters usually measure 12 nautical miles, but not always...
4rch (2015-11-11 21:50:57+00:00): http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part17.htm

No sentence that the convention is mandatory for every state in the world.
jptolosa (2015-11-11 22:52:00+00:00): @4rch
My changeset is according with OSM rules. Please read it here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dmaritime#Territorial_sea_.2812.C2.A0nm_zone.29
This boundary type was always set in EEZ. Why you insist otherwise?
user_599436 (2015-08-20 10:12:24+00:00): In this changeset you've changed the oneway tag of a way from -1 to yes without reversing the direction of the way. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218448262

This makes routing over the bridge impossible. I suspect this is from a JOSM warning that doesn't like the oneway=-1 tag.
Zeke76 (2015-08-21 01:06:23+00:00): Hi zeromap, Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I went in and corrected those one way section.
user_599436 (2015-08-21 01:32:31+00:00): Thanks!
5m4u9 (2015-08-03 02:53:48+00:00): Thank you. There are no many contributors and your edits are very helpful!
mavl (2015-08-02 11:07:45+00:00): Здравствуйте.

Спасибо за добавление информации в OpenStreetMap.

Вы забыли указать теги для некоторых линий:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/363538182  
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/363538190  
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/363538193  

Если не трудно, то добавьте, пожалуйста, для них теги. Иначе их никак нельзя будет использовать.

Вы обозначили дороги в «Приозёрном» тегом highway=living_street. Этот тег используется для улиц, которые обозначены дорожным знаком «Жилая зона». В «Приозёрном» действительно все эти улицы обозначены знаком «Жилая зона»?

Если нет, то улицы нужно обозначать тегом highway=residential.
Nakaner (2015-08-04 14:20:04+00:00): Könntest du bitte beim Hochladen deiner Änderungen einen aussagekräftigen Änderungssatz-Kommentar eingeben? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments

Du brauchst übrigens nicht nach jedem neu gezeichneten Haus auf "Speichern" klicken. ;-)
Ewen Hill (2015-08-02 10:06:20+00:00): Great work!
GerdP (2023-08-12 10:14:17+00:00): Moin aus Wildeshausen!
Wegen bicycle=no und foot=no:
Ich frage mich, ob dort wirklich Verbotsschilder für Radfahrer stehen oder ob das nicht besser bicycle=use_sidepath 
foot=use_sidepath 
sein sollte. Auf meinen Fotos sehe ich dort nur VZ 240, also "benutzungspflichtiger Geh+Radweg".
maraf24 (2015-08-02 08:40:58+00:00): Proszę sobie poczytać jak się podaje godziny otwarcia: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:opening_hours
trasa_gd (2015-08-03 20:36:05+00:00): Dobrym zwyczajem jest zwięźle komentować zmiany
Mateusz Konieczny (2017-11-11 16:21:36+00:00): see http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1202907
HalverHahn (2015-08-11 09:52:28+00:00): Hallo jotpe,

du hast hier die ehemalige(?) Kreisstraße umdeklariert zur Straße ohne Klassifizierung. Wahrscheinlich hast du ein kleines Stück übersehen, weil dort noch K12 angezeigt wird.

Weiterhin hast du die Verkehrsbedeutung herabgestuft (highway-tag). Das halte ich hier für volkommen richtig, da der Bahnübergang bis zu 10-30 Minuten geschlossen bleiben kann. Dadurch ist der Verkehr auf der Straße ist wirklich minimal. Allerdings sollte das Tag für die Verkehrsbedeutung bis an die erste Autobahnauf-/abfahrt von Norden geführt werden. Genau da wo die Secondary endet.

Habe noch ein paar andere Änderungssätze von dir im selben Zeitraum entdeckt, bei denen du bei Straßen ohne Klassifizierung die Verkehrsbedeutung geändert hast. Gibt es dafür einen bestimmten Grund?

Aufgefallen ist mir das bei der Dellbrücker Hauptstraße, die immer sehr stark frequentiert ist.

freundliche Grüße
HalverHahn
jotpe (2015-08-11 18:50:18+00:00): Ich bin über brouter und seinen Routingentscheidungen dazu gekommen, dass zB im rechtsrheinischem Köln sehr viele Straßen nicht den amtlichen Klassifizierungen entsprechen.

In der Regel waren das highway=tertiary ohne ref. Genau die habe ich zu unclassified degradiert. Ich habe dann sogar eine Kreisstraße gefunden die noch gar nicht eingetragen war. Dann bin ich über eine Bundesstraße in Ehrenfeld gestolpert, die ich nicht jedoch geändert habe. Da gibt es 30er Zonen usw. Nochmal im Wiki nachgelesen, dass sich die Einordnung der Straßen nicht unbedingt die amtliche Klassifizierung sein sollte, sondern die tatsächliche Nutzung wiedergibt. Hm. Ja ich kann mich ganz dunkel an sowas Erinnern.

Dann waren die Änderungen wohl nicht so richtig. Aber auch nicht absolut falsch.

K 12 ist tatsächlich grütze. Hat jemand vor mir eingetragen. Habe ich entfernt.

Beste Grüße Johannes
HalverHahn (2015-08-11 19:54:18+00:00): Hmm, hattest du den Eindruck, dass der brouter nicht optimal routet? Ich bin mit dem sehr zufrieden. Man kann ja verschiedene Voreinstellungen (Verkehrsmittel) wählen und sogar selber Profile erstellen. Übrigens ist ein nicht gewünschtes Routing Ergebnis meistens kein Grund zum Ändern :)
.
Naja, also ich würde gerne deine Änderungen zurücknehemen. Weitere Gründe sind:
1. Wir brauchen nicht zwei unterschiedliche Tags (ref & highway), in denen praktisch die selbe Information steht. Grade die Verkehrsbedeutung ist interessant, besonders wenn man mit dem Rad unterwegs ist. OSM ist da praktisch einzigartig, das kann kaum eine andere Karte liefern. Außer vielleicht google, die die GPS-Signale der Autofahrer verfolgen.
2. Wahrscheinlich war die Verkehrsbedeutung vorher besser dem Einzelfall angepasst als die Vereinheitlichung auf Gemeinde-, Kreis- und Landstraßen.
.
Also ich würde folgende Änderungsdatensätze umkehren bzw. die klassifizierung zurücksetzen:
33039141 
33039178
33039202***
33043199
33043226
33044793***
33044912 
33054559 
33056249 
.
Die Porzer Ringstraße (dieser Änderungssatz) würde ich auf unclassified lassen/ändern, bis zur Autobahn/secondary.
.
Über die Poststraße im Datensatz 33039202 können wir reden, ob die unclassified bleiben soll.
kayle (2015-08-14 07:05:13+00:00): Ahoj, na túto cestu https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/363562727 si dal tag access=no a potom snáď všetky ostatné označujúce konkrétny prístup (pešo, bicykel, kôň, motorové vozidlo) zas yes. Moc to nedáva zmysel, je tam teda zákaz vstupu (súkromný pozemok, iba majiteľ.) Alebo je tam možné prísť, keď som napríklad zákazník.

Tiež prosím NEdávaj adresné informácie na ulicu, patria na budovu.

Ak by si mal s niečim problém, alebo niečomu nerozumel, kľudne sa pýtaj.
Tractor (2015-08-02 11:13:08+00:00): I slike tilfeller bruk name=* + loc_name=*.
seav (2015-08-02 17:50:50+00:00): Why did you delete the buildings? Unless these buildings don't actually exist, they should still be on the map even if they don't have names.
Bikarhêner (2017-12-20 20:25:56+00:00): Navê vî gundê ne Yapaklı ye. Divê hûn Yapraklı binivîsin. Navê wî yê bi kurdî jî "Pelkê" ye.
katpatuka (2017-12-21 07:05:11+00:00): Vikipedi, Vikisözlük, nisanyanmap.com'da hatta Kozluk kaymakam sitesinde Yapaklı olarak geçiyor... gerçek adı şimdi Yapraklı mı oldu? Levhalarda öyle mi yazıyor?

Pelkê arıyorsan zaten çıkıyordu da fakat Kozluk'ta iki ayrı Yap(r)aklı bile çıkıyor - hangisi doğru onu bilemem ;)
Nesim (2017-12-21 07:45:43+00:00): Serrastkirî ( Li gor hevale Bikarhêner me çekir )
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54806513#map=19/38.10050/41.48896
Jojo4u (2015-08-02 16:28:18+00:00): Hallo Mammi, die restrictions sind wegen access=no, bus=yes unnötig. Und ob nun aus der Zieglergasse/usw. eine Linienbus auf die Busspur biegen darf ist die drei Relationen nicht wert.
trasa_gd (2015-08-03 20:33:47+00:00): Uważam, że parking przed sklepem Ćwitałowski przy ul. Radarowej powinien zostać oznaczony, jak był. Jest pełnowymiarowy z parkowaniem prostopadłym do ulicy.
przemas75 (2015-08-04 10:10:05+00:00): http://bit.ly/1hh850n
Dalej to tak wygląda?
W mojej ocenie to nie parking.
Tak bym to opisał:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/363898153

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane/Examples

Uważam, że stosowanie amenity=parking dla tego typu "placyków" jest kompletnie błędne i wprowadza w błąd, bo ludzie zaczynają tak oznaczać każdą łachę piachy gdzie da się wcisnąć auta, nawet jeśli nie ma znaku 'P'.
Aczkolwiek masz po części rację, gdyż tam znajduje się sklep, więc amenity ma jak najbardziej zastosowanie. JEdnak nie jestem zwolennikiem takiego tagowania. 
Zrób jak uważasz :) Jeśli wolisz tam parking, to zmień. Chociaż w centrum miasta uważam, że tak już nie powinno być (że parking).
Te budynki i tak są do "poprawki", zachęcam do korzystania wms'a gis.gdansk.pl, ładnie widać budynki.

wms:http://91.235.231.143/arcgis/services/WMS_Mapa_bazowa/MapServer/WMSServer?STYLES=default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default,default&SERVICE=WMS&FORMAT=image/png&REQUEST=GetMap&HEIGHT={height}&WIDTH={width}&VERSION=1.1.1&BBOX={bbox}&LAYERS=0,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20,21,26,27,28,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,40,41,42,43,44,45,46&SRS={proj}&EXCEPTIONS=application/vnd.ogc.se_inimage&TRANSPARENT=false
I możemy korzystać - dostałem pozwolenie z wydziału geodezji Gdańska.
Mateusz Konieczny (2015-10-16 13:02:12+00:00): Nie jestem pewien czy rozdzielanie [highway=path, segregated=yes, bicycle=designated, foot=designated] na osobne [highway=cycleway] i [highway=footway] to dobry pomysł.
Mateusz Konieczny (2015-10-16 13:02:38+00:00): Usuwanie danych o nawierzchni to z pewnoscią zły pomysł - proszę, nie niszcz zebranych danych.
marc__marc (2020-11-14 14:36:38+00:00): Hello,
iwhat's the meaing of those undocumented tags  :
access_status=all_weather : did you mean (with a sign) access:conditional=yes @ wet ? or (without a signa) operational_status=yes @ wet
class=DCRN : meaning ? class was depreciated in 2006 in favor of highway=*
start_chainage : meaning ?
width:ROW : meaning ?
width:carriage -> width:lanes
project:url -> url as changeset tag
source as changeset tag (it's not the source of the whole object, only for the modifieds tags
Regards,
Marc
maraf24 (2015-08-02 20:42:22+00:00): Z faktu, że preset w Josm miał błąd nie wynika wcale konieczność masowej zmiany "public" na "yes". Fakt nieudokumentowania na wiki również nie czyni go błędnym ani zakazanym. Choć niewątpliwie to duplikat "yes".
Mateusz Konieczny (2015-08-23 12:44:44+00:00): Tak, "fix" nie do końca tutaj pasowało.
Mateusz Konieczny (2015-08-23 12:45:02+00:00): Pewnie "replace"/"improve" byłoby lepsze.
Jose Riha (2015-08-03 11:52:48+00:00): nazov ulice (addr:street) nie je znamy?
elfenlied (2015-08-03 14:32:01+00:00): Zrejme je to Streďanská, ale nie som si ešte úplne istý.
mavl (2015-08-03 16:53:12+00:00): Здравствуйте.

Это полезный пакет правок, но в нескольких местах на пересечении двух улиц не было общей точки. Сейчас эта ошибка исправлена. Если у пересекающихся улиц (дорог) нет общей точки, то считается, что они расположены на разных уровнях (на разной высоте). Например, в таком случае навигатор не сможет проложить маршрут с одной улицы на другую и будет искать другой путь.

Небольшая просьба на будущее. Избегайте, по возможности, тегов surface=paved и surface=unpaved. Они слишком неопределённы. Вместо них лучше сразу указать конкретный тип покрытия дороги:
surface=asphalt (асфальт)  
surface=concrete (бетон)  

surface=gravel (гравий)  
surface=ground (земля)  
surface=grass (трава)  
и тому подобное.  

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:surface
letihu (2016-09-21 18:49:29+00:00): Hier sind 2 Zeichen an gleicher Stelle
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3677435795/history
und
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3677448732/history
Eins ist sicher nicht ganz richtig.
letihu (2016-09-21 19:11:22+00:00): Welches Schild ist hier richtig?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3677448736/history
oder
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3677435793/history
Sie sind sogar an gleicher Stelle übereinander getaggt.
Jojo4u (2015-08-02 16:32:20+00:00): Das gleiche hier, die Relation ist nicht nötig da bereits durch access abgedeckt.
Totor (2015-08-06 06:00:17+00:00): Hi Nin Gel,
Be careful when deleting roads... 
Happy Mapping
nyampire (2015-08-17 02:10:12+00:00): こんにちは。

national-parkさんが作業された国立公園についてですが、主に2つの観点から、Talk-jaにて議論が行われています（1. インポート作業前のメーリングリストでの相談, 2. 利用されているデータのライセンス互換性）。

作業に関わった方からの意見も伺いたく、ぜひTalk-jaでの議論に参加ください。

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ja/2015-August/009017.html

また、インポート作業にあたっては、OSMが定めるガイドラインの遵守が求められています。

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%83%9D%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88/%E3%82%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%83%89%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3

よろしくお願いします。

If you could not read Japaese comment, please inform me so. I'll translate it into English :)
tosky (2015-08-02 21:05:48+00:00): L'intera via http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303520848 si chiama davvero Olive Alive? Capisco la traversa, ma non la via.
Adam_Piszczek (2015-08-05 17:39:06+00:00): No nie całkiem http://www.radiokrakow.pl/wiadomosci/nowy-sacz/nowa-obwodnica-nowego-sacza-otwarta-ale-tylko-na-jeden-dzien/
Adam_Piszczek (2015-08-07 08:34:42+00:00): a ten las ,masakra co to za dodatkowa linia?tak się nie rysuje
user_6110846 (2017-11-02 12:42:14+00:00): Жидівський цвинтар є трохи некоректною назвою адже  на Західній Україні це звичайне слово єврейський а починаючи з центру  та далі на схід воно має расистський зневажливий відтінок д о даного народу
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-08-02 16:01:02+00:00): Czy te drogi są już przejezdne? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/356109989
sdoerr (2015-08-02 21:59:15+00:00): What's this supposed to be: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/363589262 ?
Kevin Kofler (2015-08-02 14:44:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 33050324 where the changeset comment is: Wien 22 (Wagramer Straße 50): Revert my own changeset 33049278. The building is clearly still under construction by all evidence. The completed area (Lenas Strandbar) I remembered seeing is next door.
NittyGrittyInTheCity (2025-03-31 20:53:27+00:00): Bom dia baspng! Espero que você esteja bem. Espero confirmar o nome (Avenida Aldo Livorati) da rua nesta estrada, pois parece ser uma duplicata do que existe na rodovia 175343955. Vejo que você adicionou esses dois nomes de rua em 2015 e queria confirmar se isso ainda está atualizado até o momento. Obrigado pela ajuda!
maraf24 (2015-08-02 20:06:45+00:00): Bing is outdated regarding parking.
The current view: https://goo.gl/maps/EQfCu
mueschel (2015-08-02 20:13:56+00:00): Ok. This I couldn't see. The change necessary is rather trivial, on the left parking lane should be "parallel" in this case. However, I can't change it, since I only know from the google image and this I'm not allowed to use. You seem to know better...
lann (2018-01-03 19:03:19+00:00): Bonjour

Il y a une note sur cette portion de route de quelqu'un qui se plaint qu'elle ne soit pas routable.
Je pense que c'est à cause de la relation restriction interdiction de faire demi-tour que tu as créé.
Le wiki dit :
Si le premier terme est "no", la liaison entre le membre "from" et le membre "to" n'est pas routable.

Peux-tu arranger cela et fermer la note 

Merci
GerdP (2015-11-20 20:38:55+00:00): Hi there!
I've changed surface=316 to ref=316 . OK?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/46148381
GerdP (2015-10-15 15:27:59+00:00): please review:
way 107885451 has invalid tags 
highway=track;residential
surface=earth;cobblestone
Maybe split the way where the surface changes
Peilscheibe (2015-08-13 10:37:05+00:00): Nur interessehalber: die Zusammensetzung dieser Relation 28333 widerspricht allen gängingen Definitionen von "Route", stellt aber ein Netzwerk dar. Aus welchem Grund genau sollte das als Route gehandhabt werden, wo es doch keine ist?
Peilscheibe (2015-08-13 10:44:28+00:00): Noch eine Frage: warum sind Wege enthalten, die nicht als Teil des Netzwerks (grün-auf-weiß) beschildert sind?