piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
highflyer74 (2021-03-15 11:41:46+00:00): Jetzt verstehe ich das :-) Im Sinne von Kiesstich wie Torfstich.

Das Abtrennen ist mit JOSM kein Problem. Ich muss nochmal nachforschen, in wie weit es sinnvoll ist, das in zwei Objekte aufzuteilen, da es ja mittlerweile ein See ist. Ich melde mich dazu nochmal.
highflyer74 (2021-03-15 12:13:03+00:00): Ich habe nochmal Rücksprache mit einem erfahrenen lokalen Mapper gehalten und den See jetzt in zwei Teile unterteilt, was nicht ganz trivial war, da hier mehrere Mulitpolygon Relationen involviert waren. Ich hoffe, dass ich nichts übersehen habe. Schönen Tag Dir!
Tomas Straupis (2021-03-08 18:04:25+00:00): Hello. Do you actually know the place/names, or are you simply duplicating data from wikidata to openstreetmap?
eggie (2021-03-08 20:24:19+00:00): Dag dvanegmond
Lijkt me oke zo.
Heb nog wel moped=yes en mofa=yes toegevoegd aan de bollard omdat osm die als motorvoertuigen ziet.

MVG
eggie
MxxCon (2021-03-09 04:26:58+00:00): Hello.
I see that there's a flower shop and a Japanese restaurant also at this location. Are they no longer there?
Père Trash (2021-03-09 14:50:25+00:00): The Japanese restaurant is now an African restaurant. There's a flower shop still, but a different one since May. Essex Flower Shop.
user_5359 (2022-03-03 06:53:50+00:00): Hello! Please have alook on https://www.osm.org/relation/12416920. What ist the meaning of the tag building:min_level = fence?
Arnaud Champollion (2022-03-03 07:05:45+00:00): It's a mistake.
building:min_level shoud have a numeric value, I added this because it's a terrace that does not start at ground level.
I will correct it to building:min_level=1
maraf24 (2021-03-18 11:30:42+00:00): Skąd pochodzi ta nazwa?
TomPar (2021-03-11 04:42:00+00:00): Hello.  Welcome to mapping in OSM.  If you find it useful then likely someone else will too.  I'm not local so can't speak to the details of your changes. However, your changesets should be broken up so it covers a much smaller geographic area.  Usually, edits that are in the same town or neighborhood.  This makes it easier for people to review, and easier to revert smaller chunks if there are issues.  Happy mapping!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/100653278
wireguy (2021-03-09 13:34:22+00:00): Hi  iskra.   I think the sidewalk that runs along the Alexander and North Post should be highway=footway not path.   They did a good job with the little circle.  I remember the days when we had to wait at that dangerous stop sign!
keep mapping!
Colin Smale (2021-03-08 22:05:44+00:00): Hi Russ,
What is "designation=unclassified_highway" intended to convey?
Russ McD (2021-03-08 22:36:21+00:00): Hi, basically a track that the public can use.
Russ
Colin Smale (2021-03-08 23:25:38+00:00): If it's really a public right of way, it will either be a public footpath or a byway. You might find some hints for tagging these here https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation#Rights_of_way_in_England_and_Wales
Russ McD (2021-03-09 10:30:53+00:00): Rights of Way can be a complex issue, and to state it can be either a Public FP, or BOAT is a vast oversimplification. There are many other "categories"... one being for which many of us older chaps refer to, as an Unclassified County Road (UCR) ... a route that is maintainable at Public Expense, which usually infers a public right, although not always (as in the case of where TRO's have been implemented). These can verified by either checking the local Council definitive map, or viewing the National Street Gazetteer.
As far as tagging is concerned, I wish OSM had adopted the word UCR, or even ORPA which is something the OS invented... it does make far more sense. 
But in choosing to be consistent, another wiki page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rjw62/PRoW_Tagging) came up with a set of designations I have used for guidance to date.
Perhaps the fault lies within the Wiki which should be addressed, and have the two pages combined into one factual reference.  
However, in the meantime, I'm happy to change, but with over 3,500 ways in the UK having the designation=unclassified_highway tag, we need a larger agreement, and an automated change before I will consider it.
While I appreciate your concerns, you should now understand my reasons for tagging in this manner, and await your comment.
Rgds.
Colin Smale (2021-03-09 11:53:39+00:00): Hi Russ, thanks for the background. I think you are right, that the two sources should be consolidated. As long as it remains a user page it can not really be considered authoritative in any way - in its current location it is just a collection of personal notes. But it contains some well thought-out ideas, that deserve to be more out in the open instead of on a private notes page. Maybe we can encourage Robert Whittaker to propose his scheme to the community with a view to consolidating it into the wiki.
ICYMI I note he participated in a discussion on this subject in 2012: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Unclassified-Country-Road-UCR-td5710920.html

Regarding this specific tag, it seems it is used to encode 1) "maintainable at public expense" (i.e. present on the List of Streets) AND 2) unsurfaced and 3) not included on the Definitive Map (probably as a BOAT).
Russ McD (2021-03-10 10:20:56+00:00): Have sent an email to talk-gb asking for guidance and consolidation of the pages... lets see what happens.
Polarbear-repair (2021-03-21 21:13:11+00:00): What kind of driver feedback is that edit based on?
  
In fact, some other user invented fictive roads, and you edited them further. 

DWG Ticket#2021032110000101
Polarbear-repair (2021-03-21 21:47:46+00:00): reverted in 101457784
datbrahm (2021-03-22 07:59:49+00:00): Hi,

We generally don't delete information existing in OSM unless we have an absolute evidence, here I have modified the road to track because our driver notified presence of non drivable path. Since there is vegetation present in this vicinity, I'm not sure whether path exist or not, hence I have modified road class to track.  Thanks for going ahead and making changes. 

Regards,
Brahm Datt
Polarbear-repair (2021-03-22 10:41:03+00:00): Ok, when you have no further details than it is better to leave the object as ist is. This makes it more obvious for somebody with ground knowledge to deal with it.
In this case it was fiction, and further edits on the object make the revert much more difficult. 
Thanks
rafa1406 (2021-04-11 20:08:11+00:00): Não foram encontradas na área nenhum abrigo isolado. Inclusive esta área é urbana e densamente povoada
santamariense (2021-04-12 02:01:25+00:00): @rafa1406,
Acompanho sempre as edições na região. O que este usuário e alguns outros quiseram era adicionar um endereço, que pelo jeito o aplicativo maps.me não tem uma forma fácil de se fazer isso, então adicionam qualquer coisa que se possa completar com o endereço. E é justamente isso que ele adicionou de precioso e correto: O endereço. E este deve ser mantido. Imagino que o Luciano deve ter criado este objeto pois não encontrou a building correspondente para adicionar o endereço faltante.
Na sua edição o correto ao invés de apagar os pontos, era ter apagado apenas a tag tourism=wilderness_hut de modo a manter o endereço do local.
.
Não sei se você tem prática com JOSM. Se não tiver, quando puder eu recupero os endereços de volta para o OSM (mas sem a tag wilderness_hut)
[]'s
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-03-26 07:23:07+00:00): Please, do not use that tool without review.

It has multiple known bugs and must be used carefully.

It can be used well (I used it myself, though now I am waiting for bugs to be fixed to make using it easier).

For example in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113792699/history you added parish article to church building.

In https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25910941 you matched legal entity/organization with a building.

In https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4847681821 you matched clear duplicate with a Wikipedia article instead of fixing it 

-----------

What worse I will need to make revert manually as my bot already added wikipedia articles :/
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-03-26 07:41:54+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285268075 - is it really stadium?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339846775 - you linked nonexisting university (new one has a separate wiki page) 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/35009443 - you linked nearby church to monastery

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/113792699 - I assure you that parish is larger
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-03-26 07:44:13+00:00): Edit is now fully reverted, including what was replicated by bot.
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-04-07 15:24:08+00:00): To clarify: some parts, correct by accident, remained
Claudius Henrichs (2021-03-09 08:20:58+00:00): Hi Farhad,
Some of the boundaries - particularly with protected areas and admin boundariers overlapping - have invalid geometry after your edits. See the validation here: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=47.44786&lat=36.09909&zoom=15

Are you able to correct these or do you want help?
farhad_y (2021-03-12 18:58:50+00:00): Hi
Thank you for your response
i check the admin_level relations and can not find the problem
can you tell me the Relation id?
sometimes previous contributors use a way for two propose (admin_level and Protected areas)
i try to fix the problem but some how end up like this one
Yaugen (2021-05-27 18:52:14+00:00): Добрый день. Подскажите, откуда вы взяли информацию о дороге Н8443? Ширина и состояние дороги, в лучшем случае, на трэк тянет. Да и в гугле не нахожу информации кроме гугл карт.
danvyr (2021-05-28 08:50:06+00:00): Добрый день. Н8443 tertiary был до меня, я лишь указал асфальт https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/373282216. Потому что был там и видел его. 
А остальную дорогу оставил как была до меня.
eggie (2021-08-22 14:26:19+00:00): De scholen kun je ook op de aparte adresnodes taggen met amenity=school.
Zo is de consensus momenteel.
Dan kun je de namen verwijderen van de vlakken amenity=school en tag je nog bij landuse=education. Dat is de nieuwe tag voor schoolterreinen. amenity=school kun je laten staan voor de rendering.
landuse=education rendert nog niet.

MVG
eggie
tars4815 (2021-03-10 07:59:07+00:00): Well done, thanks for your valuable contribution to the project :)
- Federica x PoliMappers
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/100655114
zstadler (2024-02-15 07:32:42+00:00): Hello Dindia,

In this edit you seem to have deleted the boundary=protected_area tag from 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/880159634/history

If this was intentional, could you elaborate why?

Best regards,
Zeev
Dindia (2024-02-26 18:58:29+00:00): Hi Zeev, it's probably a mistake. I'm not sure how I even see it.
hatul (2024-06-03 10:33:37+00:00): היה כדאי לתקן ישר את התגית החסרה, אני רואה שהבעיה המשיכה גם כשהגן הפך ליחס. אני אתקן עכשיו.
תודה לשניכם.
Heinz_V (2021-03-09 08:52:36+00:00): Please change your mapping:
1) smaller changeset
2) better changeset comments
3) smaller area of mapping in each changeset
RedAuburn (2021-07-01 22:55:57+00:00): It is incorrect to put the house number in name, instead please use addr:housenumber
brightj (2022-11-10 15:59:46+00:00): Way: 329733362 is not correct.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/329733362

This Way as drawn indicate a hole with cliffs all around it, but it's actually a face of a bedrock cliff that slopes up in one direction.  See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcliff  To correctly indicate a cliff, it should follow the top edge of the cliff (which in the case of these Red Rock mounds is pretty vague).  

This type of outline maybe makes sense as a natural=bare_rock, but still, it wouldn't be applied to each little protrusion of rock, it would cover the whole rock formation.
kartler175 (2021-03-09 13:57:06+00:00): Please watch closed boundaries: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-81.29628&lat=44.17821&zoom=9&opacity=0.95
Ropino (2021-06-10 08:48:43+00:00): Hallo,
bitte Adressen noch mal prüfen/ändern:
addr:street=Herderstraße 3,1
+
addr:housenumber=9,11
und
addr:street=Damaschkestraße 13,15
+
addr:housenumber=8
--> das passt nicht so richtig zusammen.
VG
+
letihu (2021-07-31 20:46:43+00:00): Hier
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/914795463/history#map=19/51.52506/13.99723
erscheint mir die Hausnummer 102 sehr seltsam.
johsin18 (2021-03-09 21:10:28+00:00): Hallo godfredkah2,
danke für das Eintragen von Radwegen.
Der Radweg an der Grabenstraße ist aber eher nur ein Schutzstreifen auf dem Rand der Straße, oder?  Ich denke, den sollte man eher nur an der Straße taggen, siehe
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:cycleway
Was meinst du?
Gruß,
johsin18
godfredkah2 (2021-03-10 19:53:57+00:00): Stimmt. Eingetragen sind die lanes und tracks auch schon an der Stuttgarter Strasse. Hab die von mir aufgenommenen lanes und tracks gelöscht - das war wohl doppelt. Sieht man die Spuren auf der Karte oder dienen diese Attribute zum Navigieren?
johsin18 (2021-03-10 20:12:56+00:00): Die "Standard"-Ebene zeigt sie wohl nicht (wäre auch zu viel Detail), aber die Radfahrerkarte und CycloOSM schon (z.B. Anstieg der Rutesheimer Str.).
hsc666 (2021-03-08 22:14:32+00:00): CS reverted. OSM ist kein Spielzeug!
eggie (2021-03-08 19:31:27+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht. 
feedback: In OSM taggen we uitsluitend op de officiële adresnode. Dus niet nogmaals op het gebouw zelf. Dat kan er beter af. Ook geen adressen/info  op de buildingshape. 

MVG, 

Eggie 
namens de OSM Community
eggie (2021-03-08 19:34:22+00:00): De duplikaat-info heb ik verwijderd van de gebouwomtrek. Het is nu correct
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-03-08 19:17:33+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 
namens de OSM Community
eggie (2021-03-08 19:26:31+00:00): Dag SageCloud, 
private=yes is geen valide tag.
Wanneer het verboden toegang is tot de slagboom dan taggen we access=private.
Welk bord staat hier?
mvg
eggie


MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-03-08 20:03:15+00:00): Aangepast: access=private ipv private=yes
Graag nog even checken.
MVG
eggie
joost schouppe (2021-05-18 13:37:25+00:00): Hoi Jonas,
Met behulp van de allernieuwste luchtfoto's (beschikbaar in JOSM) heb ik nog wet verder kunnen verbeteren. De enige fout die je had gemaakt is dat je in de naam een omschrijving had ingevuld ("oude spar in afbraak"). De naam hoort altijd enkel met de naam ingevuld te worden :)
CartographerC (2021-03-08 19:08:42+00:00): Није Димитровград, већ Босилеград.
skifans (2021-03-08 19:09:37+00:00): This changeset is in follow-up to discussion at: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/100594287
Palolo (2021-03-08 22:54:35+00:00): Congratulations on your first OSM edit, thank you. Please keep mapping and check the task instructions for ways to improve.
Palolo (2021-03-08 23:53:08+00:00): Congratulations on your first contributions to OSM, we appreciate the help.
Please look over the instructions to accurately map buildings.  Thanks
mani100 (2021-05-10 12:17:56+00:00): Hallo,
schade, dass Du den Naturpark eingetragen hast. Nun sind die darin liegenden stärker geschützten LSG mit gleicher protection_class=5 in den Karten (bei mir OAM-Karten mit Oruxmaps) kaum noch erkennbar. 
Man hätte besser vorher klären sollen, ob class 5 für die NRPs wirklich sinnvoll ist, zumal diese Naturparks riesige Flächen bedecken. 
Grüße
mani100
sebs42 (2022-01-19 13:43:09+00:00): Braucht man wirklich das Einzugsgebiet eines Imkereivereins auf einer öffentlichen Karte? Halten sich die Bienen dran?
mani100 (2022-01-19 16:32:44+00:00): Kurze Info: Hier wird nun im Forum diskutiert: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=852773
Karthoo (2022-01-19 19:44:45+00:00): Habe die Relation hier nur beiläufig bearbeitet, da ich wohl einen Weg der Teil davon ist aufgesplittet habe. Kann also nichts zum Thema beitragen.
sebs42 (2022-01-20 09:50:36+00:00): Achso, dann hatte ich mich im Diff vertan. Sorry
Palolo (2021-03-08 23:47:18+00:00): Congratulations on your first edits to OSM, we appreciate the help. Please look over the instructions on how to accurately map buildings. Use the q key to square the corners.  Thanks
smootheFiets (2021-03-12 22:52:13+00:00): Hoi linuxrev,

Je had per ongeluk een node verplaatst, trap en voetpad zagen er even bizar uit. Als het goed is, is het nu hersteld:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=100936138&zoom=15&lat=53.2939&lon=7.0186

In de CS-tags zie ik wat waarschuwingen warnings:crossing_ways:building-highway 
Heeft iD daarover niet gezeurd? Dat zou het makkelijker moeten maken om dit soort foutjes te voorkomen.

Happy mapping, smootheFiets
Palolo (2021-03-08 23:26:29+00:00): Congratulations on your first edits to OSM, we appreciate the help.
Please keep mapping and check the instructions for tips.
Thanks
eggie (2021-03-08 19:55:39+00:00): Beste Luc.. Ga svp niet met editor iD en zonder enige ervaring wegen splitsen met busroutes, want dan maak je de OV routes stuk. Dat kan alleen met editor JOSM
Ik zal wat proberen te herstellen. 
Wat was het nut om al die dele te splitsen hier? 
Over welke satellietfoto heb je het?
Je gebruikt PDOK zo te zien, geen satellietfoto.  
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-03-08 19:56:33+00:00): Bus B18: Rotterdam Centraal => Rotterdam Centraal  hersteld.
De routevolgorde was stuk.
gr eggie
heermoes (2021-03-09 20:38:16+00:00): Hallo Eggie,
Dat was niet de bedoeling, excuses! Bedankt voor het oplossen. Ik zal er op letten.
Groeten Luc
eggie (2021-03-09 20:41:31+00:00): Je zou eens naar josm moeten kijken.. dan krijg je dit soort 'fouten' niet zo snel.
editor josm stap voor stap 

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710        

MVG
eggie
Palolo (2021-03-08 23:25:03+00:00): Congratulations on your first OSM edits.  Please keep mapping and check the instructions for tips on mapping. Use the q key to make building corners square.
BCNorwich (2021-03-09 07:39:08+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpendStreetMap.

Do you have more information/data on these two features/objects? The name only isn't much help to anyone, descriptions and notes aren't rendered.

Regards Bernard.
rskedgell (2021-03-09 11:29:15+00:00): "Hamsey" may already have been mapped as "Hamsey Place Barn". It's Grade II listed ( https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1267318 ), although the heritage/historic tagging isn't present in OSM. I'm happy to help with adding this, if this is what you wanted to do.
Adrion (2021-03-09 23:15:57+00:00): Sorry - as a local I removed the Hamsey node before I noticed this discussion. "Removing recent node "name=Hamsey, note=Manor" which must be a mistake. Imagery shows no building here, and Hamsey (Hamlet) and  Hamsey Manor (building) are both already mapped nearby." But I wouldn't want to be discouraging to a new contributor!
DressyPear4 (2021-03-09 14:43:14+00:00): Olá, "building" corresponde apenas a área cosntruida, colocar área de atuação não é correto no openstreetmap.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/100658524
parsd51 (2021-03-10 19:48:51+00:00): Hej

Velkommen til OpenStreetMap!

Jeg vil gerne give dig lidt vejledning.

- Lad gerne områder støde op til hinanden og dele “punkter”, men hold veje fri fra dette. 

- Områder og veje skal generelt ikke hænge sammen.

- Undgå at lave unødvendige multipolygoner, dvs. dem med flere opdelinger af “samme way”.

- Rette validatorens advarsler og fejl inden upload. Jeg kender ikke iD editoren så godt, men JOSM giver konstruktive informationer.

- Måske starte lidt mindre ambitiøst.

Jeg har “rettet området”

Hilsen
parsd51
TroelsAndersenLind (2021-03-12 17:17:33+00:00): Hej 

Tak for det - ja, jeg kom til at starte lidt ambisiøst, men det endte med et lidt større område som jeg kender godt

Jeg ska lige forstå det du skriver med at undgå multiplygoner? Er det bedre at lave flere mindre områder af samme type end et stort område?

Hilsen Troels
parsd51 (2021-03-13 13:03:41+00:00): Hej Troels

Selv tak og tak for din respons.

Jeg er ked af det med multipolygon blev indforstået, jeg vil prøve at forklare det bedre.

Et multipolygon bruges til at beskrive mere komplekse strukturer som f.eks. En sø i en skov. Den indre sø-ring tagges som sø, mens den indre (sø-ringen) og den ydre ring vil være medlemmer i en multipolygon tagget som skov.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Det jeg ser er at f.eks et område kun med skov tagges som multipolygon, bestående af to eller flere del-ringe rundt om området, i stedet for kun en simpel ring tagget skov. Det gør det simple komplekst og unødigt. Jeg har mest set det med iD editoren, så måske spiller den et puds - jeg arbejder næsten kun med JOSM.

Det er helt fint både at lave store områder og inddele i mindre områder, hvis det giver mening.

Hilsen
parsd51
Palolo (2021-03-08 23:28:17+00:00): Congratulations on your first edit to OSM, thanks.
Palolo (2021-03-08 22:44:02+00:00): Thank you for contributing to the map in Tanzania.  Please look over the instructions for making square corners on the buildings, in the future use the q key.  I cleaned these up, Thanks
Glassman (2021-03-10 22:08:23+00:00): #TIP: Besides the business name it's also good to add the type of business. For example it might be an office=estate _agent. I'll send you more info in a message.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/100659105
zorglubu (2021-10-10 12:34:20+00:00): Bonjour,

Il y a 3 bâtiments dans cette rue détaillé avec des indoor=level + level=*.
J'ai l'impression que l'objectif était plutôt une représentation 3D, qui nécessiterait des building:part. Vois-tu une objection à ce que je corrige ?
Le résultat serait consultable ici par exemple : https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=48.7474080&lon=2.3513403&zoom=18&camera.theta=62.762&camera.phi=2.292

Cordialement.
absinthologue (2021-10-10 18:08:53+00:00): Bonjour,
En effet : les niveaux que j'ai essayé d'indiquer sont ceux vus depuis l'extérieur des bâtiments. Je n'ai pas d'objection. Je regarderai le résultat pour apprendre les bonnes pratiques. 
Cordialement,
zorglubu (2021-10-19 19:56:58+00:00): Ah ! Au fait, c'est modifié. Le rendu des toits (gabled ou hipped) des maisons autour n'est pas terrible chez F4Map, il ne faut pas trop s'en préoccuper pour l'instant :-)
marczoutendijk (2021-03-09 09:28:21+00:00): Could you please give more meaningful comments instead of just the letter "g"
See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
Ze0zohk1 (2021-07-08 07:38:23+00:00): Hallo puma515,

mir ist aufgefallen, dass du "dirt/sand" als Oberfläche verwendet hast (z. B. hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903657742/history). Am besten sollte bei surface nur ein Wert verwendet werden; klar, das klappt nicht immer. Wenn man mehrere Werte verwendet, sollte diese aber mit ";" getrennt werden. Also z. B. "dirt;sand". Leider kommt "dirt/sand" schon oft in der Datenbank vor, weswegen dir der Editor auch "dirt/sand" vorschlägt.

Mehr dazu hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Beschr.C3.A4nke_die_Verwendung_Semikola-getrennter_Werte und hier https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator.

Wäre natürlich schön, wenn du das korrigieren könntest. 

Vielen Dank für deinen Einsatz in OSM!

Viele Grüße
Ze0zohk1
puma515 (2021-07-08 12:50:46+00:00): Hallo Ze0zohk1, 

Danke für den hinweis.
Da der Editor das vorschlägt dacht ich das wäre die richtige auswahl für die unbefestigten feldwege. 

Habe das soweit ich mich erinnere aber nur bei den wegen in meiner gegend verwendet die ich auch persönlich kenne. Wen ich das nicht weiß lasse ich die Felder zum eintragen immer leer ist auf sat bildern meist nicht zu erkennen. 

Werde das die Tage mal überprüfen und überarbeiten. Werde vorher nochmal in der wiki nachgucken was am passensten für diese art von wegen ist.

Danke und schön gruß
Puma515