piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
PT-53 (2021-11-23 07:22:17+00:00): Hallo Herrenälber,
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz neben Ergänzungen auch Verschiebungen vorgenommen. Hast Du dazu vorher den Versatz der Luftbilder korrigiert?
Wohl eher nicht. 

Ich habe im Bahnhof Ochsenhausen den Luftbildversatz anhand der mit Maps4BW genau übereinstimmenden Gebäude korrigiert und Deine Änderungen in einer 2. Datenebene zurückgesetzt (ohne upload). Ich bin der Meinung, daß Deine Verschiebungen eine Verschlechterung darstellen und die Gleise vorher genauer eingezeichnet waren.

Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?

Fragende Grüße
PT-53 (2021-12-12 16:45:17+00:00): Hallo Herrenälber, 

ich würde mich noch über eine Antwort freuen.

Grüße
Herrenälber (2021-12-12 19:58:01+00:00): Hi PT-53,
Danke für die Erinnerung ist bei mir etwas unter gegangen. Werde mir das in den nächsten Tagen noch mal anschauen.
Herrenälber (2021-12-15 20:08:24+00:00): Hi PT-53,
habe die Änderungen jetzt nochmal bezüglich Luftbildversatz geprüft und korrigiert.
PT-53 (2021-12-16 07:49:29+00:00): Hallo Herrenälber, ,
das sieht jetzt wieder besser aus.
Bitte schaue Dir aber diese Weichen
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2196333608/history
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2196333555/history
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3783180362/history
und auch alle anderen nochmals an. Ein Weichen-Knoten soll doch an die Stelle gesetzt werden, wo die Gleise sich trennen.
Wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:railway=switch?uselang=de
Grüße
PT-53 (2022-01-16 14:42:07+00:00): Hallo Herrenälber,
berichtigst Du die Weichen-Standorte noch?
Herrenälber (2022-01-17 19:03:17+00:00): Hi,
die Weichen-Knoten sitzen dort wo die Gleise sich beginnen zu trennen und das ist jeweils am Beginn der Weichenzungen in Höhe der Stellstange bzw. der Weichenhebel oder Antriebe. So habe ich die Knoten auf Basis des ausgerichteten Luftbildes platziert, sodass die Weichen auch nicht einfach ein Knick sind sondern sanft abzweigen wie in der Realität auch.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-11-29 01:50:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 114341892 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some fantasy mapping in Scotland and Brazil.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5480 .
CjMalone (2021-11-28 07:30:14+00:00): Hey,

We call this "mapping for the renderer" and we don't do it. OSM should be as correct as possible, it's the tooling that creates the maps that should be making it pretty.

I've readded the name in #114315059
streckenkundler (2021-11-23 07:16:28+00:00): Hei,

benutze bitte hier nur noch die Esri-Luftbilder oder noch besser, du bindest die LGB-Luftbilder ein, vgl. Forum.https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=74172

Danke..
MarcoR (2022-01-05 18:45:15+00:00): Ciao!
Perché hai tolto amenity=place_of_worship dalla Chiesa della Santissima Trinità?

A presto,
Marco.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114115274
wille (2022-01-05 14:11:20+00:00): Oi, Lucas. Acho que ao desenar rios e riachos é melhor fazer o traçado correto e preciso, de outra forma o dado estará errado e vai dar mais trabalho pra quem for corrigir.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114115864
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-01-12 23:56:28+00:00): o trabalho que o Lucas ta fazendo ta muito ruim, acredito que mais atrapalhe que ajuda. deveria ser revertido
maro21 (2021-11-25 21:20:48+00:00): Co to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13470365 ?
schlesiener (2021-11-25 21:28:55+00:00): Źle połączyło mi linie boiska. Już poprawione.
kawino85 (2021-11-27 14:13:46+00:00): Please straighten your buildings by pressing "Q". Currently they look jumbled.
mariotomo (2021-11-23 13:37:02+00:00): hola Alvarado2510.  que bien que estés revisando el centro de David mapeando edificios.  una sugerencia: estás utilizando Bing, que parece menos actualizada de Maxar.  podrías apoyarte a ambas fotos, pues es cierto que Bing está mejor procesada para su aprovechamiento.  pero deberás alinearlas para que las ubicaciones coincidan.
wkdgs (2021-11-23 14:33:24+00:00): Hi,

zunächst einmal Danke, dass du dabei hilfst die Karte zu verbessern.

Wenn der Pfad noch keinen Namen hat, füge am Besten auch keinen "name"-Tag hinzu. Der Tag ist für Eigennamen und nicht für Beschreibungen von Objekten gedacht. Mehr Infos dazu findest du hier:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Names

Wenn du Infos für andere Mapper hinterlassen möchtest, kannst du das mit dem "note"-Tag tun:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:note

Also zum Beispiel "note=Hat noch keinen Namen".

Gruß
winkeldings
angler180 (2021-11-27 15:42:24+00:00): Hallo Winkeldings,

diese Wald/Feldweg wird aber schon seit DDR Zeiten beim Forstwesen und Einheimischen/Anwohnern so genannt. Selbst in den Wegekarten vom Forst.
Daher würde ich diesen Namen auch gerne so lassen.

MfG
wkdgs (2021-11-27 15:47:37+00:00): Achso. Ich dachte das wäre nur eine Beschreibung, weil es noch keinen Namen gibt.
carciofo (2021-12-09 05:38:37+00:00): Hi, could you kindly provide a source for the changes to the administrative boundaries here? Would appreciate you adding meaningful comments to your changesets. Many thanks in advance.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114116304
Bexhill-OSM (2021-11-23 01:57:26+00:00): Nice. I do love a bit of sneaky solar :)
Asteliks (2023-02-28 10:16:11+00:00): Hej, widzę że oznaczyłeś tu wiele pojedynczych miejsc parkingowych. Pamiętaj że "Oznaczanie miejsc parkingowych jest dodatkiem, nie zastępuje jednak oznaczania całego parkingu z tagiem amenity=parking.". 
Link do wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:amenity=parking%20space?uselang=pl

Pamiętaj również o dodaniu relacji pomiędzy miejscami a całym parkingiem
blackboxlogic (2021-11-24 18:38:05+00:00): Regarding "I am the new trail master for Richmond Snowmobile club and am fixing our trail map", congratulations and thank you. Welcome to OSM and please ask if you have any questions.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114116872
Tomas Straupis (2021-11-23 10:24:15+00:00): Klaipėdos 7C ir 7D yra realūs adresai, jų nereikia trinti.
KB-01 (2021-11-23 14:01:55+00:00): I am aware the addresses are real-the points I deleted were duplicates (there were two identical address points for 7C and two identical address points for 7D)
Tomas Straupis (2021-11-25 17:36:48+00:00): Please do not change address info. It is being synchronised with official data. Also check addreses on the ground, as I'm fixing/replacing a number of incorrectly added addresses. For example for fuel station at the corner of Panerių and Šv. Stepono street. It cannot be Šv. Stepono 22. That address is way too far from this spot.
KB-01 (2021-11-25 19:00:36+00:00): To clarify, I deleted clones of points classified as “addresses.” I have not been deleting address information from any existing features.
Tomas Straupis (2021-11-25 19:15:51+00:00): Those are normal addresses, they must be where they were.
smootheFiets (2021-11-25 12:12:10+00:00): Dear colleague,

Lots of good fixes in this changeset, but some deletes struck me as too heavy-handed.  I've just taken the liberty to revert those: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114220612

In the future, please refrain from deleting building polygons in the Netherlands, unless you know exactly what you're doing.  Those are imported semi-automatically from the Dutch 'kadaster' (et oui, c'est bien le cadastre néerlandais).  In the case of the double barn, e.g., (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/931343663) you were right in finding there was one too many.  Except you accidentally deleted the wrong one.  

Keep up the good work, greetings,
smootheFiets
user_8101879 (2021-11-27 17:09:16+00:00): Sorry for my mistakes, I try my best.
And thank you to have fix them.

Best regards.
Tomas Straupis (2021-11-23 10:27:10+00:00): Atstačiau IR VĖL sugadintas Sixt žymas. Šiaip nėra didelės vertės tiesiog naršyti po Vilnių ir spaudyti paties prasčiausio redaktoriaus - iD - nesąmoningus siūlymus „tvarkyti“ žymas.
RColombo (2021-12-03 10:29:09+00:00): Ciao, grazie per aver aggiunto la nuova rotonda ad Abbadia! Non riesco però a capire come mai l'hai strutturata in quel modo (rotonda che contiene a sua volta una mini_roundabout).
kaitu (2021-12-03 12:30:16+00:00): Grazie per la segnalazione, errore mio.
La rotonda la aveva aggiunta Vakr, ma come minirotonda. Io la avevo modificata in rotonda, perchè il centro non è attraversabile, ma mi ero dimenticato di cancellare i tag sul nodo delle minirotonda.
Avevo anche inavvertitamente spezzato delle relazioni. Ho risistemato tutto, spero correttamente.
RColombo (2021-12-04 15:53:31+00:00): Ottimo! Buon proseguimento a mappare!
ivanbranco (2021-12-04 16:27:02+00:00): Scusate se mi intrometto, ma con questo changeset sono spariti alcuni corsi d'acqua mappati come "stream", come mai?
kaitu (2021-12-04 20:48:05+00:00): Sono corsi d'acqua che erano stati importati dalla CTR della Lombardia. Credo fossero derivati da un modello di elevazione del terreno. Tante volte sul posto attraversandoli non si vede traccia
, in quel caso cancello. Corretto sarebbe controllare tutto il corso, ma non è così praticabile.
wireguy (2021-11-23 02:22:00+00:00): thanks for fixing huntingdon, but it broke plainview.   fixed it.
bayview and north bay still need work.
wireguy (2021-11-23 11:44:59+00:00): this change also broke new england boundary (now fixed), and also Wyandanch (which is broken and looks wrong in south west corner).  Can you look at it?
AkuAnakTimur (2021-11-23 14:18:24+00:00): Hi, many thanks for adding info.

However, I believe "Taman Orkid" (loose translation: Orchid Residential Gardens) is not the best fit to name this residential street (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/763585641)

See also this Mapillary photo https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=292391585838942
AkuAnakTimur (2021-11-23 14:19:00+00:00): Meanwhile, Taman Orkid is mapped this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6102803372
huskwhinkle (2021-12-03 00:28:41+00:00): Hello AkuAnakTimur, thanks for reaching out. The street name was provided by a Maps user. There are other streets also named Taman Orkid, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/686222418, so it may be a common name.
BlueButterfly (2021-11-22 23:50:11+00:00): Also used Yandex Panorama as source
wolfbert (2026-03-09 20:32:06+00:00): Hallo, da scheint bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201608458 und 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/181071811 bei heritage etwas durcheinander gekommen zu sein.
mapperich (2026-03-09 22:22:35+00:00): Hallo wolfbert, 
vielen Dank für den Hinweis, habs behoben.
ovruni (2021-11-23 05:30:05+00:00): Hola Fer25, en este conjunto de cambios se han agregado varias vías con highway=cycleway [0] al costado de varias avenidas que tenían etiquetas como cycleway=lane [1] o cycleway:right [2]. El uso de  highway=cycleway es para cuando es una ciclovía tiene una separación física con la avenida y etiquetas como cycleway=lane o cycleway:right son para cuando son parte de la avenida y solo tienen una separación por alguna pintura. Tal como ha quedado ahora es como si hubieran dos ciclovías por cada lado de las avenidas. Por favor dale una revisada en cada segmento según tengan o no separación las ciclovías con las avenidas.
Saludos
[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:cycleway%3Dlane
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:cycleway:right
Fer25 (2021-11-23 14:00:57+00:00): Vale, no me percaté que la avenida tenía el cycleway. Casi todo ya es con separación. Voy a revisarlo
bikingaround244 (2021-12-07 04:03:12+00:00): Thank you for changing this back to bikes allowed
Falsernet (2021-11-23 13:09:10+00:00): If that's the criteria then I'll map both
Falsernet (2021-11-23 13:15:56+00:00): ^^ Just stop deleting separately mapped cycleways and we will have no issues going forward. That's pretty much the only problem I've ever had with you. If you find it inconsistent that there's no pavement then either map it yourself (but I imagine that's foreign territory for your priorities) or say "hey do you mind adding this so it's consistent?" or words to that effect. It would take me five minutes, and squash any rifts in the local mapping community I know of - worth it right?
Pete Owens (2021-11-23 20:27:01+00:00): I mapped the Warrington Cycle Network a long while ago and continue to maintain it. This is getting more difficult as people keep breaking it: duplicating sections that are already mapped  as tags, deleting sections creating daps in the network and adding cycleways that do not exist on the ground.
Falsernet (2021-11-23 22:43:01+00:00): And I make a conscious effort to keep it contiguous whenever I'm making any relevant edits. You seem to treat pavements designated for cyclists as nonexistent. Yes if it's not designated as such, sure, maybe it's not a cycleway. For such cases I make an effort to instead use either path, or when it's explicitly designated for pedestrians (signed), footpath. Deletion of things that do exist (this includes pavements) is vandalism.
Falsernet (2021-11-23 22:44:17+00:00): In fairness, I appreciate you mapping the cycle network, it's a good addition to have. Keep that stuff up. However all I ask is you alter non-cycleways as such rather than delete and replace with a tag on the road. It's only going to be remapped, again and again.
ivanbranco (2021-11-23 17:32:07+00:00): asdf=asdf??

Also please add a meaningful changeset comment, you closed 33 changesets with "proba": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Good_changeset_comments
marczoutendijk (2021-11-23 15:03:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 114139781, 114133324 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism - undiscussed removal of highways and other objects
marczoutendijk (2021-11-23 15:03:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 114139781, 114133324 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism - undiscussed removal of highways and other objects
marczoutendijk (2021-11-23 15:03:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 114139781, 114133324 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism - undiscussed removal of highways and other objects
marczoutendijk (2021-11-23 15:03:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 114139781, 114133324 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism - undiscussed removal of highways and other objects
marczoutendijk (2021-11-23 15:03:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 114139781, 114133324 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism - undiscussed removal of highways and other objects
TomPar (2021-11-23 03:24:05+00:00): Hello.  Looks like you're trying to indicate that trail access from a point onwards will change?  Thanks for updating the map.  However, I don't think this is the best way to indicate this change.  Your note will not render with the standard map.

You could break the trail here and change the segment to "access=private" or whatever is appropriate.  I'm not directly familiar with this area.

Another way to add a note like this is on the main website.  You can drop a general note to fix up later...or for someone else to update.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes

I'm active on the OSM Slack if you wanted to chat further.  Happy mapping...
marczoutendijk (2021-11-23 15:03:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 114139781, 114133324 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism - undiscussed removal of highways and other objects
marczoutendijk (2021-11-23 15:03:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 114139781, 114133324 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism - undiscussed removal of highways and other objects
marczoutendijk (2021-11-23 15:03:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 114139781, 114133324 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism - undiscussed removal of highways and other objects
tsp15 (2021-11-23 13:01:45+00:00): Ścieżki, które dodałeś nie są uwzględnione w bieżącym projekcie przebudowy, tylko w masterplanie. Nie są jeszcze budowane, proponuję zmianę na highway=proposed.
olo81 (2021-11-23 15:02:08+00:00): Ok
A masz dostęp do projektu?
tsp15 (2021-11-23 15:09:30+00:00): https://dg.logintrade.net/zapytania_email,51425,1c0490063632ffd3e42c183560b9f6a5.html Jest tutaj.
tsp15 (2021-11-23 15:11:48+00:00): Można go znaleźć w załączniku "a. Koncepcja"
olo81 (2021-11-23 16:05:10+00:00): Z tego właśnie rysowałem :x
tsp15 (2021-11-23 16:57:13+00:00): Tak, w tym folderze jest zarówno projekt jak i masterplan. Z tego co widzę, rysowałeś z masteplanu. Projekt to załączniki od 2.1 do 2.4.
olo81 (2021-11-23 19:44:17+00:00): A ok, to by się zgadzało. Nie porównałem tych plików.
olo81 (2021-11-28 16:34:05+00:00): wywaliłem proponowane drogi, bez sensu żeby to wisiało skoro i tak ich nie będzie.
Syl (2021-11-23 10:33:58+00:00): Bonjour, la ferme en cavale était déjà présente : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5830758760
J'ai supprimé celle que vous avez créé.
A quoi correspond "Bât À Modeler George Cleunay" ? Vous avez indiqué que c'est un point d'eau potable.
Syl (2021-11-24 20:22:28+00:00): En vérifiant sur place je n'ai rien vu qui correspondait à ce nom, je viens de le supprimer.
marczoutendijk (2021-11-23 15:03:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 114139781, 114133324 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert of vandalism - undiscussed removal of highways and other objects
carfog81 (2021-11-23 20:21:12+00:00): Please be more careful with multipolygon and boundary relationships. Here you damaged several. I'm going to fix them
vsahith (2021-11-23 03:42:53+00:00): Added a access restriction based on driver feedback
ravali_78 (2021-11-24 08:46:50+00:00): Hi Nurwinda Sari,
I have fixed classification gaps and incorrectly tagged highway.Kindly check with way 1005460264,https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114171876.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114121338
Supaplex (2021-11-23 06:07:36+00:00): 巷弄有人行道?一般台北的大馬路才有啊
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114122007
stevennero (2021-11-23 06:15:52+00:00): 您好，我目前正在做OSM與城市參數演算的測試。所以在中山的「街廓」的邊緣加上了人行步道代表人流的可行性與街廓的標示。

如果造成您與其他人不便，之後我會再進行修改。

謝謝！
Supaplex (2021-11-23 07:00:34+00:00): 如果沒有獨立的人行道，請用 foot=* 標示行人通行狀態
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:foot
stevennero (2021-11-23 07:04:40+00:00): 好的 我理解了 感謝您的體諒 謝謝!
Supaplex (2021-11-23 07:40:33+00:00): 那請把沒有獨立人行道的部分移除掉，謝謝
stevennero (2021-11-23 08:36:29+00:00): 好的了解 
我近期會將其刪除，感謝您的提醒，謝謝!
ZeLonewolf (2021-11-26 18:54:28+00:00): Hey, welcome to OSM!  I think this is supposed to be spelled "Nazarene", can you confirm that?

Also, I'd like to invite you to join the OSM US Slack, channel #local-kansas so that you can connect with other Kansas mappers.

You can get to Slack here:
https://slack.openstreetmap.us/
Warin61 (2021-11-24 06:46:16+00:00): Why is this water way a multipolygon? Relation: 13470856. 

The relation has 4 members that join to from a continuous closed way .. yet the roles for the members are both 'inner' and 'outer' which is wrong. 

I have combined these into ONE way and put the tags on that way .. and deleted the relation.
AndrewS (2021-11-24 09:35:34+00:00): Thanks! Still much learning to do.
It was originally two closed ways that should have been one and I didn't know how to combine them again so (as I recall) I just joined them on a shared line and clearly got the roles wrong. I have since learnt how to join areas correctly (I think).
Is it wrong to have abutting closed ways with identical tags? I am doing this when there are huge areas to help manage the large number of outer ways (the 'scrub' areas 5km south of here are in three parts)? 
Is there a tool I should be using to find these sort of errors? Andrew
Warin61 (2021-12-06 07:24:19+00:00): "Is it wrong to have abutting closed ways with identical tags? I am doing this when there are huge areas to help manage the large number of outer ways"

For relations;
If both ways are in the one relation ... then use caution! One of the ways maybe in a different relation (administration boundary, national park for example) and should not be combined. 
Some large relations are deliberately split into smaller relations as this makes it easier to manage editing wise. 

In both cases it is not 'wrong'. Unless you have a specific reason for doing it, I'd not bother. 

Sorry but I'd not an iD user so cannot help there.
Kovoschiz (2021-11-23 05:25:26+00:00): Can you look up `building=` meanings of `=service` and `=industrial` first?
Eiim (2021-11-23 15:48:04+00:00): Hello,
It appears to me that you've randomly changed a large number of paths around Oxford from bicycle=permissive to bicycle=no, in this changeset and 114122707. Upon review, a handful of these appear to be steps, which should be changed to highway=steps and have bicycle=permissive removed instead. Many others do not appear to have any reason to be bicycle=no. Please let me know why you made these changes.
WoodWoseWulf (2021-11-23 19:51:25+00:00): Hi Eironmin,

In this changeset, you changed a building to a park and also created a big park covering many houses. I have corrected both of these issues for you.
Eiim (2022-01-04 23:59:04+00:00): Hello! I noticed this changeset a while back but didn't look too much into it, but decided to take another look when I noticed your diary comment, and just ran into one of the changes today. I would encourage you to avoid tagging paths with bicycle=no just because they're on Miami's, and therefore private, property. Many of these paths are regularly biked on by students daily, which is encouraged by Miami through their bike parking stations. As such, I've already more accurately tagged them with bicycle=permissive. Of course, if they're in a place which is inaccessible by bike for whatever reason (perhaps there's stairs or a gate, or there's a specific signed restriction like way/165514434), feel free to continue tagging them appropriately.

Thanks,
Eiim
TomPar (2021-12-14 04:24:56+00:00): Hello.  I noticed you added natural=wood back to these large properties.  This is not correct as large parts of the property are not covered in trees.  If one was to add inners of the ponds, etc on this relation, then that would make the parcel definition multipolygon not correct because it would cut out areas that are part of the property.

If you wish to do land cover mapping then the best practice is to create a separate multipolygon to define this...and that can have cut-outs for the ponds and other features that are not natural=wood.

Ideally, OSM would have multiple layers built in to make this easier: one for cadastre/properties, one for landcover, etc.  But alas it's just one big layer.  This best practice of separate multipolygons help keeps things more correct.

I don't do much woods land cover mapping anymore myself.  I found myself wanting to do it mostly to make the parcel green on the OSM standard render. 

I'd like to switch it back to remove as it is more correct but will wait for your additional thoughts on the matter.  Thanks.
bikingaround244 (2021-12-14 07:20:21+00:00): Hello, thanks for telling me.  I did not realize that adding the tag natural wood  would ad it on top of the ponds/lakes too. I guess I was thinking OSM just knows better and could distinguish that natural wood can not also be on top of water.  Anyways feel free to remove it going forward I will not add that natural wood like that any more.

Cheers
wkdgs (2021-11-23 14:28:15+00:00): Hi,

im Tag "wheelchair:description" steht, dass die Toilette kostenpflichtig ist. Kannst du den Text in dem Tag ebenfalls anpassen?

Gruß
winkeldings