piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
jonashoffmann (2023-10-04 10:46:17+00:00): Hola, bobeeeze. seguro que "access=permit" es correcto en esta carretera https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1079273877/history#map=17/39.09410/-0.61255? a mi parece que no hay una restricción de acceso. 
saludos, jonas
bobeeeze (2023-10-05 21:02:23+00:00): Hola Jonas, sí que hay una restricción. Pasé por allí en su momento y te puedo garantizar que hay un cartel, hasta lo tengo en foto aunque no la puedo incluir en este mensaje. Supongo que solo es para vehículos motorizados. Pone "Camino de servicio de la presa de Tous, acceso solo a vehículos autorizados. Velocidad limitada a 30". Es un cartel de la confederación hidrográfica del Júcar. Por está zona hay muchos carteles iguales y por cierto casi nadie los respeta. Pero bueno, el cartel está. No sé muy bien como reflejarlo. Si sabes de un etiquetado mejor lo puedes cambiar sin problema.
Saludos y buen mapeo
bobeeeze (2023-10-05 21:08:02+00:00): Acabo de añadir bicycle=yes y foot=yes a todo el tramo de carretera. Así creo que está mejor
jonashoffmann (2023-10-06 15:09:06+00:00): Ah, entiendo! 
Perfecto, gracias.
Es que hay una carrera de bici por allí y he notado la etiqueta ;)
eggie (2022-07-17 19:55:26+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-07-19 09:55:45+00:00): Dag Jaap... svp geen bicycle yes op fietspaden gaan toevoegen Het is allemaal default.
Hier de tagging die op een fietspad hoort. Het is allemaal al correct zo. 
G11: mofa=yes, moped=no, traffic_sign=NL:G11 
G12a: moped=designated, mofa=designated, traffic_sign=NL:G12a 
G13: moped=no, mofa=no, traffic_sign=NL:G13 

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Cycleway 


MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-07-19 09:58:17+00:00): Je toevoegingen heb ik teruggedraaid in Wijzigingenset #123799533

Groet,
eggie
BAGgeraar (2022-07-26 06:34:41+00:00): Staan hier borden met maximale doorrijhoogte van 4,2 m? Anders is het volgens mij 'default'..
Maarten Deen (2022-07-26 07:03:32+00:00): Ja, die staan er en dat hele "default" gebeuren is zo verschrikkelijk nutteloos.
starsep (2022-07-17 21:26:07+00:00): Wycofane: https://osm.org/changeset/123735981
user_5359 (2022-08-15 10:57:04+00:00): Hello! What is the source and license of this data?
maraf24 (2022-07-24 11:21:19+00:00): Jaki jest powód zmiany przebiegu strumienia na nieprawidłowy?
Chodzi o https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/548767652
syntex (2022-07-24 14:25:34+00:00): Dlaczego nieprawidłowy?
syntex (2022-07-24 14:27:02+00:00): Wg cieniowania ISOK oraz podkładu Maxar jest to poprawny przebieg
maraf24 (2022-07-24 19:03:17+00:00): Są tu więc przynajmniej dwa problemy.
1. Nigdzie w source nie ma ISOK ani Maxara.
2. Na ISOK widać inny przebieg - dokładnie to na nim jest taki przebieg, jaki był przed poprawkami. Stąd moje pytanie.
Na Maxarze zaś za słabo widać, poza tym on ma zawsze problem z kalibracją.
syntex (2022-07-24 21:05:48+00:00): Ale przecież w ISOK jest ten, który narysowałem, bo wcześniej był inny??
marczoutendijk (2022-07-21 08:51:45+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6149
abakus_uploader (2022-07-17 22:32:22+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
zluuzki (2022-07-18 15:50:29+00:00): Please note that "railway=abandoned" means that a RR was once there and there are remaining traces (=it is visible that a RR used to be there). It does not mean that there are disused tracks. There are obvious traces, so this was correctly mapped. Before you delete things make you sure that you really understand the meaning of the tags you're deleting. (by reading the wiki).
mpx12 (2022-07-19 00:17:45+00:00): I am fully aware of this. I inspected the route prior to and during deletion for any traces of track, and did not find any. If there were traces, they were in small isolated locations and not along the vast majority of the route. Assuming I missed something, which to be frank, I do not believe I did. Would it not be better to simply place a new route down on those limited locations as opposed to leaving outdated historical data running through random towns and farms when there is not in fact anything there?
Zandu (2023-11-16 19:15:45+00:00): Not an import. Drawing from recent Bing imagery and local survey. Tags modified were moved form closed ways to relations to prevent overlapping ways.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123731339
mbeyerle (2022-08-02 01:52:14+00:00): could you explain why this was added? There is no water here
user_5359 (2022-07-21 10:50:41+00:00): Welcome to OSM! You should not add private Information about you in the OSM data.
jqngarcia (2022-09-05 10:34:40+00:00): Hola leyrey99, las rutas de bus se construyen seleccionando las vías existentes, no se traza una vía nueva, deberías corregirlo.

Salud y Mapas, JQN
Langlaeufer (2022-07-17 20:01:54+00:00): Das sind keine gelegten Betonplatten. (siehe surface=concrete vs surface=concrete:plates)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123732062
RicoElectrico (2022-07-17 20:43:13+00:00): Cześć, to raczej się nie nadaje do dodania do mapy - patrz https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_praktyki#Nie_mapuj_tymczasowych_wydarze%C5%84_i_tymczasowych_obiekt%C3%B3w

Jeśli chcesz komuś udostępnić pinezkę z lokalizacją: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Browsing#Adding_a_Marker
Tomas Straupis (2022-07-17 20:20:43+00:00): Klasifikacija buvo teisinga - highway=track. Šis kelias neturi pavadinimo (adreso kaip kelio pavadinimo rašyti nereikia).
svencb (2022-07-17 19:18:29+00:00): Changes should have been limited to Luxembourg only. Shame on me (again).
Joseph R P (2022-07-23 21:36:10+00:00): I upgraded Elko to city because it is the largest settlement in a nearly 200 mile radius. A city doesn't have to be as large as Las Vegas, Reno, or Carson City to be considered a city, see Alaska, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Arizona for example. The place=city classification, at least in the United States, is based on local prominence, not its population in an administrative area. If we went solely based on its size ranking in a state, then we'd have a ton of small cities/towns tagged as place=city in small states like Delaware and hardly anything in large states like Nevada.

After all, Elko is technically one of the largest cities in Nevada if you consider the Reno, Carson, and Vegas metros to be one city.

There was also a discussion I started about this on Slack: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C02QVTSRHV0/p1655955010580079

btwhite92's comment on my thread was part of the decision-making for me upgrading Elko to city. Elko has a college campus, K-12 schools, a hospital, a proper city center, shopping plazas, amenities like museums, community centers, parks, and fairgrounds, and ongoing development. I think it makes most sense for it to be a city.
TheConductor (2022-07-24 05:29:51+00:00): I appreciate your comment and feedback. Please know that I did not come in and make this change without having put considerable thought into it first. 

I saw (and prepared a comment that I never sent) on your original discussion on slack. Bradley (btwhite 92) succinctly explained the way that I approach the `place
TheConductor (2022-07-24 05:56:49+00:00): `place` classification. I put considerable emphasis on the OSM wiki definition which he quotes in his message. I'll quote directly from his words, "the only one on the list that might possibly be comparable to Reno/Sparks, Carson, and Las Vegas metro is Elko" and I want to emphasize where I make the case for my decision making, "that is only on account of it being the only "full service" town for hundreds of miles in the remote high desert region". 

I've personally never seen or heard anything about `place` classification being based on local prominence. There may be some editors in some states who see it that way and in my opinion, it's because they believe the slippy map needs to be geographically balanced by showing a well rounded set of features at the different zoom levels. I personally don't subscribe to that style of mapping. I think it's disingenuous. 

To your point (and Bradley's) about the amenities of a "city" and why I don't believe that is a good metric to justify Elko as a "city is because everything that you listed above is also found in my hometown of Winnemucca. We have a college campus, K-12 schools, a hospital, a proper city center, shopping plazas, amenities like museums, community centers, parks, and fairgrounds, and ongoing development. The only difference between Winnemucca and Elko is about 10,000 people, a Wendy's, and Home Depot (there's obviously more but those are the big ones ). By that criteria, Winnemucca should be a city too but it's not because as Bradley put it, "a town should be relatively "full service" - you could potentially purchase a complete range of consumer goods, service most any equipment you own, receive mostly comprehensive healthcare in town; often there's a small or satellite higher education campus." Personally, this fits Elko  really well, it fits Winnemucca, it fits Fallon well, Ely and Tonopah are stretches in my opinion but they can be either/or. 

My point is I don't disagree with your decision here but I don't completely agree either. I hope I've offered clarity into my thought process but if you would like the tagging schema to remain place=city for Elko, I won't undo that. Thanks again for reaching out! :)
Joseph R P (2022-07-24 06:30:00+00:00): I didn't really consider city being 'full service' as the sole or primary deciding factor when upgrading Elko to city, but I did consider to be part of the decision making in that edit as well as in me upgrading both Fallon and Mesquite to cities. The main two deciding factors for me are population and prominence, and those are also used by a lot of other users too, especially in New England and other northeastern states where the city and road classification went through a major overhaul.

I don't think I'll upgrade Elko back to city just now, since I'm planning on writing up a user subpage on the OSM Wiki on what I think the cities and towns of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and Nevada should be and why I think so to get opinions on proposals as well as document the ones I've already discussed with others.
VLD075 (2022-08-11 16:04:43+00:00): Hello TheConductor!

I was just curious, wouldn't place=town be more in line with the the Clark County description of Enterprise? They consider this as an unincorporated town. I just wanted to understand why this would be considered place=city instead of place=town. Thank you and feel free to reach out to me, I hope you have a great day!
 https://www.clarkcountynv.gov/government/departments/comprehensive_planning_department/divisions/advanced_planning_division/enterprise.php
TheConductor (2022-08-11 18:24:56+00:00): Hi VLD075,

Thanks for reaching out! My only justification at the time for making the change from town to city was the latest population figures provided by the Census Bureau. As I've come to learn, the place classification seems to be a lot more nuanced that I gave it credit for. There is an ongoing discussion about looking at place classifications across Nevada and other areas of the United States on Slack. Feel free to change it back to place=town. I think that's more fitting given our discussion and the resources provided. 

Thanks again for reaching out. Have a great day!
wkdgs (2022-07-18 13:52:40+00:00): Hi,

ich schreibe dir, weil du angegeben hast, dass jemand nochmal über deine Änderungen drüber schauen soll.

Die eingetragenen Tags passen noch nicht so ganz. 

Ich gehe mal davon aus, dass die Ferienwohnung nur einen Teil des Hauses belegt. Dann sollten die Informationen zur Ferienwohnung nicht am Gebäude sondern an einem eigenen Punkt im Gebäude eingetragen werden. Der bekommt dann den Tag "tourism=apartment", damit man die Ferienwohnung auch als solche auf der Karte finden kann. Hier findest du dazu mehr Informationen:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Dapartment

Falls doch das gesamte Haus zur Ferienwohnung gehört, könnte man "tourism=chalet" verwenden.

Bei "building=apartments" würde ich auch mehr als eine Wohnung ("building:flats=1) erwarten. Wie wird denn der Rest des Gebäudes genutzt?

Gruß
winkeldings
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/123732923
jleedev (2022-07-17 19:38:20+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
waldhans (2022-07-23 18:40:51+00:00): Hallo Rundlich, 
kannst du mir erklären, was das Tag „footway=sidewalk“ deiner Meinung nach bewirkt? Aendert sich die Darstellung oder das Routing? Ist das tag auf Weg erlaubt, der kein  footway ist? 
Was ist deine Absicht dabei?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen Kurt
Rundlich (2022-07-23 21:16:17+00:00): Hallo Kurt,

ich wollte markieren, dass die Pfade die Bürgersteige einer Straße sind. Im Wiki habe ich an folgenden Stellen den Hinweis gefunden, dass man das so eintragen kann: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#When_sidewalk/crosswalk_is_tagged_as_a_separate_way und https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway%3Dsidewalk
Dass dieses Tag viel ändert, ist nicht zu erwarten.

Viele Grüße
Rundlich
waldhans (2022-07-24 08:15:09+00:00): Hallo Runlich,
also hast du auch keinen Sinn in diesem Tag gefunden, außer das man es setzen kann. Ich meine, es ist feuerflüssig und sollte nicht gesetzt werden. Verwirrt nur.
Wenn du nett bist, räume das bitte weg,
Mit freundlichen Grüßen Kurt
Rundlich (2022-07-24 09:07:50+00:00): Ok, ist wieder weg
LySioS (2022-07-21 11:38:45+00:00): Bonjour Denis et bienvenue,

Je fais suite à ta demande de vérification. Il y a quelque chose que je ne comprends pas bien : tu as ajouté 2 parkings vélo : 1 en dessinant un polygone (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1079298206) et 1 autre sur un des points de ce polygone (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9893857891).

Si je comprends bien, il y a une toiture qui abrite deux types de parkings vélo différents ?

Peux-tu m'en dire plus ?
SzymonH (2022-08-08 10:06:03+00:00): W kilometrze 8.1 pojawił się duplikat w kilometrażu i dalej jest tylko gorzej
tomzyl (2022-08-08 10:33:02+00:00): Dodatkowo, popraw proszę nanoszenie "słupków". Zgodnie z prawidłami na wikipedii, powinny być naniesione na tory główne linii kolejowej, tj w tym miejscu powinny być 4 punkty. W Pruszkowie podejrzyj jak zostało to zrobione. Ref nie jest wymagany dla tego znacznika.
Anas masuris (2022-08-08 12:17:06+00:00): Umieściłem słupki na torach. A co do zduplikowanego słupka, to o ile 8,1 się nie duplikuje, to akurat 8,3 się duplikuje w terenie (dosłownie)
Anas masuris (2022-08-08 12:22:02+00:00): W sensie w terenie dwa następujące po słupku 8,4 słupki mają kilometraż 8,3. Ponadto po pomiarach odległości między skrajnym prawym słupkiem przy Warszawa Ursus, a skrajnym lewym przy Warszawa Włochy jest około 100 metrów różnicy niż wynikałoby to z kilometrażu
tomzyl (2022-08-08 12:24:53+00:00): Doszukałem się i tak chyba zostanie z dublem.

Tor nr 3 na szlaku Warszawa Włochy – Pruszków od km 8+200 do km 8+739,90 biegnie po prostej. W km 8+300 – 8+400 występuje niewłaściwy hektometr – długość tego hektometra wynosi 224,34m. Następnie w km 8+739,90 rozpoczyna się układ dwóch łuków odwrotnych z krzywymi przejściowymi. [tu reszta tekstu o T3 LK447 aż do km 14+893]
Tor nr 4 na szlaku Warszawa Włochy – Pruszków od km 8+200 (a właściwie od km 8+035,70) do km 8+300+108 biegnie w łuku kołowym lewym o promieniu R=970m z krzywymi przejściowymi o długości L=70m każda. W km 8+300 – 8+400 występuje niewłaściwy hektometr – długość tego hektometra wynosi 248,93m. [tu reszta tekstu o T4 LK447 do km 14+893]
tomzyl (2022-08-08 19:08:54+00:00): Tak sobie pomyślałem, wywaliłbym ten dubel i dał po prostu dużą przerwę pomiędzy 8+300 a 8+400 z notką, że ten hektometr tak ma i żeby nie poprawiać.
Anas masuris (2022-08-08 19:16:21+00:00): Czyli usunąć "lewy" 8.3 i dać na pozostałym 8.3 i 8.4 informację o tym, że hektometr ten ma większą długość niż by wynikało z kilometracji?
tomzyl (2022-08-08 19:18:30+00:00): Dokładnie tak
Anas masuris (2022-08-08 19:22:32+00:00): Dobra, to już zrobione!
(w sumie ciekawy przypadek)
aceman444 (2022-12-26 21:21:06+00:00): "Oprava" triedy na primary podla coho?
Home (ATA Safari Shop Plc – Arusha Travel Agency Ltd | Travel Agency Arusha | Travel Agent Near You | Flights & Hotel Deals) (2022-07-17 20:13:24+00:00): ATA Safari Shop Plc – Arusha Travel Agency Ltd | Travel Agency Arusha | Travel Agent Near You | Flights & Hotel Deals
Mat_Ei (2022-07-18 05:37:23+00:00): Dekuji
CBradioCZ (2024-08-12 13:43:30+00:00): Rado se stalo. Paja
jtracey (2022-07-18 03:49:24+00:00): It exists, it's just grass and has some trees between it and the paved path, so can be a bit hard to see. :)

Is it causing routing issues or something?
David Trueman (2022-07-18 11:13:37+00:00): I rode through the park yesterday and I was looking for it because my route had me taking it. I couldn’t find it. I would argue that if it is indistinguishable from park terrain and blocked by trees it is not really a path. But, if you feel strongly about it, I will revert the change.
jtracey (2022-07-24 03:39:00+00:00): I took some photos to confirm it still looks the same:
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~j3tracey/OSM/facing_path.jpg
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~j3tracey/OSM/facing_alley.jpg
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~j3tracey/OSM/facing_park.jpg

You can't tell from the photos, but you can walk through the tree line without pushing branches or anything, and it looks pretty well worn compared to the surrounding ground, so it seems like there are people using it (the "Boycott Nestle" sticker also presumably means someone else thinks it's a decently high traffic route as well :P). I'm going to go ahead and put it back, but with some better alignment.
lumacraft (2022-07-17 20:46:42+00:00): Je viens de me rendre compte qu'il existe déjà une ligne d'arbre. Les noeuds d'arbre font peut-être redondance pour l'avenue de l'Europe.
user_2066394 (2022-07-18 20:30:50+00:00): Mit der Taste Q kannst du Gebäude orthogonalisieren/die Ecken rechtwinklig machen.
_Hobbit (2022-07-17 21:22:57+00:00): Does anyone read these?  See these for the sad history of my thrashing with this.
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/84812
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/85086
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/85098/
I finally figured out how to de-relation the object, decouple the shared points, and reduce the bogus object to "deletable" size by nuking enough nodes in it.
I still want to build the "woods" the right way, might just draw them completely separately instead of trying to aggregate pieces as a relation.
_Hobbit (2022-07-17 21:25:58+00:00): Now, why the heck aren't the ponds and the golf course showing up as "inners"?  They're *in* the relation, but don't display as "cutouts".  Why?
eggie (2022-07-17 21:35:30+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback  Je bedoeling is natuurlijk goed, maar er is al een adresnode. Dus nioet nogmaals een adres toevoegen.
In OSM zetten we geen spaties in de postcode.

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-07-17 21:39:51+00:00): Dag Jandaal...Je info van de Sionskerk heb ik samengevoegd met de adresnode van het Kadaster.
Je hoeft geen adressen toe te voegen.
Gr eggie

MVG
eggie
Hufkratzer (2022-07-18 13:35:08+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1079313105 is the outdoor riding arena of the hotel nearby (can be seen in the video from their website); riding arenas should be tagged with leisure=pitch, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=pitch#Riding_arena and not with leisure=horse_riding (= riding centre).
hildgyorgy (2022-07-18 14:00:04+00:00): Dear Hufkratzer,

Thank you for the comment! I have corrected it!
Lejun (2022-07-19 03:08:47+00:00): Hi, glad to see a fellow sidewalks’ mapper! I found multiple points confusing in your contribution:

– Why does this way[1] only does have a name? Not that I’m either for or against adding name key to sidewalk but that’s rather odd.
– Was it really necessary to add access tag on sidewalks? I thought of them a rather implicitely open to pedestrians only.
– Why would you create a one-member multipolygon relation?[2]

[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1079314716
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14363066
Pluky (2022-07-19 16:07:09+00:00): Hi

@Lejun thx for your feedback :-)
These are my first contributions, glad to learn from you.

- First point, I will remove the name on the sidewalk and use  Relation:associatedStreet. I wanted to apply the instructions 
- Second point, I just want to indicate the level of accessibility for wheelchairs. On your recommendation I will clean the useless tags
- for the 3rd point, it is an error to be corrected for a single polygon
Lejun (2022-07-20 03:35:54+00:00): On that first point I’m not sure if relation:street isn’t more suited than relation:associatedStreet for that purpose. But I’m don’t have a position on that matter, especially as according to TagInfo[1] it seems nearly as used in associatedStreet (2093 uses) than in street (3901 uses). Moreover I just decided to remotely look into French Guiana which may have different mapping practices than where I’ve mapped to this day.

[1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=sidewalk#roles
Lejun (2022-07-20 04:07:11+00:00): Au temps pour moi, je viens de comprendre que ces modifications sont en France Métro’. Le cœur du message reste le même, tu peux ignorer la dernière phrase.
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2022-08-05 10:48:27+00:00): So I drove by Ole Borchs Vej this morning to check if the speed limits had really been changed. They had not. It is still maxspeed=50, maxspeed:advisory=30.

The square, blue signs are not maxspeed.
gsargilan (2023-05-07 17:59:03+00:00): Hallo
Diese Wege aus Änderungssatz 123736134 enden beim Viehzaun mit Storm. Der Weg ist nicht erkennbar und muss gelöscht werden.
PaoloLombardi (2022-07-18 12:24:00+00:00): Buondì
Grazie mille dell'aggiornamento ma non ho capito qual era il problema.
Un saluto
GPar (2022-07-18 22:42:50+00:00): Il problema era solo il tag delle highway. Se il ramo principale  è un track, quello secondario non può essere un service o residenziale altrimenti maproulette la segnala come disconnessa dalla rete stradale.  L'alternativa è mappare la principale come service ma non mi pare tale
PaoloLombardi (2022-07-19 12:14:26+00:00): Buondì grazie mille delle info.
Ho verificato su Maproulette e ci sono altri casi simili ma pensavo non ci fosse alcun problema a taggare con "service" una strada privata che si innesta su una "track".
Nel caso del percorso N. 1011273081 si tratta infatti di una "service "privata, di accesso ad una casa, parzialmente asfaltata e con ghiaia quindi non può essere concepita come "track". Nel medesimo territorio ci sono altre strade di accesso tipiche degli sterrati di campagna o boschivi ma in presenza di strade private l'accesso è chiuso da cancelli e la superficie cambia completamente diventando asfaltata oppure lastricata. Quindi o si ignora il suggerimento di Maproulette oppure come in questo caso la "track" principale deve essere modificata in "service" ma a mio avviso non ha alcun senso. Ma quelle "track" private così come le hai corrette non vanno bene. Un saluto