piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
_Madfly (2022-12-13 16:20:10+00:00): Jag tror inte att det är tillåtet att cykla här eftersom övergångsstället (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10161952474) ser ut att vara avsett endast för fotgängare, enligt flygbilderna. Den finns inte heller med i NVDB-uppgifter.
Jag har tagit bort "foot=yes" nu.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:51:59+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:52:04+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:52:09+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
MxxCon (2022-12-14 03:23:19+00:00): Hello.
Could you please elaborate on your edit? Why did you delete this amenity tag and changed building tag to just "yes"?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130036597
emersonveenstra (2022-12-13 18:03:20+00:00): Hi,

A couple things:
1. Don't put "fdbgf" as a changeset comment, you need to accurately describe what you changed
2. Don't double-tag objects, there was already a hotel mapped. Please delete the hotel you mapped.

Thanks!
emersonveenstra (2023-01-23 15:06:29+00:00): fixed the dup hotel
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:52:14+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:52:18+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Sammyhawkrad (2022-12-14 09:20:22+00:00): Hi Gabriel, welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for contributing to the map in Ghana.

There is a minor issue with your changeset which I'm going to address and fix. The area you added is a parking lot which your changeset comment confirms and not a park (think of Rattray Park). The parking lots have already been mapped. Also, I don't think the entire area you mapped will be grazed and used as a charging station.

Confirm the exact location that will be used as a charging station and if they've started working on the map it with the combination of charging station[1] tag and construction[2] tags.

1. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station
2. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:52:23+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:52:29+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:52:34+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:52:41+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:52:46+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
antonr (2022-12-17 21:02:43+00:00): Hej osmviborg

Det her changeset forvirrer mig... (og din beskrivelse/source er så generelle at de ikke hjælper det mindste på min forståelse).

Så vidt jeg kan se[1] består dine ændringer udelukkende af tilpasninger af skovområder som jeg oprettede ca 15 min før dit changeset. Dine ændringer indskrænker skovpolygonerne, så de nu ikke længere dækker alle områder der har skov ifølge SDFE fotos og surface lidar...

1. Var det ikke smartere at kommunikere til mig hvis du mener jeg kan forbedre noget jeg lige har lavet? Det synes jeg i hvert fald ville være en bedre samarbejdsform. (måske har jeg overset noget fra dig?)

2. Hvad er din kilde til at indskrænke skovområderne, fx mellem nr 23/25 og Julsøvej? Som nævnt ser mine øjne skov dér på SDFE foto/lidar.

Mvh

[1] https://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=130037215
osmviborg (2022-12-17 21:08:58+00:00): Det er forkert at pakke huse og veje ind i træer.
antonr (2022-12-17 22:24:20+00:00): Hmmmm... Hvorfor?

(og hvorfor skrev du ikke det i din changeset beskrivelse eller i en kommentar til mit changeset?)
antonr (2022-12-18 10:10:03+00:00): @osmviborg, jeg er stadig interesseret i svar...

Hvis du ikke har lyst til at give svar, foreslår jeg at du ruller dit changeset tilbage, sådan at osm svarer bedre til virkeligheden.
osmviborg (2022-12-18 10:15:53+00:00): Det er forkert at pakke huse og veje ind i træer, som du havde gjort her.
osmviborg (2022-12-18 10:19:51+00:00): I den virkelige verden gror der ikke træer på hverken veje eller hustage.
antonr (2022-12-18 11:54:31+00:00): Min indsigelse er at du har fjernet skov steder hvor der faktisk er skov. Man kan SE træerne på de kilder jeg har angive i mit changeset!

Og hvis vi skal være helt præcise (og det synes jeg), så har jeg ikke registreret et eneste træ. Jeg har registreret skov. Så jeg synes vi skal diskutere skov, ikke træer.

Jeg tror den almindelige opfattelse er at skov også omfatter de områder der er mellem træernes stammer, ikke kun de områder der er inde i stammerne. Fx kan man gå en tur i skoven, uden at der vokser et træ ovenpå ens hoved, og en skovvej kan løbe gennem en skov uden at skovvejen er fuldstændig blokeret af træstammer...

Jeg tænker en god grænse for hvor der er skov, er trækronernes udstrækning. Den er god fordi:
- Den faktisk tillader konceptet sammenhængende skov (fremfor mapning af alle enkelttræer)
- Den kan observeres i virkeligheden
- Den kan observeres på luftfotos og lidar.

PS dine antagelser(!) omkring den virkelige verden er forkerte:
- https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-smOM33x6m8M/UCdTf3NPHII/AAAAAAAAEpA/pOljiOTTQ7k/s1600/drive+through+tree.jpg
- https://1funny.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/trees-on-roof.jpg
antonr (2022-12-19 14:43:14+00:00): @osmviborg, betyder manglende svar at du ikke har nogen indvendinger mod at tilbagerulle dette changeset?
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:52:51+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:52:55+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:53:00+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:53:05+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:53:12+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:53:19+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:53:24+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-26 02:53:31+00:00): Revert by DWG - undiscussed import and unauthorised sources: changeset/131716685
LockOnGuy (2022-12-14 16:28:43+00:00): Thank you for catching this critical error on the map and fix it! I'm very thankful for you.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130037702
Princess_Aurora (2022-12-15 06:59:47+00:00): Hello LockOnGuy;
Thank you for your comment.
Regards
Princess_Aurora
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 05:35:33+00:00): Reverted by DWG - undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131678575
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 05:35:38+00:00): Reverted by DWG - undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131678575
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 05:35:43+00:00): Reverted by DWG - undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131678575
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 05:35:48+00:00): Reverted by DWG - undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131678575
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 05:35:57+00:00): Reverted by DWG - undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131678575
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 05:36:02+00:00): Reverted by DWG - undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131678575
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 05:36:09+00:00): Reverted by DWG - undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131678575
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 05:36:35+00:00): Reverted by DWG - undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131678575
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 05:36:50+00:00): Reverted by DWG - undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131678575
Diacritic (2022-12-14 09:03:38+00:00): Hi JonzCode,

Thanks for your contributions in the Springvale area.

Unfortunately, the way that you have modified this turn lane doesn't match the best practice guidelines.

Turn lanes should be indicated using the turn and change keys. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn

This is because we don't want to map the highways separately if there is no physical separation.

Hope the links help. I'm happy to discuss any questions you may have. :)

Dian
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130038152
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 05:36:55+00:00): Reverted by DWG - undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131678575
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 04:45:58+00:00): Reverted by DWG for undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131677531
JayTurnr (2023-11-05 01:03:45+00:00): Hi, a lot of your directions are backwards on stop and give way signs.

Please see the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Tag:highway%3Dstop#Direcci%C3%B3n
Monchinho (2023-11-05 15:48:26+00:00): Yes, I know. I am correcting those errors little by little. Thank you!
JayTurnr (2023-11-05 17:32:45+00:00): No worries, I fixed a few in Monterroso
MxxCon (2022-12-14 03:29:27+00:00): How come you removed horse=no tag? Are horses allowed on the highline?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130038590
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 04:46:08+00:00): Reverted by DWG for undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131677531
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 04:46:20+00:00): Reverted by DWG for undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131677531
Hufkratzer (2022-12-14 17:30:09+00:00): Hi,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1121713963
which you have tagged with leisure=horse_riding looks more like a riding arena. The wiki recommends to tag riding arenas with leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian. Compare
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1087063378
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=pitch#Riding_arena
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dhorse_riding
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 04:46:26+00:00): Reverted by DWG for undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131677531
eggie (2022-12-13 16:02:29+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback.. Je hebt huisnummer 1 toegevoegd aan de gebouwomtrek.. Er hoort echter een adresnode te zijn met nummer 1  Wat doet adresnode 26 hier? 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-12-13 16:09:21+00:00): Zie https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=VOC-kade%2026&resultOffset=0&objectId=0363100012180753&geometry.x=123626.856&geometry.y=487219.572&zoomlevel=6&detailsObjectId=0363010012063359

Wellicht was het ooit nr 1
Je kunt een terugmelding doen via bovenstaande site van het Kadaster,
Die kent nr 1 niet.
Het adres op de gebouwomtrek kan beter verwijderd worden.
eggie (2022-12-13 16:15:37+00:00): Wonderlijke mengeling van straatnamen hier
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=Jacob%20Bontiusplaats%202&resultOffset=0&objectId=0363200012065503&geometry.x=123648.97547022&geometry.y=487138.32260073&zoomlevel=6&detailsObjectId=0363200012065503

Volgens mijn achtergrond van de BGT zou het hier ook de Jan Kiststraat zijn? 
https://www.verbeterdekaart.nl/#?geometry.x=123668.35&geometry.y=487182.19&zoomlevel=13.15

Je zou hier ook een terugmelding kunnen doen.
rodrigoararipe (2022-12-13 17:02:25+00:00): It's number one, but on the side street: Jacob Bontiusplaats 1
https://www.amsterdamroest.nl/amsterdam-roest.html
I didn't see a way to update it on BAG
eggie (2022-12-13 17:54:16+00:00): Hi.. you may put a request at the site of the Dutch Kadaster.. link bagviewer above.
You always gets an answer.

Gr eggie
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 04:46:32+00:00): Reverted by DWG for undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131677531
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 04:46:43+00:00): Reverted by DWG for undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131677531
flo2154 (2023-01-13 21:56:00+00:00): Die MVG-Rad-Station sollte wieder eine "docking_station" statt eines "dropoff_point"s sein: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=133550405680145

Siehe auch die Diskussionen unter https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129598037 und https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129573242
Fizzie-DWG (2023-01-25 04:46:51+00:00): Reverted by DWG for undiscussed import from unauthorised sources: changeset/131677531
Supaplex (2023-03-09 09:47:45+00:00): Hi, 

Are you sure there is a building here?
It seems does not exist according to the satellite image
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130039431
NorthCrab (2022-12-14 08:24:39+00:00): Witamy na OpenStreetMap! Zmiana wygląda w porządku, pozdrawiam!
trigpoint (2023-06-01 09:34:18+00:00): Bore da
Just wondering why you have tagged https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/396445808 as illegal to ride a bike or a horse?
It appears to be just a normal unclassified road.

Diolch Phil
NTTrailsLSE (2023-06-01 10:31:49+00:00): Hi Phil, 
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have reached out to the local ranger to understand whether this was a mistake in the original mapping session, or whether it was marked as 'no' on the basis that access is discouraged for those modes of transport on this way. 
Will get back to you as soon as I hear more. Thanks!
trigpoint (2023-06-01 10:42:56+00:00): Thank you Olivia
Please remember that no means illegal, not discouraged. However this road is part of NCN 82 so even discouraging bikes would be wrong. As for horses it would be very unusual to discourage them on a public road.

Cheers Phil
Richard (2023-06-09 14:01:12+00:00): I cycled this road a few years back - I don't recall any signs forbidding motor vehicles or horses, and as Phil says it's part of NCN 82 (Lon Las Cymru alternate braid) so bikes certainly aren't forbidden.

If there's signage such as "Unsuitable for motor vehicles" you could tag it as motor_vehicle=discouraged (though again I don't recall any such signage).
NTTrailsLSE (2023-06-09 14:44:22+00:00): Hi! Thank you both for the comments and bringing this to our attention. I've just had confirmation from our local NT ranger that this was marked as no bike / horse access by mistake and is in fact an unclassified minor road open to all traffic. This has now been corrected in OSM. 

NB: Due to the low usage & comments from OSM users around the subjectivity of the =discouraged tag, we have opted to use =no in instances where access is discouraged. See the Disused Tags section of our page here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths

We accept that this is not a perfect solution, and plan to update our discouraged ways (of which there are few) from =no when a suitable alternate tag is upvoted by the community.  As ever, we are aware of and looking to utilise the skillset and experience of OSM users, so welcome feedback on the topic.
Rems (2023-01-10 18:31:12+00:00): déjà ajouté
NorthCrab (2022-12-16 11:59:20+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1121056037

To jest błędne mapowanie, nawigacje się przez to popsują. Proszę zapoznaj się z https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:area:highway=footway

"This tag is not the same as highway=footway + area=yes which represents a non-linear feature such as a square or plaza where multi-directional travel is possible."

highway=footway area=yes nie ma tutaj sensu więc podejrzewam że to błąd.

Pozdrawiam!
NorthCrab (2022-12-16 12:01:42+00:00): Należy poprawić tutaj i inne obszary które przerobiłeś. Ew. możesz podesłać listę numerków changeset to pomogę ci wycofać (np ten to 130039985). Tylko to usunie wszystkie zmiany które robiłeś w danym changeset więc może niektóre można ręcznie naprawić (w aktualnym przypadku nie ma żadnych innych zmian więc będzie ok).
abakus_uploader (2022-12-13 23:32:19+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!
NorthCrab (2022-12-14 08:23:40+00:00): Witaj, zamieniłem rodzaj na residential ponieważ podjazd z nazwą to chyba pomyłka :D A jak nazwa nadana to znaczy że publiczna droga w mieście.
kasztelan111 (2022-12-14 15:54:30+00:00): w porządku, dzięki za poprawę
eggie (2022-12-13 16:48:51+00:00): Dag Tomio..
De nieuwe wegen lopen nu wel dwars door sportvelden?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-12-13 16:50:20+00:00): Zijn deze wegen nog wellicht highway=construction
construction=?  living_street.. residential?
eggie (2022-12-13 17:14:56+00:00): Het sportveld heb ik verwijderd en landuse construction toegevoegd.

Er loopt een importverzoek van woningen via het forum van OSM
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130040115#map=18/51.39011/5.17721

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-12-13 17:15:36+00:00): herstel  https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bag-importverzoeken/3394/304
eggie (2022-12-13 17:16:54+00:00): Importverzoek loopt
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bag-importverzoeken/3394/304
eggie (2022-12-13 17:31:31+00:00): Sportterrein heb ik aangepast
Gr eggie
jmapb (2022-12-28 16:50:37+00:00): I'm not convinced of the wisdom of adding all of these tiny dual carriageway sections just to draw the traffic islands. The islands can be mapped as nodes, which might not be as satisfying from a micromapping point of view but is less error-prone, easier to draw, comprehend, and maintain.

That said, in situations where a dual carriageway is necessary, please make sure to consider the routing implications where the dual ways merge into the single way. They will nearly always need a "only_straight_on" restriction like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14113975 to prevent using the junction for u-turns. This is especially important in intersections like this one that forbid left turns -- currently OSM is recommending something very illegal: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=40.68373%2C-73.97661%3B40.68345%2C-73.97700

Thanks, J
akadouri (2023-04-21 17:56:22+00:00): The only way to capture the type of curbs on each side of the island is to split the road carriageway around it.

The  carriageways could continue split though instead of merging back together before the intersections.
jmapb (2023-04-22 00:03:22+00:00): I understand that this split-carriageway island mapping technique has value for crosswalk micromapping -- otherwise I would have just reverted these changes and added island nodes, instead of commenting ;)

Itserpol never replied here but did eventually add the required restriction relations in changeset 130040223. In the mean time, vehicle routing was borked at this busy intersection for a month. 🤷

I'd like to think we can put our heads together and devise an island mapping technique that will allow full crosswalk details without subjecting the roads to this butchery... Looks like I've got some catching up to do on Slack so maybe y'all have already cracked it!

Regardless, it's important that crosswalk mappers understand that splitting a single-carriageway road into dual carriageways is kind of a big deal and can cause serious problems if not done carefully.
akadouri (2023-04-23 16:36:19+00:00): I am wrong about the curbs and dual carriageways, it could have been mapped like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9197760562.

Yeah, splitting carriageways can be messy especially when there are many "hidden" turn restrictions in NYC.
eggie (2022-12-13 16:04:37+00:00): De rest van de gebouwen staan in OSM nog als 'under construction' getagd? Kan dat eraf?

MVG
eggie
rodrigoararipe (2022-12-13 16:58:31+00:00): Hi eggie, many of the buildings appear as one, I'll split them up later and update the status. Just a few are still in construction, most are completed.
eggie (2022-12-13 17:01:51+00:00): Hi... Better not changing the buildingshapes.. All buildings are import from the Dutch Registry Kadaster. 
I removed the construction tags. 


Greetz,
eggie
rodrigoararipe (2022-12-13 17:43:28+00:00): I see. How would be the best approach in editing it so they show up as split buildings? These buildings next to Roest for example are 4 different buildings now.
eggie (2022-12-13 18:01:59+00:00): Hi.. That's up to the Dutch Kadaster.
You may shift the addressnodes. That's no problem.. But don't change the buildings. This will cause problems because we will update the map.. ...New updates from time to time.
If you like to create an extra layer with additional info use one big 
building:part=....  on top of the seperate buildings. 
Gr eggie
risturiz (2022-12-13 16:09:49+00:00): Hola, podrías colocar información en el changeset? "fgdfggdf" parece spam y en este caso donde borraste multiples nodos, se puede interpretar de esa manera. Saludos.
ivanbranco (2022-12-14 11:20:21+00:00): Ciao Lorenzo, benvenuto su OSM.

Cosa rappresentano questi elementi che hai aggiunto?
corfede (2022-12-22 15:13:14+00:00): Sembrava volesse in qualche modo evidenziare tutta l'area di Lecce all'interno della circonvallazione. Ad ogni modo per ora ho rimosso sia la linea che il poligono.
ivanbranco (2022-12-14 11:30:26+00:00): Ciao Silvio, benvenuto su OSM!

Attenzione, avevi mappato l'area dell'agriturismo come se fosse un edificio (building=yes). Il sito ha provato ad avvisarti che c'erano degli edifici sovrapposti ma presumo tu abbia accettato la sua proposta di indicarne uno come "sopra" agli altri. Se non sei sicuro di cosa significhino gli errori è meglio lasciarli stare invece di accettare le proposte del sito. 

Ricordati poi che in Italia su OSM mappiamo gli indirizzi come nodi indipendenti (e non come attributi delle aree), e che cliccando Q sulla tastiera dopo aver selezionato un elemento puoi rendere i suoi angoli retti (utile per gli edifici).

Ho corretto io comunque, grazie per le aggiunte e buona mappatura :) se hai domande chiedi pure
aTarom (2023-01-25 16:33:06+00:00): Hola Garminio,
a
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8393601195/history
amb el comentari del changeset "Cova sense nom"
te nom o no? es oficial o local?
Salutacions
SekeRob (2022-12-15 16:44:10+00:00): Hi there Otto

Can you tell me if these 2 border sharing heath elements can be merged or if there's a reason they have to remain separate?

Way 1121705149 as outer
Way 1121705151 as outer

They are both part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15000029

Presently they are flagged as 2 members of the same heath multipolygon sharing part of their outline and thus signalled with duplicate segment. Merging is done in few seconds with JOSM.

Let me know.

ciao
SekeRob
Ottonormalverbraucher (2022-12-16 06:51:05+00:00): Hi SekeRob,

one of the ways was assigned to the wrong relation, now fixed.

ciao
Ottonormalverbraucher
SekeRob (2022-12-16 09:36:45+00:00): Ha, that's one reason why I've more or less stopped using multipolygons for non-bordering areas, residential the going exception. Error prone. Saw the landcover texture difference though and the precise bordering which is the reason I asked.

have a nice day
JasmineRanasinghe (2022-12-22 12:14:56+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths