piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
chachafish (2020-04-16 00:48:58+00:00): Hello again :) You deleted the tag for the convenience store here. Is this not a convenience store any longer? Thanks
alester (2020-04-14 18:58:43+00:00): This is a type of change that needs to be discussed more widely. The regional districts have been admin_level=6 since they were created, so changing them all to 5 will likely cause issues for data consumers. The regional districts are the equivalent of US counties or UK counties/council areas, which are also admin_level=6. If you have a good case for our regional districts to be changed to a higher admin level, it should be made in the Talk-CA mailing list so others can discuss the merits. Until there's general agreement, these should be changed back to admin_level=6.
alester (2020-04-15 20:59:37+00:00): Since this change could cause a number of issues for data consumers, I reverted the changes myself in order to minimize the chance of any negative impact. I also found that the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada_admin_level article didn't accurately reflect the situation in BC, so I updated it accordingly.
Arctic gnome (2020-07-29 00:23:40+00:00): No problem. I'm happy as long as we're consistent within each province and have the reasoning documented on the wiki.
kogutowicz-mano (2020-04-15 14:20:36+00:00): "Baja – Csátalja 120 kV" a 156200971-es távvezeték neve, noha immár "voltage=132000". Ez ellentmondásos.
hunsly (2020-04-15 17:29:36+00:00): Mivel gyakran "120 kV"-nak említik a valós érték helyett, ezért ezeket nem írtam át. Nem volt célom kideríteni, hogy  az adott objektumnak mi a közismert neve, mert nagyon sokáig tartott volna. Utólag ezeket lehet javítani, de fontos, hogy a közismert neve legyen megadva.
Digilazarus (2020-05-08 21:16:39+00:00): Sziasztrok, látom, hogy egy generális átrendezés történt az elmúlt időszakban, a 120 kV-os hálózatot egységesen átírtátok 132 kv-os feszültségszintre. Szépmunka volt, vitathatatlan egységesítés. Csak a következő a helyzet:
- Magyarországon a 120 kV -> 132 kV egy elvi váltás volt, a Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal 2019-ben hozott egy olyan (gazdasági) szabályozást, aminek következtében onnantól érdemesebb az addig 120 kV-osnak nevezett hálózatot 132 kV-osnak definiálni.
- De ez semmiféle fizikai változással nem járt, a hálózat eddig is úgy volt mértezve, hogy bírta a 132 kV-os terhelést is
- és a valós terhelés nem is változott (tehát az a kifejezés nem releváns, hogy "a valós érték helyett")
- Viszont az OpenStreetMap ezen adatait használó általam ismert egyetlen komoly oldal, az OpenInfrastructureMap (https://openinframap.org/#6.3/47.574/19.032) színkódbeosztása olyan, hogy a 120 kV-os feszültségszintet jelölő szín még jól elüt a magasabb feszültségszintekétől, és ez nagyon jól jön Magyarországon, ahol a 120 kV-os szint elosztóhálózati, míg a következő használt szint, a 220 kV már átviteli hálózati;
- a 132 kV-ot viszont ott már egy pirosasabb szín jelöli, ami jobban hasonlít a magasabb feszültségszintekére, így egybemosódik, rosszabbul megkülönböztethető a látvány
- így tehát a változtatás nyoimán most sokat romlott a világ közműhálózatát mutató térkép olvashatósága a magyar rendszer tekintetében.
Én emiatt óvakodtam eddig a változtatástól (az alállomásoknál odaírtam a 132 kV-ot, de a vezetékek értékeit meghagytam a 120 kV-os szinten)
- És ez az eljárásom védhető volt, mivel a rendszer objektíve nem változott azóta, mióta 120 kV-osnak is volt nevezve.
Megértem a változtatásotokat, elméletben jogos, de nagyon sajnálom, mert innentől egy rosszabbul használható térképünk van az OpenInfrastructureMap-on.
A másik lehetőség lenne az Open Infrastructure Map készítőjét rávenni, hogy változtassa meg úgy a színkódot, hogy a 132 kV-é még a 120-assal azonos szín legyen... De ez abszolút nem biztos hogy megy, mert valószínűleg spec magyar helzyet, hogy nálunk az átviteli/elosztó váltás 132 fölött van
kogutowicz-mano (2020-05-09 05:46:02+00:00): Kétféle megközelítést tartok elképzelhetőnek a munkánk során.

a) geoinformatikai adatbázist építünk, ami a valóságot tükrözi, azután ki-ki olyan megjelenítést alapoz rá, amilyet szeret.

b) kiválasztunk egy-két partikuláris megjelenítést, és olyan adatokat teszünk alá, hogy azok jól nézzenek ki.

Én személy szerint az a)-ra szavazok. Egyrészt a valóság ritkábban változik (noha most épp erre látunk példát), kevesebbszer kell módosítani az adatokat. Másfelől renderelő sokkal több van, mint adatbázis. Nem lehet az utóbbival az összes kliens igényeihez igazodni.

Én is inkább megkérdezném Russ Garrettet, hogy nem tud-e az OIM országonként eltérő feszültségek szerint színezni, (amíg be nem vezetnek további tageket az adatbázisban a vezetékek osztályozására). Apropó Milyen színű lenne a 120 kV-os távvezeték? Nekem tetszik a 132 sötét narancs árnyalata. :-)
kogutowicz-mano (2020-05-09 05:48:40+00:00): Az utolsó bekezdést visszavonom... Nem tájékozódtam elég alaposan. Bocsánat!
hunsly (2020-05-10 19:23:10+00:00): @Digilazarus: Fontos szabály, hogy nem az OSM Adatokat igazítjuk a megjelenéshez. Az adatoknak a valós helyzetet kell tükrözniük. A megjelenítők dolga hogy igazodjanak hozzá. emlékeim szerint nem csak ez az egy megjelenítő létezik. Így én is az a-ra szavazok. :) Lehet hogy valahol tényleg csak 120 kV fut benne de ezt alá kell támasztanunk valami adattal, hogy biztos nem lesz 132. Engem amúgy nem zavarnak annyira színezések. E-Közműn ehhez képest minden piros. :D
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-16 22:08:43+00:00): Well, there are highly visinle Brockwell Park signboards at every entrance to the park, put there by Lambeth Coucil (the landowner), which clearly state that 'responsible cycling' is allowed (with pedestrian priority). It is also clearly marked as an off-road cycle route on Lambeth Council's official cycling map on their public website.
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-16 22:12:09+00:00): See https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/cycling/lambeth-cycle-routes-map where it is a 'Level 1' cycle route
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-16 22:14:00+00:00): And as for byelaws, there's nothing to contradict either of those sources, see https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/lsp-parks-open-spaces-byelaws.pdf
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-16 22:16:39+00:00): There is also a parallel cycle/zebra crossing from LCN25 (Rosendale Road) leading directly into the park through the gates!
Simon Still (2020-07-16 22:35:40+00:00): Yes, as the borough lead for London Cycling Campaign I consulted with the council before making these edits and they reflect the true status.

bylaw prohibits cycling except on designated routes. While there were plans to route LCN25 through the park this did not happen (it ran down Dulwich Road in stead around the edge)

There are maps that were issued that showed a route in the park but the most recent versions showed some park paths as red lines - but there was no key to what a red line meant. 

investigation showed that the maps were created with submissions from Lambeth LCC which were 'aspirational' rather than factual.

the bylaws were never changed and cycling in the park remains officially forbidden though explicitly tolerated as per the signs at the entrances.
Simon Still (2020-07-16 22:37:14+00:00): I'm newish to editing but pretty sure my edits are correct as I checked them with Martin of Cyclestreets who was in agreement with the tags I used .
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-17 08:18:32+00:00): Well, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but 'I checked with my mate Martin' is problematic as a piece of evidence ;) 
I've given you links to Lambeth's council's currently published part bye-laws and cycling map, which are live on their website today, now, in 2020. 
Do you have a link where we can look up this different set of byelaws you're referring to?  And this 'more recent' map you're talking about?
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-17 09:03:58+00:00): *currently published PARK bye-laws, sorry ;)
Simon Still (2020-07-17 14:14:48+00:00): I’ve not “checked with my mate martin”, I’ve discussed the official legal status of the paths on the park with the head of transport for Lambeth council (as I am the borough  rep for The London cycling campaign). Is that good enough for you?
Simon Still (2020-07-17 14:17:05+00:00): This was part of our work to clarify the status of cycling in all Lambeth’s parks (and to campaign for more) and the discussion took place because the maps, signs and byelaws were contradictory
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-17 15:13:30+00:00): If that's the "official legal status of the park's paths" then it must be published somewhere where we can all check it. The published sources I have consulted so far (https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/lsp-parks-open-spaces-byelaws.pdf and https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking-transport-and-streets/cycling/lambeth-cycle-routes-map  ) do not agree with your recollection of verbal comments made by that council officer. Perhaps you could go back to him and ask for clarification?
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-17 15:27:30+00:00): The maps and signs and byelaws aren't contradictory in any case. The map says the council consider the path round the edge of Brockwell Park a 'Level 1' cycle route in terms of cycleability (the best level). The signs say responsible cycling is permitted (with pedestrian priority), and the Byelaws booklet says "No person shall without reasonable excuse ride a cycle in the ground **EXCEPT in any part of the ground where there is a right of way for cycles or on a designated route for cycling." - which, as indicated by the maps and signs, there is.
Simon Still (2020-07-17 17:30:58+00:00): No wonder there is a high dropout rate for OSM contributors. 

I’ve told you repeatedly- the council map does not accurately reflect the legal status. Which I’ve confirmed with the council. And I’ve marked all paths “permissive” (which allows cycling) which is better access than was marked before I edited.
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-17 18:32:54+00:00): Yes and I've asked you repeatedly, where is this "legal status" published, in that case? (If not in the official byelaws PDF on the council website?) And you've yet to answer, and instead given me about 5 replies relating a conversation you apparently had with some guy who works at the council. I'm not the one being unreasonable here.
Simon Still (2020-07-17 20:43:07+00:00): Flip this around - can you show me the traffic orders that permit cycling in the park?

Those maps don’t have any legal status
Simon Still (2020-07-17 20:46:21+00:00): Give me an email address and I’ll send you the full discussion/trail we sent to the council
Simon Still (2020-07-17 20:50:25+00:00): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gMk7GWI-fQJs8wrKTT4I-VkAFt-3ZtX-JynZR_eX4gs/edit

This is what led to the meeting with council officers That led to the meeting and clarification
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-18 12:48:35+00:00): Traffic Regulation Orders ("TROs") are legal instruments used to amend rights of way on 'roads', they're not used in parks. Here's a useful recent summary explaining more about them http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06013/SN06013.pdf
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-18 12:51:51+00:00): As you seem to be aware, rules about what you can do in a public park owned by a local government authority (such as Brockwell Park, owned by the London Borough of Lambeth) are made using 'bye laws'.  Wikipedia has a good article on the subject here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byelaws_in_the_United_Kingdom
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-18 12:55:00+00:00): As I've explained to you, I think, three times now, Lambeth Borough have chosen to publish their bye-laws for their parks here  https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/leisure-parks-and-libraries/parks/rules-and-regulations-for-parks-and-open-spaces-guide. The rule about cycling is on page 12 (Part 3, Rule 15). It's quite clear. The default position is (I paraphrase): you're not allowed to ride a bike in Lambeth's parks EXCEPT where they they say you can.
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-18 12:57:16+00:00): In the particular case of Brockwell Park, they quite clearly say you can, in two ways: (1) on big noticeboards throughout the park, which say 'responsible' cycling is permitted and you have to give way to pedestrians, and (2) on the 'Cycling' page of their webite, where they have published a map which shows the perimeter path of Brockwell Park to be a 'Level 1 cycle route'.
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-18 13:00:00+00:00): As you say, their map in itself does not have 'legal status' (i.e. it is not a bye-law) but it clearly, in conjunction with the signs, allows one to reasonably conclude that that path is a 'designated route for cycling' within the meaning of the bye-law.
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-18 13:03:03+00:00): If there is dispute about that interpretation, it must be settled in a magistrate's court. Like any law, it's meaning cannot be unilaterally determined by the body who passed the law (Lambeth Council), nor by your mate Martin who happens to work for the council (even if his job there is currently 'Head of Transport'). Laws are enacted by elected bodies and interpreted by the courts, not by unelected people who work for the council.
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-18 13:03:51+00:00): I will nonetheless read the material you have linked to with interest.
Simon Still (2020-07-18 13:23:09+00:00): No, Simon Phillips is Transport Manager for Lambeth, responsible for walking and cycling policy and implementation. I discussed the legal status of cycling in Lambeth’s parks with him. 

Martin Lucas Smith is a director of https://www.cyclestreets.org/ and trained me in OSM editing and discussed this change set with me (we worked through it together)  as it was one of the first things I did.
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-18 13:46:53+00:00): OK ;)  Their names are not really the issue here.  Is Simon Philips qualified to give legal advice?  LCC has close links with Osbourne's Law, who I am sure could explain the difference between a TRO and bye-law.

I don't actually disagree with tagging that path in Brockwell Park as 'footpath' with 'cycling: permissive' - that's exactly what it is!  The reason I commented on this changeset was because it also had de-tagged a lot of the 'cycle route' relation I'd put there, for the perimeter of Brockwell Park. From all you've said, I still feel it ought to be reinstated, but I always prefer to discuss and get to the bottom of things on OSM, rather than just high-handedly revert things. I am happy to read through the documents you have on Google Drive if there's more nuance in there that I'm missing. I sent a share request.
Simon Still (2020-07-18 16:21:36+00:00): I'd hope that the person in charge of Transport and Cycling at lambeth would have enough understanding of traffic laws/byelaws etc to give an authorititate view.  His answer was that the park bylaws were never changed so cycling remains, on a strict interpretation, prohibited in the park. 

This LCC project looked a the status of cycling in parks in some depth and I feel strongly that it shouldn't be reinstated.  

OSMs general principle for mapping of cycle route relations is that they should reflect what is signed on the ground (there is a discussion on talk GB at the moment regarding an off road route that someone has added that has no signage but for which maps exist - the consensus was that it should not be included.

There are no signposted routes through the park. Cycling is still permitted on all paths and routing engines will send people through - potentially now in a more flexible way since all paths on which cycling is permitted are now consistently tagged.
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-18 17:02:10+00:00): I would share your hope on the competancy of council officers, however sadly councils get things wrong and face legal challenges quite frequently. ;)  In this instance, I do not think his reply makes any sense. 

Thanks for sharing the Google Doc, which is a thorough survey of the sources. 
In my view, the fundamental confusion here is that you are expecting TSRG-approved signs to be used in a park. However a park is not a 'road' or highway and is not within the remit of the TSRG and other associated legislation. (If you trawl that wikipedia article on bye-laws, you'll see the council's statutory powers in that regard stem from the Public Health Act 1875).  Hence you are inferring too much of an implication from the absence of TSRG-style signage or markings in Brockwell Park.
ramthelinefeed (2020-07-18 18:51:42+00:00): I have made some bowel-shatteringly pedantic comments on your Google Doc, which explains my reasoning in (probably far too much) detail. 

In less pedantic and more pragmatic terms, I would say: following Lambeth's cycle map, and paying due attention to the signs on display, I spent a pleasant half hour one even last week cycling round Brockwell Park (slowly and giving way to pedestrians at all times). It was a nice ride and in my view certainly deserves its place as a tagged 'local cycle route' on OpenStreetMap.
PT-53 (2020-05-05 05:56:46+00:00): Hallo bergfrei,
Du hast an diesem Knoten
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/370356214/history#map=18/48.08795/9.74378
verschiedene Access-Merkmale u.a. eingetragen. Sollten diese vielleicht an diesen Weg:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/790779915#map=19/48.08829/9.74189
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33087492
Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?
Fragende Grüße
eggie (2020-04-15 10:57:00+00:00): Houd er svp rekening mee dat BING als achtergrond verouderd is en behoorlijk verschoven ligt.
Beter PDOK actueel instellen.
Loopt de Raadsliedenstraat hier door het gebouw heen? 
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2020-04-15 11:02:07+00:00): De straat liep goed...  Het gebouw heb ik aangepast naar de Kadasterdata. 
Gr Eggie
mmdlvw (2020-04-16 16:34:20+00:00): Kun je het gebouw weer terugzetten? De straat loopt bij huisnummers 138-154 onder het gebouw door namelijk :)
eggie (2020-04-16 18:33:12+00:00): Ik zal even kijken.. Het Kadaster registreert nooit 
overkappingen.
Een weg teken je dan in met covered=yes
Die vraag had ik ook gesteld.
eggie (2020-04-16 18:42:09+00:00): Ik vraag even om nieuwe import, want verder klopt er meer niet aan de import van het gebouw.
Gr Eggie
eggie (2020-04-16 18:47:15+00:00): Her-import gevraagd  .. ook van de Moskee https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=783424#p783424
eggie (2020-04-17 18:28:05+00:00): Gebouwen zijn inmiddels geïmporteerd.
Eggie
rene78 (2020-04-16 15:51:31+00:00): this is not motorawy
RHajibeigi (2020-04-16 15:58:05+00:00): Hi there - my apologies. I was training someone in how to do the mapping and that change was supposed to be deleted. It was an example of how to map a line even though in the instructions we were focused on buildings only. Thanks for catching it.
rene78 (2020-04-16 16:10:47+00:00): Cool for teaching people how to map! All the best! René
Henri97 (2020-04-28 08:21:03+00:00): Bitte nicht nur von Karten abzeichnen. Nicht alle Gebäude sind aktuell.
fx99 (2020-04-28 08:33:16+00:00): Um welche Gebäude geht es konkret?
Ich schaue eigentlich immer auch auf die 2019er Luftbilder von Stuttgart.
Henri97 (2020-05-04 19:01:10+00:00): Ging nur um ein Haus in der Josenhansstraße 6, Weilimdorf
Aber Nevermind, habe es gelöscht und mach ne construction hin :)
user_5359 (2020-04-14 19:21:27+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please notice this is a production database not a playground or testing database. I revert your entry. If this is a misunderstanding, you can answer with your arguments here.
praeteritum (2023-07-30 06:13:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 139196338.
eggie (2020-04-14 18:25:52+00:00): Tip.. layer=-1 er af.  Het gedeelte onder gebouw afsplitsen en een extra tag tunnel=building_passage.  De nodes mogen aan het gebouw vastgemaakt worden.
Gr eggie
eggie (2020-04-14 18:45:28+00:00): Dag dj... Ja weg is weg natuurlijk.. Het adres mag je ook weghalen. 
Wanneer hier weer gebouwd gaat worden maak je een vlak met landuse=construction..
Blijft het voorlopig braak liggen dan landuse=brownfield 
Anders gaat iemand anders misschien de boel weer importeren. 
Belangrijk is dat je een terugmelding doet bij het Kadaster, want daar staan de gebouwen nog steeds in de data.
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=venestraat&resultOffset=0&detailsObjectId=&objectId=0779100000017069&geometry.x=118318.39597009&geometry.y=412664.95798954&zoomlevel=7
(Gebouw niet aangetroffen)


Zodra er gebouwd wordt vraag je BAG import aan op het forum van OSM. Dat doe je in het draadje Verzoek BAG import. Inlog identiek aan OSM account.
Gr eggie
eggie (2020-04-14 18:48:55+00:00): Kijk even in de BAG viewer . Wanneer dit de nieuwe gebouwen zijn kan er al geïmporteerd worden. Regel je het zelf?
Eggie
dj4n90 (2020-04-14 19:29:26+00:00): Op zich zegt de PDOK sat. laag wel genoeg, daar staat de nieuwbouw al op.

Zal er een vlakje constructie opzetten
dj4n90 (2020-04-14 19:41:34+00:00): wow wow wow .. rustaggggg .. hoe dan ? :)
eggie (2020-04-14 19:51:40+00:00): Je gaat naar het forum (het is ook jouw forum)  https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12
en dan naar het draadje Verzoek BAG import.
Inloggen met je OSM account.
Meestal wat vertraging wegen eerste accountcheck.
Dan vraag je import van de nieuwbouw 
Voor de duidelijkheid geef je deze hyperlink mee. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83548654#map=15/51.7014/4.8618
De drempel is laag. Het BAG team zal dan de nieuwe gebouwen importeren.
Doe je het zelf?
In het forum kun je  jezelf ook toevoegen aan het draadje Wie wat waar en/of je maakt jezelf bekend onder Welkom.
(Een terugmelding bij het kadaster hoeft denk ik niet. Het staat er dus al in) 
De landuse=construction kun je zelf toevoegen.
Gr eggie
dj4n90 (2020-04-14 20:10:13+00:00): Heb melding gemaakt op forum, en terug melding van andere locatie naar kadaster,

[quote]
Beste terugmelder,

Bedankt voor uw terugmelding op de BAG via de "BAG viewer" . Door uw hulp houden we de kwaliteit van de BAG hoog! De volgende informatie wordt naar de gemeente Geertruidenberg gestuurd:

Nummer: BAG00058177
Geregistreerd op: 14-04-2020 21:44
Omschrijving: Pand mag weg, is gesloopt

Als de bronhouder uw terugmelding beoordeeld heeft, ontvangt u een terugkoppeling per e-mail. U kunt uw terugmelding en de status hier bekijken. U kunt via de "BAG viewer" altijd een nieuwe terugmelding doen.

Heeft u nog vragen over het terugmeldproces? Kijk dan bij de terugmeldpagina. Staat uw vraag er niet bij? Neem dan contact op met de Klantenservice van het Kadaster. Zij zullen u verder helpen.
Nogmaals bedankt voor uw bijdrage!
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Kadaster
[/quote]
PT-53 (2020-04-15 06:50:42+00:00): Hallo roadRunnerzzz,
das Merkmal
landuse
ist nur für Grundstücksflächen vorgesehen und nicht für Punkte.
Wiki - Landuse:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:landuse?uselang=de
Siehe auf der rechten Seite unter "Für diese Elemente".
Das entspr. Landuse-Merkmal ist bereits an dieser Fläche korrekt eingetragen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184457573#map=17/48.11867/9.56621

Was macht die Oberschwäbische Geflügel GmbH dort genau?

Ich bitte um Rückmeldung, andernfalls werde ich den POI wieder löschen.

Grüße
roadRunnerzzz (2020-04-15 10:09:43+00:00): Hi, danke für die Korrektur.

Die Firma schlachtet hauptsächlich Geflügel und produziert Fleisch- und Wurstwaren für den Einzelhandel.

Viele Grüße
PT-53 (2020-04-15 10:16:08+00:00): Hallo roadRunnerzzz, 
Danke für die Rückmeldung.

ich habe das Merkmal
industrial=slaughterhouse
abgeändert in
craft=slaughterhouse
und das Merkmal
landuse=industrial
gelöscht. Außerdem habe ich die Telefon-Nr. in das richtige Format gebracht.
Grüße
Carto'Cité (2020-05-12 08:32:54+00:00): Salut,
J'ai aussi ajouté le sens unique sur cette voie : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23065771
Tu me diras si je me suis trompé :)
Charles de Carto’Cité
canfe (2020-04-16 06:54:54+00:00): Mi pare che stai disegnando dei sentieri con dei punti non necessari.
Se guardi il sentiero da cui dipartono, quello non li ha.
Non è che fai un import da qualche sistema automatico che ti mette tanti punti?
manu3287 (2020-04-16 07:23:28+00:00): No, carico la traccia gpx e seguo
canfe (2020-04-20 07:12:04+00:00): Mi scuso, ho fatto confusione.
No, tutto perfetto.
Buona mappatura.
PS: sei della zona? Ci si trova ogni tanto come mappers per confrontarsi una volta al mese...