piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
BeKri (2021-09-24 11:55:50+00:00): Servus, kleiner Hinweis:
mit Deinem barrier=gate bei
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1413583075
hast Du die Achenseestraße erfolgreich komplett gesperrt ;-)

Bitte wenn offen ein access=yes dazu.

Und das Teile heißt nicht Lawinentor sondern sein Funktion ist eine Sperre bei Lawinengefahr deshalb ab nach description=Lawinentor.

Happy tagging wünscht
derBeKri
BeKri (2021-09-24 11:59:09+00:00): Jetzt war ich zu schnell ...
Gemerkt hab ich es,
weil mich
http://brouter.de/ grosszügig drumrumgeleitet hat.
Und geändert hab ich es auch schon.
CreCrePL (2022-05-17 08:40:51+00:00): Danke :)
kubahahaha (2021-09-20 12:14:00+00:00): Ta nazwa Hacjenda to nazwa jakkolwiek oznaczona w terenie? Wycofuję ją do odpowiedzi.
rskedgell (2021-09-20 15:48:27+00:00): As it's a highway=path object, might either changing it to highway=footway, or using vehicle=no instead of just bicycle=no might be better? (Or just stop treating highway=path as a valid route for anything other than foot, unless explicitly allowed.)
DaveF (2021-09-20 20:54:21+00:00): @ Content Complaint (komoot) You need to rewrite your software so it doesn't make fake interpretations.
rskedgell (2021-09-20 22:32:53+00:00): @DaveF it transpires that the Komoot route referred to in the associated https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2831988 has mountain biking as the route type...
DaveF (2021-09-21 01:03:09+00:00): @rskedgell
You've lost me. The two ways in this changeset have not had such tags. Komoot appear to be misinterpreting highway=path as bicycle compliant.
rskedgell (2021-09-21 07:33:06+00:00): For the Komoot user who appears to have been the source of the complaint, Komoot appears to have used the highway=path ways only for mountain bike routing.

Had the user chosen bike touring, road cycling, or even gravel riding, then Komoot would have selected legal routes.
DaveF (2021-09-21 09:53:50+00:00): @rskedgell Ah, well if that's the case, that is /really/ poor interpretation by komoot.

@komoot. Can you explain (preferably on Talk-GB forum) what in-house plans you propose to instigate to ensure this cock-up doesn't occur in the future?
SomeoneElse (2021-10-10 12:14:01+00:00): @Komoot - Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here.  As suggested above, I think it would be of benefit to you if you were to discuss some of the rules around cycle routing in the different parts of the UK.  The forum thread at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2021-September/thread.html#27807 would be an excellent place to start.
More generally, I notice at http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11348925 that there are quite a lot of unanswered questions.  Please do answer these - OpenStreetMap is a community and we have to work together, whatever our different aims might be.
Best Regards,
Andy
Access Claims (komoot) (2021-11-02 13:40:33+00:00): Thank you for your comments and please excuse the delay in getting back to them.

We didn’t do the changes based on the note in regards to a komoot tour, but were contacted directly by Royal Parks. We’ve made the changes for the specific paths they reported to us, but suggested to them to reach out to the DWG directly in order to make sure the remaining parts of the park are also tagged correctly.

We are aware that there are country-specific tagging differences and have also read through the TALK GB Forum. From what we’ve seen so far, it seems to be unclear how highway=paths are treated in regards to cycling, as one of the users has also pointed out the OSM Wiki in regards to that in the forum.

We are happy to learn more about OpenStreetMap and the correct structure specifically for the UK and are continuously working on improving and adapting our product based on information like this. If you see recurring problems in how komoot handles specific tags, please feel free to reach out to us directly.
SomeoneElse (2021-11-02 13:59:34+00:00): > We are aware that there are country-specific tagging differences and have also read through the TALK GB Forum. From what we’ve seen so far, it seems to be unclear how highway=paths are treated in regards to cycling 

I've just read through https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2021-September/thread.html#27807 and don't see particularly unclear there (although to be fair the questions that you want answers to weren't directly asked).

Rather than us guessing your questions, perhaps it's better if you ask them directly on talk-gb?

Default access rules in Scotland are different to those in England and Wales; for Ireland (both the North and the Republic) talk-ie is the place to ask.
Best Regards,
(path user in England, Wales, and occasionally Scotland and Ireland, and also DWG member)
Access Claims (komoot) (2021-11-10 08:32:43+00:00): Dear Andy,
Thank you for your suggestion to ask directly in the forum. We will consider this option in the future.
jptolosa (2021-09-20 16:46:46+00:00): Hola, cuál es tu fuente?
maraf24 (2021-09-20 21:00:45+00:00): Wszak tego budynku nie ma: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/891543840
Rozumiem, że to jest mapowanie na podstawie wizyty w terenie?
maraf24 (2021-09-20 21:02:51+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/985109712 - zaorane pole
kubahahaha (2021-09-22 13:24:08+00:00): Budynku nie dodawałem, tylko przeniosłem adresy z punktu. Skasuję wieczorem, bo chyba faktycznie nie ma.
Drogę może widziałem na innych zdjeciach i źle opisałem? Poszukam jeszcze.
maraf24 (2021-09-22 14:08:58+00:00): Wydaje mi się, że uzywałeś starej orto. Bo tam te obiekty widać.
kubahahaha (2021-09-22 23:30:46+00:00): Poprawione, dzięki za czujność.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111565629
SomeoneElse (2021-11-03 11:04:48+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Can you please explain what your source for your additions is?  I'm sure that the names that you have added are not visible on aerial imagery.

Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2021-11-03 11:04:57+00:00): Привет и добро пожаловать в OpenStreetMap!

Не могли бы вы объяснить, какой у вас источник для ваших дополнений? Я уверен, что добавленные вами имена не видны на аэрофотоснимках.

С уважением,
Энди
eggie (2021-09-20 11:23:57+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
KVI0n (2021-09-20 11:13:48+00:00): mistake: #mbx_germany_roads
boutique_senator (2021-09-20 11:21:41+00:00): چندین سال از پوشاک سناتور خرید میکنم و از آن راضی هستم
boutique_senator (2021-09-20 11:23:38+00:00): کالاهای موجود در بوتیک:
کتونی
شلوار جین
اسلش
تیشرت
هودی
بادگیر
کاپشن
عینک آفتابی
وسایل ورزشی(ساک ورزشی-کاور تمرین-تاپ شلوارک)
کمربند
جوراب
کتونی جردن
heyitsstevo (2021-09-20 11:34:57+00:00): Hi. I have reverted this changeset to reinstate the turn restrictions. Drivers approaching the roundabout along Arthur Street in either direction must use the slip lanes to turn left into Power Street (eg. Arthur Street northbound into Power Street westbound, and Arthur Street southbound into Power Street eastbound).
TheSwavu (2021-09-20 21:05:47+00:00): Where are the turn restriction signs at this intersection? I can't see any. I can see the need for a turn restriction if the turn is not physically possible, but you can take the 1st exit from the roundabout if you miss the slip road. I assume that you think you can't, so what we are talking about here is a difference of opinion not fact.

If you want routers to understand that they should use the slip roads then you shouldn't tag them _link by themselves because you are telling the router that they are slower and should be lower in the priority order to the entry and exit flares of the roundabout. If you remove the _link tagging or make all of the entry/exit sections _link then the routers will work it out with out you having to put in turn restrictions.
heyitsstevo (2021-09-20 23:22:20+00:00): Per Victorian road rules, a slip lane must be taken unless there is an obstruction. There is no requirement for a physical sign to mark this restriction, hence there is no sign.

https://www.racv.com.au/on-the-road/driving-maintenance/road-safety/road-rules/making-turns.html

Removing the road rules from the equation for the sake of the argument, missing the slip lane would require drivers to approach a left turn at roughly a 90 degree angle. That's almost certainly physically impossible given the nature of this junction.

Slip lanes are marked as highway links per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link. Routers need not fear about route hierarchy owing to the turn restrictions.
TheSwavu (2021-09-20 23:58:33+00:00): "Don't map turn restrictions that are the default for a given jurisdiction and are not signed"

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction
heyitsstevo (2021-09-21 01:12:11+00:00): Spare me the selective quotes. This scenario is by no means the "default" for a roundabout in this "given jurisdiction". It is an edge case, and one which requires the turn restrictions in order for routing engines to correctly route vehicles through the intersection.

Slip lanes should be marked as _links per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link. If that causes issues with route hierarchy, the turn restrictions must be implemented. This does not contradict anything listed within the Relation:restriction article.

Implicit restrictions are not without precedent. They are mentioned (albeit not in detail) in the wiki page and wiki talk page you have linked. They also happen to be applied (as a 'no u-turn' rule) at each end of this very roundabout by a previous editor.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/daniel-j-h/diary/41777
https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/implicit-restrictions/#mapping-implicit-turn-restrictions
eggie (2021-09-20 12:12:35+00:00): 

Dag momelvo..
Tip: 
Wanneer paden elkaar kruisen zul je steeds een verbinding moeten maken met een node. Je krijgt anders een berg foutmeldingen en een niet kloppende routering.

Je edits

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=111444879

Foutmeldingen 
warnings:crossing_ways:highway-highway 	1
warnings:disconnected_way:highway 	9

MVG
eggie
olo81 (2021-09-20 17:49:09+00:00): Szyby inaczej się oznacza, tu przykład 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2151715136
olo81 (2024-01-13 17:49:09+00:00): w dodatku szyb jest już dodany a nie dodajemy podwójnie tych samych miejsc. Nawet w opisie tego tagu jasno o tym piszą. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:place=locality
literan (2021-09-20 21:07:58+00:00): не надо вносить на карту сайты. Допускается только физические объекты, существующие на местности. Вычищу.
eggie (2021-09-20 12:28:11+00:00): Waarschijnlijk door dat knippen van je grasveld herstelt de editor dat direct door er een multipolygoon van te maken. Dat kan beter niet, Nu liggen twee grasvelden tegen elkaar aan die onderdeel uitmaken van dezelfde relatie. Die mogen elkaar niet raken. 
Ik pas het even aan. 
eggie
eggie (2021-09-20 12:31:54+00:00): mp relatie verwijderd. Die zijn hier niet voor bedoeld.
Wellicht had je het niet eens in de gaten?
gr eggie
eggie (2021-09-20 11:55:31+00:00): Tip.. Wanneer je hier echt niet doorkunt dan kun je het beste op de eindnodes noexit=yes taggen.
Anders gaat een andere mapper het wellicht weer verbinden.
Kunnen voetgangers ook niet van de ene weg naar de andere?
Gr eggie
eggie (2021-09-20 12:05:38+00:00): Die straatjes naar die garageboxen kun je taggen met highway-service service=alley
eggie (2021-09-20 11:58:16+00:00): Tip.. Geef expliciet aan wat je hebt toegevoegd.
Dan is het duidelijke voor andere mappers.
Het is nu een beetje raden.

Je hebt het grasveld aan het Meester Jonkerpad geplakt.
Een trucje is de linker alttoets gebruiken bij intekenen. Dan plakt het niet. 
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-09-20 12:01:26+00:00): https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=111445886

Pad losgemaakt van landuse. Probeer wegen los te houden van de vlakken. De kaart wordt anders moeilijk bewerkbaar voor anderen. 
gr eggie
olo81 (2021-09-20 17:55:23+00:00): Coś poszło nie tak, znikoeło łączenie dróg
eggie (2021-09-20 12:02:33+00:00): Oke, maar wat was je edit?
Sea_Breeze_0118 (2021-09-20 12:04:57+00:00): Middelweg aan westzijde geknipt en verwijderd
Famlam (2021-09-20 11:57:54+00:00): Correctie: 2019 data
GinaroZ (2021-09-28 13:03:00+00:00): Hi, if there's already a bridge on the road above (like at the River Dee crossing) then the roads below don't need to be tagged as a tunnel :)
eggie (2021-09-20 12:19:17+00:00): Jw gebruikt editor iD

Die heeft de vervelende eigenschap om nodes die je toevallig selecteert en dan gaat schuiven met de kaart in editmodus onbedoeld verplaatst.
Adresnode addr:city	Ter Aar	
addr:housenumber	3	
addr:postcode	2461BR	
addr:street	Aalscholverlaan

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=111446715

Beter dus niet schuiven in editmodus of overstappen naar de beteren editor JOSM

editor josm stap voor stap 

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

 eggie
eggie (2021-09-20 12:20:49+00:00): adres nr 3 teruggeplaatst.
Dodko (2021-09-20 17:40:50+00:00): Do name sa dáva skutočný názov sochy ak je pomenovaná a nie opisný.
Na fotkách vidno nápis Dukelský beh mieru.
Jozef Kascak (2021-09-21 06:18:45+00:00): Ano je to symbol Dukelskeho behu mieru, ale podla toho co viem nazov je Socha bezca https://www.svidnik.sk/socha-bezca-ma-uz-svoje-miesto-oznam/mid/463769/.html
Dawid2849 (2021-09-26 10:23:35+00:00): Proszę, bądź bardziej ostrożny, zapomniałeś usunąć access=no w jednym miejscu. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/390488699
eggie (2021-09-20 12:22:34+00:00): Begter niet schuiven met de kaart in editmodus. Houd je gebied klein.
Eerst opslaan en dan pas naar een nieuwe locatie.
SomeoneElse (2021-09-30 22:28:27+00:00): Hello,
You've added https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9107771244 here, but is it perhaps the same thing as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/906621443/history ?
Best Regards,
Andy
Tema_Ded (2021-11-01 13:16:26+00:00): Hi, Andy! Thanks for noticing. I’ve removed my node and added the name to the building feature just now. Best Regards, Tommy
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111447781
mueschel (2021-09-21 08:18:26+00:00): Hi,
please check your edits for spelling mistakes in the keys. I found hundreds of them added in the past days.
Please make sure you check all edits for such spelling mistakes - any error results in data that can't be understood by any software and e.g. can't be displayed on maps.
eggie (2021-09-20 13:10:41+00:00): Tip: Probeer wel steeds in de wiki te kijken hoe te taggen. 
Welk bord staat er vooaan?
bicycle=designated hoort niet op een fietspad.
Geen bord.. dan higway = path met evt foot=yes bicycle=yes

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-09-20 13:14:09+00:00): Voorlopig op highway=path gezet met bovenstaande tags. Fietspaden alleen taggen als er G11, 3 of 12a bebording staat.
Sea_Breeze_0118 (2021-09-20 13:17:13+00:00): Het is een voetpad met fietspad ertegenaan geworden
Sea_Breeze_0118 (2021-09-20 13:26:05+00:00): Zie https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2844682
Kun jij deze oppakken?
eggie (2021-09-20 13:43:00+00:00): Oke..Done 

Welk type fietspad? Dat is van belang.
Nu even 
highway=cycleway
en in way van cycleway neem je dan op 
sidewalk=left (of is het right hier? )

Tagging fietspaden vind je hier

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
Sea_Breeze_0118 (2021-09-20 13:58:12+00:00): Ik heb tags voor g13 toegevoegd
eggie (2021-09-20 14:01:38+00:00): Top..
Kijk even naar mijn suggestie op 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111450113#map=16/52.1725/4.7123

Je kunt het zelf dan aanpassen. 

Gr eggie
Sea_Breeze_0118 (2021-09-20 14:50:00+00:00): Zie https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2844682
Kun jij deze oppakken?
eggie (2021-09-20 15:06:11+00:00): BAG importverzoek loopt .. Even als voorbeeld hoe zo iets gaat aangevraagd via het forum van OSM. 
Inlog identiek aan OSM account. https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=841711#p841711
literan (2021-09-20 21:05:45+00:00): добрый день. Пожалуйста, не надо исправлять теги crossing=uncontrolled для нерегулируемого перехода на crossing=marked.

Этот тег не имеет смысла в России (он для англосаксов), у нас все переходы маркируются зеброй, и регулируемые, и нерегулируемые
Ln13 (2021-09-22 07:56:31+00:00): Спасибо за замечание!
mariotomo (2021-09-21 12:54:49+00:00): hi. I was reviewing contributions in Panamá, and your changeset goes from Brazil to Mexico. it's better if you try to group things geographically. and Welcome to OSM!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111448487
martinst (2021-09-20 18:30:47+00:00): Tipp: Wenn man im iD-Editor eine Fläche auswählt kann man sie mit der Taste "Q" rechtwinklig machen.
eggie (2021-09-20 13:18:44+00:00): Alle begin is moeilijk.. Er zit een heel verborgen wereld achter OSM tagging. 
Tip: Beter geen wegen doorverbinden. 
Op veel wegen lopen routerelaties OV fiets wandel..  De routes gaan dan stuk. Het is nergens voor nodig om wegmenten te verbinden. Beter niet doen. Ook bij het weer inleggen van routes moet alles weer opgeknipt worden.
gr eggie
chris66 (2023-02-02 23:20:34+00:00): Knoten (57) befindet sich laut aktueller Liste 75 m südlich am anderen Ende der Brücke.
MapSpot (2021-09-30 02:05:24+00:00): Hey ftcat. Please try to avoid reverting river areas to waterway=riverbank. This tag is being rapidly phased out globally in favor of waterway=riverbank, with Zambia being the last country in Africa that still primarily uses the older scheme at this time.

Many JOSM users are not aware of the issue, but the iD editor will mark waterway=riverbank as an outdated tag for contributors to fix.

For more information about the global effort to unify river tagging with the use of natural=water + water=river, check out this wiki project page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Waterways/River_modernization
ftcat (2021-09-30 05:06:05+00:00): Hi, 

Perhaps as a courtesy you could have checked with me and possibly used the river modernization project as as part of your comment. There is nothing in the Tag:waterway=riverbank wiki to indicate this tag is being phased out (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway=riverbank?uselang=en). A brief check on where I map will have shown you that I am probably the most active editor of data in Zambia, in fact I almost exclusively edit in Zambia and have been doing so since 2016. I spend many hours correcting errors made by remote mappers who have no idea what they are doing, it is a thankless task and never ending.

I reverted some of your changes as I was trying to be consistent with the tag through out Zambia, if you had contacted me direct and explained I would have happily changed the tags and as I live in Zambia I know what I am mapping.

Looking at the usage map (dated 2021-09-16, fairly recent) on the   riverbank wiki page it would appear that only North America does not use this tag it is heavily used in parts of Europe and much of Africa so possibly not really an accepted deprecated tag just yet.

Perhaps leave Zambia as it is for now, there is plenty of work for you to do elsewhere.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2021-09-21 13:00:07+00:00): Hi! highway ramps and motorways have been meticulously aligned in the montreal region using up to date aerial imagery and they were aligned to reduce trucks and buses turning radius. Please keep them as is or ask before modifying them. Thanks!
xyz32 (2021-09-21 13:28:33+00:00): Hi,
Sorry I didn't know I was supposed to ask before fixing the map.
I strongly disparage with the arguments given. 
The current mapping of this particular ramps does not match reality. Please check the dashed lines on the roads, they are a better indicator where the ramp starts.
Another data of comparison is the way they are mapped on google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.486188,-73.6344392,19z

I do believe my edit makes more sense then the way they are now. Including the turn restrictions I have added. Thanks.
xyz32 (2021-09-21 13:32:07+00:00): P.S.: maps should also reflect reality, not the driving style of some vehicles.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2021-09-21 16:02:01+00:00): I understand your issues. The main issue is regarding autonomous vehicles and trucks that will be flooding the streets in the near future. The way openstreetmap users usually merge lanes at intersections creates bery hard turn just before the intersections and this could cuase erratic behaviour with autonomous vehicles. That is why we decided to at least make the merging more fluid (longer merging distances, merging at the end of non-dash/continuous lanes) instead of at the instersection. This was also discussed with official authorities like the MTQ. OpenStreetMap is currently used by autonomous vehicles to calculate turning radiuses and angles, so we need to make sure that we do not create articifial turns, especially on motorways and high speed arterials. If you want to discuss this issue further, you can send me private messages. Thanks for your understanding. In your example, the way the Google Maps roads are merged is way to hard. No vehicle will make that kind of hard merging. Google Maps is not used by autonomous vehicle for routing, but OpenStreetmap is already used  (especially by Tesla and comma.ai). We are trying to get a compromise between theoretical information and practical data for autonomous routing.
eggie (2021-09-20 13:20:21+00:00): Tip Zonder ervaring geen wegen gaan herklasseren. Het is niet correct.
De routering heeft hier last van. Dat is vast niet je bedoeling.
Ik draai je wijziging terug.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-09-20 13:22:14+00:00): reverted by changeset #111449760
Sea_Breeze_0118 (2021-09-20 13:22:20+00:00): Jawel, voor routering is het belangrijk dat dit geen doorgaande route is, de Ringdijk noordwaards van aardamseweg is zelfs hogere klasse dan aardamseweg
Sea_Breeze_0118 (2021-09-20 13:23:27+00:00): Doorgaand verkeer van Woubrugge naar nieuwveen en Papenveer wordt via Ringdijk gestuurd
Sea_Breeze_0118 (2021-09-20 13:24:52+00:00): Zelfs naar nieuwkoop wordt via bovenland gestuurd
eggie (2021-09-20 13:31:44+00:00): Beste Alle busroutes lopen via de aardamse weg. Het is uiteindelijk een doorgaande route. De regel is om dan dezelfde tagging te gebruiken als de aansluiten wegen die van buiten Ter Aar binnenkomen.
Er is echt wel over gedacht.
Ik speel het even door mapper die zich bezighoudt met de hoofdinfrastructuur.
Eggie
eggie (2021-09-20 13:35:11+00:00): Doorgespeeld even naar A67 A67
Je krijgt vast wel een reactie. Mocht het hier veranderd zijn dan zullen andere wegen ook aangepast 'moeten ' worden.

Even niet zelf gaan veranderen nu. Wacht even op reactie.
eggie
Sea_Breeze_0118 (2021-09-20 13:44:18+00:00): Dit is net als een busroute door het centrum van een ander willekeurig dorp zoals bijv Hoogmade. Er moet een bushalte in hetdopr zijn, maar het is zeker geen doorgaande route.
eggie (2021-09-20 13:51:26+00:00): Je kunt beter even wachten met van alles te veranderen in de routering en wegklasse tot een ervaren mapper die op de hoogte is van de situatie even meekijkt.
Het betekent dat de Ringdijk moet worden aangepast. Soms verandert er inderdaad iets. 
Maar een stuk secondary er tussen uithalen is niet correct.
Je krijgt dan willekeurige routes door de wijken.
Het is zeker geen unclassified hier 
De infrastructuurmapper zijn op de hoogte van het hoe en wat. 
mvg
eggie
A67-A67 (2021-09-20 14:49:09+00:00): Nu de doorgaande, secundaire route via de Ringdijk en Hertog van Beijerenstraat is getagd, lijkt mij het probleem opgelost. Het maken van 'gaten' in een secundaire route is niet de bedoeling en zal inderdaad tot vreemde routes leiden. Daarom moet zo'n route verlegd worden wanneer er een nieuwe weg opent.
eggie (2021-09-20 14:53:54+00:00): Denk dat het nu juist is. Sea Breeze heeft het nu keurig aangepast. . bedankt voor het meekijken.
Gr eggie
amnmalik (2021-10-07 14:07:31+00:00): Hi Heinz, do you know if the solar generators left of current marked CIAL solar farm are also part of the farm?