piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
mapperue (2023-01-03 03:08:04+00:00): Táto sada zmien bola vrátená z iného dôvodu. Budovy som opäť odstránil a okolie aktualizoval.
seewäldler (2021-09-27 10:11:35+00:00): Hallo OhMySM
Die Spielplätze an den Schulen sind doch für die Allgemeinheit außerhalb der Schulzeiten freigegeben. Ist dann ein access=private nicht zu restriktiv?
❤️‍🔥 (2021-09-27 04:25:41+00:00): https://osm.org/relation/13266223 will be the relation to replace the one deleted in https://osm.org/changeset/89947873
seewäldler (2021-09-27 10:01:08+00:00): Hallo OhMySM
Steht hier wirklich Zeichen traffic_sign=DE:259? Die Ausschilderung zur Kraftfahrstraße beginnt ja auch erst am Kreisverkehr zur B31, womit das implizit für Fußgänger verboten wäre. Schaust du dir das noch einmal an?
user_14250389 (2021-10-08 06:54:49+00:00): 您好，感謝閣下在北京所作出的貢獻，唯此變更集未提供任何來源，並有大量節點修改，懷疑來源於外部圖資匯入。閣下可否提供所使用的空照圖信息或所匯入之圖資？祝編安。
shanhulittle (2021-10-24 14:21:53+00:00): from Maxar Premium Imagery (Beta)
user_14250389 (2021-10-29 09:20:23+00:00): 那就没有什么版权争议图资之类的问题了，感谢您的回复！
seewäldler (2021-09-27 10:08:56+00:00): Hallo OhMySM
Du vergibst manchen Garagen oder Gartenhütten hier Hausnummern. Das wird AFAIK in Baden-Württemberg so nicht gemacht, das Grundstück als solches hat eine Hausnummer die am Wohnhaus landet, alle anderen kleineren Häuschen und Hütten bekommen keine. Desweiteren sind das doch kleinere Garagehäuschen mit Platz nur für die Bewohner des Hauses. Dann sollte doch garage (Einzahl anstatt Mehrzahl) die passende Auszeichnung sein. Schaust du dir das noch mal an?
OhMySM (2021-09-27 10:39:08+00:00): Hallo seewäldler,

habe die Nummern wieder entfernt. 

Die Garagen sind je ein Gebäude mit zwei "Boxen" über zwei Grundstücke verteilt, jedoch alles unter einem Dach. Lt. Definition (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:building=garages) hätte ich schon gesagt, dass das passt.
seewäldler (2021-09-27 11:29:19+00:00): Hallo,
Das ist schon eine Weile her, daß ich dort vorbeigefahren bin, so genau hatte ich das nicht mehr in Erinnerung, daß die Garagen über zwei Grundstücke gebaut sind. Dann passt das mit der Mehrzahl wohl doch, nur die Hausnummern, die passen dann nicht. (Die Garagen wären ganz genau genommen dann ja zu zwei Grundstücken/Hausnummern zugehörig)
火箭苦力怕i (2021-10-18 08:18:26+00:00): 用JOSM
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2022-01-08 14:19:27+00:00): 您好，公交线路类型需要在关系里面设置type=route+route=bus的标签组，公交标注较为复杂繁琐，建议加OSMChina的Telegram群： t.me/osmchina 讨论。此外，公交线路不需要额外画线段，而是在现有公路路网上将已有的道路添加到关系中。
rah_em (2021-09-28 04:31:06+00:00): Hi Muaz Garage, 
I have deleted the extra highway which is not supporting in any of the imagery. Kindly refer this way 987270096, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111795959
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111748276
toorboalex (2021-10-31 13:35:14+00:00): Денис, зачем Вы на дворовых проездах проставили access=private?
Ладно еще на территории, огороженной шлагбаумами, я бы понял такой тег (и то, лично я против его расстановки, т.к. достаточно соответствующего тега у шлагбаума/ворот. Но на дворовых проездах он явно некорректен.
Откатываю теги в исходное состояние.
Denis Skorohodov (2021-10-31 13:44:07+00:00): Здравствуйте! Тег private поставлен из за того что это территория организаций Быстринскнефть и АСУ нефть, проезд только для спец транспорта.
Ebong C137 (2021-10-26 06:26:26+00:00): Hello Sat_spike, please don't add any more information on the roads(highways), please leave this for the field team.
Thank you for mapping
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111749014
Sat_spike (2021-10-26 13:00:43+00:00): Hi Ebong C137, I have provided the missing connectivity and corrected the highway classification. It looks like the extra information was added by other mappers. Kindly refer to this changeset for your reference https://osmcha.org/changesets/111699652/.
Ebong C137 (2021-10-26 06:39:45+00:00): Hello Sat_spike,
Please don't add extra information on the roads(highways), leave this for the field team.
Thank you for mapping
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111749241
Sat_spike (2021-10-26 13:01:28+00:00): Hi Ebong C137, I have provided the missing connectivity and corrected the highway classification. It looks like the extra information was added by other mappers. Kindly refer to this changeset for your reference https://osmcha.org/changesets/111699652/.
drkt (2021-09-27 06:45:15+00:00): oops; thanks for catching that
Joseph E (2021-10-02 04:47:13+00:00): Re: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/987279498 and adjacent short highway=track features - are you sure these are roads? They don’t look much different from the other rows of trees. See e.g. ESRI World Imagery Clarity (Beta) here https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=987279498#map=19/39.12814/-122.23067 - there is a row of trees where this “road” is.
Adamant1 (2021-10-02 07:46:38+00:00): As far as I know Bin aerial imagery is the most up to date. If you use that and take away the OpenStreetMap data layer it's pretty clear there are paths between the rows of trees. You could debate if they are just paths or track roads, but it would make sense that there would be track roads for the picking machines and farm workers to go down. It's not like the fruit in the middle of orchards just magically picks itself. So I image it would be something similar to this http://www.mendrins.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Madera-9.jpg or the image here https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-citrus-orchard-central-valley-of-california-usa-wind-machines-sierra-15767476.html 

I guess maybe both could technically be tagged as something else besides track roads, but the Wiki makes it sound like tagging them as track roads is also fine and I don't think highway=path is appropriate. Since it's they aren't "multi-use or unspecified usage."
Diacritic (2021-09-27 07:29:32+00:00): Hey Velloydy! Thanks for your contribution.

I wanted to check with you the access for River Dr. I can see you’ve marked it as access=private. Is that because it is private property, or is it a gated community?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111750356
velloydy (2021-10-05 06:19:32+00:00): Diacritic, there is a fenceline at the start of River Dr that has a clear Private Property sign on the entrance.  It's not a gated community and actually has no gates at all at the fence line, but it is clearly marked.  The fence has been installed since Goole Streetview went through the area, because it's not shown in Streetview.  I'm not sure what the facility actually is, but it appears to be a government subsidized housing or assisted living.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111750356
Diacritic (2021-10-05 07:09:19+00:00): Thanks for the details Velloydy. I was curious because it seems like such a big area to be private!

These kind of private developments are always a bit odd in terms of tagging, but I'd suggest that access=private isn't the best description for this case.

Even though it is private property, if the streets are publicly accessible (ie, can I walk my dog or ride my bike through the area, even if I don't live there?) then a different tag might be better suited.

If, for example, there was a gate there with a keypad for residents to gain access, that would clearly be private; as a random person I can't go looking around!

(Also noting that Google products don't have the right license for us to use to make maps with, just in case you weren't aware :) )
i5IoXTZhmQ61ragH (2021-10-17 16:15:15+00:00): Ваша правка заинтересовала меня проверить правильность адресации. Действительно, согласно правилам, установленным украинским сообществом, в случае адресации микрорайоном в отношение не добавляется ни одна дорога, и роль "street" в отношении отсутствует. Собственно, нужно исправить это по всей территории Украины, ибо лишь в одном городе ради спокойствия стандартных валидаторов на тип JOSMа все отношения подогнаны так, чтобы роль улицы всегда присутствовала.
Murcik (2021-10-18 10:22:16+00:00): Беда с associatedStreet, в том, что оно не было изначально задумано под адресацию по микрорайонам и т.п. элементам адресации, не являющимися элементами улично-дорожной сети.
rjgambrel (2022-02-08 21:47:42+00:00): You have made a change to a Minnesota motorway island either promoting it to a motorway or demoting it to a trunk. Please refer to the wiki under development where this topic is being discussed and agreed upon. If you have any concerns with what is being proposed, please reply to this comment. Refer to: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Minnesota/Minnesota_highway_classification. If you want to join the discussion to see others opinions or offer your own, see: https://osmus.slack.com/archives/CCV2P9QET/p1643751261859339
Dave Venables (2021-09-27 07:17:47+00:00): addr:street updated
eggie (2021-09-27 14:57:14+00:00): Dag Thomas.. Dit lijkt me een strakke actie.

MVG
eggie
cquest (2021-09-29 16:22:07+00:00): Les adresses ajoutées sont en doublon, elles avaient déjà été ajoutées, en 2012 !
eggie (2021-09-27 09:56:18+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
Jakuje (2021-10-04 12:14:21+00:00): Ahoj. Proc jsi oznacil lavku na Osove jako dokoncenou, kdyz je stale rozestavena (bohuzel, komentar k tvemu changesetu to prilis nevysvetluje)? Koukam, ze Milancer to uz opravil, ale i tak bych te na to rad upozornil, protoze je to zbytecne pridavani prace ostatnim, tagovat neco co neni ve skutecnosti.
janvarmuza (2021-10-05 08:39:17+00:00): ahoj, to bylo omylem, dik za opravu
Adiatma IRM-RV (2021-11-03 09:13:01+00:00): Hi, you added untagged ways here. Do you mind double-checking it?
For example
https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/987319075
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111755368
Skiddaw (2021-11-03 23:43:56+00:00): Hello Adiatma IRM-RV. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I will go back and classify any untagged ways. Have a good day.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:50:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:49:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
AkuAnakTimur (2021-09-27 14:53:52+00:00): Hi again. The usual practice with multilingual names is if it's displayed on any visible signs (i.e. verifiable in reality), then it's OK. Otherwise, no translations (even in English) should be included.
KL Teh (2021-10-14 16:51:09+00:00): Ok
streckenkundler (2021-10-07 12:50:51+00:00): Ist nur die Einfahrt nicht möglich oder ist die Straße auch als Einbahnstraße ausgezeichnet? Das sind zwei unterschiedliche Dinge. Die beiden Relationen in meinem CS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88504570#map=19/52.29663/13.62995&layers=N sorgen dafür, daß man nicht reingeroutet wird, denn meines Wissens ist die Straße KEINE Einbahnstraße.

Sven
Cantovolar (2021-10-08 11:23:21+00:00): Hallo Sven! Es ist richtig, dass es keine Einbahnstraße ist. Da aber die Einfahrt von der Storkower Straße nicht möglich ist, ist das ja quasi wie eine "Einbahnstraße". Wenn Du eine bessere Möglichkeit weißt, wie man die verbotene Einfahrt auch für GPS-Geräte klarmachen kann, würde ich Dich bitten, dass entsprechend zu korrigieren. Ich bin leider (noch) nicht so firm in der Bearbeitung, dass sich die präzisere Angabe mir nicht erschloss. Danke Dir! Gruß Frank
streckenkundler (2021-10-26 16:47:54+00:00): Hei,

ich habe hin und her überlegt... die beiden, in meinem Eingangskommentar genannten Relationen ist meiner Ansicht nach die einzige und saubere Möglichkeit, sowas datentechnisch abzubilden... Aber ja, GPS-Geräte können das so nicht umsetzen...
Eine unschöne, aber gelegentlich gemachte Methode ist: nur ein kurzes Stück als Einbahnstraße zu machen und den Rest nicht... Das habe ich nun umgesetzt, verbunden mit oneway:bicycle=no, da Radfahrer ja dürfen... Es ist etwas Tagging für den Router, aber mir fällt erst mal nichts anderes ein...

CS: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113002778

Grüße,

Sven
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:58:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:00:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:03:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:55:16+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
Ser9ei (2021-09-27 11:13:19+00:00): А зачем? У Пулковского или Киевского шоссе по такой логике тоже следует убрать статус?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111756428
iWowik (2021-09-27 13:26:42+00:00): Следующий уберет слово дорога
mini-me (2021-09-27 18:26:16+00:00): А докУменты на "шоссе" у вас имеются? Есть 41К-064 Санкт-Петербург - Морье, есть историческая трасса «Дорога Жизни». Но вы же не пишете «шоссе Колыма» или «федеральная трасса Кавказ»
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111756428
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:54:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
abakus_uploader (2021-09-27 22:31:14+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!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:50:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:54:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:52:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:51:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:53:21+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:00:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
maro21 (2021-09-29 19:26:51+00:00): Dlaczego ta zmiana?
Piotr Strębski (2021-09-29 19:37:26+00:00): Dlatego połączyłem adresy z budynkami? Bo przecież ich te adresy dotyczą, nie są to jakieś odrębne twory by miały pozostawać jako węzły niezależnie od budynków... Zmiana też o charakterze estetycznym, nie zmieniająca niczego merytorycznie.
maraf24 (2021-09-30 16:20:12+00:00): Jest to powszechnie przyjęta w OSM praktyka, stosowana przez setki mapowiczów w całej Polsce.
maro21 (2021-10-06 17:44:25+00:00): Tylko, że tu jest zmiana dla samej zmiany. Pytam tylko informacyjnie, bo chciałbym wiedzieć dlaczego tak ludzie robią. Często jest tak, że na jednym budynku jest więcej niż jeden adres, wtedy i tak zostają jako węzły. Nie zawsze łączenie adresu z budynkiem jest poprawne, częsty przykład kiedy jest budynek typu bliźniak, pierwsza część jest skończona wcześniej i został nadany adres 20, dodaję adres jako punkt w lewej części budynku, potem ktoś to integruje z budynkiem, a po pół roku pojawia się drugi adres 20a. Nie mogę go już prosto dodać, tylko muszę usunąć go z budynku, przywrócić na poprzednie miejsce i dodać 20a, co bardzo spowalnia pracę przy dodawaniu adresów. Ponadto adres jako węzeł ma tę zaletę, że wskazuje, od której strony jest wejście do budynku. W tej miejscowości było tak na ul. Skrzydlatej https://budynki.openstreetmap.org.pl/#map=16.88/51.088718/16.851143 i po twojej zmianie taka informacja jest zgubiona.
maraf24 (2021-10-06 19:18:56+00:00): "Ponadto adres jako węzeł ma tę zaletę, że wskazuje, od której strony jest wejście do budynku. "
Tyle że nie zawsze tak jest. Dlatego ta kwestia jest skomplikowana - z punktu widzenia np. producenta nawigacji przyjęcie takiego założenia jest sensowne, bo w ogromnej większości przypadków będzie to prawda.
Z punktu widzenia autorów bazy danych taka informacja jest niepewna i nie mają sposobu, by ustalić, jak jest w konkretnym przypadku. Wolą więc wprowadzic rozwiazanie pewne - i tym w bazie OSM jest węzeł z entrance=*.
Poza tym - w przypadku domów jednorodzinnych bardziej przydatna jest informacja o bramie czy furtce w ogrodzeniu :)
Piotr Strębski (2021-10-07 10:23:13+00:00): No właśnie, może lepiej też oznaczać wejścia do budynków, jeśli jesteśmy w stanie je ustalić, lub je znamy. A z dorysowanym chodnikiem do tego wejścia - to już "bajka".
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:57:12+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:47:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:47:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:52:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:55:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:03:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 115957299, 115961929 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, removing some allegedly unsourced maxheight changes.  Several attempts to contact the mapper failed - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5581 and previous.
Ser9ei (2021-09-27 11:08:21+00:00): Зачем вы удаляете теги building=yes и 	
design:code:SPb=Общ-16. Это может быть приравнено к вандализму. Это в первую очередь здание, а потом уже всё остальное. Тут можно просто уточнить тип здания building=hospital, но не удалять тег. Если серия дома указана неверно, то укажите верную серию, а не удаляйте информацию.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111758494
Ser9ei (2021-09-27 11:09:03+00:00): Также изучите принятый в России формат указания адреса https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Addresses
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111758494
iWowik (2021-09-27 13:28:23+00:00): Жумаю, что это iD калечить.
Пользлватель выбрал просто Больница, а для iD Болгицей бывает только территория, а не здание
iWowik (2021-09-27 13:28:46+00:00): fix: Думаю, что это iD калечит.
iWowik (2021-09-27 13:29:28+00:00): Хотя до design:code:SPb ему есть дело
OSM_RogerWilco (2021-09-27 14:33:45+00:00): Hi kabakov
Please do not use the OSM database for testing purposes!
Thank you!
Best wishes
Roger Wilco
Kovoschiz (2021-09-28 05:42:28+00:00): What's the purpose of this? Those should be the excluded areas in the country park.
mini-me (2021-09-27 10:25:41+00:00): Не надо использоваться теги доступа для указания проходимости. Также, нет смысла указывать, например, foot=yes для highway=footway т.к. это значение по-умолчанию.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:access
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Russia