piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Comune Aq - Ufficio Toponomastica - alji (2019-09-06 12:14:39+00:00): Si, vado d'accordo con te. Così il "Modello Aquilano" per rapresentazione dei portici diventa perfetto. È una rappresentazione formale coretta dopo le tag di OSM e anche archittetonico preciso. Un perfetto equilibrio. Perche, dopo mio opinione solo una via dentro il poligono di un edificio che rapresenta il portico si puo pensare che sia una galeria (come il sotopoassagio del Terminal), ma con gli detagli archittetonici penso che si capisce bene che sia un postico - almeo che anche scritto. Buon avoro, bravo. Manca solo il Portico al Consiglio Comunale, io ed Giulio abiamo dimenticato fare anche lì il sopraluogo. Va be, nei prossimi giorni spero che lo faremo. Buon fine settimana.
tux67 (2019-09-10 14:17:13+00:00): Hallo 
willkommen bei Openstreetmap und danke, daß du mithelfen möchtest die Kartendaten zu verbessern.
Change sieht ok aus.

Prima, daß du deine Änderungssätze mit aussagekräftigen Kommentaren versiehst.
Eine gute allgemeine Einführung zu OSM gibts z.B. hier:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf

Solltest du Fragen haben oder Hilfe benötigen, dann kannst du dich gerne bei mir oder im Forum melden:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=14

Für eine Qualitätssicherung an der sich alle Mapper in der Gegend beteiligen können - bitte antworte - wenn notwendig - immer hier im Änderungssatz mit der Kommentarfunktion.

Viel Spaß beim Mappen wünscht
tux67
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/74160875
Reza_koulivand (2019-09-06 12:16:26+00:00): سلام، پوینتی که روی جاده ثبت بشه داخل ایدی بدون پوینت نشون میده،اصلش باید داخل جاده پمپ بنزین ثبت بشه، شما برید همین پمپ بنزین که میگید بدون پوینت بود داخل نرم افزار osmand, maps.m,  نشان،بلد، ببیند چجور نشونش میده، محیط ویرایش فرق میکنه با محیط اصلی نقشه
tux67 (2019-09-10 14:08:55+00:00): Hallo GroonMapper - du hattest ein Review requested. Sieht gut aus - ich würde nur statt "17A" - "17a" nehmen, um es den umliegenden Häusern anzupassen.
Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/74161027
abakus_uploader (2019-09-06 22:31:33+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!
abakus_uploader (2019-09-06 22:31:34+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!
Cascafico (2019-09-06 07:54:07+00:00): Benvenuto in OSM! Grazie per i contributi "sul campo". 
Altre fontanelle sempre ben accette :-)
mavl (2019-10-02 09:36:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 75178838, 75179998, 75177624, 75175920, 75181338, 75182839 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: the deleting of valid data - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3185].
mavl (2019-10-02 09:36:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 75178838, 75179998, 75177624, 75175920, 75181338, 75182839 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: the deleting of valid data - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3185].
mueschel (2019-09-16 10:25:14+00:00): Hi,
I found the tag 'light_motor_vehicle' on this way, but couldn't find a description of it. Could you explain what it means?

http://osm.org/way/722424283 

Thanks
Jan
harumiusinc (2022-07-27 16:56:30+00:00): Sorry, I just noticed your comment today and I apologize. And thank you for pointing it out. I'll reply to you after all this time.

Other users have updated it with an addendum in the 'note' tag, but it seems to be the result of my own independent thinking about how to describe it.
Referring to the OSMwiki, I found that 'Kei Cars' is appropriate, so I'll update it.
Thank you!
eggie (2019-09-06 08:32:33+00:00): Wanneer het één holle grote ruimte is zou het covered=yes kunnen zijn. Wanneer het echt door het gebouw loopt is het tunnel=building_passage.
Beetje twijfelgeval. 
Voel meer voor covered=yes
Gr eggie
Tijgerd (2019-09-06 08:45:10+00:00): het is echt een grote holle ruimte, het gebouw is ook achteraf pas over de weg gebouwd en dient als brug tussen de 2 delen van de scholengroep
eggie (2019-09-06 09:50:00+00:00): Volgens mij heb je het goed getagd.
glglgl (2019-09-06 08:13:03+00:00): JOSM made a mistake here: the changeset comment should be "Fix admin boundaries", the source should be "https://wambachers-osm.website/index.php/10-osm-reports/1712-countries-compare-2019-09-06"
mavl (2019-09-08 16:29:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 74230370 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: nonexistent objects - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3144].
Dino Michelini (2019-09-06 14:06:10+00:00): Hi, it doesn't seem like a good change. The CAI ELBA classifies 100 as VIA FERRATA (see photo https://www.caielba.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/IMG_0171-768x1024.jpg) because in some places the 100 is equipped with steel cables which provide for the use of the via ferrata harness, but the sca_scale T4 does not require the use of equipment. THE CAI, unlike the sac_scale, always considers the most difficult grade when deciding the difficulty of a path (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/CAI). It would be better to highway = via_ferrata. Ok instead for surface and trail_visibility.
*abq* (2019-09-06 14:45:20+00:00): Hi Dino,
please take a look at the SAC classification scheme here 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAC-Wanderskala
Already T3 may involve the presence of cables. For OSM, the presence of cables etc. is acknowledged by the tagging as assisted trail. 
Via Ferrata should be used only when it can no longer be considered a hiking trail. The 100 trail on Capanne is mostly in the T3 range with some stretches T4, but not more difficult.
Best regards
Reiner
Dino Michelini (2019-09-09 08:31:43+00:00): I know the SAC and the CAI: they are scales that are based on different principles.
The CAI scale assigns the maximum difficulty to the entire route (including the easy sections) even if they are short stretches, while the SAC is punctual.
The warning sign inserted by the CAI is clear: it corresponds to cai_scale=EEA (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cai_scale). Replace via_ferrata with path+sac_scale=T3, T4 is a method not yet approved but only a proposal, see Proposed features / simplified street (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Via_ferrata_simplified) .
please read the official document [CAI 2.6 – Sentieri attrezzati e vie ferrate](https://www.cai.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/8-1-Quaderno_1_2010.pdf) page 13 to check what provides for EEA in Italy.
The path is in Italy, not in Switzerland, maintenance is done by the CAI and if the CAI has decided EEA it is not correct to provide a different difficulty. Furthermore, do not consider that in case of rain, snow or frost the difficulty increases.
I think it is correct to map: highway=via_ferrata and via_ferrata_scale=0
Best regards
*abq* (2019-09-09 17:05:18+00:00): HI Dino, 
your document states that there is no easy relation between CAI scale and SAC scale. As OSM uses SAC scale, lets stay with that. As I wrote, the path is T3 with stretches of T4. The previous assignment of the trail was even T3 only. It is not T5. And it is not a via ferrata, but an assisted trail. Please leave it with than.
Best regards
Reiner
*abq* (2019-09-09 17:33:20+00:00): https://www.hikr.org/dir/Monte_Capanne_6715/tour/

Checking the posts of the past years after the cables have been installed on the hot spots, all hikers come to a very similar conclusion about the trail as I do.
Caielba (2019-09-24 14:01:32+00:00): Hello, trail number 100 of the national park is a highway. This means that the steel cable offers support for progression that otherwise would be a mountaineering trail. Without the steel cable, parts of this trail could not be run across. Although there are parts that can be walked through, the trail must be absolutely classified in its entirety, cai EEA, where wearing harness and self-insurance is compulsory. Especially from monte capanne-la galera-la tavola where there’s the most challenging part, where there are vertical trails and parts that are exposed in altitude.
As you can see on the official cartography of the national park of the Tuscan archipelago, trail number 100 is identified by dots and crosses. This is to underline its dangerousness. I beg you to restore the previous version on osm, eliminate the wording “path” and reinsert “highway”
*abq* (2019-09-25 13:02:28+00:00): Hi Caielba
honestly, you are exaggerating the difficulty of the trail and in particular the neccessity of using a harness. Maybe the CAI has reasons to declare this trail more difficult than it is (e.g. for the management of visitors), but for OSM, we have an on the ground rule. This means, it should all be rated the way it is.
If you check the ratings of this trail on, e.g., hikr.org, as posted above, you will find a general rating not exceeding T4, i.e. alpine hiking.
Though only anectdotal, the day we hiked the trail, we met 7 persons, none using harnesses or something similar.
According to the via_ferrata proposal, a trail should be tagged via_ferrata only, when the use of a harness is the rule and not the exemption, as for instance for beginners.
Precisely for this situation, OSM has the possibility to tag a trail as highway=path, assisted_trail=yes. And that's what I did, as it reflects reality the best way. Please note that I did not delete the via ferrata rating. This is in strong contrast to Dino, who deleted tha SAC scale rating in his prior change without need.
Best regards,
Reiner
*abq* (2019-09-25 13:06:41+00:00): Sorry, my mistake: Dino did not delete the SAC scale.
olehz (2020-06-25 20:37:59+00:00): там 26, а не 22 (табличка ж є). інші будинки по Бориславу, що ти проставив, так само зі стелі взяті?
mavl (2019-09-08 16:29:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 74230370 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: nonexistent objects - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3144].
opendcc (2019-09-06 11:00:58+00:00): Glückwunsch zum Wechsel auf JOSM
araash (2019-09-07 03:23:58+00:00): طبق گزارش های کاربران نشان
اینجا ۱ماهی هست افتتاح شده.. یه زیرگذر ۲ طرفه زدند
 که از زیر کمربندی رد میشه و میخوره به یک میدان خیلی بزرگ ( هم سایز میدان امام حسین یزد) که وقتی که از کمربندی  از سمت شمال به جنوب میاین یه خروجی سمت راست درست کردند که میخوره به همون میدان که دربارش گفتم دور میدان دور میزنی و میرسی به زیرگذر که هم میتونی وارد زیرگذر بشید و بیان سمت شهر(میدان ایران) یا اینکه از خروجی سمت راستش دوباره به کمر بندی(جنوبی) برگردی و به مسیرت ادامه بدی.
و اگر از سمت میدان ایران قصد داری به سمت جنوب کمربندی حرکت کنید باید وارد زیرگذر بیشید و دور میدان میزنید و از خروجی میدان وارد کمربندی میشید.
iran map 28 (2019-09-07 06:24:25+00:00): سلام الان مشکل چیه 

ببخشید من متوجه منظورتون نشدم
araash (2019-09-07 06:29:56+00:00): 721855385

شما این خط رو تگ construction زدید 

درحالیکه حدودا یک ماهه که این مسیر افتتاح شده
bxl-forever (2020-08-31 19:05:05+00:00): Hello,
Thanks for this.
Are you sure about "inscription" and "ref" keys used on the node?
philippec (2019-09-24 17:07:47+00:00): De entrance deur in OSM is toch zeker 15 meter verwijderd van de aed.
kreuzschnabel (2020-05-05 06:18:00+00:00): Hallo, bitte übertreibt’s nicht mit dem Tagging. Es ist sinnfrei, access=yes, foot=yes und bicycle=yes an jede Straße zu schreiben (die letzten beiden sind in access=yes außerdem schon enthalten). Jede in OSM gemappte Straße ist benutzbar, nur Besonderheiten brauchen ein access-Tagging. Ansonsten decken die Defaults aus https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Germany alles gut ab.
kreuzschnabel (2020-05-05 06:19:28+00:00): Sehe gerade, das wart ihr gar nicht, das war schon vorher dran :)
opendcc (2019-09-06 10:45:39+00:00): Meintest Du private oder customers (für Kunden?)
cehceh (2019-09-13 17:13:24+00:00): "added extra path averlapping unvoted features"
Why this? highway=path should be meaningless in such an case, see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata ?
SHARCRASH (2019-09-14 10:55:31+00:00): Hi! It is not meaningless, path is a valid approved tag and it applies since its OSM's Wiki definition corresponds to reality. I do agree though that vie ferratas are a more specific case, that's why i made an overlap) but highway=via_ferrata is (or was?) still a proposed feature under progress of a consensus. I see its status has been put very recently "in use" but it has never been voted (? weird). When a new tag is proposed, the best is to make sure that it doesn't duplicate with another one or can be incorporated to another one, making sure it has a tag scheme corresponding to OSM's usual habits... see modularity. This has been much in debate since often via ferratas are part of a hiking route, in the proposition it even correlates with hiking T4, T5 & T6. I know also that some people were trying to integrate treetop climbing to the tag scheme structure. I do agree both are similar activities and should be considered together to avoid creating unnecessary duplication. 

As i said, i noticed that the "via ferrata" page has been updated very recently and still talks about the issue of using highway=path. Again that's why i did not edit the existing elements but i created new overlapping elements. I am just trying to figure out which is the best way for everybody. I wanted to discuss it, but wanted also to think about it first.
SHARCRASH (2019-09-14 13:12:09+00:00): That said, i have my inclination in favor for the tag scheme using highway=path because it's still a "one human" large highway type feature, the extra specification for a "via ferrata" which is just a difficulty by using the path, can be set with just one extra tag "via_ferrata_scale=*".
cehceh (2019-09-14 15:26:10+00:00): Hi SHARCRASH, thank you for reply!
I agree that in many cases, especially for alpine hiking with ferrata parts, highway=path ist the preferred tagging. This relates to the classical meaning of making the route easier or more secure.
I think it is also OK to define the ferrata in such a way, if the route is in principle walkable without special equipment.
I know the discussion you mentioned. 
For about 20 years, via ferrata climbing has developed into an extra sport with special rules and equipment. New routes (especially french routes) have nothing to do with alpine hiking.
Myself I prefer highway=via_ferrata in cases, where the route is only be possible (and permitted!) with special equipment. For instance, this prevents hikers using any standard map layer to be confused.
There is, unfortunately, normally no label indicating via_ferrata_scale.
Maybe it would be better to map not an highway and route=climbing instead...?
However, if you insist of highway=path in this case, it would be better to remove the duplicate line and change the original one to an path (this has the same effect, therefore my  "meaningless").
BTW, the path to the start and from the end are not "oneway", I walked the path there and back ;-)
Greetings!
PS: Have you made the Via Ferrata Chaos de Coumély yourself?
tux67 (2019-09-10 14:06:48+00:00): Hallo AntonSimons,
du hattest Review requested angefordert bei diesem Changeset. Sollte es sich be dem Objekt um das hier drehen:
https://www.weibern.de/kultur-tourismus/unterkuenfte/113-fewo-alte-muehle
Dann wäre der name nur gut, wenn das Haus wikrlich so heisst (Schild aussen o.ä. ) oder du das tag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Dapartment
Anbringst, da das der Name der Ferienwohung ist.
Ansonsten gilt: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice#Verwende_das_Name-Tag_nicht.2C_um_Dinge_zu_beschreiben
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.mapbox.com/changesets/74165540
AntonSimons (2019-09-10 14:52:16+00:00): Hallo  tux67,

das Gebäude wurde einst als Weiberner Mühle gebaut, wurde zwischenzeitlich aber zur Ferienwohnung Alte Mühle umfunktioniert.

Falls ich da einen Fehler gemacht habe, bitte ich Dich, ihn zu korrigieren.

Mit Gruß

Anton
tux67 (2019-09-10 15:12:17+00:00): Hallo Anton,

"Fehler" wäre ein großes Wort - Ich würde sagen man konnte es noch ein bisschen erweitern:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/499959501
Gruß
tux67
AntonSimons (2019-09-10 16:53:13+00:00): Diese Lösung gefällt mir, tux67. Meinetwegen können wir es dabei belassen.

Mit Gruß

Anton
mavl (2019-09-08 16:29:44+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 74230370 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: nonexistent objects - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3144].
Carto'Cité (2019-09-13 10:03:51+00:00): Bonjour dunnno,
Tu décrit certains aménagements (on va dire cyclaclbles) tels que celui-ci (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288563155) avec du path + etc. comme le seraient certaines voies vertes. Est-ce qu'il ne s'agit pas d'un trottoir ? Merci d'avance pour ton aide.
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
dunnno (2019-09-13 13:10:31+00:00): Bonjour,
Bon j'ai recherché dans mes feeds Osmose l'alerte concernant ces trottoirs, mais je ne les retrouve plus.
Afin de **Fix** avec Osmose j'ai regardé le wiki OSM, et il se dit qu'il faudrait faire comme cela :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:access%3Ddesignated

En bas de la page "Un trottoir cyclable".

Etant donné vos travaux en cours je pense que vous êtes le plus maître à décider de ce qu'il faut faire "en vrai".

Je n'ai édité que les ways de l'avenue Gabriel Péri à SGDB
Carto'Cité (2019-09-13 13:12:48+00:00): Merci beaucoup pour ton retour.
Charles.
josmougn (2022-10-31 14:54:32+00:00): salut Charles
Je trouve qu'il y a un souci dans la façon de taguer un trottoir cyclable décrite en bas de cette page : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:access%3Ddesignated.
Qui finalement revient à taguer une voie verte. En fait la façon de taguer une voie verte est également mal choisie mais c'est un autre sujet :-)
Les machins cyclables de SGDB ressemblent plus à un trottoir qu'autre chose et sont utilisés comme trottoirs. Cela dit on peut y voir une piste cyclable étroite séparée des piétons (bordure et couleur) telle que demandée par des assos vélos qui veulent des aménagements séparés de la route et sécurisés. C'est aussi un autre débat.
Les panneaux de signalisation sont assez fantaisistes : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1112334229278250&lat=48.649313295963&lng=2.3194777965546&z=17&focus=photo
En conclusion, on les cartographie comment ces pseudo pistes ?
A +, José
CartoCharles (2022-11-02 16:11:46+00:00): Salut José,
Je suis d'accord avec tous ces points. Concernant la description des voies vertes, il ne faut pas la voir comme une règle « réciproque ». Disons qu'en présence d'une voie verte et sauf cas particulier, on décrit en h=path + b=designated + f=desiganted. Mais cela ne veut pas dire que tout ce qui est décrit comme ça est une voie verte. Oui c'est un problème mais on peut le résoudre avec l'utilisation du traffic_sign et c'est la solution la plus évidente.

Pour ce qui est du cas présent, je suis d'accord il faudrait décrire ça comme un trottoir cyclable (donc h=footway, footway=sidewalk, b=designated) et avec le segregated=no apparemment.
Charles
mavl (2019-09-08 16:29:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 74230370 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: nonexistent objects - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3144].
ftcat (2019-09-09 13:23:49+00:00): Hi, 

I have noticed you have been working on the Zambezi, just a note when working with multipolygons such as the Zambezi any islands are tagged with an inner role. If you imagine the relation being a layer with the outer border being tagged with outer and any island or feature within the bounds of the relation being a 'cut out' and tagged inner. In other words you 'cut' the island out of the 'Zambezi' layer leaving a hole for the island to show through. I have corrected the sand islands in the changeset perhaps have a look to get the idea. 

Another point to remember is these islands may no longer exist as the imagery is usually outdated and the very nature of the islands means they change with the seasons as anybody who visits the Zambezi regularly will have seen.

Cheers
gileri (2019-09-06 18:14:47+00:00): Bonjour,

Attention tu as dupliqué beaucoup de public_transport=platform qui existaient déjà. Je commence à les fusionner avec l'existant.
dval (2019-09-11 14:15:26+00:00): Здравствуйте! Вы зачем сменили значение дороги? Оснований для это нет. Это нормальная для проезда автомобильного транспорта дорога. Можно еще порассуждать о том, что она не tertiary, а unclassified, но уж точно не path. Cм. здесь https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:highway%3Dtertiary.
trigpoint (2021-05-24 11:29:44+00:00): Hi, this edit has gone very wrong.

From a simple look at aerial imagery it is very clear that most of these 'service roads' you have mapped are clearly footpaths and are therefore not routable by vehicles.

Cheers Phil
hemasvn (2021-05-25 15:21:08+00:00): Hi Phil,
Thanks for looking into our edit. The editor is out of Organization (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Amazon#Previous_users). Hence, Replying on behalf of him. Looks like the editor hasn't considered the road width and misinterpreted the segment to be a service road. We genuinely apologize for this miss from our end. I have made the changes as per Bing Aerial Imagery(changeset:105301033). Always happy to learn from the community.
Regards,
hemasvn
Øukasz (2019-09-08 12:50:07+00:00): Hello طائر الجنوب,

I am not sure if this edit you've made is correct. Highway network should not have highways not connected to higher-order ones - so these primary highways are sort of 'hanging' in the middle of nowhere. Can you consider reverting them to what they were? Cheers,
4004 (2019-09-06 13:38:20+00:00): здравствуйте,
уже подняли скорость? в августе еще стояли знаки на 100
!bm (2019-09-06 12:33:06+00:00): Willkommen zu OSM! Ich habe deine Veränderungen auf einen eigenen Punkt transferiert, korrigiert und ergänzt. Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/74173649
bestegrüße !bm