piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
segubi (2022-10-25 17:47:31+00:00): Du hast vor Jahren in der Nähe Borgentreich eine Relation R6 angelegt (Relation 2594592). Handelt es sich dabei um das alte NRW-R-Netz? s. http://www.bahntrassenradeln.de/rad_nrw01.htm (Vielleicht dann einen entsprechenden Vermerk machen. Anderswo gibt es z.B. name="Rx [NRW]" oder über description=xyz). Falls es ihn vor Ort überhaupt noch gibt.
Grüße,
Sebastian
4004 (2020-04-04 22:52:33+00:00): не помните, откуда за частным домом стоматология?
DeBigC (2021-01-13 23:35:49+00:00): There are a clutch of fields with hedgerow boundaries, some of the fields are pastures and some appear to be barley/wheat fields with the crop just removed. I doubt natural=scrub is the right tag for this, the area isn't natural as a parent and isn't scrub in value. Will change.
pjna (2021-01-14 11:50:15+00:00): OK, No problems.
Asteliks (2021-07-17 14:11:48+00:00): Wielkopolski Klub Pszczelarzy (który dodałeś) wymaga sprawdzenia, ich strona internetowa już nie działa: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/157829104
eggie (2019-05-29 15:23:55+00:00): Na jaren weer aan het mappen, maar nooit een welkomstmail ontvangen zie ik.. bij deze alsnog   Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
user_1232595 (2014-11-02 22:14:09+00:00): Im Changeset finden sich einige nodes mit name={nummer}, z.B. 1321461078
Das sind wohl Nummern von Weichen?! Sind die richtig getagt?
eggie (2020-11-20 18:36:32+00:00): Nu edits in Nederland, maar nooit de welkomstmail ontvangen.. Bij deze Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
namens de OSM Community
GerdP (2015-11-01 20:42:09+00:00): please review https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2034283521
The tag highway=stud is rarely used, what is meant here?
JandaM (2019-02-20 15:10:10+00:00): A prosim pouzivejte building=garage (jednotne cislo) misto building=garages (mozne cislo) ktere je urcene pro vice nez jedno garazove stani
Mates-K1 (2019-02-20 18:37:04+00:00): Díky za připomínku. Tohle je oproti druhé Vámi komentované změně 6 let stará věc. Obecné už takhle OSM needituji, takže by se to nemělo opakovat.
SomeoneElse (2022-02-12 06:23:02+00:00): Hello Muokkaaja,

I hope you don't mind me asking about an edit from 9 years ago. On this changeset you added a "source=google street view" tag on the node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/376824623/history . We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here - it would cause real problems for the project if we were found to be using Google Maps as a source.
If this is somewhere that you are familiar with, then "source=local_knowledge" would be perfectly OK.

Best Regards
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group
SomeoneElse (2022-02-12 06:23:23+00:00): Hei Muukkaaja,

Toivottavasti et pahastu, kun kysyn 9 vuoden takaisesta muokkauksesta. Lisäsit tähän muutossarjaan "source=google street view" -tunnisteen solmuun https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/376824623/history . Emme voi varsinaisesti käyttää sitä lähteenä OSM:ssä, koska Googlen lisenssi ei salli sen käyttöä täällä - se aiheuttaisi todellisia ongelmia projektille, jos meidän todetaan käyttävän Google Mapsia lähteenä.
Jos tämä on sinulle tuttu paikka, "source=local_knowledge" olisi täysin OK.

Parhain terveisin
Andy Townsend, OSM:n tietotyöryhmän puolesta
Muokkaaja (2022-02-13 20:42:42+00:00): Fixed wrong source, I don't know how did it ended up here. I went this place once.
SomeoneElse (2022-02-19 14:32:30+00:00): There are quite a few others, including but not limited to:

   <tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node 2034657935
   <tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node 2034657941
   <tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node 2034657922
   <tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node 2034657944
   <tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node 2034684470
   <tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node 2034684487
   <tag k="source" v="Google street view;MML2012"/>
way 192934768
   <tag k="source" v="Google street view"/>
node 2034684470

Are you sure that you did not use "Google Street View" for any of them and just happened to type that in as a source "by accident"?
olo81 (2020-09-20 14:55:56+00:00): Cześć
Znajomy zwrócił mi uwagę że osmand źle go prowadzi na pewnym odcinku drogi, zaczynam drążyć temat i wychodzi że to przez połączenie tagów footway=sidewalk i highway=* , pociągnołem okolicę overpasem i okazuje się że jest tego dużo więcej na terenie dąbrowy górniczej. Penie już tak nie edytujesz ale warto wiedzieć na przyszłość. Postaram się poprawić  to. Jeszcze testuje czy przy tagach sidewalk=* są problemy. 
Pozdrawiam
olo81 (2020-09-20 14:57:22+00:00): przykład 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/192268021#map=19/50.32463/19.17207
sep (2020-09-20 15:38:48+00:00): Tak, footway=sidewalk jest nadmiarowy dla ścieżek highway!=footway
RafalR (2016-02-27 18:28:51+00:00): W dodanych fotoradarach znalazły się takie które były umiejscowione w poprawnym miejscu.
RLubb (2019-06-06 20:41:42+00:00): Das Museum ist im Februar 2019 aufgelöst worden.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-02-06 00:32:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 80611229, 80608729 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changesets with Google-sourced edits mainly in Java.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14302164 for details
SomeoneElse (2021-05-01 10:40:57+00:00): Hello Hercumike

I hope you don't mind me asking about something added to OpenStreetMap many years ago. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/193163859 was edited here with a "source=Google Maps" tag on it. We can't actually use that as a source in OSM because the Google's licence doesn't allow it to be used here. If it's somewhere that you've actually been and are familiar with then "local_knowledge" is a perfectly good source for OSM.

If not, then we'll have to remove Google-sourced things that you've added to OSM.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group
marc__marc (2020-11-07 00:19:04+00:00): Hello,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/193171516
what's the meaning of class=3 ?
Regards,
Marc
chihchun (2017-10-23 13:03:24+00:00): 請問這塊保護區是由誰管理？
grawal (2025-02-21 15:43:21+00:00): Ho apportato alcune modifiche relativamente al percorso193285150 a seguito di mia conoscenza personale del manufatto in quanto anni fa sono stato direttamente coinvolto nella trasformazione della ciminiera in oggetto. Ho sostituito il tag tower bell con chimney perchè mi sembra più coerente. Infatti al suo interno scorrono ancora prodotti di combustione, mentre come tower bell, lo è solo più virtualmente. Infatti le campane sono poste all'esterno della sua base.
Jojo4u (2015-05-08 09:10:30+00:00): Hallo freak_style. Deine Änderungen sind z.T. nicht ganz nachvollziehbar. Was heißt bicycle=designated für dich? Es heßt normalerweise "ein blaues Schild mit Fahrradsymbol darauf". Ein Weg ist auf jeden Fall widersprüchlich getaggt, schau dir mal http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/360065 an.

LG Joachim
aharvey (2015-03-29 22:46:17+00:00): Could you please explain the reasoning for adding these? Is it for a specific router?

There are some issues with these, for example the one you added at Heathcote station is wrong because there is no path running along the way you added.
4004 (2021-12-21 14:02:43+00:00): название придуманное?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-02-06 00:32:32+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 80611229, 80608729 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changesets with Google-sourced edits mainly in Java.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14302164 for details
amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ (2017-05-12 12:24:07+00:00): Ummm... I don't think this ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/178568122#map=19/35.14644/-85.27930 ) is a castle, I've changed it here ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/48622632#map=6/32.559/-90.407 )
SomeoneElse (2015-06-08 12:11:48+00:00): Something's gone a bit wrong during the merge of ways here I think - http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188046153/history has layer="1; 2".  I suspect you've merged items on multiple layers by accident.
dieterdreist (2019-09-30 10:50:41+00:00): Hi, I noticed you added the Reginna torrent in the underground/tunnel part as width=5meters, can you recall where this information comes from?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-02-06 00:32:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 80611229, 80608729 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changesets with Google-sourced edits mainly in Java.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14302164 for details
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-02-06 00:32:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 80611229, 80608729 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changesets with Google-sourced edits mainly in Java.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14302164 for details
notmyproblem1 (2025-09-02 15:32:54+00:00): ciao caro, coem vai in via regina pacis hai disegnato una strada non esistente? procedo a cancellalre la strada, buon mapping 🫡 (o7)
Mateusz Konieczny (2018-09-12 10:43:22+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2043972488/history - are you sure that import data was correct? start_date=2006 and 6 years later 46 m high tree, with diameter_crown of 5 m?
Mateusz Konieczny (2018-09-12 10:44:51+00:00): BTW, are you planning reimport to keep data up to date? Such detailed data is likely to become outdated soon.
ScubbX (2018-12-17 17:27:41+00:00): There is some suspicious data indeed, but the vast majority is correct. The official cadastre of trees is updated every two years by manually visiting each tree.

As for this one tree - maybe there is a decimal point missing in the original data? The tree might have been plantet at an already older age.

Actually I am thinking about updating this data regularly, but never came to that.
The idea is to use the history of the database to identify bogus trees in the original data to not let them be re-imported.
gileri (2017-03-26 20:25:21+00:00): Bonjour,

Les tags ref:FR:fantoir=2000 sont-ils corrects ?
À priori ils contredisent les tags ref:FR:FANTOIR également présents :

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/nMY
ypid (2015-04-30 14:42:54+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/55416653/history:

opening_hours=OeBB
?

Please use valid opening_hours syntax.
Nzara (2015-04-30 18:03:20+00:00): Sorry for the mistake
ypid (2015-04-30 18:39:01+00:00): No problem … Thanks for fixing it.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-02-06 00:32:22+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 80611229, 80608729 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changesets with Google-sourced edits mainly in Java.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14302164 for details
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-02-06 00:32:27+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 80611229, 80608729 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changesets with Google-sourced edits mainly in Java.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14302164 for details
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-02-06 00:32:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 80611229, 80608729 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changesets with Google-sourced edits mainly in Java.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14302164 for details
fkv (2017-07-01 13:31:45+00:00): Am 16.9.2012 war dort noch eine Doppeltür, ich hab sogar Fotos davon. Bist du sicher, dass sie wenig später demontiert wurde?
Walter Schlögl (2017-07-14 08:11:36+00:00): sorry, habs korrigiert
marczoutendijk (2025-09-04 15:38:23+00:00): Hi Russ,
Quite some time ago you added:
man_made=wier
but most likely you meant
waterway=weir
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dweir
Am I right?

Best regards  
Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
Russ McD (2025-09-04 15:43:11+00:00): Ha, Yes - a very long time ago.  Feel free to correct and any other occurrences you find. Rgds.
marczoutendijk (2025-09-04 15:45:21+00:00): I will!
Marc.
GerdP (2015-10-30 21:54:38+00:00): please review node 2047212582:
it is tagged highway=cycleway. Maybe you wanted to map a way with that tag?
tyr_asd (2017-11-03 10:37:27+00:00): What are these relations good for? It doesn't make much sense to me.
opendcc (2021-10-10 05:57:15+00:00): Hallo,
Du hast da mal die Hydranten eingezeichnet, betreust Du das noch?
flokycool (2021-10-10 06:59:51+00:00): Hallo Opendcc,

Ich betreue die Daten noch. Ich bereite gerade ein Update vor. Falls du helfen willst gib Bescheid. :)
EoghanM (2015-10-16 14:06:44+00:00): Interesting question: if it's a suburb, is it a suburb of Southport or Formby?  I don't have any local knowledge and both are marked as 'town'. (Presume Southport but no way of knowing from the data)
nyuriks (2018-04-24 18:49:08+00:00): Hi, I removed name_int -- that's not a correct tag -- it should be int_name.  The value is almost the same, and I suspect "ulitsa" is not really needed there
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-11-12 06:18:04+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1230873001/history has id = 57 that was added in this edit
What is the meaning of this unusual key? Is this tag needed?
Or maybe can it be expressed in a more typical way that would be easier to understand?
Or maybe this key can and should be documented as useful tagging schema?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2020-02-06 00:32:26+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 80611229, 80608729 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some changesets with Google-sourced edits mainly in Java.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/14302164 for details
zstadler (2018-08-09 05:26:32+00:00): Hello jakednb,
.
In this changeset you have changed 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/183816511/history
from a "medow" area to "protected area".
.
As far as I know, and according to https://www.parks.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/parks2015.pdf ,
this is not a Nature reserve or a National Park.
.
Can you please clarify the source of this change?
jakednb (2018-08-09 07:26:32+00:00): Hi, 
In the source you have - mount Hermon is indeed absent as a nature reserve, however it does exist (declared 1974), see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermon_nature_reserve
https://www.inature.info/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9F
https://www.teva.org.il/?CategoryID=1249&ArticleID=7089
zstadler (2018-08-09 07:44:52+00:00): The iNature site clearly says it is in its early approcal state:
.
מצב תכנוני:מופקדת
.
As such, it is not a Nature Reserve (yet). In fact, it has not gone to the
מאושרת
status yet.
zstadler (2018-08-10 22:08:07+00:00): The plan for the nature reserve was deposited for public review (הופקדה) in July 2016 - https://www.nevo.co.il/Law_word/law10/yalkut-7309.pdf
There is still a way to go before a Nature Reserve is declared.
zstadler (2018-08-11 13:10:37+00:00): The planned nature reserve is also significantly different than mapped. 
Removed in changeset 61565466.
Basstoelpel (2018-03-31 20:48:19+00:00): Wird das wirklich getrennt geschrieben? 

Baßtölpel
cadsauxk (2016-01-25 23:35:32+00:00): Olá, você marcou as áreas verdes em Ouro Preto como landuse=conservation. Você tem alguma informação se realmente são áreas de conservação? Ou vovê quis simplesmente demarcar uma área verde? Eu sei que fazem mais de 3 anos que você editou isto, mas talvez você se lembre do motivo. Obrigado.
rmikke (2022-03-10 13:42:50+00:00): Hej :)
Co to jest za numerek 74 na budynku https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194529446 ?
mariotomo (2019-03-22 02:28:42+00:00): you have any recollection of why you deleted this set of objects?  the commit comment does not explain much.
mariotomo (2019-03-22 02:38:05+00:00): you deleted some random mess you had just added, but also a couple of objects that represented reality.
ma-rt-in (2024-01-02 19:28:23+00:00): Hallo,

bzgl. deines Mappings habe ich im Forum ein Thema aufgemacht.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/wasserwacht-relationen/107644

Komm gerne dazu und gib deine Meinung ab.

vg
Taya_S (2023-11-07 08:33:27+00:00): Hello tms13,

Sorry about commenting on an 11 year old changeset. But this is the changeset that created the relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2621481 that I stumbled upon. ( and related to it is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2621325 )

I know you're still an active contributer and I wanted to suggest to you the idea of replacing this relation with a tagging scheme. I feel that this fits in the "relations are not categories" camp. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories

I don't really have any intentions of involving myself in road tagging schemes, so I thought I'd bring the idea up to you.

Sincerely,
Taya
CloCkWeRX (2016-06-14 03:51:12+00:00): Is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172936462 still under construction? The imagery shows some improvements around it that may be worth updating
GerdP (2015-10-22 06:33:16+00:00): please review:
you seem to use highway=paper
instead of highway=proposed.
Is that intended ?
GerdP (2015-11-02 15:54:20+00:00): I've changed highway=paper to highway=proposed. Please add proposed=*
if you know the type, I am not familiar with LINZ. 
BTW: What do tags like 
linz:garmin_road_class=0
linz:garmin_type=0x6
mean ? Is this information used with mkgmap?
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-05 16:56:17+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1720627782/history

how it is both city gate and a traffic calming bump?
aceman444 (2016-06-29 22:40:22+00:00): Zdravim, odkial ste mali v minulosti informaciu, ze cesta I/65 pokracuje cez Caradice a Tekovske Nemce? Lebo dnes ma tento usek Slovenska sprava ciest spat ako III/2521. Aj na wikipedii je to zmenene:
https://sk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cesta_I._triedy_65_(Slovensko)&diff=prev&oldid=6100091
Mozete to overit? Dakujem.
Rio Parič (2016-06-30 07:04:28+00:00): cau, byvam v Zlatych Moravciach a casto chodim okolo a nedaleko exitu 80 pri R1 je tabula s cislom cesty 65. uz sa to tu riesilo v 2012, preco som to oznacil I/65. cerpal som z reality i ked viem, ze na SSC je to uz oznacene ponovom III/2521. neviem, ci to az tak treba riesit, ked sa ma preznacovat cela cestna siet.

https://www.google.sk/maps/@48.3553108,18.4961961,3a,50.6y,143.88h,80.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scVkRmadf0KxC_afjbyJqfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

info zo vcera, tabula je stale rovnaka.
aceman444 (2016-06-30 07:24:52+00:00): Super, dakujem.
Je mozne, ze kedysi tam cesta 65 bola a zabudli tam tu tabulu aj ked uz ma ine cislo? Ci odvtedy to tam uz prekopavali kvoli R1 a nemali by tam tabulu zabudnut?

Kedy sa ma preznacovat cela siet? Ak myslite cesty tretej triedy tak tie sme uz spravili.
Durko_freemap (2016-06-30 12:30:36+00:00): Zdravim pani, 
exit Caradice po krizovatka Hronsky Benadik = neviem, ale tieto cesty (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/191996607, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4260490, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/155198856#map=16/48.3572/18.5737) uz asi nejaky cas niesu 65ka. Svoje tvrdenie opieram o tieto foto (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/TioniXidu_cmatnixnEXAg/photo, https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/zjegnd5Gk5eJDTamrnsDOw/photo). Dalej je to zrejme cesta c. 6511 vid foto (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/_Ifv_ewVoQ3vHVcF_6Yk9w/photo) Aj ked aj na tejto ceste sa daju najst perlicky typu (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/njtueG5AlD-JwvS_hEVkeg/photo, https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/op9IxbsWGgVNpuUXAVPkbA/photo, https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/qcL8139Xs80ouEV7iIqTsg/photo, https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/km_ZzYKjKfHc-8CiHRoBjg/photo). Durko
aceman444 (2016-06-30 16:02:29+00:00): Ano, podla SSC je od Benadiku na sever po R1 cesta I/76, od R1 je 65. 6511 je asi stare cislovanie, momentalne neviem ake je nove cislo.
Mne sa javi, ze vsetky tie tabule o 65 su este pozostatok ked tade 65 isla (Caradice-Benadik a dalej).
Rio Parič (2016-06-30 21:15:06+00:00): kolegovci, skor ako zacnete nieco riesit, si to trochu nastudujte. najskor k ceste 65, ta vedie z Nitry do Martina, povodne viedla z Caradic po Hronsky Benadik v terajsej trese R1 medzi exitami 80-87 a nejaky sikovny chlapik, co mal nastarosti tabule a znacenie na R1, premenoval cestu III/076001 na I/65. nikto tam ziadne tabule nezabudol, proste sa to tak oznacilo pri spustani R1. takto je oznaceny smer Caradice-Hr.Benadik, ale opacne to tak oznacene nie je, lebo to uz stavitelia z R1 neriesili. samozrejme, ze to oznacili zle a ja som v roku 2012 oznacil tuto cestu podla vtedajsieho stavu, samozrejme, tiez zle. ale popritom to vsetko dava vyznam, takto je I/65 v ucelenejsom stave a nie je to rozkuskovane.

dalej sa tu vyjadrujete k ceste III/065011 (III/065011A), takto sa to ma pisat oficialne, tieto dve cesty v skutocnosti existuju a nemaju nic spolocne s cestou I/65. ponovom maju oznacenie 2514 a 2515. 

na ceste I/65 od R1 exitu 87 smerom na Novu Banu podla vasich fotiek nie je oznacena. je to stav este z doby, kedy R1 nemala oznacenie R1 ale oznacovala sa podla ciest prvej treidy a v tomto useku od terajsieho exitu 87 smerom dalej na vychod sa oznacovala R1 cislom 65. tak ako od Trnavy po Nitru cislom 51...

takze zhrnutie: nic sa na tomto useku nezabudlo, nic nie je pozostatok, kilometrovniky nie su ziadne perlicky, ale realne povodne cislovanie. chyba jednoducho nastala v zlom znaceni, povodneho stareho useku R1 Hr.Benadik-N.Bana a tak isto na novsom useku PPP R1 Nitra-Hr.Benadik.

k tomu preznacovaniu cestnej siete, jednotky a dvojky sa maju preznacovat v priebehu tohto roka, tak isto aj Rky sa budu preznacovat na D, spominam ak ste o tom este nepoculi. aceman, ako si to myslel, ze ste uz trojky ste uz spravili, tu na openstreet?

ak mate zaujem podebatovat, tak na rijo13@gmail.com
Rio Parič (2016-06-30 21:32:20+00:00): a ako som pisal pred tym, netreba to teraz riesit, lebo z cesty I/65 sa stane cesta cislo 4, tak ako je ponovom premenena I/50 na 9.
aceman444 (2016-06-30 22:03:16+00:00): No to, ze je 65 ucelenejsia je sice pekne, ale ak to tak oficialne nie je (v SSC), tak zbytocne sa tym budeme kochat. Ale je to nespravne.

Ano, vsetky cesty 3. triedy sme uz precislovali z 6 miestnych na 4 miestne.

Aj cesty 1. triedy co sa precislovali minuly rok su spravene.

Ale myslim, ze ma zmysel riesit kade ide I/65. Lebo pri precislovani nebudeme kontrolovat priebeh (ak sa ten nebude menit), len prepiseme jedno cislo na druhe. Takze problem sa nevyriesi.
Rio Parič (2016-06-30 22:53:09+00:00): praveze sa bude menit trasovanie

http://www.dialnice.info/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=715&start=800#p162887
Durko_freemap (2016-07-01 08:18:11+00:00): asi nejde o povoleny zdroj, cize netvrdim ze mame podla tohto zakreslit, ide len o diskusiu, cez Tek. Nemce uz nejde 65ka http://www.cdb.sk/files/galleries/mapy-podla-spravcov-ck/ivsc-ba_nr.jpg?w=1500
matipau (2023-01-13 15:58:52+00:00): Hier wurde Parsberg von place=village auf place=suburb geändert. Ich bezweifle, dass dieses Tagging korrekt ist, da Parsberg ein abgegrenzter Siedlungsbereich und somit kein Teil des Hauptorts Miesbach (d.h. des mit place=town beschrifteten Siedlungsgebiets innerhalb der Gemeinde Miesbach) ist. Um nach Parsberg zu kommen, muss man die geschlossene Ortschaft ja verlassen. Verwaltungstechnisch gehört Parsberg natürlich zur Gemeinde Miesbach (was sich auch aus der entsprechenden Grenzrelation mit admin_level=8 ergibt), aber bei place=suburb geht es ja um die stadttopographische Einordnung, vgl. auch das Beispiel mit Tübingen-Hirschau im Wiki. Die Situation ist m.E. analog zu Wachlehen, das korrekt als place=village getaggt wurde.

Bevor ich Parsberg auf place=village zurückändere, wollte ich aber erst nochmal nachfragen, ob du das auch so siehst.
fkv (2016-05-18 08:12:03+00:00): Du hast das verdreht, die Burgruine ist die südliche und die Schlossruine die nördliche. Ich werde das ausbessern. Wir können gern mal eine gemeinsame Tour dorthin machen, ich hab da eh noch was ausständig, und zwar war ich in der Höhle noch nicht drin.
4004 (2019-07-18 15:13:38+00:00): здравствуйте, вы кажется отмечали Р54 в Воложине - не помните, откуда номер взяли?
а то оспаривают