piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2022-05-28 12:28:18+00:00): I understand, however, the REV has concrete separation at each intersection, and the cycleway:right/left:buffer is used on Sauriol cycling path to emphasis separation width. I wish there was a cycleway:bollard=yes tag but there is none for now. Problem is a lot of error checking tools will trigger an error/warning on highway=[any vehicle road] with cycleway=track when the cycleway is not mapped separately with highway=cycleway. Not a big problem for me right now, but other users may revert back to lane tag. I had long discussions with fellow osm mappers about what is considered a physicial separation and paint and/or bollards are not right now. In the meantime, I will search for any tag that could describe the bollards in any way.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2022-05-28 12:34:58+00:00): This looks promising: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleway:separation
I would suggest to keep cycleway:right/left=lane and add cycleway:right/left:separation=bollard
together with cycleway:right/left:buffer=BUFFER WIDTH IN METERS
this would be fitting the physical cycleway 100%.
gcamp (2022-05-28 12:41:13+00:00): Do you mind linking to other discussion you had about this and the tool that creates those warnings?
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2022-05-28 12:56:17+00:00): You can see a summary of the proposal here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/cycleway:separation
This discussion is pretty much the one I had with some people some time ago. For my part, it was due to how I mapped the motorway links merging segments as separate way until the end of the dashed lines, which they said it was incorrect since there was no physical separation and thus needed to use the lanes tag instead. This is the same thing here. The general concensus seems to be that we should not map things separately (or in this case cycleway=track wich implies physical separation) when there is only paint separating the ways (or bollards). The REV is a kind of compromise here, because we did not want to map the cycleway separately only at the intersections and make the map really messy, so we used a separate cycleway from the road all the way through.

You can see the discussions about motorway on-ramps here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103991053
and on slack:
See #questionable-edits on openstreetmap channel (Monday May 2nd thread: Seems we have some interesting interpretations on highway ramp tagging in Quebec today)
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2022-05-28 12:57:38+00:00): The error/warning tool we used is a modified version of the idedtor which alert when there are error in tagging or ambigous information, like a cycleway=track with buffer. buffer should be used alongside cycleway=lane
gcamp (2022-05-30 15:17:55+00:00): idedtor = "the editor"? 

If you have modified your editor to add a warning for cycleway track on road, then I think you should change that because it's explicitly allowed. I also don't understand the link with the motorway merging discussion, as they are different issue and I'm not proposing to split in two different highway. The wiki is pretty clear (in addition to what I quoted earlier) : 
> This specifically applies to cycle lanes which are always a part of the road, and often also applies to separated cycle tracks if they are running parallel and next to the road.

The proposal is interesting, but again it's just a proposal. 

>The REV is a kind of compromise here, because we did not want to map the cycleway separately only at the intersections and make the map really messy, 
Completely agree, which is why I think using bollard as separation the correct interpretation. 

Basically if you're saying Sauriol/Prieur are lane, you are indicating to bike trip planner that they are as good as paint-on-the-road cycle lane like on "Georges-Baril", which you know is completely different.
Nadzeya_ (2022-05-30 07:48:52+00:00): Added road based on user feedback, Esri World Imagery #mbx_editing
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121581177
mikko_tamura (2022-05-27 18:56:25+00:00): What is a give box?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121581445
danieldegroot2 (2022-05-27 17:09:02+00:00): Hey B-Rabbit,

It's ok you added these parkings, eventhough they were partially obscured. However, you should mark estimations with a fixme tag (eg. "fixme=rough outline")

Just fyi; if you haven't yet, you should read the following wiki pages:
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Mark_estimations_with_fixme
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Armchair_mapping#Disadvantages_and_controversy
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability#Verifiable_geometries
- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Accuracy#Refining_accuracy_wiki-style
(tldr; objects without proper source (imagery/knowledge/survey) preferably shouldn't be mapped.)

Regards,

Daniel
B-Rabbit (2022-05-28 12:41:34+00:00): Hi Daniel,
thanks for your comment. I added the fixme tags you proposed to the parkings.

Regards,
B-Rabbit
WalthamCity (2022-06-01 20:00:29+00:00): Why is this still tagged as under construction when the Elizabeth Line entrance is now open and functioning?
MacLondon (2022-06-03 14:36:07+00:00): The station entrance is opened but the rest of the building is still fenced off (including the Oxford St side) as construction seems unfinished above the station entrance.
Jakka (2022-05-28 06:11:47+00:00): heeft dit café een twee verschillende namen ?
MxxCon (2022-06-04 04:13:01+00:00): Rather than you and FlowerHillPerson have an edit war on these tags, it's better for you to discuss it in changesets. It is particularly rude to just fly in and nuke somebody's effort without discussing that.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121582230
LucGommans (2022-06-17 00:57:55+00:00): Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Keep_the_history when updating objects on the map. This edit destroyed a reference on the german osm wiki, see "[1]" on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:place%3Dlocality
physi_retired (2022-06-17 02:48:40+00:00): Hi,
I deleted a wrong node and added the correct one https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9775292337.
I agree I could have updated the wrong node instead. That happened in some (very few) cases.

Regards,
physi
physi_retired (2022-06-17 04:35:05+00:00): ok, just now I realized what you referred to, that specific node was used as example in the wiki. Will revert later...
physi_retired (2022-06-17 04:45:12+00:00): reverted...
LucGommans (2022-06-18 16:27:23+00:00): Looks good, thank you!
wkdgs (2022-06-01 06:10:26+00:00): Hi, 

willkommen bei OpenStreetMap und Danke, dass du dabei hilfst die Karte zu verbessern.

Kannst du noch die Adressen bei der Garage und dem Schuppen entfernen? Üblicherweise wird die nur am Haus selbst eingetragen.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121582598
mikko_tamura (2022-05-27 19:22:33+00:00): possible google import. Question how do you get your POIs?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121582613
CurlingMan13 (2022-05-29 10:36:41+00:00): Can you explain what you did?  Putting ":)" in the changeset comments doesn't provide much insight into what was done or why.

Thanks!
ladyinprogress (2022-05-29 11:18:17+00:00): i added sidewalks,building/houses, parks and the new splash pad at haithco. this wasn't the first time i put juse a 🙂 face cuz i added alot and didnt no i was supposed to explain what i did
ladyinprogress (2022-05-29 11:20:16+00:00): i also added benchs an playgrounds and parks
CurlingMan13 (2022-05-29 21:51:34+00:00): No worries.  My small edits don't usually have a lot in the notes/comments section, but ones with this magnitude usually contain more details.

Having comments is usually enough to kind of scan through it.

No worries!  Welcome to OSM and see you around!
user_2066394 (2022-05-27 22:34:51+00:00): Man könnte man_made=monitoring_station ergänzen.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:man_made%3Dmonitoring_station
schoka (2022-05-28 19:47:03+00:00): Ich glaube nicht, dass das ein absichtlicher Punkt war. Was "Probenahme" sein soll kann ich mir nicht vorstellen. Das war die erste und letzte Bearbeitung von "jomuellertum" . 
Falls du die Stelle kennst, spricht natürlich nichts gegen den Eintrag.
user_2066394 (2022-05-29 07:48:21+00:00): Auch wieder wahr, im zweiten Blick etwas dürftig von der Ausgangslage her.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-06-06 23:22:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted because it removed a landuse tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121583305
Rainero (2022-07-05 19:33:24+00:00): Hallo Streetview247,  
bei deiner Bearbeitung der Schloßstraße hast du die Radroute Lochbachtal-Ohligs-Engelsberger Hof (Relation 9300764) beschädigt. Siehe auch die Meldung https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3242136 
Auch die Taxibuslinie TB960 erhielt dadurch einen Sprung in der Route.

Das habe ich nun repariert, genauso wie einen ähnlichen Fehler im CS121541366, den ich dort kommentiere: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/121541366

Viele Grüße,
Rainer
Rainero (2022-07-05 20:05:45+00:00): Zur Veranschaulichung: https://ibb.co/NTzg9Bp
Rainero (2022-07-05 20:47:54+00:00): Und die eigentliche Änderung ander Schloßstraße ist im CS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/120231484 - viellicht hätte ich besser dort kommentiert.
Streetview247 (2022-07-11 19:30:45+00:00): Ich werde darauf achten sorry!
user_5359 (2022-05-28 13:56:31+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/node/9775359203. What is the meaning of the tag Федеральный спортивный центр = "Крымский"?
DougPeterson (2022-05-28 11:23:37+00:00): The following changesets damaged a set of roads between Southfield Road and Greenfield Road after somehow getting connected up with a large soccer field spanning miles. I think it would be best to revert these changesets fully and would propose doing them in JOSM. 
121584620
121584223
121583859
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-31 17:57:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 121778694 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some doodles near Detroit.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-06-06 23:17:25+00:00): Please check the accuracy before uploading ai generated roads.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121583993
mikko_tamura (2022-05-27 18:33:28+00:00): please square all features and restaurantrs
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121584189
DougPeterson (2022-05-28 11:23:54+00:00): The following changesets damaged a set of roads between Southfield Road and Greenfield Road after somehow getting connected up with a large soccer field spanning miles. I think it would be best to revert these changesets fully and would propose doing them in JOSM. 
121584620
121584223
121583859
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-31 17:57:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 121778694 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some doodles near Detroit.
Patchanka (2022-05-27 16:21:46+00:00): relation "Les chemins de la Seudre" à revoir car elle passait sur une route qui n'existe plus (il y a un port à la place !)
Stalker61 (2022-06-05 07:05:27+00:00): Не надо так необоснованно задирать статусы автодорог. Тут tertiary с великой натяжкой.
DougPeterson (2022-05-28 11:23:29+00:00): The following changesets damaged a set of roads between Southfield Road and Greenfield Road after somehow getting connected up with a large soccer field spanning miles. I think it would be best to revert these changesets fully and would propose doing them in JOSM. 
121584620
121584223
121583859
mikko_tamura (2022-05-27 18:28:56+00:00): Please use proper Tagging. for example in post office - use amenity=post_office and name=Dickoya Post Office. Do not use amenity=Dickoya Post Office
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121584682
nyampire (2022-05-30 02:47:41+00:00): OSMへようこそ！
編集をレビューしました。カフェのほうはよく描けていると思います。素晴らしい！
ただ、道路のほうは同じ箇所を重ねて2回描いてしまっていたようです。
今回は僕の方で直してみましたので、次は気をつけて描いてみてください。
Happy Mapping!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121584877
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-05-31 17:57:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 121778694 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some doodles near Detroit.
eggie (2022-05-27 17:25:36+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback  Geef svp concreet aan wat je hebt aangepast. 
Je hebt een polygoon palce=neighbourhood gemapt. Met wel doel.
Buurten worden in de regel op nodes getagd. 
Verder heb je een node weggetrokken bij de Borneostraat. Dit lijkt me gewoon schade.. 
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=121586118

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-05-27 17:29:40+00:00): reverted due damage to the map by changeset #121587081
Your edits are reverted. What was your intention?

Greetz,
eggie
mariotomo (2022-06-08 17:50:14+00:00): bonjour. vous avez ici utilisé le nom scientifique correct et complet pour l'Almendro. bravo.
eggie (2022-05-27 17:45:01+00:00): Volgens het Kadaster is dat stuk 'Binnenweg' toch echt de Zonnewende. 
https://www.verbeterdekaart.nl/#?geometry.x=185135.65&geometry.y=383431.96&zoomlevel=13.41
Dus toch nog weer even anders.
Welk straatnaambord staat hier. Je kunt een terugmelding doen naar het Kadaster via onderstaande site als je zeker van je zaak bent. 
Graag reactie
MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-05-27 17:51:37+00:00): En nog wat info
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=zonnewende%203&resultOffset=0&objectId=0762100000003763&geometry.x=185167.06&geometry.y=383529.88400297&zoomlevel=7&detailsObjectId=0762010000006844
eggie (2022-05-27 17:55:43+00:00): Aangepast aan de Kadasterdata..
Nocht het niet kloppen dan kun je een terugmelding doen richting Kadaster, maar ik denk echt dat de weg conform het BAGadres Zonnewende 5 is. 
Gr eggie
Pieter Deurne (2022-05-27 19:56:57+00:00): Het straatnaambord bij de doodlopende weg geeft inderdaad Zonnewende aan. Het adres Zonnewende 5 klopt dus.
eggie (2022-05-27 20:11:14+00:00): Oke Pieter... 
Deurne is weer actueel. 
Dan hebben we beiden iets goeds gedaan in OSM.  :)

Mapse
eggie
MxxCon (2022-05-28 01:37:05+00:00): Hello.
What is your source of this data?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121586353
rightnxtdoor (2022-05-28 12:49:18+00:00): Hello,
These are the sources:
1) https://ashleys-psychic-readings.business.site
2) https://www.yelp.com/biz/psychic-readings-by-ashley-queens-4 (the opening hours were updated two months ago).
Regards
MxxCon (2022-05-28 14:37:48+00:00): You can not use copyrighted sources like Google Maps and Yelp to add data to OSM. This edit is going to be reverted.

Just because upland users don't care about copyright doesn't mean OSM should be punished for that.
rightnxtdoor (2022-05-28 15:23:21+00:00): "You can not use copyrighted sources like Google Maps and Yelp to add data to OSM. This edit is going to be reverted."

My sources are neither google nor yelp. I added the yelp link to help you and show you that the business is up and running.
The website of the activity is the main source, it is active and updated in the address, it is also possible to contact the owner.
I haven’t infringed any copyrights, the activities are public and advertised. I cannot have infringed any copyright if the business is advertised publically.
I spent my time for free updating OSM maps, I spent a lot of time researching.
I signed up for OSM because it is a very useful site and I wanted to contribute.
Do you work for OSM or are you a user too?
If you work for OSM I think that if I have made mistakes you could help me not to make them again.

"Just because upland users don't care about copyright doesn't mean OSM should be punished for that."

Sorry, I did not understand the meaning of your answer. What do you mean?
MxxCon (2022-05-28 18:48:16+00:00): You know exactly what upland is
eggie (2022-05-27 17:32:15+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback warnings:crossing_ways:building-highway

Je pad loopt dwars door de gebouwen. Ook is het voor een deel geen voetpad, maar ook een parkeerplaats. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-05-27 17:39:31+00:00): Elk begin is moeilijk, maar probeer er wel wat werk van te maken svp.
Je pad heb ik gefatsoeneerd en aan de westkant een highway=service gemaakt over de parkeerplaats.
MVG
eggie
Scout Jens (2024-11-05 17:37:38+00:00): Weg: 1064403067 - wenn es ihn nun doch gibt, warum hast Du dann nicht den als aufgegeben gekennzeichneten Weg reaktiviert? Du hast nun einen direkt darüber gelegt. Das ist nicht sinnvoll. Viele Grüße, Jens
hegges (2024-11-05 21:17:46+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, hab's korrigiert.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-06-06 23:09:54+00:00): Why was motorway tag removed from motorway?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121587094
Javi Santiago (2022-06-08 14:35:11+00:00): Becauses isn`t autopista, it is an Autovía
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/121587094
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-06-08 21:37:08+00:00): You removed the highway tag completely from one section. This breaks the map severely.
gabro00 (2022-05-30 18:29:30+00:00): Szia!
Rá tudnál nézni Szegeden a Budai Nagy Antal utca, Pajor út ás környéke besorolására? Nekem úgy tűnik, mintha fel lennének minősítve.
Kádár Iván (2022-05-30 19:43:35+00:00): Szia!
4412 Makó-Maroslele-Szeged összekötő út
highway=secondary a jó címke hozzá
A komphoz levezető másik út pedig a 44101 Tápéi Nagyvízi lejáró bekötő út
highway=tertiary
Úgy látom a 4412 vége le van zárva, ezért ott le van csökkentve a besorolás, de amúgy ez a jó.
gabro00 (2022-05-30 19:51:34+00:00): Köszi! Igen, azt én fokoztam le, mert amióta megszűnt a komp, azóta gyakorlatilag nincs funkciója az útnak a töltésre kijutáson kívül.
Tehát zavaró és a szerintem amióta megszűnt a komp, a Pajor út vége az enyészeté lett.
Kádár Iván (2022-05-30 20:00:52+00:00): Tervezek írni a levelezőlistára egy vitaindítót, hogy mennyire jó a highway címkét megfeleltetni a magyar közúti besorolásnak. Van az országban pár összekötő út, amit kettévág a megszűnt komp, de a leminősítés nem történt meg.

Másrészt az útállapotra ott vannak a surface=* smoothness=* címkék.
gabro00 (2022-05-30 20:22:47+00:00): Eddigieket figyelembe véve csak vita lenne, eredmény nélkül. Ezek régi problémák és még mindig nincs egységes álláspont.

Azt is érdemes számításba venni, hogy az útvonaltervezők nagy része (élő vagy statisztikai forgalmi adatok híján) az út kategóriájával súlyozzák az egyes útszakaszok költségeit, így rögösen ragaszkodni a hivatalos besoroláshoz nem minden esetben előremutató szerintem. Mindemellett hamis látszatot kelthet az egyszeri felhasználóban egy-egy ilyen felminősített út, surface és smoothness címkék ide vagy oda.
kartonage (2022-06-02 12:22:35+00:00): Hi,

please explain your mass deletions. Otherwise this is just vandalism, which will be reverted.

Best regards
eggie (2022-05-27 18:03:20+00:00): Dag Thiskal,
Je kunt bij upload het vinke aanklikken met ..

: automatische bron van lagen ophalen.

Dan kunnen we zien welke luchtfoto je hebt gebruikt.,
Draai je validator eens...  Er zitten nogal wat fouten in.
Bv De watertjes in het bos had ik als inner bedoeld voor het bos en niet voor het wetland. Ze zitten dus nu in de verkeerde multipolygoon.
Gr eggie
eggie (2022-05-27 18:04:47+00:00): De stukjes water heb ik ingevoegd in de mp van het wetland
eggie (2022-05-27 18:07:34+00:00): De Koelevaartsveen als natural=water ingevoerd.. Alleen wet land is niet genoeg.
Je zou dan bv wetland=marsh of iets anders moete specificeren. Zou het een 'ven'zijn ipv een 'veen'.
eggie (2022-05-27 18:10:51+00:00): of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wetland%3Dmarsh
Dan natural=wetland
wetland=marsh ?
Taya_S (2022-05-27 18:23:37+00:00): hmmm, Mijn excuses. Ik dacht dat de problemen die weergegeven worden voor het uploaden de enige problemen waren. bedankt voor de tip, ik zie nu ook dat er nog aardig wat problemen zijn.

Voor Koelevaartsveen, ik denk dat een ven wel aardig overeenkomt.
eggie (2022-05-27 18:28:39+00:00): Oke.. Bedenk.. niet alles wat als fout wordt aangegeven is fout.
De eerste riedel zijn dan wel resultaten van jouw edits. Dus even rustig even je tanden er in zetten 😀
Die mp's blijven altijd lastig vooral als het werk van een voorgaande mapper is.
Het ziet er overigens  allemaal netjes uit.
Mapse
Eggie
limes11 (2022-06-03 17:50:52+00:00): Hi, 

wayside_cross is the wrong tag - summit:cross=yes is designed to be used in this case. And why did you delete the nodes? This also deletes the history. Just change tags and move POIs, but don't delete anything. 

I would suggest to revert this and you can add the summit crosses wherever they were missing. 

Limes
Suldeaked (2022-06-03 18:32:19+00:00): Hi,
regarding wayside_cross, I've seen both. Just in this map instance for example, before my changes, "Bischof" had a wayside cross as peak, while Hoher Fricken was a regular natural:peak. Krottenkopf actually had both (wayside_cross and peak) which didn't make any sense. I tried to "upgrade" the existing wayside_cross to peak, which somehow didn't properly fetched the wikidata and left it with an empty name - I just reverted the complete changeset, sorry for that: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/121909562

So if clear guidance is to use summit with summit:cross=yes, I'll in the future tag all peaks like that I come across! Thank you.
user_5359 (2022-05-28 13:50:48+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14190214. What is the meaning of the tag Trøstemose = building_passage?
msondergaard (2022-05-30 18:26:35+00:00): Just a mistake in tagging. Someone already fixed it.
martinst (2022-05-27 20:21:46+00:00): Der ursprüngliche Verlauf vom Weg 103396049 in Richtung Unteres Lichteck ist anderen Karten (Bayernatlas, Kompass) so eingetragen wie er war.
Falls der Weg kaum mehr sichtbar ist kann man ihn z.B. mit abandoned:highway=path kennzeichnen.
Das Löschen des oberen Teilstücks ist aber falsch.
Suldeaked (2022-05-28 04:58:10+00:00): Zumindest im Bayernatlas ist der Anschluss zum Weg gelöscht worden, es existieren nur noch Bruchstücke des alten Weges: https://i.imgur.com/QiIPHZe.png - das (neue) Wegstück (quer über die Alm, komplett ohne Markierungen) verläuft dort etwas anders als ich es gegangen bin, das kann ich gerne anpassen.

Was schlägst du vor? Ich kann den kompletten Weg gerne wiederherstellen und dann wie von dir Vorgeschlagen markieren, zumindest direkt beim "Abzweig" (der auf BayernAtlas gelöscht worden ist) lagen dort umgestürzte Bäume etc. die überhaupt nicht passierbar sind. Ob die Bruchstücke ins "Nichts" dann was helfen weiß ich nicht.
Suldeaked (2022-05-28 16:00:05+00:00): Feedback implementiert in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/121623333 - Danke!
martinst (2022-05-28 17:14:27+00:00): Schaut gut aus, Danke!
Löschen würde ich einen Weg auch nur dann wenn ich einen großen Teil des angeblichen Verlaufs überprüft habe.
eggie (2022-05-27 18:24:36+00:00): Ahh Dick Je bent al bezig... :)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/121563704#map=19/52.18772/4.48999

Gr eggie
ad47 (2022-07-16 08:13:56+00:00): Спасибо за уточнение тропинок относительно оврагов!
Есдинственное, такого количество бродов там и близко нет - почти везде мостики, а здесь так и вообще МОСТ: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9775656196
https://www.trailforks.com/photo/15671318/