piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Fra00 (2021-09-21 17:56:46+00:00): Ti ripeto, quell'insieme di tratti stradali sono rampe di connessione tra un trunk e una primary, hanno tale nome ufficiale e non hanno altro scopo.
Non capisco poi "Il problema sembrerebbero proprio i link che portano ad altri link". Nella stragrande maggioranza dei casi vi sono tratti di link che collegano ad altri link, già solo quando le immissioni a senso unico finiscono nel tronco di collegamento principale a doppio senso.
Per quanto riguarda il nostro caso, taggare una strada di pochi metri, il cui unico scopo è quello si collegare una superstrada con una statale, come primary, rendendola così un'assurda protuberanza e facendola di fatto finire nel nulla, non ha senso. Inoltre la stessa wiki chiarisce che le rotatorie possono essere taggate come link. JOSM segnalerà anche l'errore, ma è un sistema automatico che non discerne caso per caso. Vi sono anche diritti di precedenza sulla maggior parte delle rampe autostradali, ad esempio, non mi sembra che questo possa considerarsi un problema. Ma ripeto, comunque, la wiki prevede espressamente che delle rotatorie possano essere link e il caso specifico che fa mi sembra proprio assimilabile al nostro.
ualios (2021-09-22 09:30:09+00:00): Gli svincoli di una trunk di norma non dovrebbero incrociarsi. Qui abbiamo delle rampe oltretutto molto lunghe che confluiscono tutte in una rotatoria. E' per questo, forse, che Josm segnala l'errore. Naturalmente Josm non è la legge, ma il problema per noi rimane, perchè una volta imboccato un trunk o trunk_link, non dovremmo trovare un incrocio a raso di uguale livello, almeno per lo standard che ci siamo dati.
Di fatto è la strada "rampa B" (poco importa che si chiami rampa) a essere collegata alla trunk tramite rotatoria, ed è troppo breve e delimitata da due rotatorie per essere a sua volta considerata trunk. Ragione per cui potrebbe taggarsi primary insieme alla rotatoria in questione rispettando le classificazioni.

P.S. non ho capito qual'è il caso specifico della wiki
Fra00 (2021-09-22 10:16:20+00:00): Dove è descritto questo standard di cui parli esattamente? Comunque, ripeto, quello è un tratto si strada si pochi metri il cui scopo è collegare una primary a un trunk, definizione esatta di trunk_link. Non è un trunk perché è troppo corto dici e sono d'accordo, mai proposto o pensato di taggarla come tale; ma non è nemmeno una primary, cioè una strada si grande collegamento, perché inizia e finisce in pochi metri e, senza le strade che collega, non ha alcuni scopo in sé.
Ti ho riportato la frase presente in wiki in qualche commento più sopra.
ualios (2021-09-22 10:58:52+00:00): Ma difatti così non colleghi una trunk a una primary, ma a un altro trunk_link che è oltretutto una rotatoria e quindi un incrocio a raso. 
Capisco il ragionamento di considerare tutti gli svincoli come unico collegamento alla primary ss17, del resto giustificato anche dalla titolazione delle strade, ma rimane la criticità della rotatoria che di fatto spezza questo insieme. Per cui è la rampa B che potrebbe considerarsi una appendice primary della ss17 e che collega quest'ultima alla trunk tramite rotatoria.
Fra00 (2021-09-22 11:04:40+00:00): Quel tratto non è un'appendice della SS17, ma uno svincolo tra questa e la superstrada. Il fatto che al suo interno vi siano diritti di precedenza non osta a ciò, dal momento che medesimi diritti sono facilmente riscontrabili nella maggior parte degli svincoli. Ti chiedo di nuovo: vi è uno standard scritto che conferma il fatto che una strada di pochi metri debba essere primary anche se nei fatti è solo uno svincolo?
Piuttosto, parlando di rotatorie. Questa (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32091190) dovrebbe essere taggata primary e le strade che vi si immettono non sono dei link, ma delle primary normali. Allo stesso modo questi tratti (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/261653078) non dovrebbero essere link, ma primary, dal momento che fanno parte dell'asse principale della strada, per di più in ambito urbano.
Fra00 (2021-09-22 11:09:09+00:00): Anche perché, ripeto, un qualcosa di scritto che conferma che le rotatorie possono essere link c'è, come ti ho detto sopra linkando la pagina.
ualios (2021-09-22 14:19:09+00:00): Mai detto che una strada DEVE essere primary né che una rotatoria NON DEVE essere link. Si cercava solo di capire ed eventualmente risolvere un possibile conflitto rilevato da Josm (e non solo https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65875927). Poi figurati, sai quanti errori faccio io! (anche se alcuni di quelli che hai trovato avrei potuto correggerli ma non sono miei).
Fra00 (2021-09-22 14:31:00+00:00): Assolutamente, so che quelli che ti ho segnalato non sono tuoi. Te li ho fatti notare e non ho modificato io per non farla sembrare una "ripicca".
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-03-30 04:17:00+00:00): Czy budowa może się skończyła?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3108335
SafetyIng (2021-09-15 08:32:32+00:00): Hey,
ich wurde auf deinen Änderungssatz aufmerksam und hatte hier mehrere Fehler entdeckt. Ich habe diese schon angepasst und mit Änderungssatz 111231100 eingefügt. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111231100

Da du auch ein neuer Nutzer bist, hoffe ich, dass du das mir nicht übel nimmst, aber normalerweise nehmen wir erst Kontakt auf, bevor wir solche Änderungen einpflegen.

Was wat nicht gut? 
- Du hattest das Unternehmen direkt an das gesamte Gebäude gepinnt. Jedoch sollte dies nur passieren, wenn dein Unternehmen auch das gesamte Gebäude alleine nutzt. Ansonsten ist hier eher ein Punkt (Node) zu verwenden. 
- Gleichwohl war auch amenity=car-rental (Autovermietung) wohl eher weniger passend für deine Firma? Ich habe es mal in craft= 	electronics_repair (Reparaturwerkstatt für Elektronik) abgeändert.
- Du hattest in dem Key description=* einen Werbetext für deine Firma eingetragen. Es ist nicht Ziel dieses Keys solche Daten zu erfassen und irgendeine Art von Werbung zu beinhalten.

Ich würde mich aber freuen, wenn du ansonsten auch die Daten weiter pflegst und würde bei etwaigen Rückfragen zur Verfügung stehen.

Grüße
Robin
OSM_RogerWilco (2021-10-01 12:42:59+00:00): Hallo klääp,

bei diesem Weg hier passt tracktype=grade1 (=befestigt) nicht mit Deiner Angabe surface=dirt (Oberfläche=Dreck/Erdreich) zusammen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/983530883

Gruß Roger Wilco
klääp (2021-10-04 08:31:16+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, ich änder es.
danieldegroot2 (2021-09-23 10:14:56+00:00): Hey vrynkevich,

Ways leading into a parking are highway=service
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=service
They should not be tagged as (part of the) primary. See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Values

For other tags, see the wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/

Also, the service way crosses the sidewalk. It should be connected to (share a node with) the sidewalk.

Regards,

Daniel
vrynkevich_lyft (2021-09-23 13:17:51+00:00): Hi, Daniel! My name is Veranika and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you so much for paying attention to this. 
You are absolutely right. I apologize for adding the incorrect type of highway and missing the connection with the sidewalks. I can assure you that the OSM team at Lyft is aware of the rules for adding highway types and our policy is based on the OSM wiki, so it was just a human error. 
The highway type has been changed in the OSM changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111585834). Also, service roads are now connected to the sidewalk.
Thank you for the good advice, and thank you so much for your input in the OSM!
Best regards, Veranika
Russ McD (2021-09-15 08:09:30+00:00): Thanks Andy, for fixing - I know your watching out for these ... seem to recall it was a bit "complicated" in that area.
Rgds, Russ
Ram Kapil (2021-09-30 14:52:33+00:00): no
abakus_uploader (2021-09-15 22:31:31+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!
pio2_122 (2021-09-15 10:51:14+00:00): To już jest czysty wandalizm.

Przed zmianą wypadałoby sprawdzić, czy informacja jest aktualna. A w tym przypadku nie jest: „Artykuł z dnia: 2020-08-14 11:56”
Droga jest już więc od dawna otwarta.

Wycofane.
dpolovinkin (2025-12-12 06:55:31+00:00): can you clarify the source of this village? I see no info online about any "Minden" being there
dpolovinkin (2026-01-08 08:47:47+00:00): can you plz answer? if there is no proof or source of this "Minden" being there, maybe this point is better removed then?..
Clinton Mercieca (2026-01-08 09:56:05+00:00): Hi,

I have removed the point, since I couldn't find evidence of existence and might have been created by error.
dpolovinkin (2026-01-08 11:10:20+00:00): okay! thx :)
eggie (2021-09-15 10:29:55+00:00): Dag Stoneblock.. Je vraagt om feedback
De regel tracktype=grade2 kun je verwijderen.
Dat duidt dan inderdaad op gravel en klopt niet met asfalt.
tracktype=grade?  is de specificatie van een highway=track..., maar dit is een unclassified.
De tracktype regel kan dus verwijderd worden.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-09-15 10:32:02+00:00): De punthorstfietsroute klopt hier niet meer. Geen idee of dat door je actie komt. Wegen met routerelaties kun je niet goed bewerken met editor iD. De routedelen gaan dan door elkaar.
Gr eggie
eggie (2021-09-15 10:44:21+00:00): tracktype verwijderd van asfaltweg..  De schade aan de route kwam overigens niet door jouw actie.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-09-15 10:53:45+00:00): De routedelen weer goed gelegd.. Geen idee wat de Punthorstroute is en of die nog wel 'bestaat' in werkelijkheid?
Wellicht weet je meer?
eggie (2021-09-15 10:35:04+00:00): De voorgaande ervaren mapper heeft het aangeduid als een G13 (onverplicht fietspad)

Dat kun je niet zomaar veranderen omdat het voor een racefiets ongeschikt zou zijn.
De surfacetag is fine_gravel en evt kun je een smootness =bad oid toevoegen.
Svp geen fietspaden verwijderen omdat ze niet geschikt voor de racefiets zouden zijn.
Ik draai je actie terug.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-09-15 10:39:22+00:00): reverted by changeset #111237676

Welk bord staat vooraan het 'fietspad'?
Er loopt hier ook een fietsknooppuntroute. 
Wanneer je nog vragen hebt stel ze gerust.
Gr eggie
eggie (2021-09-15 11:26:13+00:00): typo smoothness = bad
Melanie Zette (2021-09-15 08:38:54+00:00): première création de nœud feu radar.
j'ai fait deux autres modifs non voulues
rab (2021-09-15 09:18:15+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/419114521
has no highway tag

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/974926404

remove all tags!

Tags are here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13109585
francians (2021-09-15 18:32:13+00:00): Ciao,

Grazie per i contributi.
Segnalo che allo stop andrebbe aggiunto il tag direction=forward (o direction=backward) per indicare il senso di marcia in cui occorre fermarsi (rispetto alla direzione della way su OSM). Inoltre il Velox andrebbe spostato sulla way (deve essere un nodo che fa parte della way) e collocato nel punto entro il quale occorre rallentare.

Saluti
Francesco
francians (2021-09-15 18:34:20+00:00): Ciao,

C'è il percorso, ma avete dimenticato l'edificio?

Francesco
Sandal man (2022-08-10 16:32:24+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/983557417
You forgot the tags.
eggie (2021-09-15 10:56:55+00:00): Dag threeof4  
Tip.. 
Denk niet dat footway=sidewalk hier correct is. Je kunt die regel verwijderen.
De parkeervakken kun je een extra tag meegeven 
parking=street_side.
Zie https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:parking%3Dstreet_side

MVG
eggie
Jakka (2021-09-18 07:48:20+00:00): best activiteiten zoals alles wat betreft resto op node alles wat bij gebouw hoort op de vorm. zo vermijd men double info. Heb wat aangepast thx
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111233370
eggie (2021-09-15 11:08:22+00:00): Dag Jeroen..

De landuse=condtruction heb ik hier verwijderd van de wijk en het water aangepast. .
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-09-15 18:29:35+00:00): typo construction verwijderd
Jakka (2021-09-18 07:51:29+00:00): Is dit volledig gebouw van Vereycken & Vereycken..... geen detail info erover ? Niets anders ....
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111233738
S_Torre (2021-09-24 12:14:11+00:00): Ja, ik ken enkele werknemers.  https://www.vereycken.be
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/111233738
Jakka (2021-09-24 12:20:00+00:00): thx
MatthieuMartin (2022-04-07 18:24:19+00:00): Bonsoir,

Les références de chemins sont plus à renseigner sous la forme
ref=R 28
au lieu de :
loc_ref 	CR 28
name 	Chemin n°28

Source : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Cartographie_des_routes_en_France#Chemins_forestiers.2C_agricoles.2C_pistes

Bonne carto,
mueschel (2021-09-22 10:28:59+00:00): Hi,
could you check this way,  "lock gate = metal" looks like a mistake.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/967629036
impiaaa (2022-05-24 14:37:29+00:00): Please make sure that all values ending with ":lanes" have the same number of entries. You changed "turn:lanes" to have three lanes but all the other tags have four (they include the cycle lane).
pmarkina_lyft (2022-05-25 10:45:06+00:00): Hi, impiaaa!
My name is Polina and I am a mapper in the OSM team at Lyft. Seems that I didn’t notice the cycle lane, so that is why I fixed the ‘turn:lanes’ tag. 
Thank you so much for paying attention and fixing my mistake. I apologize for any inconvenience this edit may have caused. 

Best regards, Polina
Kovoschiz (2021-09-16 07:54:21+00:00): Is this not a real `building:part=`?
Jungfrau9 (2021-09-21 11:56:33+00:00): Hi Kovoschiz, thanks for the heads up here. I’ve added back the building and tagged it as a building:part. Thank you!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:48:02+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 00:52:41+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.
pfg21 (2021-10-17 19:10:06+00:00): херасе, как оперативно !!!!
Shaun das Schaf (2021-09-15 12:20:26+00:00): Hi Tinaby,

I have moved the Barbershop to a new node, because not the whole building belongs to the Barbershop.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111242608

Best regards
Shaun das Schaf
Frans S (2021-09-15 12:05:27+00:00): Hello. 
A remark
You added the tag layer=-1 to a river.
That suggest it is below the surface.
This tag is to be used at culverts passing a road. or a tunnel.
Best regards
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:53:55+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 00:49:27+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 00:50:09+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.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 01:03:27+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 00:59:59+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 00:53:20+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 00:57:50+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 00:54:28+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 00:53:04+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.
eggie (2021-09-15 11:24:34+00:00): Beste threeof4

building=yes zal denk ik niet kloppen.
Kijk even hier hoe zo'n molen te mappen
animal=horse_walker

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:animal%3Dhorse_walker




MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-09-15 16:00:23+00:00): Het gebouw heb ik verwijderd en aangepast aan bovenstaande tagging.
MVG
eggie
threeof4 (2021-09-16 19:15:18+00:00): Weet niet hoe dat gebouw er bij gekomen is eggie maar bedankt voor je opmerkzaamheid. Weer wat geleerd.  Mzzl threeof4
eggie (2021-09-16 19:42:00+00:00): Je werkt met editor iD..  Die doet ook vaak onvoorspelbare dingen. Lees ongewenste. Kijk eens naar de beter editor JOSM
editor josm stap voor stap 

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

 Mapse,
eggie
threeof4 (2021-09-16 20:34:57+00:00): JOSM had ik al geprobeerd te installeren op m'n mac maar de app draaide niet omdat die te oud was. Had al het idee dat ik die kant heen moest maar kreeg hem dus niet aan de gang. Dan maar verder modderen met iD. Zal er nog eens naar kijken. Wellicht betere resultaten op een windows machine.  Mzzl
Frans S (2021-09-15 11:00:27+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. In general good mapped.
A few remarks. Please map buildings with extentions more precise by following the rooflines. Also some of your mappings are a bit oversized.
Did you alter the offset of the task?
There is a big offset to previous mappings, (Bing in general) but we ought to align with the Mapbox Imagery. Just move objects rather than adjust the offset. See the instructions
Best regard
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-01-10 00:59:21+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 00:53:37+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 00:57:51+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 00:55:49+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.
SafetyIng (2021-09-16 07:50:08+00:00): Hey, 
du hast in deinem Changeset den Node direkt gelöscht und somit ein Teil der Straße inkl. Kreuzung und Bus-Relationen. 
Ich habe das einmal im Changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/111276773 wieder hergestellt und deine Änderungen versucht zu behalten. bitte einmal noch kontrollieren, nicht dass ich was vergessen habe.

Grüße
Robin
Frans S (2021-09-15 11:48:41+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here.
A request. Please do not include the shadow of a building you map into your mapped building. It is not a part of a building.
A question. Don't you use the plugin Building tool?
I ask this because, when I modify a building by moving 1 side a bit aside often 1 node stay at it original place, which indicates me that it is not squared by the Q key or drawn with the building tool.
best regards
geow (2021-12-08 20:54:35+00:00): Servus Arminus, ich habe die note gelesen. Die Antwort auf die Frage von Andreas Binder nach der rechtlichen Begründung für access= private an ATS_... steht noch aus. 

Wir sollten der Versuchung widerstehen für ein bestimmtes Publikum zu taggen. Das einzige was zählt ist "on the ground". Und da kann ich keine entsprechende Beschilderung erkennen, siehe 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=4033293016749416 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=3919951571425145

Ich denke daher schon, das Tagging in #9 ist korrekt.

Glückauf
geow
geow (2021-12-08 21:00:26+00:00): ...und würde es demnächst ändern, falls keine guten Gründe dagegen sprechen :-)
Arminus (2021-12-09 14:18:05+00:00): Mir war die Begründung ausreichend: Der Grundstückbesitzer will nicht, dass da jemand mit dem Rad durch fährt (und das macht ja auch keinen Sinn - es sei denn Ortsfremde lassen sich von Komoot etc. routen!) und es gibt ein geschlossenes Gatter. Wenn wir den tag raus nehmen, geht das "unsinnige" Routing nächstes Jahr weiter und alle nicht-OSM Beteiligten schütteln nur den Kopf.

Ich denke als lokale Community sollten wir hier pragmatisch sein und nicht die in meinen Augen diskussions-würdige "on-the-ground" Regel für derartige Situationen pedantisch auslegen. Es geht ja hier nicht um Willkür, sondern darum "Unsinn" zu verhindern - wer hat hier einen Schaden durch das aktuelle Tagging?!