piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
chris66 (2024-08-08 08:52:27+00:00): Way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37121323/history

Bin da gestern langgeradelt, und konnte keinen Fahrradverbot feststellen... :)
nurdafur (2024-08-08 12:48:14+00:00): Hi Chris
Das war entweder vor 4 Jahren anders oder ich hatte dort einen Fehler gemacht.
Liebe Grüße
Urs
chris66 (2024-08-08 12:58:52+00:00): Kein Problem, habe das b=no entfernt, Gruß aus LH.
ivanbranco (2023-02-20 09:17:29+00:00): Hi seichter,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3901938683/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3901938682/history

these are two different nodes in two different locations but they have the same exact images, therefore one of the two has the wrong images. Could you check it out? Thanks
seichter (2023-02-20 17:28:09+00:00): fixed
WoodWoseWulf (2020-07-12 00:21:06+00:00): Hi ImDrpancakez and welcome to OSM!

I see you've attempted to redraw these footways as areas rather than simple lines. Generally drawing these kinds of features as lines is absolutely fine as you can use tags like width=1 to define the width (1 being 1 metre). This way, the footways will still play nicely with most navigation and routing tools but will also contain the information that you're trying to add.

If you really feel the need to draw out the paths in detail as you have attempted to do, you will need to take another approach using multi-polygon relations (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon). This will allow you to set "inners" which will cut out parts of the footways. As you have things at the moment, you have 2, 3 or even 4 footways representing one single path, with some footways being stacked right on top of each other.

Personally, I'd just opt for using lines with detailed tagging as opposed to trying to make complex areas which can be annoying to edit later and can cause problems with navigation.

Also, please don't forget that a sidewalk is a footway that runs parallel to a road or other carriageway - footpaths in a park aren't sidewalks.
Marcos Medeiros (2021-05-11 23:21:38+00:00): Olá,

a restrição de conversão criada por você:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11293502

(Proibido retornar na mesma via / no_u_turn) é uma restrição sinalizada (possui uma placa no "mundo real" correspondente)? 

Restrições do tipo proibido retornar na mesma via são desnecessárias, a menos que estejam sinalizadas em campo.

Restrições desnecessárias criam diversos problemas, como dificuldades de edição dos membros e renderização incorreta de nomes no mapa devido à microsegmentações, entre outros.

Para entender melhor, veja essa discussão sobre o tema:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2527

E os alertas logo no inicío da Wiki de restrições de conversão:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction

Você poderia avaliar e, sendo o caso, excluir essa restrição?
Cascafico (2020-07-13 10:19:51+00:00): I bus_stop non sono la stesa cosa dei stop_position. Se trovi dei bus_stop non connessi alla strada, lasciali così.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87863829
BCNorwich (2020-07-12 06:17:41+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

You connected the south-east end of the path to an administrative boundary line, placing a highway crossing point there. 
The boundary isn't a physical feature so the path ought not join onto it, the path as drawn does not cross another highway here so the can't be a highway crossing point.
I've made a correction un-joining the path from the boundary line and removing the crossing. 

Regards Bernard.
BCNorwich (2020-07-12 06:33:36+00:00): Hi, There were more footpaths around here, do you have more information, did you just walk to that point and back again? Was your walk from Norwich Road, A1062? If so is the path on the farm track from the road or fenced in around the field edge?
Regards Bernard.
Marcos Medeiros (2021-05-11 23:27:26+00:00): Olá,

as restrições de conversão criadas por você:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11293559

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11293560

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11293560

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11293561

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11293562

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11293563

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11293564

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11293565

(Proibido retornar na mesma via / no_u_turn) são restrições sinalizadas (possuem uma placa no "mundo real" correspondente)? 

Restrições do tipo proibido retornar na mesma via são desnecessárias, a menos que estejam sinalizadas em campo.

Restrições desnecessárias criam diversos problemas, como dificuldades de edição dos membros e renderização incorreta de nomes no mapa devido à microsegmentações, entre outros.

Para entender melhor, veja essa discussão sobre o tema:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2527

E os alertas logo no inicío da Wiki de restrições de conversão:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction

Você poderia avaliar e, sendo o caso, excluir essas restrições?
eggie (2021-05-03 08:01:45+00:00): Dag Paul.. Door schuiven met de kaart en plakken is hier schade ontstaan. Het is inmiddels hersteld door een medemapper,
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=87864214
Check svp steeds wat je hebt gedaan. 
MVG
eggie
flohoff (2020-07-13 16:25:09+00:00): Moin,
du hast hier jede Menge wege als "access=private" eingetragen. Warum?

Wie sind die denn beschildert?

Flo
ma-rt-in (2020-07-13 08:22:18+00:00): Hallo,
kannst du die Tags an Way 825276168 nochmals überprüfen, die Kombi gibt es in DE ja eigentlich nie.
ma-rt-in (2020-07-13 08:25:20+00:00): Hab grad noch eine Aufnahme von mir gefunden zu dieser Straße. Also der kurze Abschnitt ist eine reine Fußgängerzone. Ich passe das mal an dann.
ma-rt-in (2020-07-13 08:26:25+00:00): Nochmals ich *faceplam*. Ist naürlich für Anlieger und Radfahrer doch freigegeben, das maxspeed war aber zu viel.
Map-Peter (2020-07-12 19:35:57+00:00): Hallo Hibbert, 
 
nimmt der Fährmann wirklich gar keine Fahrräder mehr mit? Unsere hat er vor ein paar Jahren mitgenommen und hier sind auf dem Foto ( https://www.luzinfaehre.de/faehre.html ) auch ein paar davon auf der Fähre zu sehen. 
 
Gruß Peter
Map-Peter (2020-07-13 20:48:37+00:00): Hier steht auch etwas von Radfahrern. 
 
"Rufen Sie "Fährmann hol över" - und der Fährmann Tom bringt Wanderer, Spaziergänger und Radfahrer mit einer der letzten handbetriebenen Seilfähren Europas über den Schmalen Luzin sicher ans andere Ufer." 
(Quelle: https://www.luzinfaehre.de/faehrmann.html )
Map-Peter (2020-08-11 19:37:41+00:00): Hallo Hibbert, 
 
leider hast du nicht geantwortet. 
Deshalb habe ich die Nr. angerufen, welche hier für die Fähre hinterlegt ist und habe direkt mit dem Fährmann Thomas Voigtländer gesprochen. 
 
Auf meine Nachfrage ob er denn Fahrradfahrer mitnimmt, hat er mit ja geantwortet und darauf hingewiesen das der Zugang zum Anleger auf beiden Seiten des See mit ein bisschen mehr Kraftaufwand verbunden ist, da das Ufer recht steil ist. 
(Das passt zu meiner Erinnerung - unsere Fahrradtour dort, u.a. mit dieser Fähre, ist schon ein paar Jahre her.) 
 
Auf meine weitere Nachfrage ob das schon immer so war und auch in Zukunft so sein wird, war er etwas verwundert, denn er sagt, er hat schon immer Fahrradfahrer mitgenommen und wird das auch weiterhin so machen. 
 
Gruß Peter
eggie (2020-07-12 06:08:54+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
Kleine aanpassing: 
De info heb ik verplaatst naar de adresnode.

MVG,
Eggie
user_2066394 (2020-07-12 09:18:46+00:00): du hast das haupt-attribut amenity=parking entfernt, access macht dann nur bedingt sinn. ist der temporär gesperrt? oder auch baustellengebiet mittlerweile?
PeterHock (2020-07-16 12:50:40+00:00): Hast vollkommen recht, access ist sinnlos, habe es geändert.
Steht ein Bauzaun darum, keine Ahnung ob temporär oder ob die Parkplätze verbaut werden, ich denke zweiteres. Da es unklar ist wollte ich sie aber (noch nicht) löschen
OtterBoy1 (2020-07-15 19:08:16+00:00): This sure is the Highlawn/Crosby neighborhood!
BCNorwich (2020-07-12 06:40:56+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Just checking, are you sure you've got the oneway direction correct, has it been changed in the last year or two? Reason being is the Bing imagery shows vehicles going/facing the other way.
Regards Bernard.
syeates (2020-07-12 21:59:29+00:00): The one-way direction changed last week (on Friday 3rd July) as part of the Lewisham and Lee Green Healthy Neighbourhood scheme - https://streetbuilder.io/lewishamandleegreen/site/news
syeates (2020-07-12 22:05:36+00:00): Sorry, it was actually Friday 10th July (not Friday 3rd) when the direction was reversed.

Also, note that whilst Pascoe Road is one-way for motor traffic, it is now two-way for bicycles. Is it possible to represent that?
BCNorwich (2020-07-13 06:28:18+00:00): Hi, Thanks for your quick response to my query.
For your bicycle question the tag is oneway:bicycle=no I don't think that's supported on the editor you're using so I've added it. Hope that's OK.
Regards Bernard.
syeates (2020-07-13 14:06:34+00:00): Bernard - That's great. Thank you.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-04-11 07:55:23+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/772257324/history has waterway = brook that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What you meant by waterway=brook? Is not using https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream intentional and wanted here? How waterway=brook differs from waterway=stream in this case?
keithonearth (2020-07-18 06:14:06+00:00): Hi Mark, I see you have updated the tagging of Twin Bridges Trail. I totally agree, that it is wide and gravel. It seems to me that it is not used as a road, and based on its use we can more accurately tag it as a trail. Are you basing its classification based solely on it's width?
markwainwright (2020-07-18 07:45:55+00:00): Hi Keith, thanks for noticing. Two Metro Vancouver trucks flew past while I was walking on it last weekend and I found myself wishing it was marked in some way to differentiate it from a true hiking trail. I read the relevant wiki pages at the time and was under the impression that highway=track was acceptable even if it isn’t publicly
open to traffic, but reviewing them now I think I was mistaken – the page for highway=path pretty clearly states that track is only more suitable if it’s open to motorised traffic. I would change it back myself but I don’t have access to a computer at the moment.
keithonearth (2020-07-24 05:35:35+00:00): Thanks for the comment. I do think it is a bit of a grey area, because I agree with your first interpretation that `highway=track` is appropriate even if it isn't publicly accessible. The thing is that this is only very rarely accessed by Metro Vancouver Parks trucks. I think I have seen one there too, but it's very unusual. And it is very common to use this as a trail. That is why I feel that it is more appropriate to tag this as a trail. Not because it's *wrong* to tag it as a track, just that it's far more accurate to tag it as a trail, and more helpful to the vast majority of users. 

I'm at my computer now, so I'll change it back to trail.
ScottNelson (2024-02-07 05:10:41+00:00): After running this "trail" I was all set to change to to highway=track when I found this discussion.  I think highway=track is more appropriate.  Locally there are many examples of roads with no public access used as hiking trails that are tagged with highway=track.  (WOP XC trails, singing pass access road, Roe Creek R200 branch, elfin lakes trail, shannon creek road, HSCT north, above lions bay, etc)
ScottNelson (2024-02-07 05:11:29+00:00): Also see: https://www.reddit.com/r/openstreetmap/comments/uxfpph/how_do_i_tag_gated_forest_roads_like_these_theyre/
literan (2020-07-12 18:28:41+00:00): Добрый день. спасмибо за правки, но я хочу попросить вас не ставить всякие теги типа access 	no , bicycle 	yes, foot 	yes на дорогах (почему - см. в моем профиле). Также не надо на дорожках ставить имя улицы, которая находится рядом.
Supaplex (2020-07-16 13:32:11+00:00): 恭喜您透過 Maps.Me 完成第一次的地圖編輯！ 歡迎加入開放街圖，群眾共同參與，繪製生活週遭大家關心事物的共編地圖。Maps.Me App 採用開放街圖的地理資料，由社群而非商業公司建置的地理資料庫。以下是相關的參考資料，歡迎隨時指教與提問。

編輯須知
台灣的標示依循準則可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taiwan
常見的圖徵標示方式可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features
給Pokemon Go玩家的建議：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers
組織性編輯指南：https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

由於Maps.Me隨著軟體更新更新最新地圖，App裡的地圖資料版本可能略舊，透過Maps.Me增添商家等資料時有可能開放街圖上已經有了，請到http://www.osm.org 網站看是否要加的商家有沒有人加上去了。

台灣社群網站
台灣 OpenStreetMap 網站  https://osm.tw/
臉書粉絲頁OpenStreetMap台灣 https://www.facebook.com/openstreetmaptaiwan/
台灣社群Facebook社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Telegram OpenStreetMap Taiwan https://t.me/joinchat/Aqu2IgnTuIidMfREdNmomQ
Telegram OpenStreetMap Asia  https://t.me/OpenStreetMapAsia
Slack https://osm-tw.signup.team/

Happy Mapping!
syntex (2020-07-12 00:43:04+00:00): Uzasadnienie: Nazwy te nie istnieją w bazie PRNG, natomiast są to nazwy używane przez mieszkańców. Jest to związane z izolacją obu części Zgorzały od siebie (de facto brak możliwości przejazdu przez pola samochodem do drugiej części wsi, droga polna jest przejezdna tylko jeepem lub traktorem) a także różnicą wieku zabudowy. Stara Zgorzała to w większości tradycyjna zabudowa wiejska z zabudowaniami gospodarskimi, natomiast Nowa Zgorzała to budynki powstałe w 100% po 2008 roku(nie ma w tej liczbie przesady, jedynymi budynkami, które tu istniały przed 2008 rokiem to budynki przy ulicy Kieleckiej w Nowej Woli i Nowej Iwicznej) i są to całkowicie nowe struktury. Dlatego taki podział został stworzony przez mieszkańców i w mojej opinii raczej będzie to zmiana trwała - dlatego właśnie dodałem te nazwy.
aweech (2020-07-12 02:20:10+00:00): Hi,
In this edit you delete a bunch of buildings and add new buildings in nearly the same spot. Also, you do not add back all of the tags. If you want to change the outline of the building, move the nodes. That way history and existing tags are maintained.
EnzoDragon1 (2020-07-12 12:02:19+00:00): Hi. Yeah, my bad on forgetting to change the tags back to the way they were on my side. I was fixing up the buildings that looked very off in the park.
EnzoDragon1 (2020-07-12 12:11:00+00:00): I’ve accidentally miss read it in the last comment you’ve mentioned, Aweech. I forgot about moving the nodes part since the buildings did look very off to how they are irl.
eggie (2020-07-12 06:13:29+00:00): Dag Sebastiaan, Wanneer er geen cafe meer is hier zou de hele vermelding weg kunnen.
MVG,
Eggie
jleedev (2020-11-11 14:03:31+00:00): As far as I can tell, both the names "South Kearsarge Community Park" and "Village of South Kearsarge" have no basis in reality. Please, do you have a source here?
zyphlar (2022-01-08 01:03:59+00:00): Is there a reason why SMART has been changed in OSM to "light rail?" It fits no definition of "light rail" that I'm aware of.
clay_c (2022-01-08 02:07:40+00:00): Hi - I'm on vacation for a week. I'll take a look at this when I'm back.
clay_c (2022-01-14 04:32:17+00:00): So SMART is an oddball. It's a temporally restricted passenger railroad, like the Oceanside-Escondido Sprinter and certain lines of the San Diego Trolley, where freight movements are only allowed when passenger service is shut down. The consensus is, when light rail is temporally restricted, the tracks that support freight rail should be `railway=rail` and the passenger-only tracks should be `railway=light_rail`.

Though that doesn't answer the question of whether SMART is light rail.  Realistically, it could go either way. It's got the characteristics of most DMU hybrid light rail lines, but it's a bit longer and its service pattern is more commuter-oriented, with no trains for a couple of hours between commute periods. Tagging it as conventional rail would probably work just as well.

Perhaps this needs more discussion on the mailing list or Slack. This is an edge case and I'm not sure what's best here.
zyphlar (2022-01-14 06:44:16+00:00): It seems odd to call something light rail that isn't; not only the distance, speeds, track configuration and stations are different but the rolling stock itself is different. I can imagine plenty of rail where passenger service takes the majority but freight is also run in between at odd hours, that doesn't mean that the passenger service is suddenly somehow "light."

Put it this way, what is the desired end result? My first thought seeing smart tagged as light rail is that a data consumer would think oh, this is a <40mph lowrider inner-city line for urban commuting, with multiple stops per mile. And certainly not a >40mph full height inter-city line for suburban commuting with one or two stops per city. And so speed estimates for navigation would be totally off, appearance in the map would be off... and what data consumer thinks "oh, good thing I know it's light rail, that means freight runs on it in off-hours." OSM train afficionados, that's about it.
clay_c (2022-01-14 15:29:18+00:00): Top speed for the Sprinter is 50 mph, and top speed for SMART is 79 mph. Those are tagged as `maxspeed=*` on the underlying tracks. Does light rail have a speed restriction that I'm unaware of? Are there any public transit routing services that are affected by this change? Which data consumers are using this data?

Most of the criteria you listed (distance, speeds, track configuration, stations) are orthogonal to whether a railway is considered light rail. The rolling stock for SMART is much lighter than conventional trains and not FRA-compliant. Because of this, certain segments of track are restricted to DMUs, and FRA-compliant trains must wait until they're all off the tracks before they can make any movements. The rolling stock lacking FRA compliance points to "light rail" to me. They may only operate on their special track and can't continue onto the rest of the conventional rail network.

Again, SMART could reasonably go either way, and I'm happy to do the work to retag it to conventional rail. If you live in the North Bay, and SMART just intuitively "feels" like conventional rail rather than light rail, that's convincing enough.
zyphlar (2022-01-14 21:08:49+00:00): It definitely "feels" like commuter rail to me -- I'd have to be a real nerd to notice a difference between it and LIRR or suburban overland NYC MTA for example besides age, style, number of cars, and electrification. But I'll let my vote be one drop in the bucket for wider consensus.

I guess at the end of the day I don't think SMART considers *itself* light rail, but rather the most affordable and pragmatic commuter rail given the constraints. When I hear light rail I think Seattle or Phoenix's rinky-dink glorified trollies, which are just a pretty different class and style of service.
Warin61 (2020-08-18 06:32:03+00:00): Hi,
Looks like Panorama Heights is already included in East Devonport... 

Relation: 11294143 has no name... 

Way: 825314996 is already in Relation: Ambleside (10586171) so does not need to be included again...
Warin61 (2020-08-19 06:35:41+00:00): Relation 10586171 Ambleside admin boundary has 2 outers that touch... that is an error.

Take a look at https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=146.38234&lat=-41.17948&zoom=11
Warin61 (2020-09-21 07:36:35+00:00): No response. Deleted.
luschi (2020-07-21 18:27:27+00:00): Hallo,

heißt das Versicherungsbüro wirklich genau gleich wie der Ort?

bitte überprüfe das
DUGA (2021-01-23 17:36:08+00:00): Just a note: Do not copy paste information from Google.
tastrax (2020-09-07 11:12:21+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added according to the following format +61 x xxxx xxxx, or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines - I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
Supaplex (2020-07-13 02:36:56+00:00): 抱歉，您誤把個人地點書籤發布到公眾使用的開放街圖資料庫中了！如果您想要紀錄某個私人的地點，請使用「加入書籤」功能，而非「新增一個地點」。「新增一個地點」會直接反饋到公開圖資中。

Maps.Me App 採用開放街圖的地理資料，由社群而非商業公司建置的地理資料庫。Maps.me 與開放街圖合作，讓地圖使用者可以回饋最新的路況與地點資料到開放街圖社群，在下一次更新的時候，就會自動發布到所有人的手機系統上。

以下是相關的參考資料，歡迎隨時指教與提問。
編輯須知
台灣的標示依循準則可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taiwan
常見的圖徵標示方式可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features
給Pokemon Go玩家的建議：https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers
組織性編輯指南：https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

台灣社群網站
台灣 OpenStreetMap 網站  https://osm.tw/
臉書粉絲頁OpenStreetMap台灣 https://www.facebook.com/openstreetmaptaiwan/
台灣社群Facebook社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Telegram OpenStreetMap Taiwan https://t.me/joinchat/Aqu2IgnTuIidMfREdNmomQ
Telegram OpenStreetMap Asia  https://t.me/OpenStreetMapAsia
Slack https://osm-tw.signup.team/
Happy Mapping!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87867979
woodpeck (2020-07-22 08:30:40+00:00): Hello. I would like to understand more about the process you have used for mapping here. For example, why was the building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/825338539 added, but not the neighbouring building 50 metres to the west?
woodpeck (2020-07-22 08:31:33+00:00): Also, please don't add source tags to individual buildings; a source tag on the changeset is sufficent.
Hannes Röst (2021-06-18 14:47:32+00:00): @woodpeck this was done using mapwithai so probably the AI did not find that building to the west? Also the plugin automatically adds the source tag to the building
woodpeck (2021-06-18 15:18:29+00:00): The AI stuff is a tool for the mapper but it doesn't reduce the mapper to a mere "clicker of upload buttons"; but the mapper is ultimately responsible for what they add and is supposed to quality-check the data. Therefore "this is what the AI did" is never a sufficient explanation for any upload to OSM. 

Personally I think that an area where some random buildings have been mapped and others not is more difficult to spot as "needing attention" than one that hasn't got any buildings mapped. 

Same goes for the source tag; if your software adds source tags to every single building, then you should stop using that software since it is obviously buggy.
Hannes Röst (2021-06-18 16:28:07+00:00): I dont think the software is buggy, it just doesnt do what you think it should do. Rapid tool based on the iD editor and using the `source=` tag with exactly this content ("microsoft/BuildingFootprints") is documented on the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:source so it seems to me that it works correctly and as documented. I agree it would have been better to map all the buildings but since this was a road project I focused on the roads
Herman Lee (2020-07-14 09:24:16+00:00): 7294652681节点所在地无平交口，谢谢
Herman Lee (2020-07-14 09:25:22+00:00): 7294652542节点所在地无平交口，谢谢
streckenkundler (2020-07-12 09:14:53+00:00): Jevova ist zu 100% falsch! 

Es ist Neuapostolische Kirche...

Die ersetzt diese: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/192101332.

Die Zeugen haben ihren Saal hier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.95174/13.87695&layers=N

Ich ändere das...

Sven
streckenkundler (2020-07-12 09:38:10+00:00): Geändert... Danke für die Erinnerung:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87872061 und https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87872350

den Rest mache ich mal bei Gelegenheit...
...so ist das... Dinge, an denen man täglich vorbei fährt, vergisst man als erstes...:)