piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Местный 2 (2021-11-20 19:06:30+00:00): Привет. Треки видно на STRAVA HEATMAP, считал что они реальные. Используя STRAVA HEATMAP как подложку нанес их на карту.
Igor Zaytsev (2021-11-20 21:15:22+00:00): Трек-то реальный, но тропы там по факту нет на большей части пути. Как и у многих треков из heatmap.
Местный 2 (2021-11-21 15:56:46+00:00): Вообще внизу там раньше была дорога. Видимо все заросло, как-нибудь соберусь ножками пройду. Наверху еще водопад должен быть. Его хорошо видно из Поляны весной.
Igor Zaytsev (2021-11-21 19:29:54+00:00): Внизу там есть дорога, я частично шёл по ней. И водопад есть, ровно под ним я пересек ручей, собственно его и ходил искать по наводке из книги Ефремова. Но тропа там читается только в небольшой окресности водопада. В текущем виде надо удалить, я там шёл по сыпухе вниз и частично через кусты, на карте такому не место кажется.
Kseniya_Nekrasava (2021-11-19 06:21:01+00:00): Добрый день! Не наносите, пожалуйста, на карту "какую-то херню".
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113863559
tstuver (2021-11-16 19:04:37+00:00): These spurs are not tied in to the TRAX mainline and are not in active use
TheConductor (2021-11-16 19:19:25+00:00): No worries, I am aware of that. If you inspect the tagging schema closer, you will see that the rail spur is split with the existing rail infrastructure (that is not in use) is tagged railway=disused and the part of the spur (that appears in OSM but has been completely removed in real life) to tie into existing UTA right-of-way is tagged as railway=abandoned which does not render in OSM. 

The way that I tagged it is just a way to preserve data that is historic in nature even though it doesn't actually exist in real life.
TheConductor (2021-11-16 19:20:06+00:00): I realize that my changeset comment is slightly misleading. I'll be more specific in the future.
tstuver (2021-11-16 19:23:56+00:00): Thanks for explaining! I see that now. I'm still very new to OSM, so that makes more sense.
TheConductor (2021-11-16 19:38:31+00:00): No worries, I've learned a lot of these things via trial and error and working off what I've seen other people do and what the wiki recommends.
jeslop (2021-11-17 12:13:44+00:00): Hola Emilio Eugenio. Gracias por contribuir a OSM.

Para el etiquetado de árboles te recomiendo que mires https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree

Para el nombre se utilizan las mismas directrices que en otros casos: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Key:name

En este caso has utilizado una descripción como nombre, y no es correcto.

Un saludo.

Jesús López
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
marczoutendijk (2021-11-16 18:40:24+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 113844637, 113846972, 113847306, 113848107, 113848914, 113851647.
OldManCelli (2021-12-17 16:01:53+00:00): Hello st6132, I see you are mapping lots of golf courses - cool! Please consider using multipolygons when mapping complicated shapes that have inner holes like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1003195585. The way that you mapped this way is not valid because it intersects with itself. It would be better to map the perimeter of the rough with one line and make that the "outer" role of a relation and then map inner holes in that area and make those lines "inner" roles of the same relation. 
Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon
I hope that helps, and happy mapping.
carfog81 (2021-11-16 22:48:32+00:00): Please be more careful and do not damage multipolygon relationships
(Inactive) Buddy-the-Elf (2021-11-16 23:11:04+00:00): My apologies. I have went back and repaired the multipolygon relationship. Thank you!
Jordi MF (2021-11-16 20:16:08+00:00): Hola alpahufa,
He vist que estàs afegint informació sobre ciclocarrers en Alacant. Afegir l'etiqueta "cyclestreet" és insuficient. També s'ha d'afegir en el carrer, l'etiqueta cycleway=shared_lane (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dshared_lane).
Salutacions,
Jordi
alpahufa (2021-11-16 22:09:02+00:00): Hola Jordi, muchas gracias por tu comentario. Para quedarme claro, hay que poner ambas etiquetas? "cyclestreet=yes" y "cycleway=shared_lane"? O sólo la última? Estoy intentando mejorar el mapa ciclista de Alicante, que es generalmente incorrecto (muchas ciclocalles están registradas como si tuvieran un carril bici lateral; he visto muchas ciclocalles de Alicante con "bicycle=designated" y "cycleway=lane" y asumo que está incorrecto), pero es posible que me esté perdiendo un poco, acabo de empezar con OSM :) 
Gracias!
Jordi MF (2021-11-16 22:57:15+00:00): Exacto, "cycleway=lane" se usa para etiquetar calles en las que hay carriles bici a algún lado de la carretera. Por tanto, es incorrecto usar esa etiqueta en las ciclocalles porque los coches y las bicis ocupan el mismo espacio. Haces bien en modificar esa etiqueta a "cycleway=shared_lane".

Sobre la etiqueta "cyclestreet=yes", hay que añadirla si la normativa local afirma que en las ciclocalles, las bicicletas tendrán prioridad sobre el resto de vehículos. La nueva ordenana de movilidad de Valencia, así lo afirma. Sin embargo, aún tenemos pendiente de añadir esa etiqeuta en todas las ciclocalles. Por tanto, si en Alicante las bicicletas tienen prioridad en las ciclocalles, deberían estar presentes ambas etiquetas "cyclestreet=yes" y "cycleway=shared_lane".

Espero no haberte confundido.
Saludos,
Jordi
alpahufa (2021-11-17 07:50:47+00:00): Hola Jordi, me he leído la ordenanza municipal de Alicante y en las ciclocalles esto es lo que dice: 
"La ciclo-calle es una vía pública cuya señalización orienta al ciclista sobre la continuidad del itinerario correspondiente así como sobre la zona de la calzada que debe utilizar preferiblemente la bicicleta cuando circula y, además, recuerda a los conductores de vehículos a motor los derechos que la bicicleta tiene en la calzada, sobre todo en lo referido a la distancia mínima de seguridad [...]. La ciclo-calle no implica la alteración del régimen de prioridades o preferencias de paso establecidas con carácter general para todas las vías públicas." 
Entiendo entonces que no se trata de lo mismo que en Valencia, por no tener régimen de prioridad. Aunque tampoco entiendo muy bien que tipo de prioridad puede gozar la bici en las ciclocalles de Valencia más que en Alicante... 
Saludos
Jordi MF (2021-11-17 16:29:25+00:00): La verdad es que tampoco entiendo qué implica la prioridad en el caso de Valencia... Ciñéndonos a lo que pide la wiki, en principio no debería añadirse la etiqueta "cyclestreet" en Alicante y sí en València. De todas formas, la etiqueta "cycleway=shared_lane" está mucho más extendida que "cyclestreet=yes". Si en un futuro, se acuerda que las "shared_lane" deben contener también la etiqueta "cyclestreet"existe una herramienta para hacerlo rápidamente (con Overpass). 
Saludos,
Jordi
alpahufa (2021-11-20 15:25:09+00:00): Muchas gracias Jordi, a partir de ahora usaré "cycleway=sharedlane". Saludos
Jordi MF (2021-11-22 08:22:09+00:00): Genial. Por si acaso, la etiqueta correcta es "cycleway=sahared_lane" (con la barra baja).
Salut,
Jordi
TheConductor (2021-11-16 19:21:01+00:00): Thanks! I didn't know that.
DressyPear4 (2021-11-16 21:52:01+00:00): Olá, por que desenhar geometrias incorretas?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113865629
ezekielf (2021-11-17 19:57:50+00:00): Hey, Hugh.  From the comment I'm guessing you're trying to make these parking spaces as close to rectangular as possible.  I case you aren't aware there is a Square function in the iD right-click menu that will make all the corners square for you.  You can also just press Q for a keyboard shortcut that does the same thing.  
https://learnosm.org/en/hot-tips/tracing-rectangular-buildings/
hughkelley (2021-11-17 20:15:57+00:00): Hi ezekielf, thanks for the tip, I'm aware of the square function and actually was using it throughout my work on these parking areas trying to improve how they are drawn. I'd be curious to hear what you think of trying to improve the shapes on your end with the square tool. It improves them marginally but is not really capable of turning them into an actual grid from my use of it. I haven't explored tools in JOSM for this yet so maybe there's a better workflow for making clean parking grids.
ezekielf (2021-11-17 20:38:04+00:00): Apologies!  Didn't mean to re-explain something you already know about.  I primarily use JOSM and the orthogonalize (square/Q) function works nicely for a group of connected objects like this when you select them all together.  I just tested in iD and it seems to not work so well unfortunately (I had assumed they worked the same).  Seems like the iD function only operates on one object at a time so as you square one object it takes then next connected one out of square 🤷‍♂️.  JOSM does have a number of efficiency boosting plugins for this kind of thing.  This one might be helpful for example:  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Terracer
hughkelley (2021-11-17 20:47:58+00:00): no worries, I often just pull up id when I have a little down time at work, but more and more I think I should just be sticking to JOSM because it's often the difference between acceptable and good mapping I've found. I just asked in the OSM slack as well and the terracer tool was recommended so JOSM + terracer is probably the right solution.
Aleksandar Matejevic (2024-09-17 11:37:16+00:00): Hi MK1, 
this change https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/448721029 does not loot to be correct, this square type of borders. Can you recheck your edit?
Jess Franklin (2021-11-16 19:34:57+00:00): u19010266 16 November
gpserror (2021-12-01 17:13:47+00:00): Hi, noticed you have a new roundabout here that I can't see in any imagery yet.  Could you tag it as roundabout according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction=roundabout - let me know if you don't understand this webpage.  Thanks!
yasobara (2021-12-01 18:59:37+00:00): I added the tag junction=roundabout. I passed this junction several times  and know for a fact it is now a roundabout. It is also possible to see it in Google Map satellite image.
gpserror (2021-12-02 22:49:31+00:00): Thanks for updating, looks ok now, I just didn't have any information about it so I didn't touch it.
eggie (2021-11-16 22:25:29+00:00): Dag Nölke.. Je vraagt feedback  
Je kunt ook nog de BGT omtrekgericht op de achtergrond zetten. Alles in Nederland is ingemeten.
BGT implementeren  

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=59021 

Forumdraadje ..  De beste imagery layers om NL OSM te mappen met JOSM. 

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64644 

Hier kun je zien hoe je de .jos file kunt gebruiken binnen JOSM.  
https://youtu.be/33EenoZezWg 

Zie ook dit draadje voor recentere foto's 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=846661#p846661

MVG
eggie
SomeoneElse (2021-11-17 10:19:41+00:00): Hello,
Just for info - a think a way merge in here added in accidental spur to the Battlefields Trail - you can see that at https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1d6m .  I've removed that in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/113889760
Best Regards,
Andy
Pete Owens (2021-11-18 20:31:48+00:00): Actually it is just a stretch of Burtonwood Road from which motors have been prohibited. So it used to be simply a road  with the tag Motor Vehicle = no. Someone changed this to a pedestrian street which isn't quite right.

Nice that the awful barriers have gone - though a bit rich for the council to claim credit for removing obstructions that they installed in the first place and left in place for ten years!
Falsernet (2021-11-24 00:53:20+00:00): Pete and I are usually at odds but I can confirm he's factually correct.

But of course all of us have to have disagreements here :/ and I would view this as a street-gone-pedestrian, just less glamorous than what you'd see in a town centre, where trunk roads are replaced with flagstones.

I don't think access=no is a particularly appropriate or necessary tag, as its function is covered by motor_vehicle=no. As a user of OSM carto and not CyclOSM it greys it out for me, though of course mapping based on the renderer's output is officially considered bad practice.
Falsernet (2021-11-24 00:56:50+00:00): Just noticed that this way is on version 24 lol. Perhaps this is a controversial subject
skquinn (2021-11-21 13:21:12+00:00): Please be more specific than "Changes" when writing future changeset comments. Also, please confine each changeset to a smaller area (i.e. save before changing areas). For reference:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
flohoff (2021-11-17 11:12:37+00:00): Moin,
du hast hier die Hauszufahrt umgetagged. service=driveway runter dafür namen drauf.

Wenn das eine offiziell Gewidmete Straße ist ist die ja öffentlich, dann wäre das keine service road.

Also ich halte die Tag Kombination gerade für eher unwahrscheinlich.

Entweder namen oder highway=service.

Dazu kommt das das bicycle=yes/foot=yes dann auch irgendwie noch über ist IMHO. 

Und wenn das kein highway=track ist ist das tracktype auch über. Das gilt nur in verbindung mit highway=track. 

Wie kommst du denn drauf das das eine offiziell gewidmete Straße ist und keine Private Hauszufahrt?
Flo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113867781
DeFra85 (2021-11-17 12:02:24+00:00): Ich habe die highway=service=driveway hochgestuft (-driveway), da sie ja nicht nur die einzelnen Häuser bedienen, sondern auch die tracks und path wo auch teilweise Wanderwege drüber laufen.

Sollte man sie dann sogar noch eins höher stufen?
flohoff (2021-11-17 11:09:12+00:00): Moin,
bist du dir hier sicher das das Strom ist und nicht Telefon der DTAG? 

Oberirdische Stromleitungen haben wir hier in der gegend fast nur noch in 10/20/30kV und die laufen typischerweise nicht parallel zu Straßen und nicht in so dicht besiedeltem Gebiet.

Flo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113868058
DeFra85 (2021-11-17 11:50:07+00:00): Ahh, an Telefon habe ich gar nicht gedacht.
Mir vielen sie nur auf, weil vor zwei oder drei Wochen die "Stadtwerke Bielefeld" die Leitungen komplett ausgetauscht haben. Machen die auch Telefon?
Es sind zumindest dicke, schwarze Leitungen, die von Mast zu Mast führen.
Muhmaker (2021-11-18 19:08:40+00:00): Ich habe mir die Leitungen mal genauer angeschaut und es ist beides. Aus dem Boden ragen am Anfang und Ende des Abschnitts noch unverbundene Glasfaserleitungen. Außerdem wird die Beleuchtung des Radwegs über die Leitung versorgt. Weiter nördlich gibt es auch noch einen Abschnitt von dem Strom-Hausanschlüsse abzweigen. Könnte man später nochmal ergänzen. Laut einem recht frisch akzeptierten Proposal sind Mehrfacheinträge für Nutzungen von Freileitungen unerwünscht und man soll entscheiden welche Bedeutung der Leitung wichtiger ist: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_poles_proposal Die Lösung finde ich sehr unglücklich weil Laien das ja wohl kaum leisten können.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113868058
flohoff (2021-11-18 20:09:31+00:00): 
Es würde mich sehr wundern wenn es auf den selben Masten Strom und Telekommunikation gibt. Das gibt es in Deutschland nicht. Vor allem gibt es das nicht mit Kupferleitungen des klassischen Telekommunikationsnetzs.

Die EVUs dieser Welt haben schon vor langer Zeit angefangen die Kabel in den Boden zu legen. Die DTAG hat das lange nicht gemacht und wird es wohl auch nicht mehr forcieren. Im Gegenteil. Die Wartung der Oberirdischen Linientechnik ist in den vergangenheit erst an Nokia Siemens Networks und dann an Huawei outgesources worden 

Flo
DeFra85 (2021-11-18 21:45:53+00:00): Stimmt, die Lampen an den Masten habe ich auch gesehen. Aber das muss ja nicht heißen, dass das Stromleitungen sind. Der Ostwestfale ist halt sparsam und dübelt an den vorhandenen Masten einfach seine Straßenlaternen, vielleicht sogar inkl. Kabelage.
Außerdem passt die Aufhängung ja auch irgendwie gar nicht zu den sonst üblichen Stromleitungen: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:line_attachment

Außer die Stadtwerke hängen jetzt dilettantisch überdimensionierte Verlängerungskabel in die Außenbezirke    xD

Ich frage mal einfach bei den Stadtwerken nach
DeFra85 (2021-11-19 10:53:33+00:00): Hej hej,
die SWB waren fix. Hier ihre Antwort:

“Die Kollegen der Freileitung waren Anfang Oktober in der Bergstraße, um dort Luftkabel (Niederspannung) zu montieren.

Dort haben wir größtenteils noch 1-kV-Leitung und Beleuchtung. Die Leitung beginnt an der Ecke Dornberger Straße/Bergstraße und geht bis „Peter auf´m Berge“. An der Dornberger Straße haben wir im ganzen Bereich nur Straßenbeleuchtung; keine Telekomleitungen.“

Ich werde dies am besten als Note noch einfügen.
wireguy (2021-11-16 20:49:46+00:00): Welcome to OSM FrozenMapCat!  Good job adding the houses.   Quick tip, if you press the "Q" key with a building selected, it will square the corners.   Makes the buildings look much nicer.  Keep mapping!   and if you have any q's just ask.    Or if you want there is a discord and slack where people are talking/asking q's about osm.
canfe (2022-01-07 18:41:46+00:00): Ma il tag della Selex?
Che cos'è? un negozio?
literan (2021-11-17 10:31:37+00:00): зачем вы испортили Лобненское шоссе? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/971614469/history

не вандальте, пожалуйста
jbraggs (2021-11-17 22:36:18+00:00): Thank you for reaching out,

My intent was not to vandalize data. In the process of adding a missing road I unintentionally reclassified the secondary to service. Thank you for changing it back.

Thank you,
jbraggs
lakedistrict (2021-11-16 21:43:32+00:00): Hi, Thanks for your edits in the area. Tip: (ignore if you know this already!) If you change the existing from building=terrace to building=house before using the Terracer plugin, it ensures that the newly split buildings will be tagged as houses, rather than a terrace. Also useful to add the addr:street/city/postcode tags beforehand too, as you'll want these on all the buildings, then it's just a case if adding the housenumbers once the terrace has been split. This can all be done in a single changeset. :)
fruitbat5577 (2021-11-16 22:44:27+00:00): I knew that, and my aim is that each changeset should be as complete as possible without containing unrelated changes. What I wasn't aware until I saw #113842131 was that building=terrace is for the whole terrace, not individual houses. I probably had too much confidence that the JOSM terracer plugin had defaulted to the correct tags. Unfortunately I had already pushed my changes when I saw #113842131.
SK53 (2021-11-18 09:44:32+00:00): A request to both, if terracing a terrace & changing to building=house, please also add house=terraced as it preserves information otherwise lost (or awkward to determine). The house tag can be used for other types two, but at present iD supports these as explicit building types, so there is little mileage in changing such things at present.

Jerry aka SK53
PT-53 (2021-11-17 07:21:07+00:00): Hallo,
warum verbindest Du 2 Gebäude, die gar nicht verbunden sind?
Änderung zurückgesetzt.
Grüße
amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ (2021-11-17 07:41:23+00:00): Entschultigung, es sieht so in Bing aus, dass sie zusammen verbindet.
PT-53 (2021-11-17 07:46:51+00:00): Hallo,
ein Tipp dazu:
In Baden-Württemberg, Deutschland, steht uns die amtliche Karte Maps4BW als Hintergrund zur Verfügung, von der wir legal abzeichnen dürfen.
Schaue es Dir mal an.
Grüße
wireguy (2021-11-18 14:44:18+00:00): hi Abask, welcome to OSM!
Be careful, you deleted a section of McDermeott Ave, and broke the Riverhead boundary.  Adding layer=-1 to sidewalks isn't usually the correct thing (other options are to move the outline of a building, or use covered=yes on a section of sidewalk).
I corrected these.  
Take your time, and keep mapping!
gurglypipe (2021-11-16 23:07:48+00:00): Thanks for fixing up my guesswork :)
wkdgs (2021-11-17 10:47:40+00:00): Sieht gut aus. Könntest du noch den entfernten "surface"-Tag an die Straße anhängen? Also z.B. "sidewalk:both:surface=asphalt".
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113870762
aceman444 (2022-01-15 11:51:45+00:00): Hi, why did you remove the conscription numbers from the addr:housenumber tags? That was correct and agreed on tagging in Slovakia (and Czech republic), so there was no reason to change it.
eumiro (2022-01-17 19:56:26+00:00): Didn't know about that countrywide agreement, sorry. I have seen both ways of writing it and since I keep mapping it the simple way and I've spent some time cleaning up all sort of data in Miloslavov, I made this change. It always looked like some non-natural automatic import from official database. Thanks for pointing it out.
aceman444 (2022-01-17 20:48:42+00:00): Ano zial mame na Slovensku este data roznej kvality, niekde este len tie orientacne cisla. Ale kde uz si niekto dal tu pracu a je tam spravne supisne aj orientacne, tak nie je dovod to mazat.

http://wiki.freemap.sk/cislabudov#hn_Tagovanie_v_OSM

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:%C4%8Cesko/Syst%C3%A9m_adres#Kl%C3%AD%C4%8D_housenumber
skorasaurus (2021-12-27 19:02:50+00:00): thanks for the correction; there's likely several of these where I had recorded the capacity as 1; probably can go and correct all of them that have capacity=1 in nearly all cases.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-11-16 23:53:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113874462 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some worldwide mechanical edits. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5455 and previous blocks.
canfe (2022-01-09 18:43:24+00:00): La strada deve avere un solo tipo di pavimentazione. Oppure si divide la strada in due e si hanno allora due pavimentazioni diverse.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-11-16 23:53:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 113874462 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some worldwide mechanical edits. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/5455 and previous blocks.
wireguy (2021-11-16 23:15:53+00:00): This whole area is under construction (someone removed the landuse construction).

The wood you changed to scrub is really a basin. The residential you updated isn't big enough... it is all residential.  
Will try and survey in spring.
impiaaa (2021-11-17 16:01:43+00:00): Also, again, DO NOT re-use OSM objects for unrelated features. A construction site can't move two blocks over and become and orchard, they are separate things.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113872314
wireguy (2021-11-17 16:29:24+00:00): good catch, It's still under construction, please revert.
also it's not an orchard, more likely a farmer that grows xmas trees.
tom_yorados (2021-11-17 17:43:21+00:00): Hi Huraxdax,
place=neighbourhood scheint mir da passender. wiki: über Neighbourhood: "Die Größe ist überschaubar und besteht häufig nur aus einigen Straßenzügen. "
MxxCon (2021-11-17 09:35:41+00:00): It wasn't wrong to have building tag there. :)
I added it back. 👍
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/113872898
limes11 (2021-11-20 17:37:27+00:00): Hi, 

wie ist die "Kaiserbahn" denn ausgeschildert? Welches Verkehrszeichen? hw=cycleway, access=no und foot/bicycle=yes ist einerseits widersprüchlich, andererseits redundant.

VG, Limes
Gerd Kock (2021-11-20 18:16:52+00:00): Hallo Limes,
das ist der frühere Verlauf der "Kaiserbahn", einer Eisenbahnstrecke. Heutzutage ist es ein asphaltierter Fuß- und Radweg. Mit welchen Eigenschaften versieht man den am besten?
Viele Grüße
Gerd
limes11 (2021-11-20 21:58:16+00:00): Also mit VZ 240?

Dann highway=path, bicycle=designated, foot=designated

access=no braucht es nicht, da hw=path sowieso für Motorfahrzeuge gesperrt ist. 

Wobei außerhalb von Ortsschaften Mofas typischerweise erlaubt sind auf diesen Wegen
jmania (2022-02-14 07:35:58+00:00): there is no such connection !!!