piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2020-12-10 11:46:35+00:00): Dag Karin,

De laatste satellietfoto's kun je wel degelijk als achtergrond gebruiken, maar dan zul je moeten overstappen naar de betere editor JOSM.
editor josm stap voor stap
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710       

In iD gebruik je PDOK aerial imagery Beeldmateriaal.nl 25cm latest
Dat is geen satellietfoto, maar een luchtfoto uit 2019. 

Dat je voor RWS bezig bent is mij bekend omdat ik edits screen van startende mapper binnen OSM Nederland.
We hadden al eerder contact. 
Binnen OSM bestaat ook een community die zich bezig houdt met de vaarkaarten.
https://openseamap.org/index.php?id=openseamap&L=1

Degene die zich daar in Nederland het meeste mee bezig houdt is Ad Verburgh
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/AdVerburg/history#map=6/54.863/7.607.
Je zou eens een balletje op kunnen gooien.

MVG,
eggie
alphensebezorger (2020-12-10 17:29:07+00:00): Ook in de iD editor kun je de satellietfoto’s van satellietdataportaal.nl als achtergrond gebruiken. Bij de achtergrondbeelden ‘Aangepast’ kiezen, en bij de stipjes een wms-link invoeren als deze: https://satellietdataportaal.nl/wms/SuperView-1_2020/service?FORMAT=image/png&TRANSPARENT=TRUE&VERSION=1.1.1&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=20201120_110139_SV1-04&STYLES=&SRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}
eggie (2020-12-10 18:58:01+00:00): Ahhh..maar blijft dat dan als layer behouden of moet je die link steeds opnieuw invoeren in iD?
Gr eggie
alphensebezorger (2020-12-10 20:58:09+00:00): Zo te zien blijft de laatst gebruikte wms-laag beschikbaar door opnieuw ‘Aangepast’ in plaats van ‘PDOK...’ te kiezen. Bij gebruik van deze beelden natuurlijk wel bedacht zijn op mogelijke verschuiving ten opzichte van de werkelijkheid.
eggie (2020-12-10 21:11:59+00:00): Oke... thanks..
dvdhoven (2020-12-08 15:06:43+00:00): knooppuntnet meldt dat route 03-61 onderbroken is geraakt in deze changeset.
https://knooppuntnet.nl/nl/analysis/changeset/95491366/4317534
A67-A67 (2020-12-08 15:09:52+00:00): Bedankt! Ik dacht dat ik de routes overal goed gelegd had, maar ik was blijkbaar één vluchtheuvel vergeten.
tux67 (2020-12-14 11:01:24+00:00): Hi,
können wir uns vielleicht darauf einigen  Ein- und Ausgang nicht auch noch als eigene Klinik zu dokumentieren, sondern ganz einfach als entrance? 
Ansonsten ist's vielleicht ein bisschen viel für den Renderer gemappt . 
Inzwischen gib'ts auch eine uMap Karte dazu bei der Dülken zurzeit 3x prominent vertreten ist.
http://u.osmfr.org/m/533082/
Gruß
tux67
stoni100 (2020-12-14 12:37:48+00:00): Hallo Tux67,

danke für den Link ..... ich habe nochmal für den renderer umgemappt :-)....

Auch nicht viel besser, hilft aber dem Link...

Wenn du was besseres für Eingang und Ausgan hast .... Entrence=yes und name = Eingang klappt jedenfalls nicht 

Grüße

stoni100
tux67 (2020-12-15 07:28:34+00:00): Danke .. sieht wie ein guter Kompromiss aus ;-)
eggie (2020-12-08 14:42:23+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
MVG,
Eggie
namens de OSM Community
totera (2020-12-10 05:45:32+00:00): Ciao Edoardo, ad Ancona non c'è nessuna indicazione della ciclovia adriatica, e dei tratti da te inseriti pochissimi hanno piste o corsie ciclabili.
Tra l'altro la pianificazione regionale (https://www.regione.marche.it/Portals/0/Europa_Estero/Fondi%20europei/FESR%2014-20/COMITATO%20CDS%202019/Slide_Progetto_Asse%204_Ciclovia%20Adriatica.pdf?ver=2019-06-10-164014-063&ver=2019-06-10-164014-063 alle pag. 22 e 25) sembra indicare un percorso diverso da quello Fiab: via Flaminia (al momento assolutamente inadatta alle bici) anziché Strada della Grotta, e la vallata del Fosso Miano invece dell'attraversamento del centro.
Edoardo Zanotti (2020-12-10 08:53:23+00:00): Ciao,
per quanto riguarda alcuni tratti, mi sto docuementando meglio da varie fonti e procederò alla correzione.
Per quanto riguarda il tratto di Ancona, cosa mi consigli? Inserisco anche la variante del Fosso Miano?
Grazie per la collaborazione!
totera (2020-12-10 12:30:43+00:00): Il percorso per risalire alla SP del Conero attualmente non esiste... ma io credo si debba eliminare dalla relazione anche il resto, si è detto più volte in lista di aggiungere soltanto i tratti segnalati in loco.
Ad ogni modo, da quali fonti ti stai documentando?
woodpeck (2021-04-25 23:16:20+00:00): In this changeset you added a huge leisure=pitch area covering and area as big as the city of Raignaj. What happened?
eggie (2020-12-08 16:43:22+00:00): Dag Weshuis...
name= gebruiken we voor oa.. geografische namen, straatnamen  of bedrijfsnamen.  Niet voor een punt aan te duiden waar je kunt laden en lossen.
Dat is een functie.
Kijk eens in de wiki of iets dergelijks bestaat.
MVG,
eggie
eggie (2020-12-08 16:46:36+00:00): Wellicht iets met  amenity=parking_space
Zie wiki en dan specificeren
name= doet helemaal niets in OSM.
MVg,
eggie
ndm (2020-12-08 20:20:15+00:00): Deleting information is rarely the best approach -- I've marked them with fixme's so that they can be checked.
marc__marc (2022-08-30 14:51:29+00:00): Bonjour,
pour la date sur le terrain, au lieu de date:survey, je vous conseille survey:date
Cordialement,
Marc
Mathias_ADAV (2022-08-30 15:17:54+00:00): Bonjour, en effet cela doit être une erreur de saisie, j'ai bien l'habitude d'utiliser le tag survey:date
Cordialement,
Mathias
Vinber-Pro (2020-12-09 06:11:55+00:00): Il est préférable au niveau de la casse de mettre seulement la première lettre en majuscule.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95494910
margot douat (2020-12-09 08:58:33+00:00): C'est noté merci
DaveF (2020-12-10 02:27:31+00:00): Hi
Which routing software is failing with this tag?
roland_sw (2020-12-10 10:58:42+00:00): OSRM, although, having said that I've just gone and rechecked and think I'm mistaken on the tag combination that it doesn't like. Changing these was inspired by this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/95034462 but it appears the issue is on highway=traffic_signals + crossing + bicycle=no, not all crossing + bicycle=no as far as I can tell now. The wiki for the crossings page is perhaps a bit confusing, because it suggests the crossing node applies to all ways the crossing is on, in which case this change would be correct, but it isn't clear that the wiki is correct (I had some discussion around the example given).
DaveF (2020-12-10 14:48:12+00:00): Could you please revert these changesets & check with OSMR if /they/ have a problem with their software
roland_sw (2020-12-10 16:21:58+00:00): Having checked, this is also an issue with Mapbox, not just OSRM. Happy to revert this and just make the change on 2175500509 and 2175500506 which this causes issues with. It might be worth bringing up the tagging in general on a mailing list somewhere? - because it doesn't make much sense as far as I can see to have vehicle restrictions on a crossing (i.e the restriction is part of the way)
jonorossi (2020-12-09 01:34:17+00:00): noexit=yes should be added only to the last node of a highway to confirm there is no ability to continue when there is a nearby highway close by (no need for it at the end of a cul-de-sac), you've got barrier=fence with no gate which defines that there is an obstruction.
Tech Dec (2020-12-11 03:08:43+00:00): Hey Jono. Yes they've put a 2m high temporary construction fence up across this footpath. There's no gate and it's wired shut with no way to get through.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95495107
Warin61 (2021-04-08 22:50:38+00:00): Areas of trees are better tagged 'natural=wood'. The key 'landuse' is for the human use of the land, not for what is there ... with the one exception of 'grass'.
Fra00 (2020-12-19 13:59:32+00:00): The church is not rendering in this way, as you can see. Only real outer members (external lines of the whole building) should be tagged as "outer"; there is no "inner" member, since there is no hole in the building; building parts should be tagged as "part".
SekeRob (2020-12-20 08:12:17+00:00): Yes, but you cant have building= and building:part= together on a single element which is an issue per Osmose, so something else is wrong in that constellation.
SekeRob (2020-12-20 10:14:26+00:00): someone from out of town fixed the relation this morning. It's a pity you cant see the towers and roof elements in the standard OSM rendering.
Fra00 (2020-12-20 10:52:06+00:00): I just thought it would be better to tag the parts of the build as "building:part=yes" and as "member=part" in the relation. This new solution at least show the whole building. It's a shame single building parts can't be seen, but that's something we can't change.
Josef73 (2021-05-27 04:54:15+00:00): Hello, is the Bank only open on Monday and Friday or from Monday to Friday?
Carnildo (2020-12-09 05:39:20+00:00): The "Danger Area" tag is meant for things like minefields or bombing ranges, not industrial hazards.
Josef73 (2021-05-27 04:55:25+00:00): Hello, is the postoffice only open on Monday and Friday or from Monday to Friday?
Vinber-Pro (2020-12-09 06:10:09+00:00): La description n'est pas appropriée je pense.
Voir peut-être du coté de start_date=* ?
Mais surtout si c'est un nouveau service, le renseigner le 19 décembre, le jour où il est réel :)
à plus
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95498462
pitscheplatsch (2020-12-10 06:57:36+00:00): Hi Jadah Francisco, welcome to OSM.

It's a good practice to edit only local areas and not all over the world like this edit.
This update will be seen by many people all over the world!

Thanks.

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
ivanbranco (2020-12-08 18:13:51+00:00): Ciao birdplay, il nome "sentiero in disuso" andrebbe eliminato dal tag name e integrato in qualche modo.
Luzandro (2022-07-21 04:34:15+00:00): Hallo,

hier kann etwas nicht stimmen, die Oberfläche des Kleinen Fuchslochsteigs sind sicher nicht Pflastersteine:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882404777

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:surface=paving%20stones?uselang=de
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95499142
eggie (2020-12-08 16:56:21+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.

Geef in je commentaar wat je aan het doen bent svp. 
Je hebt door schuiven met de kaart in editmodus schade veroorzaakt. Adressen verplaatst en samengevoegd.

MVG,
Eggie
namens de OSM Community
eggie (2020-12-08 17:00:08+00:00): reverted by changeset #95500996

Dit waren je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=95499148
Wanneer je nog vragen hebt stel ze gerust
mvg
eggie
eggie (2020-12-08 17:38:00+00:00): Doe bv eerst de Jumper..  Het nieuwe bedrijf hoort eigenlijk op de adresnode .. Dus niet op het gebouw.
Het gebouw is import vanuit het kadaster.. Dus beter niet van vorm veranderen. 
Niet naar de dakranden kijken!
De Jumper heb ik als voorbeeld op adresnode 2 gezet.
Na zo'n toevoeging sluit je de changeset af. Dus uit de editmodus en dan pas naar  je volgende project. 
Als commentaar geef je aan Dierenbenodigdheden zaak toegevoegd.
gr eggie
Gr eggie
eggie (2020-12-08 17:43:39+00:00): Kennedylaan omgezet naar Sportlaan, maar klein stukje oneway=yes verwijderd. het routeerde daar dus niet met oneway=yes.
eggie (2020-12-08 17:55:18+00:00): De kruising Fattenbergstraat  weer gelegd zoals je bedoeld had. Dat was een goede actie.
eggie (2020-12-08 17:56:58+00:00): De adressen en bushalte liggen weer terug waar ze horen.
Laat je niet weerhouden om te gaan mappen.. maar niet te veel veranderen in één upload.
Mapse,
eggie
PT-53 (2020-12-09 07:21:12+00:00): Hallo  SIA325,
dieser Straßenabschnitt
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/806978673/history
war mit der Merkmal-Kombination
highway=construction + construction=residential
als Straße im Bau markiert.
Du hast das Merkmal
highway=construction
nun abgeändert in
highway=residential.

Wenn die Straße fertiggestellt und für den Verkehr freigegeben ist, müßte dann auch noch das Merkmal
construction=residential
gelöscht werden. Ansonsgten funktioniert bei einigen Navis das Routing über diese Straße nicht.

Grüße
SIA325 (2020-12-09 09:23:26+00:00): Hi PT-53,
danke für deinen Hinweis. Ich habe den Tag bei dem Stück Straße übersehen. Da die Straße fertig gestellt ist, habe ich den alten Tag entfernt.
LG
northline (2020-12-09 08:25:45+00:00): Не нашел упоминания о наименовании, она действительно Чапаевская?
user_5359 (2020-12-08 19:19:05+00:00): Hello! What is the meaning of number? Is this a housenumber of a reference number?
Andreas Gaeb (2020-12-09 18:00:46+00:00): Hi, playgrounds have numbers in Pulheim. These are some kind of administrative reference numbers. They are indicated on signs on the playgrounds.
user_5359 (2020-12-09 18:46:22+00:00): In this case the standard key is ref. The key number isn't defined in our wiki.osm.org.
Gian Marco T (2026-01-22 21:36:10+00:00): Ciao, mi chiedevo: "c.le" è il diminutivo di "Colle", giusto? stavo pensando che forse sarebbe meglio scrivere "Colle" per esteso. Se fossi d'accordo ci penso io a modificare i nomi.
JriSv250 (2020-12-08 20:27:57+00:00): Thanks for your contributions to the waterways. However, many waterways already had ways traced through them, accompanied with Wikidata tags. Please remove the old ways after importing new ones and don't forget to copy the Wikidata tags from the old ways to the new ones. Thank you.
ljb_nj (2020-12-08 22:38:34+00:00): Seriously, what the heck? Your massive import or edits removed waterway names and incorrectly added or changed features that were mapped based on on-the-ground site surveys. For example: You made Way 882436307 a "culvert", which it is not. I've been there - have you?  You removed the attached stream "Falkenburg Branch" and replaced it with an unnamed way 882432615. This is not acceptable. Do not replace on-the-ground survey mapping with results from "NHD data", whatever that is.
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-12-09 23:55:49+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882430440#map=19/40.07931/-74.15059 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32481870#map=18/40.07996/-74.14988 is an example of damage

See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-12-09 23:57:02+00:00): If this import was discussed then it should be mentioned in changeset tags or changeset comment (old unrelated NHD import does not mean that anyone may run mass scale NHD imports)

If this import was not discussed then it can be reverted by anyone at any time.
woodpeck (2020-12-10 08:53:03+00:00): Happy to revert this with my DWG hat on, however, let's give the original importer a chance to reply first. Maybe there *has* been a discussion and we just haven't seen it, and maybe examples of damage are few and far between?
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-12-10 14:28:34+00:00): And thanks for helping! Imports can be extremely valuable, but for multiple reasons it is much better to make them in smaller areas.

This makes such edits easier (possible) to review, JOSM would warn you about many mistakes, it is much easier to avoid data damage.

Similarly, discussing import before doing it allows to avoid many problems and mistakes.
Mateusz Konieczny (2020-12-15 10:33:18+00:00): @ppjj Has you responded anywhere else?
ljb_nj (2021-02-03 03:07:52+00:00): Apparently the author of the import is not going to reply here. I don't have the tools or skills to revert, and wouldn't try reverting a 10,000-way changeset anyway. And I think this is only one of many changesets.  So I going to start manually, tediously fixing the damage in the areas I'm familiar with. I noticed also that waterways which used to be continuous are now split up into many small waterways segments, which I will try to join back up.
woodpeck (2021-02-03 09:19:14+00:00): Please don't, I will ping the author again and if the matter cannot be settled, will run the revert myself.
ljb_nj (2021-02-05 03:13:20+00:00): As requested, not doing anything until I hear more. FYI I checked and this seems to be 1 of 53 separate changesets with the same description, each containing 10,000 Ways. I only see new V1 Ways in these changes, so I don't know what happened to the Ways that were there before. Would they come back in a revert? Would reverting half a million Ways cause more damage?
woodpeck (2021-02-06 21:53:27+00:00): I've started to revert these edits. It is likely to take a few days. Stuff that has been deleted will be brought back. Problems might arise where stuff from the import has been edited by other people since; we'll deal with them afterwards.
JriSv250 (2021-02-07 04:45:19+00:00): Perhaps restore the waterways that form the boundaries of municipalities first?
ljb_nj (2021-02-07 17:21:38+00:00): Woodpeck is already reverting the whole import. The few areas I checked are already back the way they were before. I don't think partially reverting is possible, or practical. If you see any missing waterways that form municipal boundaries after it is all reverted, then yes we should fix those first. But I think that is unlikely. 'Important' waterways were already mapped before the import, which is one reason I think the import was a bad idea.
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-02-12 16:44:48+00:00): @ljb_nj - it appears that revert was completed. 

Is everything OK now?

@Woodpeck - thanks for a cleanup
ljb_nj (2021-02-12 23:15:09+00:00): Yes the revert was completed, everything I checked is back the way it was, and much better. Thanks
SK53 (2020-12-09 00:40:03+00:00): Josm doesnt have great support for full range of solar tags, but there are plenty of examples about to copy from. I've added the typical tags. In general we use generator as you have in this case for these smaller solar farms, although there is an increasing tendency to map the inividual arrays of panels (extrude makes this very easy) and rely on geographical proximity for clustering. Usually they are fenced so its useful to add if there is one. Larger solar farms are all now mapped as power=plant which allows groups of panels to be mapped as generators as well.
CjMalone (2020-12-09 11:00:22+00:00): Thanks for fixing this!

I thought I read somewhere that all the solar farms in GB had been mapped, hence why I was surprised to see one. Unless its just the larger power=plant, that are completely mapped.
SK53 (2020-12-09 13:04:34+00:00): I think the cut-off was around 1 MW. There are quite a lot of other installations in repd but Jez wasnt interested in them initially. At some stage we'll probably start going through them. As a consequence this cut-off is also pretty much the effective limit for power=plant. Also not every one appears in the REPD database: there are quite a few on United Utilities land (& water) which apparently dont appear in the database.

Details are at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#List_of_just_constructed_and_operational_UK_Ground_Mounted_Solar_Farms (which suggests there may be some ones which were under construction which are now completed.
CjMalone (2020-12-09 14:13:09+00:00): Ah makes sense, if I get my head around the tagging scheme I may give you a hand with the remainder, or some below 1MW.
ArtOfTheTrek_Sayyed (2020-12-31 21:17:22+00:00): Please, check about these trails/paths that you have deleted.
these paths appear on USGS 3D Elevation Program layer in JOSM.

are you have real experience in the field and sure about non-existence of those paths?
PT-53 (2020-12-09 07:10:19+00:00): Hallo EinEngener,
im OSM-Inspector wird für diese Fläche
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/458257084/history
ein Hinweis "self_intersection_ways" angezeigt:
http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=9.08898&lat=48.27993&zoom=18&opacity=0.34&overlays=self_intersection_ways,self_intersection_points

Grüße
PT-53 (2020-12-13 10:09:48+00:00): gelöscht
pe_mapper (2020-12-13 07:51:13+00:00): Prečo ste zmazali pôvodnú budovu a vytvorili novú? Táto budova je na zlom mieste a kríži sa s inou budovou!!!! Taktiež pôvodná budova mala na sebe ďalšie metadáta ktoré tu chýbajú
ndm (2020-12-08 20:15:00+00:00): Probably needs reverting it's one hoop -- not a pitch
KoiAndBlueBird (2023-12-21 02:09:09+00:00): Hey, in this CS you created [Way 882450133](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882450133). It is not really visible on satellite imagery (anymore?), OS doesn't list it either. There are no GPS tracks that folow this way. 

I guess there is sometimes a very hard to distinguish line on the ground, but that seems like a bit of a stretch to call it a way. 

I would delete this way, if you don't have any other info on it. If you insist on keeping it, I'd definitively add a `informal/desire` tag to it and give it a bad `visibility` tag.

Cheers
GinaroZ (2023-12-21 12:11:14+00:00): Hi, guessing there must've been a reason for why I mapped in the first place. Esri (clarity) shows it clearer and it seems to continue on further, maybe there was some Strava heatmap previously, or I saw photos/video of something in the area (can't remember!).

Suppose the good thing is that it doesn't connect to any other paths so not much chance of it being wrongly used by people. Perhaps additional tags better than deleting but up to you.
KoiAndBlueBird (2023-12-21 12:28:33+00:00): That's what I thought. I will add some tags to indicate the sketchiness of the way. Thanks for the quick response!
Alex_457 (2020-12-09 16:27:45+00:00): What did you do here? You need to add a comment to your changesets. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
smb1001 (2020-12-09 16:52:09+00:00): I'm converting church nodes to ways en masse. I have a policy that when the changeset comment takes longer than the change then I don't do one : )
Alex_457 (2020-12-09 16:59:22+00:00): I see. That makes sense
Negreheb (2020-12-10 08:36:00+00:00): Servus beautifulplaces, freut mich, dass du mithelfen willst, die Qualität in Salzburg zu verbessern.

Frage, warum hast du das bestehende Gebäude https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882453594 gelöscht und neu eingezeichnet? Hätte man ja einfach ändern können, aber vielleicht gibts ja einen Grund :)
Liebe Grüße
user_7581226 (2020-12-20 13:27:21+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis,
ich arbeite in OpenStreetMap nach den OSM Wiki Empfehlungen, und versuche in meiner Arbeit die Edit Historie so gut es mir nur irgendwie möglich ist zu erhalten. Natürlich passieren aber auch mir gelegentlich Fehler. Grüße
Negreheb (2020-12-20 13:36:18+00:00): Das ist kein fehler, das machst du dauernd und geplant. Aber bei dir ist eh alles egal.
Shaun das Schaf (2020-12-08 19:49:52+00:00): Hallo Minderbinder,

den Namen von
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882455797
würde ich wieder entfernen. Oder heißt dieses Gebäude wirklich "Schulneubau"?
Dass es ein Neubau ist könnte stattdessen z.B. mit den Tags "construction_date" oder "start_date" erfasst werden.

Viele Grüße
Shaun das Schaf
Sanniu (2020-12-10 06:49:07+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/882456245 has not tags. Please add appropriate tags.
jleedev (2020-12-09 13:54:41+00:00): Do you have a source for this change? It sure looks like this road exists.
kylebakerpa05 (2020-12-09 13:55:43+00:00): it's doesn't have a street name at all
jleedev (2020-12-09 14:07:17+00:00): Then you leave the road and remove the name tag.
mavl (2021-05-22 09:39:44+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
leveskockaa (2020-12-23 23:08:10+00:00): Szia!

Nem találtam semmilyen forrást arról hogy átnevezték volna a megállóhelyet a felújítás során.
Valami felett elsiklottam?

leveskockaa
mavl (2021-05-22 10:20:48+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
Milancer (2020-12-27 13:04:20+00:00): Zdravím, opravdu je úsek trati Heřmanův Městec - Prachovice veden jako nepoužívaná trať?
Do cementárny a vojenských skladů se snad ještě nákladní doprava stále provozuje. Prosím o prověření a případnou opravu.
Děkuji.
Bilykralik16 (2020-12-28 18:33:08+00:00): Vyřešeno - sada změn #96553677.