piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Wilmer Osario (2022-02-14 14:45:38+00:00): ¿De dónde obtuviste el lindero de la Zona de Protección? ¿Obtuviste el shape de algún lugar, o lo trazaste tú mismo?

En mi caso los trazaba yo mismo en JOSM usando como guía los shapes """"oficiales"""", ya que dudo mucho de la veracidad, precisión, lógica y permisología de esos "oficiales", y no podemos usar los de las organizaciones internacionales como la WDPA (World Database on Protected Areas). Eso también permitía darle la "lógica" que un mapa tan preciso como OSM necesita.

La mayoría de los linderos siguen una característica geográfica visible, ya sea un río o una cota topográfica específica; que podemos trazar fácilmente con las capas de Maxar y OpenTopoMap.

Al fin y al cabo, contamos con mejores herramientas que las que tenían nuestras instituciones gubernamentales cuando hicieron los linderos oficiales 😁.

Luego hay que "discutir" la etiqueta que debería llevar 🤔.
pantufla (2022-02-14 18:33:14+00:00): Ey, hola. Sí, realmente las etiquetas no sé cuáles serían las mejores. Me pareció útil tenerlo documentado pero luego no super qué ponerle. Lo puse superponiendo un mapa de inparques y trazando a mano por encima de lo que ellos ponían. Habrá una pequeña desviación pero hasta ahora es lo mejor que tendría. Si te parece que está mal lo podemos borrar por los momentos, me tomó unos 10 minutos dibujarlo.  Esta es la fuente: http://www.inparques.gob.ve/cms/src/consultoria/2021-06-02%20(17:38:24)Mapa%20Zonificaci%C3%B3n%20%20Waraira%20Repano%20Propuesta2021.pdf
Wilmer Osario (2022-02-14 21:01:31+00:00): Está bien hecho, incluso de ese mismo mapa podemos sacar nombres, ya que usaron datos del IGVSB.

Por ahora estaría bien colocarle: [boundary=protected_area]

Para la fuente yo pondría:

[source=Inparques (2021)]
pantufla (2022-02-15 12:18:31+00:00): Hecho, muchas gracias!!!
ptarac (2022-02-13 20:06:04+00:00): Ulica Boczna od łuku na N do produkcyjnej to nawet nie jest plac budowy. Nic się tam nie dzieje. Nawet nie odchumusowano koryta...
Bartek93ZGL (2022-02-15 13:59:50+00:00): Dlatego dodałem tą ulicę jako drogę planowaną. Jej przebieg jest niemal pewny (patrząc na podział działek oraz przebieg ulic). Usunąłem pętle do zawracania, bo jej tam fizycznie nie ma.
ptarac (2022-02-15 14:49:35+00:00): Ok.
Dziękuję za komentarz.
Patr1k_P (2022-02-13 15:30:03+00:00): ked uz je na budove adresa, netreba ju pridavat aj do poi bodu, potom aj ty mas s tym viac roboty, ale inak kvalitna robota:)
physi_retired (2022-02-18 10:12:00+00:00): Lieber user waldhans,

könntest du die Abgrabung der Firma Lankes bitte wieder herstellen, die ich vor einiger Zeit eingetragen habe und die du nun fälschlich als "verfüllt" bezeichnest? Deine Quellen sind leider veraltet.

Da du unlängst in ähnlicher Weise auch das von mir aktualisierte Betriebsgelände der Firma Röben Tonbaustoffe an der Swalmener Straße unkorrekterweise wieder geändert hast, folgender freundlicher Hinweis: geh mal wieder raus zum mappen, das führt im allgemeinen zu besseren Ergebnissen...

Gruß,
physi
physi_retired (2022-02-18 11:09:21+00:00): hab es schon selbst wieder korrigiert...

Gruß,
physi
Andrew Kvalheim (2022-02-14 23:25:46+00:00): Are you sure about using cardinal directions on stops? On the wiki I see direction=forward or backward.
G1asshouse (2022-02-20 07:11:06+00:00): Yes, I intentionally used degrees of rotation (or "Angles" as OSM wiki refers to it). Cardinal directions would have been equally applicable.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction
Andrew Kvalheim (2022-02-21 17:14:12+00:00): Thanks, I should have said angles or degrees of rotation. What I mean to distinguish is using the planet’s axis vs. the road as a frame of reference. I read the wiki to say that the direction of a stopping point in the road is given relative to the road (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=stop#Direction), the direction of a stop sign mapped as a node of the road also is given relative to the road (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign#As_part_of_a_way), and the direction of a stop sign mapped separately is given relative to the planet’s axis (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign#As_a_separate_node).

Osmose is currently flagging highway=stop + direction=[number] so I’d like to change either Osmose or the map. Perhaps you can weigh in here? https://github.com/osm-fr/osmose-backend/issues/1392
SY0649 (2022-02-15 09:16:25+00:00): 请给出此“线路所”为客运车站的证据，否则视为破坏性编辑，提请封号
user_12531033 (2022-02-15 19:33:07+00:00): 之前没找到junction，按错了。
jaap de vries (2022-02-18 11:20:35+00:00): Ik zie dat je detail aan het aanbrengen bent.
De bomenrij bij het oude jachthuisje loopt niet voor het huisje door, nu heb je deze wel voor het huisje lopen. Op de S&P luchtfoto is dat ook goed te zien of zelf even kijken.
Herman Lee (2022-05-03 15:56:19+00:00): 1030885356没有任何意义，已经其删除，其他无意义的路径已同理删除
Herman Lee (2022-05-03 15:57:45+00:00): 删除路径不会赘述于您的其他修改集中了
ivanbranco (2024-05-02 11:36:16+00:00): Hola Jordi!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1030886011/history

before fixing it, is this building value (sheefold) a typo for sheepfold?

Thanks and good mapping
Jordi MF (2024-05-02 13:49:12+00:00): Yes. The name 'corral' is a building where sheeps and other animals are kept by the sheepherder. Next to this 'corral' there is usually another building for the sheepherder or his family.

Nowadays, many of this buildings are ruined. I have been mapping them like this one for months. Am I doing it wrong? Should I map them in another way?

Thanks.
Jordi MF (2024-05-02 13:52:10+00:00): Sorry, I didn't review well the building. Now I don't map these kind of buildings in that way (building=sheepfold). Now, I use the tag man_made=sheepfold + building=yes (or building=ruins).

I think that 2 years ago I didn't know the tag man_made=sheepfold.
ivanbranco (2024-05-02 16:26:53+00:00): >> Should I map them in another way?

Oh, I don't know really. I wasn't just sure that it was a typo or something different. Based on what you said the value just missed a p, shee(p)fold. Thanks for the quick reply and good mapping!
aceman444 (2024-08-20 21:23:07+00:00): Dakujeme za dobry popis sady zmien.
Ake je na tychto uliciach "C"? Akoze znacena cyklotrasa na stlpoch? No neviem, ale v OSM dodnes ziadna zaznacena nie je, len nejaka navrhovana od Cyklokoalicie (ktorych su v Bratislave mraky a malokedy sa zrealizuju).
A keby tam aj skutocna cyklotrasa bola, bezne sa stava, ze ide cez usek kde je zakaz vjazdu vsetkym vozidlam (aj bicyklom), takze tam bicycle=yes nepatri. Da sa tam bicykel tlacit.
Bicykle su myslim povolene na tych uliciach, kde je v pesia zona (Zidovska,Mikulaska,Beblaveho), ale na tom chodniku pod Zigmundovou branou o bicykloch nehovori ziadna znacka.
Takze poprosim nabuduce ziadne taketo zmeny, cele odvodenie je nespravne. Dakujem
aceman444 (2024-08-22 20:12:53+00:00): Tak bol som to pozriet. Naozaj cyklotrasa S110 je znacena od Rybneho namestia po Beblaveho a Zamocke schody. Potom tesne pred Zigmundovou branou je zakaz vjazdu vsetkym vozidlam (este pred odclenenim chodnika, ktory ide juzne popod hradby, kam ste dali bicycle=yes). Dalej som uz ziadne znacenie nenasiel. Podobne od strany parlamentu (od Viedenskej brany) je na cestu popri buste Dubceka zakaz vjazdu vsetkym vozidlam okrem s povolenim.
user_5359 (2022-02-17 07:51:07+00:00): Hello! Please notice the language is noticed by a two lowercase letter short cut (ISO 639-1). Please use name:ne instead of name:nepali.

if you need help: You are welcome!
SushmaGhimire (2022-02-17 19:13:51+00:00): Thank you for your time. It's corrected now.
Frans S (2022-02-24 10:33:37+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping here.
A remark. 
You retagged a number of paths into unclassified highways.
I tried to find proof for that tagging but to me these traces are nothing but paths. Please take the width and quality into consideration (as far as can be seen on the imagery into account)
Also service roads to a settlement are not correct tagged here.  Please refresh your knowledge about how to tag a road.
ivanbranco (2022-03-18 18:02:09+00:00): Hi AKLAB, 

there's a problem with this bollards, could you check it out?

https://overpass-turbo.eu/?w=%22bollard%22%3D%22fixedhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.itrenew.com%2F%22+global&R
ivanbranco (2022-03-18 18:10:31+00:00): I found more of them: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gYn
AKLAB (2022-03-18 20:43:59+00:00): Thanks for catching these. Not sure how that value got in there. I've just fixed them in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117349696#map=19/38.85037/-94.87475
Warin61 (2022-10-11 06:20:50+00:00): Hi
wetland overlaps waterway ... which is it? 

Ways 1030893405 & 1030893306...
radiotrefoil (2022-10-11 07:14:51+00:00): I'll get rid of the natural=water
paunofu (2022-04-11 19:32:35+00:00): Buenas noches VLanzarote,

El nombre en castellano no faltaba, en la etiqueta "name" de las poblaciones va el nombre oficial, en este caso solo en valenciano, es por eso que está solo Xàtiva. Para el exotopónimo está name:es, en otros casos en el que el oficial son en los dos se pone primero en valenciano y después en castellano, Alcoi / Alcoy, Xàbia / Jávea.

Voy a revertir tu cambio.

Un saludo y gracias por tu comprensión,
Pau
b-holdet (2022-09-03 19:15:22+00:00): Er du sikker på denne sti?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1030674858
Den har et underligt tilbageløb henover Slogs Å og der er kun en enkelt bro. Den har du ikke tegnet ind.
sba-dk (2022-09-04 09:54:20+00:00): Tak for kommentaren.
Broen er der, og den ses på SDFE m.fl., men af en eller anden grund har jeg glemt at tegne den ind. Det er hermed gjort. 
Underligt forløb?, næ, det er en afstikker på en rute, hvor man skal samme vej tilbage. Mig bekendt er det en form for træningsbane, så det præcise stiforløb på det afgrænsede  engstykke afhænger nok af, hvem, der bruger det.

/sba-dk
osmviborg (2022-09-05 07:48:30+00:00): Hvis man ser på Strava er der ingen der bruger det.
b-holdet (2022-09-05 08:18:10+00:00): Jeg er ikke rigtig glad for den løsning du har lavet med dette stykke vej. Men jeg kan jo tage fejl.
Lige nu er der en bro med eget vejstykke og denne er forbundet til hovedstien sydfor.

Det "underlige vejstykke" har sit eget forløb og hænger ikke sammen med hverken bro eller den nye vej, som du fik lavet.

Problemet er her, at der er tre vejdele, som i princippet dele det samme vejsegment, nemlig broen og dit vejstykke.

Forslag til ændring:
Ville det være en ide om sløjfen på engarealet fik sit eget vejstykke, som var forbundet til broen og at man slettede de to vejdele fra sløjfen og ned til stien.
Herefter kunne sløjfen, broen og dit vejstykke indgå i den relation, som den indgik i før.
osmviborg (2022-02-13 12:41:43+00:00): Da bygningerne stadig er synlige på ortofoto, bibeholdes de med tagget 'removed:building=yes'. Området markeres med en polygon tagget 'landuse=brownfield'.
TheNet1996 (2022-02-13 16:33:52+00:00): Servus,
das Maximalgewicht von 1 Tonne bezieht sich aber auf die Geh-/Fahrradbrücke, und nicht auf die Straße, oder? ;)
Viele Grüße
Mike
koastoas (2022-02-13 18:01:54+00:00): Oh ja. 
Das wird so sein wie du sagst. Da habe ich mich wohl vertan.
TheNet1996 (2022-02-14 08:48:02+00:00): Hallo,

siehe auch hier (am rechten Bildrand):
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=48.26525993316&lng=10.920781063074&z=17&pKey=1458124311195189&focus=photo

Kümmerst du dich um die Korrektur?

Danke & Grüße
Mike
Rainero (2022-03-17 07:06:48+00:00): Zurückgesetzt mit CS118577909 in Absprache mit TheNet1996.
Fra00 (2022-02-18 17:20:38+00:00): Vedo che hai deciso di ripristinare (con un commento alla modifica alquanto striminzito) i primary al posto dei trunk, nonostante la situazione si fosse stabilizzata dopo l'ultima discussione. Ovviamente non interverrò più sulla questione, non ho voglia di stare a ripetere ancora. A questo punto però si può portare tutta la strada a primary e basta, mi sembra che quella fosse la tua proposta iniziale.
ualios (2022-02-18 21:29:21+00:00): Non so cosa intendi per situazione stabilizzata, semplicemente non ho inteso più replicare al cambio di tag stradale da te arbitrariamente piazzato nei precedenti punti.
Con questo changeset in realtà ho cancellato e/o rinominato alcune uscite "motorway" sulla base della segnaletica stradale presente sul posto che più si avvicina a quella tipologia (uscita vera e propria o assai similare). Di conseguenza non ho ripristinato alcunché, ma solo ridimensionato il percorso trunk di qualche centinaio di metri delimitandolo con gli svincoli di cui sopra.
Fra00 (2022-02-19 09:58:10+00:00): Ah quindi, ad esempio, all'imbocco della galleria San Vito venendo da Campobasso vi è un qualche cartello o qualche altro elemento che faccia sì che da quel punto esatto vi sia un cambiamento nelle condizioni stradali? In ogni caso: okay, se sei convinto che così abbia più senso.
ualios (2022-02-19 11:20:28+00:00): Certamente no. Una uscita è comunque un punto ben definito del percorso stradale e quindi mi sembra più "ordinato" far coincidere gli estremi del percorso trunk con gli svincoli di un certo rilievo che più si avvicinano a una motorway_junction piuttosto che piazzarli in un punto privo di riferimenti cartografici.
Ad ogni modo, rimango convinto che ha poco senso taggare in modo diverso una piccola parte di una già piccola strada quando fondo, visibilità e limiti di velocità (bassi!) rimangono sostanzialmente gli stessi. Il tratto in questione d'altra parte è strettamente collegato con la tangenziale ovest con la quale condivide caratteristiche più coerenti con un percorso trunk e quindi ci può stare. Ma forse non per molto visto che anche sulla tangenziale ovest (oltre che su quella est) dovrebbero costruire una nuova rotatoria degradando infine anche questa arteria. A quel punto mantenere il tag trunk avrebbe un significato solo in ordine alla rilevanza dell'arteria stradale per un territorio, come quello molisano, che offre assai poco di meglio. Ma allora stesso discorso varrebbe anche per tutta la Bifernina.
Fra00 (2022-02-19 11:35:47+00:00): Con rotatoria allora passa tutto a primary. Io personalmente sarei per portare le C1 a trunk (come fanno anche in altri Stati), ma non è nelle linee guida e non saprei aprire una discussione in merito, quindi mi adeguo e via.
ualios (2022-02-19 16:35:44+00:00): La rotatoria dovrebbe essere questa:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1033254994
L'ho inserita perché ho visto che ci stanno lavorando anche se non sono sicuro del tracciato finale, soprattutto in relazione alle uscite poco più avanti. 
Mi sembra una cosa assurda... invece di costruire svincoli degni di questo nome l'Anas sta riempendo di rotatorie tangenziali e statali e tutti sembrano contenti per la sicurezza e la creatività!! E invece le nostre poche strade a cosiddetto scorrimento veloce vengono di fatto declassate a strade minori con queste continue intersezioni a raso. 
Guarda qui che creatività sulla statale principale:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/941847503
Se però ci passa un tir di media grandezza deve praticamente fermarsi!!
Fra00 (2022-02-19 17:41:22+00:00): La proliferazione di rotatorie negli ultimi anni lascia anche me un po' stupito, soprattutto su strade che potrebbero essere a scorrimento veloce. Soluzione economica e al momento "popolare", ma non credo ottimale dal punto di vista della mobilità.
ualios (2022-04-30 17:50:32+00:00): La rotatoria sulla tangenziale ovest è di fatto già operativa. Ho riclassificato tutto a primary, a questo punto anche la porzione di tangenziale est.
Fra00 (2022-04-30 18:15:32+00:00): Purtroppo, questo è. "Tangenziali" ridotte alle solite statali lente.
Andre68 (2022-02-14 10:32:34+00:00): I did some technical fixes, but...
Are the new coastlines really "high water level"? See wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline
Martin868 (2022-02-14 12:58:28+00:00): Its a valid question. I asked myself as well. The location of the old coastline I think was much too high and essentially was putting the entirety of those beaches underwater.  I am no expert but  in general the MHWL line is not that high. It is the wavers, storms and exceptionally high tides that push the vegetation further up and the MHWL should be below that. So I decided to use the other edge of the existing beach polygon but in some places it was clearly too low and I made corrections based on satellite images. Now we have no idea what the tide was when the satellite took the picture but all imagery sources were similar so I went with that. It is no exact science I admit. But I know no better way of doing it. My goad was to make those beautiful beaches visible because they were not at all. I have been to the area before but I am no local expert. If you think the new map is worst than the old please advise  I can revert. Thank for the technical fixes. I were to have another look for those today or tomorrow. PS. since this is a coastline change it will take days to render.
keithonearth (2025-04-29 00:30:38+00:00): While I agree that it can be unclear how far up the high tide line is, this changeset put the coastline on part of the beach that is clearly covered by the tide routinely. Based on your comments it seems like the old coastline was at the upper boundary of the beach. I think this is closer to the correct location than the lower boundary of the beach is, indeed the tide was higher than much of the mapped coastline in the current imagery. I've edited it to place the coastline on neither the lower boundary of the beach or the upper one, but to have it's own way between the two. I think this most closely represents reality, even if the exact geometry isn't verifiable. 

There's still lots of work to do though, because I've only done some of the beaches, and this changeset left some relations for bays, and of Vancouver Island itself, on the upper boundary of the beach, rather than on the coastline, which really doesn't make sense. 

I'll continue to work on the area, to make things more consistent, but it does seem like these edits were an example of mapping for the renderer.
keithonearth (2025-06-10 16:50:29+00:00): I've finished cleaning up the coastline, and finished fixing the relations that use the coastline. 

One of the advantages of not using the low-tide line for the coastline, was that it made many small islands, like Box Island, part of Vancouver Island. My approach avoids this issue, and overall
BCNorwich (2022-02-14 08:07:27+00:00): Hi, I assume that building Way: 1030900900 was supposed to be No. 3 rather than having two No. 4s together. I've amended it.
I've removed excess nodes and squared up the houses.

Regards Bernard.
SekeRob (2022-02-16 09:37:21+00:00): Hi,

You tagged a line as powerline. see change set warning above. I've change it back to part of a residential area, what it was before.

cheers
85Bas (2022-02-13 13:06:47+00:00): Beste Jan,
Dergelijke tijdelijke maatregelen horen niet op deze manier (verwijderen van wegen) te worden verwerkt in OSM; op deze manier routeert het Julianaplein namelijk niet meer. De manier om dit wel correct aan te geven is met conditional restrictions. Dit had ik gisteren (met veel tijd moeite) al gedaan. Ik zou je daarom willen vragen je wijzigingen ongedaan te maken. Ik wil dit ook wel voor je doen als je geen beschikking hebt over de reverter-plugin.
Groet, 85Bas
Jan Wilts (2022-02-13 13:27:38+00:00): Hoi Bas,

Ik wil deze best reverten; alleen ik begrijp niet helemaal wat je bedoeld met "op deze manier routeert het Julianaplein namelijk niet meer". Dat is toch de bedoeling? Het is de komende 3 maanden niet meer mogelijk om vanaf Drachten richting Hoogezand te rijden, iets wat uit deze edit blijkt toch? Ik vind dat een periode van 3 maanden deze edit rechtvaardigt in tegenstelling tot bijvoorbeeld een weekendstremming.

Hoor graag van je, anders revert ik hem, geen probleem.

Groet,
Jan
85Bas (2022-02-13 13:45:43+00:00): Beste Jan,

Ook drie maanden is te kort om als "permanente" wijziging in OSM te worden doorgevoerd, zeker nu betere methodes als conditional restrictions breder worden ondersteund. Een data-afnemer die nu een kaartupdate doet zal niet van Drachten naar Hoogezand kunnen routeren tot de volgende update (wanneer die ook is). Met de juiste conditional restrictions kan dit wel.

Ook op de wikipagina voor highway=construction staat: "As OSM data is often used offline (and therefore may be several months old), only tag construction sites if they are planned to be closed for at least six to nine months."

Door de OSM-verkeerssituatie op 25 februari (de datum waarop het oude plein definitief sluit en nooit meer terugkomt) om te zetten naar het tijdelijke Julianaplein blijft het plein (met de juiste restrictions) ten allen tijde routeren, hoe veel tijd er ook zit tussen de kaartupdates van gegevensafnemers.

Hopelijk verduidelijkt dit het een beetje.

Groet, 85Bas
mego_map (2022-02-15 07:19:14+00:00): Hello LamiaaMB;
Could you provide us with the source you added for this polygon?
link:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1030910742
regards
mego_map
pio2_122 (2022-02-13 19:42:29+00:00): W jakim celu "Rampa Kultura i Twierdza Design" została wielokrotnie zdublowana na poszczególnych budynkach i na dodatkowej relacji?
ptarac (2022-02-13 19:56:52+00:00): Zdublowana, gdyż wszystkie te budynki są elementem Rampy.
Relacja, bo sądziłęm, że tak się robi.
pio2_122 (2022-02-13 21:03:40+00:00): W przypadku stosowania relacji nie taguje się już w ten sam sposób poszczególnych elementów składowych. Tam zostają tylko tagi niezwiązane z daną relacją lub, gdy ich brak, pusty obiekt (bez tagów). Więcej informacji: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Relation:multipolygon

Ten przypadek spróbowałem poprawić. Mimo, że relacja wyglądała na prawidłową, nie renderowała się na mapie. Wydaje mi się, że skrypt odpowiadający za to „umieścił” ikonę tego obiektu w miejscu, gdzie jest jakaś inna (np. kawiarni Qult Kafka), przez co została zasłonięta i nie było jej widać.
W związku z tym, przeniosłem tagowanie z relacji na obszar. To rozwiązanie zadziałało.
ptarac (2022-02-14 06:33:39+00:00): Dziękuję bardzo za cenne uwagi i korektę moich kulawych działań.
MARJUSZJOB (2022-02-13 16:45:10+00:00): DY ZUY CUOFIEGU PSYFLADZAJ MOJOM EYDZJEEE
MARJUSZJOB (2022-02-13 19:31:30+00:00): GY*(QW(UHYUVRY*GEY*&Gyg8ygryger79per89reueruhrehu9[rgthi9ehu9er7rag89reguptuipeuirtijt
MARJUSZJOB (2022-02-13 19:50:53+00:00): 56rf7tguy
fyugfevyuyuvfyvurfyvudfyvdfy
fygufyuuyvfibhfhbifdj gfvyhufiguygefygufyuyufuiguihhgohiiuhdfgdfuiohheuoighiuuigyguilhgjfdlfgjbhfj75yrhujdf89y5ruihfj8ruijfku7dj6yweshgdxtrdfg
PT-53 (2022-05-08 06:58:42+00:00): Hallo fbausch,
Du hast an diesem Straßenabschnitt
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24252892/history
das Merkmal
- oneway=yes
ergänzt. Müßte an diesem Straßenabschnitt
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253246181/history
das nicht auch noch ergänzt werden?
Dafür könnte dann diese TR
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3331698/history
gelöscht werden.

Schaust Du Dir das nochmal an?
Fragende Grüße

Gefunden mit brouterszspects:
http://brouter.de/osmoscope/#map=19/8.67832/49.40013&l=http://brouter.de/osmoscope/active_deferred.json
fbausch (2022-05-13 11:39:38+00:00): Habe es angepasst
user_5359 (2022-02-17 14:19:42+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Note that in OSM classification of the objects has the highest priority. Objects that have only one name, have little sense. As home page for the question "How do I describe you?" I recommend the web site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.

What is the meaning of "kantor Desa" = "kantor desa Gentinggunung"?
ivanbranco (2022-02-13 14:37:03+00:00): Hi Doc Dimaus,

welcome to OSM :)
This changeset goes from Gambia to Ukraine, it would be better to avoid big changeset areas: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

p.s. just curious, what's the source of this name (Best Life Road)?
Lee Carré (2022-02-14 20:08:15+00:00): “what's the source of this name (Best Life Road)?”

Seems that the dubious name was added in v7, http://www.osm.org/changeset/56449899 , and was merely modified in this set.
eggie (2022-02-13 14:34:00+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
aceman444 (2022-02-13 14:36:53+00:00): Vlakova stanica tam uz je (bod na trati), cize tato zmena zbytocna a aj tak ste z nej budovu neurobili.