piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
thal1982 (2016-04-20 22:02:24+00:00): Zwischen den beiden Bahnsteigkanten kannst du überall wechseln, Bahnsteige können auch eine Rasenfläche aufweisen, zum Beispiel: Bahnsteige in Kupfermühle (bei Bad Oldesloe!).
Bei einer Verbindungssuche Von A nach B müssen die beiden Bahnsteigkanten irgendwie verknüpft werden, daher habe ich die zwei Fußwegverbindungen dazwischen realisiert.

Gruß

Thal
NicolasDumoulin (2016-06-27 09:20:06+00:00): name="tri sélectif" n'est pas approprié. En revanche, vous pouvez ajouter des informations sur les types de matériau acceptés dans les bacs : verre, plastique, papier, … cf. doc http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:amenity%3Drecycling
derredu (2016-04-19 18:02:42+00:00): Hi, was ist Sinn dieser Änderung? Du hast ein Adressen-Node auf die Gleise verschoben und einen mir unbekannten Tag "frequency" ergänzt. Kannst du mir das erklären?
euf-admin (2016-04-20 06:53:17+00:00): Ich habe nur einen Tag für eine Adresse in der Brüsseler Str. 21 gesetzt. Mehr nicht.
euf-admin (2016-04-20 07:18:11+00:00): Allerdings verstehe ich deine Frage nicht. Was habe ich denn auf irgendwelche Gleise verschoben. Ich kann nicht herausfinden um was es genau geht.
Nakaner (2016-04-20 09:57:15+00:00): Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz einen Node um > 100 m verschoben, sodass er nicht mehr im Wohngebiet, sondern auf der Bahnstrecke Köln–Aachen liegt. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2592042295
###############
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz einem Kreuzungsnode eines Tramgleises mit einer Straße das Tag frequency=0 gegeben. Das ist auch nicht korrekt. Die Stromfrequenz (Gleichstrom = 0 Hz) wird an das Gleis getaggt, falls es elektrifiziert ist. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3554955339
###############
Die Praxis, die du eingetragen hast, ist in der aktuellen Form in OSM nicht auffindbar und nutzlos. Es genügt nicht, einfach nur den Namen an ein Objekt zu taggen. Da fehlen nämlich noch Tags, welche angeben, um was es sich handelt. Ist es ein Hundekottütenspender, ein Supermarkt, ein Briefkasten, eine Anwaltskanzlei, ein Polizeirevier oder eine Ampel? Das geht aus den Tags, die dieser Node hat, derzeit nicht hervor.
###############
OSM ist nicht nur eine Karte, sondern eine Datenbank. Wenn Objekte keine Attribute (wir nennen das "Tags") haben, können unsere Datennutzer (das sind alles Computerprogramme, die z.B. Karten erstellen) mit den Daten nichts anfangen.
#################
Das korrekte Tag für deine Praxis findest du hier: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare (Du dürftest dich selbst hoffentlich am besten einordnen können)
derredu (2016-04-20 15:53:23+00:00): Danke Nakaner für die ausführlichen Erläuterungen. 
@ euf-admin: hier ist dein Änderungssatz visuel anschaulich dargestellt:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=38688399
Wahrscheinlich ist der ID-Editor für Ungeübte nicht die beste Wahl und Grund für die Fehler. Ein Wechsel zum Editor JOSM ist zu empfehlen.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:JOSM
t_ja (2016-04-19 19:07:14+00:00): Hi, I doubt that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/22690509 has any official name (in Slovak or in Hungarian). Please remove it.
Thanks in advance.
*Martin* (2016-04-20 18:25:11+00:00): I've undeleted summit:cross. It is there as you can see at http://www.freemap.sk/upload/gallery/0/388/20141221183910_k01lup4irrlpg8so1l15pkgiv1.jpg. Or do you have different experience?
*Martin* (2016-04-20 18:32:52+00:00): Now I see you deleted summit:cross and added historic=wayside_cross. But it is not wayside cross (it has no jesus on it...). Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:summit:cross%3Dyes. Also next time try to reuse the node and only change the tagging.
wwhide (2016-09-03 07:22:29+00:00): I believe that this is the changeset I've been looking for.  The changes I believe you made to the boundaries are now incorrect and need to be reverted to the changes I made at least a year ago.  The block on the left is owned by Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and the borders need to be redrawn to the ones available at the link below which you will recognize as the USFS website
http://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetCategory=boundaries

You can view them online here if that's easier http://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.fs.fed.us%2Farcx%2Frest%2Fservices%2FEDW%2FEDW_ForestSystemBoundaries_01%2FMapServer&source=sd

And you can view the changeset here: http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=38689421

I can try to revert to the proper dataset if you don't have that ability.  Please let me know.
wwhide (2016-09-07 07:13:22+00:00): This is a better link to the changes https://osmlab.github.io/changeset-map/#38689421
Alan Trick (2016-09-09 22:26:05+00:00): Yeah, this is the changeset you've been looking for. I'm not sure what Max-- was using as a source, it would be nice to know. If there is no response, I'd suggest just reverting it.
Max-- (2016-09-12 21:55:47+00:00): Hi both of you and sorry for the late reply. If you are the experts on those National Park borders, feel free to fix whatever is wrong now. As far as I remember I was mainly irritated by some kind of checkerboard structure in the borders of the Forests that I could not find in any other maps of them, including the ones on the USDA homepage (Alhough true that these kind of features are present in the arggis shapefiles.) And maybe I have broken something else while doing that. So if I was wrong there and you are sure that all the features visible before were actually the true borders and not some kind of artefact of imported data, I would be really happy if you could fix that. Cheers,
Max
wwhide (2016-09-14 06:56:37+00:00): When I look at Weyerhauser recreation land maps and the most current USDA maps, I see the boundaries have changed to the checkerboard version.  There are still some current maps on the USDA website that don't have the checkerboard so that's a bit of a conundrum.  I was working in the area and was given a map that had the checkerboard on it but no longer have access to that map nor the people who gave it to me.  Since the changeset is available to revert to at any time, I'm going to do a bit more digging and comment back here when I get better information, but it seems the checkerboard is correct.
Max-- (2016-09-14 09:15:32+00:00): Well, then just go ahead reverting that! I know that things like National Park borders can sometimes be some cmplicated matter and also sth that wll be simplified for a overview map. It will probably make sense to sperate the landuse and park borders for all these then it will seem less weird from just looking at the map
wwhide (2016-09-27 21:44:32+00:00): I did revert it.  You'll see lots of checkerboard patterns in our national forests now, it's just something that we'll have to get used to.
Max-- (2016-09-28 09:38:00+00:00): Thanks, great. Well then even more reason to decouple those boundaries from the acutal landuse/natural features. Quite a lot of really werid ones especially in Northern California. But of course that will be a huge task in such a big country compared to what we are used to over here in Europe!
wwhide (2016-09-29 01:01:22+00:00): Yeah, well I'm not totally sure what the deal is with landuse vs ownership boundaries.  I've been trying to figure that one out for a few years now.  Many of these multipolygons are assembled incorrectly (including some of mine) and I'm not competent enough to figure out how to fix them yet.
literan (2016-04-19 13:05:05+00:00): Биллу второй раз добавили. Зачем?
Ivan Mashintsev (2016-04-19 13:05:59+00:00): У меня ее не было на карте.
literan (2016-04-19 13:20:15+00:00): Стоматологию задвоили, и слово "стоматология" лишнее - за родовое обозначение объекта отвечает тег
igortomko (2016-04-20 07:57:44+00:00): Спасибо, поправлю
literan (2016-04-20 08:35:44+00:00): да уж поправил...
zstadler (2017-01-03 13:19:07+00:00): Hello e330,
.
Please clarify if the object you have created are real.
.
For example, I visited the viewpoint location and found no viewpoint. 
.
Also, it is not likely to have a travel agency in the middle of the desert track.
.
Thanks,
Zeev
zstadler (2017-02-27 12:40:11+00:00): This changeset was reverted by changeset 45783103
mavl (2019-01-09 16:29:07+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
Hjart (2016-04-23 06:52:14+00:00): Vi sætter stor pris på at landuse (diverse "områder") holdes adskilt fra vejnettet.
chihchun (2016-04-19 13:49:31+00:00): Hi,

If you do not have the details of the POI, please leave it as a note.

The other mapper can fix it for you.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:29:11+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mueschel (2016-10-01 18:11:15+00:00): Hallo,
warum hat z.B. dieser Weg ein layer=-1 bekommen? Er befindet sich an der Oberfläche und nicht unterirdisch.
http://osm.org/way/384153100
Die restlichen layer und level Angaben wundern mich auch, die Hauptwache hat nur drei unterirdische Ebenen - so war es auch früher gemappt, jetzt gibt es viele layer=-4
Gruß, Jan
letihu (2017-01-17 19:35:41+00:00): Warum trägt man 2016 hier 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4132869431/history
nur einen Namen ein?
2013 war schon alles benannt
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/210263805/history#map=18/54.14903/10.95468
mavl (2019-01-09 16:29:15+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:29:20+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:29:24+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
Hjart (2016-04-19 12:19:55+00:00): Hvad var ideen med det her?
Lars Christensen (2016-04-19 13:44:45+00:00): Hej, 
Der ser ud til at være en fejl med de punkter du kommenterer, det er sket under upload af alle de bygninger i det kvarter.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:29:40+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
literan (2016-04-19 13:19:18+00:00): задвоили библиотеку
user_5359 (2016-04-20 04:07:04+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I don't think your company is hotel, you provide hotels. Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dinformation for the possible description.
naoliv (2016-05-17 02:58:50+00:00): hbonates, esse tipo de nomeação também não deve ser feita.
Não se deve colocar nomes descritivos ou genéricos nos objetos.
tahasin (2019-03-18 14:48:58+00:00): Hi dgitto,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Aceh, I have come across way 656615979
way 411674066
way 411674050
way 411674069
way 411674036 classified as 'Track'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, this seems to be 'Residential'. Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. 

Thanks in advance.
dgitto (2019-03-18 16:14:16+00:00): Hi, of course is hard to say, from aerial imagery. I used track in that case as a course first mapping, maybe waiting for local mappers to fine-tune the details (a road is better than nothing). And you are right that highway=residential should be more appropriate.
Chabior (2016-05-01 08:36:00+00:00): Wycofałem tę edycję. 
Tor był oznaczony tagiem 'abandoned', który służy do oznaczenia rozebranych torów, a miejsce w którym przebiegały nadal jest rozpoznawalne.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:29:44+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
dudka (2016-11-03 08:38:07+00:00): ви впевнені, що це трансформаторна підстанція, а не теплопункт, як початково вказав Вальдимар?
Volch (2016-11-03 08:59:09+00:00): Вальдимар УСІ підстанції помітив як теплопункти. Існує ймовірність шо деякі з них є теплопунктами.
dudka (2016-11-03 11:35:37+00:00): gontsa зробив кілька фотографій

перевірені ТП усі є трансформаторними підстанціями, а не теплопунктами https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2882543/rect5526.png
mavl (2019-01-09 16:29:28+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
user_5359 (2016-04-20 04:12:24+00:00): Welcome to OSM! You forgot to add the tag building=yes. Now you see the hotel on the map.
barigela (2019-03-20 16:28:31+00:00): Hi dgitto,

Trust you are well. While reviewing the road network in Aceh, I have come across way 411679208
way 411679198
way 411679200
way 411679202
way 411679204
way 411679207 classified as 'Track'. However, going by the aerial imagery and other ways around, this seems to be 'Residential'. Please look into this and share your thoughts on this. 

Thanks in advance.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:29:53+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:29:48+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:30:01+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:29:57+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:30:06+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
Chabior (2016-05-01 08:35:40+00:00): Wycofałem tę edycję.
Tor był oznaczony tagiem 'abandoned', który służy do oznaczenia rozebranych torów, a miejsce w którym przebiegały nadal jest rozpoznawalne.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:30:11+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
literan (2016-04-19 13:14:56+00:00): задвоили Феерию
mavl (2019-01-09 16:30:18+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
SK53 (2016-04-19 15:30:59+00:00): I'm sure this track is shown on Ordnance Survey maps and plans. OpenStreetMap is no different we try & show what is observable. We do not censor the data except in cases where we may required to do so by laws (e.g., military areas). So I and others DO NOT accept your statement that it "should not be shown on maps"

No doubt this driveway is obvious both on aerial imagery and when passing on the public road. The likelihood is that someone will add it back at some stage.

What we do recommend in these circumstances is to add access=private which should be obeyed by routers and shows up on the OSM website with pale red dashes.
The Bolas Heathens (2016-04-19 15:49:03+00:00): It's not obvious when driving past on the public road as it looks like a farmers track to fields and not a driveway or road. It should not be shown on the maps.
trigpoint (2016-04-19 15:55:12+00:00): If it 'looks like a farmers track to fields' then it is visible and should be mapped and tagged as access=private. As it appears on OS maps is there any point hiding it on OSM?
trigpoint (2016-04-19 16:11:05+00:00): I have reverted this, changed it to a track and added access=private to indicate that it is not a right of way so will not be used by routers or map users.
That way it will not be incorrectly replaced as a right of way and is useful a navigational point.
SomeoneElse (2016-04-21 12:55:10+00:00): Hi,
Please don't add test data to the live database.  If you want to test API calls, you can do them with http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/ .
Best Regards,
Andy
Hjart (2016-04-19 19:36:48+00:00): Jeg har fjernet din markering af Ringsted Genbrugsplads, da pladsen i forvejen var markeret og desuden var lidt ved siden af.
muralito (2016-04-20 01:50:05+00:00): Hola. ¿Porque estas pasando vias a "residential"?
¿las relevaste y cambio la realidad?
Departamento de Geografía - MIDES (2016-04-20 12:16:14+00:00): No son Sendas, ni Senderos, son calles urbanas con números de puertas asociados. La mayoria no estan regularizados. Su tamaño de ancho son de ancho de auto. Es posible paso de peaton y de vehiculos. Se acercan a la definicion de highway=residential, que de   highway=footway o  highway=path.
muralito (2016-04-20 17:27:10+00:00): Entiendo, pero no respondiste mis ultima pregunta. ¿las relevaste personalmente?
Creo que hay varias que ni abiertas estan. o debe hacer un mes o dos que no paso por ahi, pero estoy bastante seguro que no habian en varios ni sendero, calles, mucho menos para un auto.

¿Vos decis que, por ejmeplo por estas vias pasa un auto?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78114602
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78108630
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78118797

Por eso te insisto con el tema, porque estoy casi seguro que no.
Departamento de Geografía - MIDES (2016-04-21 11:14:15+00:00): No, personalmente no. La sección Campo es la que se encuentra en territorio. Para el 100 por ciento de la confirmación de lo mencionado, habría que relevarlas in situ. 
http://dinem.mides.gub.uy/
Saludos!
muralito (2016-04-21 12:00:56+00:00): Si, yo cambiaria el "habria" por "debería" relevarlas. Si lo hace otro equipo y vos lo mapeas no hay problema, pero si nadie lo releva ahi es donde entra el problema.

Yo no te pido ninguna prueba ni foto del relevamiento ni nada de eso, con que me confirmes que vos (alguien de tu equipo) lo relevó me alcanza.

Lo que no quiero es andar por la zona el mes que viene, y que no haya ni calles ni nada, se entiende.

Si termina no habiendo nada, vas a tener que revisar si la seccion Campo esta haciendo las cosas bien, porque no me llamaria la atencion que te digan una cosa y que esten "relevando" desde un escritorio en 18...
Adam_Piszczek (2016-04-22 06:55:17+00:00): Na terenie stoi kilkanaście kontenerów
ForstEK (2018-06-13 22:19:11+00:00): Здравствуйте! Вы отредактировали точку без описания - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1692802076.
Что это такое?
keder (2018-06-14 09:18:52+00:00): Почему без описания? Воронеж 3d написано же. Пакет правок в котором я добавил теги зданиям на площади Ленина, согласно странице 3d buildings. Конкретно эта точка создана не мной и name тег также добавил не я. Я лишь её передвинул, создал ее suslikk, лучше спросить у него.
ForstEK (2018-06-14 17:32:05+00:00): Так а зачем передвинули? Я без наездов, просто хотел понять, что это за точка, барельеф там или что? suslikk молчит пока :), хотя спрашивал его тоже.
keder (2018-06-15 05:50:24+00:00): Не помню, честно. Обычно я такие точки передвигаю если они были внутри здания и после исправления формы здания оказались за его пределами.
zors1843 (2016-04-24 09:52:05+00:00): Wat is de betekenis van die "area" ?
MichaelVL (2016-04-19 15:49:54+00:00): Hej,
Denne her ændring er noteret med 'source=survey' - er det virkelig korrekt?  Det ligner mere import fra geodatastyrelsen.  Kender du proceduren for imports - hvis ikke, så er den at finde på http://wiki.openstreetmap.org
Hjart (2016-04-19 20:19:12+00:00): Jeg vil foreslå vi reverterer dette her. Ikke alene er det tydeligvis en import der ikke har været diskuteret med os andre først, men alle noderne er også tagget building=yes.
Hjart (2016-04-19 20:26:43+00:00): Proceduren MichaelVL omtaler er mere præcist: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines.
Lars Christensen (2016-04-20 07:34:24+00:00): Jeg har lavet en revert og ændret i noderne så de ikke længere er tagget med "building = yes". 
Tak for Proceduren
mavl (2019-01-09 16:30:14+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:30:24+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:30:28+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:30:42+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:30:32+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
mavl (2019-01-09 16:30:37+00:00): This changeset was redacted.
SOSM (2016-04-20 08:49:35+00:00): Die Stadt Zürich vergibt Nummern auch an unscheinbare Nebengebäude (z.B. auch die Perronüberdachungen am Bahnhof Altstetten), was natürlich ein Problem bei Vollständigkeitsüberprüfungen etc. gibt.
bielebog (2016-04-19 17:24:50+00:00): Hmm, die Gebäudeumrisse Peter-Hille-Weg 15/a waren schon gut. Die waren aus dem NRW ALKIS mittels Tracer2 übernommen. Ich bin mal so frei die rückanzupassen.
bielebog (2016-04-19 17:28:31+00:00): Umm, und Deine Wohnposition mit Emailadresse ist eigentlich auch ziemlich fehl am Platz in der Openstreetmap. Eine IT-Firma wiederum könnte man mappen mit office=it, name=*, etc., siehe http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:office
audiomobster (2016-04-19 19:03:23+00:00): Bin wohl etwas naiv an das Thema...
Die Email Adresse hab ich auch wieder raus genommen. Mach ich bei Zeiten vernünftig.
tuxayo (2016-07-09 18:01:57+00:00): Attention tu as donné un nom(name) à un arbre :-P
JeopardyTempest (2016-04-21 06:02:43+00:00): Hi DiGro, seems we're about the same mapping experience... bit confused by your highway addition here, but perhaps I don't know some keys about navigation-assistance?

There's already the two sides of the divided highway drawn in.  It doesn't look like a road down the middle to me... trees\median?  Can you please help me to understand why you put the road down the middle?  Thanks!
DiGro (2016-04-21 17:14:59+00:00): JeopardyTempest,

thanks for your mail.

I'm surprised the highway came in at all. I doubted about that highway and decided NOT to upload.
However, I must have made a mistake there and inadvertadly uploaded the highway.
I experienced some hick-ups with my computer and when I returned to the layer there was nothing there.

Please consider it not drawn on mij side. I couldn't make quiet out what exactly was on the ground and intended NOT to upload.. I guessed it was wide road with nothing in the middle, but it could very well have been a two lane way. My mistake.

Please feel free to remove my changeset. Apologies for the confusion I caused
JeopardyTempest (2016-04-22 13:49:14+00:00): No worries at all!  I've certainly made mistakes, and know computer troubles too :-)  You're out here helping!  Certainly nothing to be discouraged by, and thank you for responding and clearing up my confusion.  I was rather hesitant to delete it thinking maybe I was doing something wrong :-)

Keep on after the things that really matter,
To God be every glory,
Shane
djakk (2016-05-06 16:34:45+00:00): Salut, il aurait fallu attendre l'ouverture du contournement de la Guerche avant de déclasser la D178 … bon c'est pas trop grave, par contre il y a un truc grave, la continuité de la route est cassée à la limite sud de la déviation ! Ça touche le calcul d'itinéraire.
Minie-Mini (2016-05-06 19:09:08+00:00): La route sera définitivement fermée le 10 mai pour une réouverture normalement le 17 juin. J'ai un peu anticipé.
djakk (2016-05-07 11:36:47+00:00): ah oui j'ai lu ça ici : http://www.ille-et-vilaine.fr/fr/actualite/deviation-guerche-bretagne-et-rannee-derniers-travaux-avant-mise-en-circulation-en-juin

Bon j'ai rétabli quand même la continuité de la D178 pour 3 jours :)
SomeoneElse (2016-05-24 16:52:25+00:00): Hi,
Where exactly is the Carpet Remnant Stop?  I don't believe that it's on the pavement outside the golf shop (I'm sure that I'd have noticed) - presumably it's in one of the buildings nearby?
Best Regards,
Andy
The Carpet Remnant Stop (2016-05-25 08:59:08+00:00): Hi Andy
The Carpet Remnant Stop is located in the same building that was once Golfit. OpenStreetMaps should have replaced Golfit with The Carpet Remnant Stop.
SomeoneElse (2016-05-25 09:00:19+00:00): Thanks - I'll move it into that building when I get a chance.
redrace (2016-04-20 06:50:07+00:00): HUHU
Vielleicht sollte man noch bemerken, dass die Sperrung erstmal nur für drei Monate gilt.
HalverHahn (2016-04-21 18:26:47+00:00): Oh ja, danke für den Hinweis! Bin eigentlich selbst kein Freund von nur "kurzzeitigen" Änderungen / Baustellen, allerdings hier davon ausgegangen, dass die Regelung auch nach dem Test weiterbesteht.
Was schlägst du vor? Ein "note" an den beiden Pollern, oder die Durchfahrt der Poller per "temporary:access" nach dem Datum von 3 Monaten wieder freizugeben?
redrace (2016-04-21 18:35:20+00:00): Huhu 
Ich würde ein "note" setzen. Kontrollieren muss man beides nach drei Monaten.
Klioda (2019-04-27 17:06:16+00:00): А что за старая линия без тегов? Можно удалять?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/411721874
yaugenka (2019-04-27 17:23:41+00:00): на сколько помню, там граница города когда-то была. потом границу перенесли, а эту линию видимо забыли удалить. можно удалять.
user_5359 (2016-04-20 04:20:52+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please respect the 90-degree angle. And the changeset comment don't describe the changed objects, it describe only the working group.
opendcc (2016-04-19 16:31:45+00:00): Stand 17.04.: die alleresten Bauarbeiten sind angefangen. Wobei: die Querungsinsel auf freier Strecke finde ich grausam. Mal wieder ein Radweg, wie man sich ihn nicht wünscht ...
marcoSt (2016-04-20 19:04:58+00:00): Danke für die Infos. Ich werde die Strecke gleich auf construction stellen.  Zur Querungsinsel: Ja mei, da kann ich leider auch nichts machen. Das zuständige Straßenbauamt hat es so geplant, siehe Link oben. Da musst Du dich bei denen beschweren.