piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
aceman444 (2021-02-07 00:41:10+00:00): Zdravim, dakujem za aktualizacie, covered na prislusnych miestach vyzera spravne (aj ked to teda rozseka dost ciest). A v tom je prave problem. Nikdy nerozdelujte cesty, ktore su clenmi relacii hromadnej dopravy, s editorom iD, lebo ich spolahlivo znici:
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=17.10896&lat=48.14425&zoom=13&overlays=ptv2_routes_invalid,ptv2_error_,ptv2_error_ways,ptv2_error_nodes . Takuto demolaciu sme v MHD Bratislava uz davno nemali.
Illio (2021-02-07 10:38:29+00:00): Dofrasa, tak to neviem, prečo tak robí. Je to vec editora? Ako inak sa to dá spraviť?
aceman444 (2021-02-07 11:52:27+00:00): Ano je to chyba editora iD. Nezoradi novovytvorene cesty do relacii spravne, ale co je horsie, niekedy preusporiada aj ine useky ciest (napr. kde su slucky, zachadzky autobusu), ktore ste nemenili, cize ponici aj na inom mieste (tu napr. bus N80.

Nemozete za to a nemate to ako opravit (jedine s inym editorom). Opravil som to teda. Dakujem
*Martin* (2021-02-08 18:05:45+00:00): Skuste JOSM.
user_5359 (2021-01-29 16:24:18+00:00): Hello! Please have look on https://taginfo.osm.org/search?q=nvdb. Did you mean nvdb:id instead NVDB:RLID?
Balp (2021-02-06 17:46:07+00:00): Given the discussion about nvdb2osm i don't thing so. there are two different nvdb's one for sweden and one for norway with different id's. Using the same tag might be more confusing.
user_5359 (2021-02-06 18:06:49+00:00): It has become common practice to enter the country abbreviation for the ref key, which would then be ref:NO:nvdb and ref:SE:nvdb.

Thank you for pointing out this discussion.
NKA (2021-02-07 06:02:30+00:00): I do not think these id's should be stored in OSM at all. If the highway is altered in OSM, concatenated etc then the reference is not correct anymore. Also, if the id's in the database are updated to new ones, the reference is lost (this have happened twice during the last two years in Norway).
eggie (2021-01-28 21:04:11+00:00): Dag Eddy
In deze changeset zie ik geen overlappende landuse bij de Broekstraat.
gr eggie
eggie (2021-01-28 21:12:11+00:00): Verderop heb ik wel landuse hersteld en crossing waterways .
Die parkedits heb ik weer omgezet naar landuse forest (Witte Weide)  Mocht het echt een park zijn dan kan daar altijd nog een losse cover met leisure=park overheen. Dat is een transparant. Het zijn niet jouw edits.
eggie (2021-01-28 21:18:05+00:00): Een eind verder zit nog een foutje;  crossing waterways..  Maar die kom je vanzelf wel tegen.
eggie (2021-01-28 21:22:03+00:00): De Rozengaardse beek liep als duiker door naar de waterway=stream in het midden, maar die hoorde dus alleen door te lopen tot het vlak natural=water. Die heb ik afgesplitst en het laatste stukje tot de hoofdstroom is nu geen duiker,
De duiker eindigt nu dus op het vlak zolas het hoort. Weer een foutje minder.
eggie (2021-01-28 21:24:49+00:00): De duiker onder de broekstraat 'moet'je dus vastmaken aan het watervlak natural=water Die loopt te ver door.
Doe je dat zelf?
eggie (2021-01-28 21:26:49+00:00): De duiker bij de Wonninkhaagseweg heb ik vastgemaakt aan de watervlakken.
Edmundus (2021-01-29 16:55:06+00:00): Het klopt, nu krijg ik ook geen melding van overlappende stukken landuse. 
Op enkele plaatsen laat ik de duiker nu preciezer aansluiten. Maar dat gaat toch weer mis bij de plaats waar het pad is, komende van de Wonninkhaagseweg naar de Broekstraat, (rechts van het forest). Daar weer kruisende waterwegen. Hoe moet ik de node van de duiker en 'waterway=stream' verbinden aan het watervlak?
eggie (2021-01-29 16:58:24+00:00): Ik beweeg dan zo n kruisje op een lijnelement.. fat wordt dan een node. Dan leg ik de eindnode van bv zo n duiker op die andere node en druk op de M toets.
M is merge.
eggie (2021-01-29 16:58:58+00:00): Typo fat =dat
eggie (2021-01-29 17:07:52+00:00): Zie hier de sneltoetsen
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/9/99/JOSM_Keyboard_shortcuts_cheat_sheet.png
Belangrijkste toetsen
A lijn starten
G node losmaken
M node samenvoegen
S een als soort escape
P Splitsen van lijn Kan ook op twee plaatsen.
Edmundus (2021-01-29 18:26:48+00:00): Dank je voor het overzicht van letters. Merge had ik al gebruikt om twee stukken pad te verbinden. Maar zo kan het ook, zie ik.

Ik heb die verbinding van nodes aangebracht. Maar houd nog steeds de melding 'kruising van waterwegen'. Wat zou er nu nog fout zijn?
Groet van Eddy.
Edmundus (2021-01-29 18:37:54+00:00): Of toch niet fout? 
Nadat ik de wijzigingen had geüpdatet en JOSM opnieuw had opgestart, komt er bij de validatie nu geen melding van kruisende waterwegen !
Groet van Eddy.
eggie (2021-01-29 18:49:13+00:00): Op het moment dat je upload na herstelwerk en dan weer de validator draait zul je die fout niet meer zien. Fouten buiten het gebied negeer ik gewoon. Dat zijn er soms honderden.
De eerte upload zijn de fouten in je eigen edits. Draai je nog een keer de validator dan zie je alle fouten in de omgeving.
Die negeer ik.
Gr eggie
alessandrocarmeli (2021-02-06 23:56:43+00:00): ciao, come mai hai rimosso i nomi?
damjang (2021-02-07 19:15:25+00:00): Perché il nome va solo nella relazione route e non su ogni singola way (così non ci sono problemi di nomi differenti ed è molto meglio manutenere). L'unica cosa che resta sulle way è il ref.
alessandrocarmeli (2021-02-07 20:37:28+00:00): non sono d'accordo pienamente con te. nel senso che in realtà il nome della strada è proprio quello di conseguenza andrebbe. inserito, non trovi?
damjang (2021-02-07 22:27:19+00:00): non lo duplichiamo se c'è già nella relazione
Cascafico (2021-02-09 09:49:44+00:00): alessandrocarmeli, prendine atto: ha ragione damjang e se ne è parlato pure troppo.
alessandrocarmeli (2021-02-09 10:23:27+00:00): ma sono nomi ufficiali e vanno mantenuti come le altre autostrade italiane con i loro nomi
Cascafico (2021-02-11 12:28:19+00:00): Certamente che i nomi ufficiali vanno mantenuti, ma quello che stiamo cercando di dirti è che è meglio per tutti se li metti nella relazione.
alessandrocarmeli (2021-02-11 15:15:05+00:00): Sono già presenti nella relazione, io comunque mi baserò su le altre A italiane (qualsiasi cosa potete contattarmi carmeli.alessandro@yahooo.com)
kiaraSh-Q (2021-01-28 22:00:59+00:00): سلام، شما در این چنجست علاوه بر اینکه تعداد زیادی نود رو حذف کردین اقداماتی از قبیل استفاده از خطوط رسم شده‌ی سایر عوارض، برای مرزها و ریلیشنهای باندری کردین که با توجه به ویکی او اس ام این کار درست نیست و مرزها و ریلیشنهای باندری باید بصورت مجزا رسم بشن و حتی نقطه‌ی مشترک هم با سایر عوارض نداشته باشن.
kiaraSh-Q (2021-01-28 22:07:23+00:00): من یک بار دیگه از شما میخوام که قبل از اینکه هر گونه تغییری در ابعاد گسترده در دیتای موجود در نقشه ایجاد کنین با سایر مپرها هماهنگ باشین تا از صحت کاری که دارین انجام میدین هرچه مطمئنتر باشین. همه‌ی ما بعنوان یک گروه یک هدف مشخص بیشتر نداریم و اونم داشتن نقشه و دیتابیسی هرچه کاملتر و جامعتر از کشور عزیزمونه که بشه به ذره ذره‌ی اطلاعاتش در هر زمینه‌ای و برای هر استفاده‌ی مثبتی اتکا کرد. ممنون که ژرف می‌اندیشید و دقت میفرمائید.
farhad_y (2021-01-29 08:40:49+00:00): سلام
مرز بین استان کردستان و آ غربی در هیچ منبعی به این کل نیست.
مبنای رو رودخانه گذاشته بودند
من فقط در نقطه ای از مرز که قبلا جرو مرز دو استان بود تگ مرز اضافه کردم.
لطفا نسخه قبلی رو ملاحظه کنید
farhad_y (2021-01-29 08:41:38+00:00): حرف شما درسته من باید مرز رو دوباره رسم می کردم.
حتما اصلاح می کنم
farhad_y (2021-01-29 08:44:06+00:00): لطفا تاریخچه w344761796 رو ملاحظه بفرمایید
kiaraSh-Q (2021-01-31 18:02:14+00:00): بسیار عالی، پس باید در واقع من این کامنتها رو روی اون چنجست میذاشتم. اگه لطف کنین و روی اون چنجست کامنت بذارین و اشتباهات و مشکلات رو برای اون کاربر توضیح بدین ممنون میشم. من الان با گوشی هستم و کمی سخته بررسی دقیق و کامنت گذاشتن.
farhad_y (2021-01-31 19:25:43+00:00): دوستان گفتند که اون اصلاحات اون کاربر دارای اشکالات زیادیه.
 منم خودم به موارد مشابه خوردم. 
اون ها رو هم اصلاح می کنم.
معمولا جراحی این اشتباهات خیلی نتیجه نداره.
luiswoo (2021-01-28 21:20:22+00:00): Исправлять их тоже не нужно.
Warin61 (2021-01-30 04:23:18+00:00): Hi,

relationship outer ways cannot share segments. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=145.58316&lat=-37.89838&zoom=18. Any reason why this cannot be a simple way?
Mappo99 (2021-02-01 09:39:14+00:00): Hi, I did bugger it up a bit, it was pretty bad.  Sorry about that, thanks for your comment.  I have deleted it. Was actually trying to show that there are multiple campsites spread over the area. Will try again when I get the time.
felipeeugenio (2021-01-28 21:22:59+00:00): Estimado. por favor no poner parques dentro de los parques
felipeeugenio (2021-01-28 21:24:21+00:00): Además esos pedestrian con pasto no tienen sentido, es un dibujado para que se vea bonito el render? qué se supone que son?
felipeeugenio (2021-01-28 21:26:10+00:00): usar highway=footway para ese tipo de cosas
ZeLonewolf (2021-04-04 03:35:42+00:00): Hey, I noticed you used the tag riverbank=water which isn't a tag normally used (in fact it was the only one in the database!) -- it should be natural=water + water=river instead.
VLD087 (2021-04-05 16:54:46+00:00): Hello, I have noticed that the riverbank is now outdated. I will update those water features with these recommended tags.
Dawid2849 (2021-01-28 21:01:13+00:00): Dzięki, naprawiłem na szybko.
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-01-28 21:09:40+00:00): ja też :)
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-01-28 21:10:26+00:00): I w efekcie kilka następnych uwag otworzyłem...
Dawid2849 (2021-01-28 21:17:03+00:00): A, bym zapomniał... Dzięki za przypomnienie mi o landuse=railway, muszę to dodać w mojej okolicy bo na linię kolejową 66 i 65 nachodzi las...
ZeLonewolf (2021-04-19 03:02:35+00:00): Hello brucebruce,

Can you explain this object?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/901361357

I am not aware of any water hazard markings in this location, and I am planning to delete it, but I wanted to check with you first.
moreno96 (2021-01-28 21:08:30+00:00): Hello
Please write descriptions of your changesets in Persian or English in Iran
Kseniya_Nekrasava (2021-02-02 10:35:26+00:00): Hi! It's not correct edits - you added many drag nodes. Your changeset was reverted in there. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98570393
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98319925
jumbanho (2021-01-29 13:51:48+00:00): Hi, I appreciate your changes to the map, especially adding the correct names and access.  In this changeset, I noticed that you changed the access for motor vehicles from private to no.  I have seen vehicles on this road and been in a vehicle that was authorized to be on this road (many years ago).  Has access to all motor vehicles been removed?
dukeforest (2021-01-29 13:54:27+00:00): We are making consistent changes Forest-wide. Vehicular access is by staff vehicle or permit only. For all intensive purposes and for downstream apps "no" is correct.
dukeforest (2021-01-29 13:57:37+00:00): this is in alignment with the rules and regulations posted at the gates. If you think 'private' is a better tag, I will complete changesets and consider that on the next sweep.
jumbanho (2021-01-29 14:19:06+00:00): Thanks for your I've gone and read the wiki about the differences and I have to say it is difficult to parse which is better.  I personally think that "private" would be more accurate: you do allow your own vehicles on the road  and  it would indicate to other users that they may see vehicles on the road.  However, functionally, as you say, things probably don't matter.  I just wouldn't worry about it.
dukeforest (2021-01-29 14:23:36+00:00): Thank you James. I am making a note of this possibility of changing to "private" in our notes after this current sweep.
alesarrett (2021-02-28 09:47:27+00:00): Ciao. In questo changeset hai cancellato degli stalli per disabili che erano stati inseriti da un'associazione del territorio che sta cercando di mappare i parcheggi per disabili in tutta la Provincia di Trento. Sono informazioni di dettaglio importanti per chi ha necessità di sapere con precisione dove sono localizzati gli stalli riservati a persone con disabilità. Ho visto che hai aggiunto il tag capacity:disabled all'area di parcheggio, ma non è la stessa cosa. C'è qualche motivo specifico perché hai fatto questa cancellazione? Altrimenti ti chiederei di lasciare questi elementi di dettaglio o, se il problema è la localizzazione inesatta, di migliorarla.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98320255
Gabriele Bettega (2021-03-01 06:46:41+00:00): Ciao,
non c'è particolare motivazione per la mia modifica.
L'intera area parcheggi la ho digitalizzata da zero quando ho visto che mancava totalmente da mesi.
Non sono in grado di procedere al corretto inserimento e posizionamento dell'area degli stalli disabili.
Puoi aggiungere i tag corretti secondo quanto previsto?
Sono poco attivo su OSM e non conosco bene le dinamiche e implicazioni dei tag. 

Saluti
Gabriele
alesarrett (2021-03-01 07:06:27+00:00): Grazie per la risposta. Gli stalli verranno inseriti nuovamente. Il consiglio generale per la prossima volta comunque è di non cancellare elementi già inseriti da altri quando non si è sicuri di ciò che si sta facendo.
Gabriele Bettega (2021-03-01 10:12:13+00:00): Chiedo scusa, OSM è troppo complesso per me, commetto troppi errori di inserimento, credo che sia meglio che le modifiche siano effettivamente effettuate da chi è competente.
Gabriele Bettega (2021-03-01 10:20:11+00:00): Probabilmente sarebbe meglio fare un revert (sempre che si possa fare) al changeset precedente. Magari verranno persi alcuni dati da me inseriti ma non sarebbe importante.
alesarrett (2021-03-01 10:27:09+00:00): Tutti commettono piccoli errori, non c'è niente di strano né che debba scoraggiare la tua partecipazione.
Se non lo conosci, qui (https://learnosm.org/it/) trovi informazioni utili per approfondire.
Poi puoi tranquillamente iscriverti e chiedere consigli alla mailing list italiana (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it) o sul canale telegram (https://telegram.me/OpenStreetMapItalia).
C'è bisogno di tutti!
Glassman (2021-01-28 22:39:45+00:00): Nope - no Syringa there.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98320385
Glassman (2021-01-28 22:40:14+00:00): Or here
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98320385
BartekChom (2021-01-29 17:18:58+00:00): I am sorry. I just corrected tags. Maybe I should not change tags when I do not know the reality. If you have seen it, please correct.  (Was that not you who added this "lilac bush", undeleted it and corrected the tags a few times?)
tarta (2021-01-28 23:21:20+00:00): Obrigado pela edição, logo logo vou fazer um survey e ajustar o caminho
Road–Runner (2024-06-18 22:42:00+00:00): Hallo Hungerburg. Mit diesem https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=111980999 Änderungssatz wurden deine eingetragenen SAC Schwierigkeitsgrade verändert. Vielleicht willst du sie wiederherstellen? Die Serles war jedenfalls mal falsch und ich hab sie auf deinen Zustand zurückgesetzt.
Hungerburg (2024-06-19 17:54:31+00:00): Als ich das damals bemerkt hab ich nachgeschaut. Ich hab keine Zweifel dass rubiniums das alles abgegangen ist und sich ein Bild davon gemacht hat. Der mapper ist auch sonst viel in den Bergen, eventuell sogar ein Wanderführer. Ich sehe keinen Grund seine Einträge zu überarbeiten oder etwas zurückzusetzen. Am Sonnensteinweg den ich ersterfasst hab da gibt es eine Schlüsselstelle die sicher T4 rechtfertigt. Bei der Serles bin ich mir nicht so sicher, die war aber schon einmal T4 bevor ich T3 draus gemacht hab. Ich neige wohl zum Untertreiben. Mehr stört mich dass hier das proposed entfernt wurde, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/901367836/history - Ich hab nicht übel Laune, glaub nicht dass dort inzwischen ein sichtbarer Weg ist.
Road–Runner (2024-06-26 20:07:31+00:00): Die Serles ist auch in der Literatur als T3 eingetragen.

Man könnte zumindest den SAC Scale bei diesem proposed Abschnitt hinzufügen.
ToniE (2021-01-29 09:57:17+00:00): Salut Furdien,

I found 2 route_master and also 2 already existing route relations for that bus.

Is the current status OK?

J'ai trouvé 2 route_master et aussi 2 relations de parcours déjà existantes pour ce bus.

L'état actuel est-il correct ?

https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/results/FR/IDF/FR-IDF-busval-d-oise-Analysis.html#bus_95-23

Best regards
Toni
Furdrien (2021-01-29 10:16:05+00:00): Bonjour ToniE

Merci pour votre vigilance !

Les relations :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9887152#map=17/49.04507/2.09262
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9887150
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9887151 
Ne sont pas correcte, je devrait les supprimer d'ici peu.

Bien à Vous !

Furdrien
ToniE (2021-01-29 10:21:16+00:00): Avec plaisir!
trigpoint (2021-02-02 07:42:27+00:00): Again where are you sourcing your gps data from? As the sources you have used for this edit are clearly outdated. The smart motorway work which is described in previous changesets is still ongoing. When making such changes it is always wise to read the comments made by mappers with local knowledge.

Please comply with the organised editing guidelines as previously requested,.

I have reverted this changeset.

Cheers Phil
Cristoffs (2021-10-10 18:47:35+00:00): Czy wiesz, że zdublowałeś ponad 80 pkt adresowych? Przed dodaniem trzeba sprawdzać jak poprawnie się dodaje obiekty. Poprawisz?
com2andos (2021-10-11 06:28:01+00:00): Poprawię
SomeoneElse (2021-02-02 19:42:46+00:00): Hello,
I'm currently looking at the changes introduced in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98460488 (see also https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=98460488 ).  It looks like the same editor as http://osm.org/user/Fartsakh and http://osm.org/user/Russian%20Peacekeeper .  I've tried asking why the change was made and got no reply, but wondered if you had any thoughts on it?
Best Regards,
Andy
syntex (2021-02-02 21:10:50+00:00): The changeset comment is exactly the same in all 3 of the accounts so I guess it is the same user again
syntex (2021-02-02 21:22:35+00:00): Even the name Fartsakh -> Fart and Artsakh means that this guy is not serious.
syntex (2021-02-02 21:26:18+00:00): Reverted https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/98602602
SomeoneElse (2021-02-16 21:44:28+00:00): Just for info, I've reverted some edits in the area that deleted lots of names and relations.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99405481 and the two following changesets.
Best Regards,
Andy
syntex (2021-02-16 23:54:24+00:00): Thank you very much. I only reverted two of his changesets in which he broke the crucial road there. He made like one change per changeset so using only josm reverter to fix all of his changesets would be almost impossible. Thanks again.
SomeoneElse (2021-02-17 09:49:28+00:00): I can see that the new user is editing roads again, so there might be something to check there.
Best Regards,
Andy
syntex (2021-02-17 13:09:19+00:00): I reported him a few days ago. Why is he not banned yet? He contributes nothing except breaking data and deleting names?
SomeoneElse (2021-02-17 13:30:12+00:00): That message hasn't reached the DWG yet - email data@openstreetmap.org to get a quicker response.
syntex (2021-02-17 14:11:37+00:00): Well, I've checked his most recent changesets and it only changed the name of the Lacin-Shusha road which is contested? So i guess maybe the road should not have a name at all for now or have both names. And also a minor border change. So I guess these recent changesets are not as harmful as the previous ones. But he gave no source for the border change there.
SomeoneElse (2021-03-22 12:00:01+00:00): Interestingly a "new" mapper has popped up with https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101461834 .  I've not found a broken relation yet, but it probably needs investigating in more detail.
syntex (2021-03-22 14:35:53+00:00): I guess it is the same user again, and again he is just changing the shape of the border without any source
syntex (2021-03-22 14:37:36+00:00): His changesets should be reverted
syntex (2021-03-22 14:40:35+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Tatul123
syntex (2021-03-22 15:08:21+00:00): Oh no, reverting that will be harder than I thought. We missed this account https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/MC%20Karabakh, which also made the same changes to the border and these changesets also should be reverted
SomeoneElse (2021-03-22 16:35:43+00:00): When doing the revert I can lump in any other problem users at the same time.  I think I've already reverted some of MC Karabakh's changes (or perhaps a similarly named one?), even though they haven't been blocked.
SomeoneElse (2021-03-22 23:31:40+00:00): Done (47513, karabakhbulletin, Tatul123) in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101533316 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/101533372 . That leaves MC Karabakh.  That was a while ago, and I think I've partly reverted that already.  Is there any more to do for that?
syntex (2021-03-22 23:43:02+00:00): The shape of the border now looks correct, so for now it is done. Thx
syntex (2021-03-23 00:02:09+00:00): Should we also add the missing exclaves?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia–Azerbaijan_border
Yakari (kleiner Indianer) (2023-02-14 11:19:11+00:00): Ty potoky si když tak projdu, mám to tu poblíž, ale tady bych to už uzavřel.
DressyPear4 (2021-01-29 17:38:31+00:00): Claramente não há parque nesse local
A Hall (2022-04-22 02:52:30+00:00): Should this have an Admin level? Looks like Cary was unincorporated in 2019 and joined Maine's Unorganized Territory.
A Hall (2022-04-22 11:23:38+00:00): I slept on it. You can ignore my comment.
GinaroZ (2021-01-31 00:08:17+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for the edits in this area.
Do you know the names of these churches?
And do you know if this hotel is still open? (even prior to Covid) https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1607762
felipeeugenio (2021-01-28 22:56:11+00:00): Estimado. porque usa line=grass?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98322881
salve100 (2021-01-28 23:00:13+00:00): se me olvido borrar el tag de el land
Reeniz (2021-01-28 23:03:52+00:00): si necesitas ayuda con los multipoligonos. No dudes en hablarme
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98322881
s8evq (2021-01-29 07:43:11+00:00): dag josv,

zou het kunnen dat je hier een foute tag toegevoegd heb? Ten = Torre?
Ik zal die verwijderen, OK?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98323219
s8evq (2021-01-29 07:43:55+00:00): PS: Heb je ook mijn andere changeset comment gelezen over het nut van addr:city and addr:postalcode?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/98323219
tarta (2021-01-28 23:44:45+00:00): eduaddad, essa edição está errada, a ferrovia encontras-se sobre a mesma via que antes era a ponte que servia para o trafego de veículos, essa edição precisa se desfeita.
eduardoaddad (2021-01-29 02:22:02+00:00): A ponte ainda continua somente a passagem de carro e esse trecho do trem está sem os trilhos
tarta (2021-01-29 02:25:08+00:00): Ainda que os carros ainda estejam passando no trecho, os trilhos ainda estão lá, isso eu verifiquei in loco.
eduardoaddad (2021-01-29 02:28:34+00:00): Você foi no local para ver ?
eduardoaddad (2021-01-29 02:29:57+00:00): Na foto do Dnit não aprece os trilhos na ponte
https://www.instagram.com/p/CKl6yyEsLJc/?igshid=zn05vn6rn5ut
tarta (2021-01-29 02:34:21+00:00): Sim, já fui no local para ver nessa foto está muito distante e realmente não dá para ver, porém, se for de carro vai dar para ver em vários pontos o desgaste do asfalto mostra que os trilhos estão lá. Na cabeceira da ponte do lado de Sergipe você precisa reduzir a velocidade por conta dos trilhos, coisa que não acontece do lado de Alagoas.
O local exato onde estava a conceção entre o trilho e a rodovia era onde começava a interseção dos trilhos e rodovia.
eduardoaddad (2021-01-29 02:43:55+00:00): Vou voltar como era antes amanhã na questão do trilho