piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
escada (2016-09-22 03:58:32+00:00): Hallo,

Is het niet vreemd dat een drinkwaterfonteintje ook daadwerkelijk zo noemt ? Is amenity=drinking_water niet voldoende ?
Warin61 (2016-06-12 22:33:00+00:00): Hi,
node 2817433908 appears to be 4 pitches here (using bing imagery) .. but what kind of football? soccer?
Michaela Wheeler (2016-06-12 23:36:04+00:00): Rugby, soccer and afl are played here
Warin61 (2016-06-14 09:37:34+00:00): Ok, I have place this node into a way that I made from bing, and placed appropriate tags on the way. I then copied this way 3 times to show what is evident in bing imagery. AFL is usually played on a pitch with an oval shape .. all these pitches are rectangular? Anyway .. makes the map look better.
Nakaner (2016-02-07 16:34:38+00:00): Erinnerst du dich noch, was du mit ref=de.db.duesseldorfbenrath ausdrücken wolltest? Ich wüsste nicht, dass die DB ein Java-artiges Namespace-Schema verwendet. ;-)
rurseekatze (2016-02-07 17:00:32+00:00): Interessant... Bewusst habe ich das nicht getaggt. Vermutlich ist das durch die Autovervollständigung in JOSM entstanden. Eigentlich kann das Tag aber ganz weg, weil eine Bahnsteignummer am Betriebsstellennode wenig Sinn macht.

Das de.db.duesseldorfbenrath kommt glaube ich daher, dass irgendein User (kann sein, dass es Netzwolf war), mal vor hatte, ÖPNV-Haltestellen mit einer einheitlichen Referenz zu versehen. Testweise hatte er das mal relativ flächendeckend in seiner Gegend umgesetzt.
Ollypsilon (2015-11-03 07:56:24+00:00): Moin! Die Stockstraße müsste doch anders getagged sein, oder? Ist doch asphaltiert und kein Schotter.
Basstoelpel (2020-07-26 08:46:44+00:00): Hi JaviCru,

can you please explain what you wanted to express by tagging a lot of power pylons with tower=air_to_ground?

Regards,

Baßtölpel
JaviCru (2020-07-26 11:49:10+00:00): Hi Baßtölpel,

6 years ago I used to use JOSM software to edit the map. At that time the default tag for medium and high voltage towers was tower=air_to_ground. I have just seen that, one year later, this tag was removed and replaced by tower=transition.
(https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11344)

I don't know if there is another more updated tag, since I haven't edited maps for a long time.

Regards.
JaviCru (2020-07-26 11:54:09+00:00): I have also just noticed that this label refers to sections where the power line runs underground. I do not know in which towers I made the change right now, but I think it should be removed since I do not remember any section underground.

Sorry about this issue.
arvdk (2018-04-26 20:20:43+00:00): Goede avond,
Ik mis een bron voor uw toevoeging. Kunt u aangeven uit welke bron u way 277471541 heeft toegevoegd? Verder zou ik het erg op prijs stellen als u de moeite neemt uw aanpassingen kort te beschrijven, zodat andere mappers snel kunnen zien wat u gedaan heeft. Het blijft een samenwerkings-project. Bedankt!
padvinder (2018-04-27 01:01:14+00:00): lopend aan de overkant over de kade zag ik indertijd dat jer er kon lopen. Luchtfoto's (ik weet niet meer welke) bestudeerd en gedaan... Intussen zie ik via PDOK en ESRI dat de aansluitende Hekkenkade niet meer kan omdat die kade bij de Hennepakkers is doorgraven voor brede sloot. Er is geen brug gekomen zo te zien. Ik haal die verbinding weg. Zonder die verbinding via de Hekkenkade heeft de mogelijkheid over de zuidwestoever van de Bergvliet naast de mogelijkheid op de noordoostoever geen meerwaarde. Dan kan die ook weg.
arvdk (2018-04-27 08:13:25+00:00): Bedankt voor de reactie en de ondernomen actie. Aanleiding voor de vraag was mijn survey (Mapillary: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/1Bs4Wxn8B9niI4r66jcy8A). Ik ben tevreden met de oplossing.
ksairus (2014-11-05 18:00:27+00:00): улица Кузьмина
dgitto (2017-07-20 08:26:30+00:00): Ma per cosa sta "V.". Se lo sai è una cattiveria non espandere le abbreviazioni :-)
zstadler (2017-03-27 13:16:47+00:00): Way
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277532829
has no tags. What is it?
zstadler (2021-07-11 13:29:35+00:00): Removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/50227164
luschi (2016-12-19 18:20:12+00:00): Bitte sieh dir die Windräder noch ein mal an.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/629457
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-02-24 02:07:34+00:00): Hej
Źle stosujesz tag noexit=yes - ten tago powinien być użyty na końcu drogi, a nie w środku. Polecam lekturę: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:noexit
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-07-04 20:03:56+00:00): Poprawiono położenie budynków, powiadasz... no to gratuluję, bo poprzesuwałeś je do podkładu binga, który w Połańcu jest totalnie przesunięty.
217541OSM (2018-11-12 04:51:11+00:00): so you know, we tag street lights as highway=street_lamp not highway=street_light
berndw (2019-07-29 07:21:06+00:00): Hallo maphnsj

Anscheinend ist das hier nicht die Nummer 2a, sondern das Haus östlich des Seniorenheims.

Kümmerts Du dich drum?
Ich komme da bis auf weiteres nicht hin

Bernd
berndw (2019-07-29 07:21:28+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/21981229#map=19/50.50738/7.32908&layers=ND
Basstoelpel (2020-12-05 14:16:45+00:00): PV-Anlage ist kein Eigenname. Die Eigenschaft geht schon aus den tags hervor.

Gruß,

Baßtölpel
Polarbear (2015-01-04 19:43:35+00:00): Hi - whatever changes you make to improve cycleway tagging, you must leave a 'highway' tag on it, otherwise it disappears completely. 

I have fixed those 6 ways by adding highway=path
997 (2015-11-23 11:33:38+00:00): Graag zouden we op adres Abe Lenstra Boulevard de volgende gegevens toegevoegd zien:
Zethoven Bouwplan Groep
Nakaner (2015-08-01 07:24:48+00:00): Da stimmt irgendetwas nicht?! Du taggst railway:signal:speed_limit:speed=100, aber die nachfolgenden Ways in die passende Richtung sind mit maxspeed=90 getaggt. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2822219961/history
bigbug21 (2015-08-01 09:49:59+00:00): Danke, ist korrigiert.
jmapb (2022-05-13 14:22:11+00:00): see comments in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20449020
SomeoneElse (2015-01-04 11:08:57+00:00): Please don't copy everything you see written on OS_OpenData_StreetView to OSM as a "locality".

You've added lots and lots of these, many of which are simply wrong, unverifiable, or something else entirely.  See for example

http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/295997
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/295994
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/295992
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27906223#map=19/53.10736/-0.52970&layers=N

(but there are many others).

A locality marked on an OS map shows that something was there once, not that there is something there now.  If you believed the OS the village that I live in is actually composed of 5 or more different villages/hamlets/localities.  It's not - there are 2.  Where something is marked (like "The Smoots" above) it's not always a locality.  In this case it's signed as a street name to the south, and a proper survey would have found this.  Personally I wouldn't add "locality names" from OS_OpenData_StreetView unless I've been to the area and had a look at what it might refer to (if anything).  If the locality name still is in use then there'll normally be some residual information on the ground (house names, farm names, that sort of thing).

Cheers,

Andy

(sent in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the Data Working Group)
Gerben van Eerten (2019-01-11 11:32:44+00:00): Deze set bevat veel paden door weilanden. Zoals Way:7300528, vanaf de Middelblok 77 / 79 in Gouderak. Deze loopt eerst tussen huizen door, langs een schuur, door twee hekken en vervolgens over weilanden. Zijn dit daadwerkelijk publiekelijk toegankelijke paden?
padvinder (2019-01-11 15:31:27+00:00): niet noodzakelijk
Gerben van Eerten (2019-01-11 15:42:01+00:00): Hoe bedoel je? Zijn dit soms toegankelijke passen en soms ontoegankelijke paden? Voor o.a. navigatie software is het belangrijk dat privé paden als dusdanig worden gemarkeerd. Anders loopt Jan en alleman privé terrein op.
Gerben van Eerten (2019-01-14 14:21:24+00:00): Iemand die er vlak bij woont beweert dat het om een weiland gaat en beslist geen wandelpad is. Op basis van die informatie ben ik geneigd om de paden als access=private te taggen. Mee eens?
padvinder (2019-01-14 16:01:34+00:00): Trajecten over een erf zijn natuurlijk altijd private. Dat geef ik in principe meestal ook aan... Soms vergeten. Als een verbinding over het land alleen bereikt kan worden via een erf, dan moet hij inderdaad als 'private' worden aangemerkt. Prima, als je dat wilt invoeren.
naoliv (2016-01-11 12:26:19+00:00): O que você utilizou para ter "(SELECT numero FROM pg_repasse WHERE id = (SELECT id_pg FROM sub_pg_repasse WHERE id_repasse = b.id_repasse LIMIT 1)) cheque," como source de vários caminhos?
Rneves (2016-01-11 14:01:10+00:00): Eu estava fazendo uma edição em bloco e deixei o source por ultimo, colando a informação que era a mesma para todos os registros editados (source:geometry="Bing" + source:name="IBGE").

Devo ter parada para resolver o caso de um cliente e acabei trocando a informação sem perceber.

Vou providenciar a correção.  imediatamente,
Rneves (2016-01-11 20:43:27+00:00): Correções do changeset 22011628 efetuadas.
naoliv (2016-01-11 20:44:52+00:00): Obrigado!
Abraço!
Peter Dobratz (2015-09-24 01:14:07+00:00): I'm thinking about how to update this route relation to use the new public transport schema.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport

There would be 2 route relations for this: 1 for each direction.  The route relations would have the stops (role of "stop") and platforms (role of "platform") interleaved in the order that they occur followed by the Ways in order that represent the rails that the the route traverses (role is empty).

These 2 route relations would then be added to a relation of type route_master.

What would be missing from what's currently there are the members with role "yard", "yard access", and "siding."  Is it okay with you if these get removed from the route relation for the train route?

I can't find anything on the wiki that supports the current tagging with those roles.
Grant Humphries (2015-09-24 18:02:17+00:00): I need some way to identify all of the tracks that are used by WES trains.  In the case of the yard it shouldn't be a problem to remove those features from the relation because their 'name' tag identifies them as being a part of WES.  However there are a couple of cases where removing siding-type tracks would be problematic for me:  This is one example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/124601808  I can't really put the name 'WES' on that track because it primarily part of the Portland and Western Railroad and if it can't be in the WES relation I don't know how to identify it.  Maybe through the creation of a third relation for siding, etc. that is part of the master relation?  

Thanks taking the time to ask me about this btw and if you'd be willing to give me a heads up if you go ahead and make changes it would be much appreciated, as I have some code that relies on the WES relation that I'll need to adjust.
Peter Dobratz (2015-09-24 19:18:13+00:00): I'm not in a huge rush to change the tagging and I'm still trying to figure out exactly how this should be tagged.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging#Railway_lines

It looks like you can actually have 3 separate types of route relations (type=route) for railways: route=tracks, route=railway, route=train.

However, I'm not sure that the tracks you are looking for would be in any of the route relations.  route=tracks and route=railway state that "Only the mainline should be included, with sidings and spurs being excluded."  The route=train only includes Ways that the train actually travels on during it's normal service between the first and last stop.

As detailed as the OpenRailWayMap Tagging page is, it doesn't appear that they have thought of a way to put spurs and sidings into a route relation.
pdxrider (2017-08-10 11:12:20+00:00): Hi guys, just an update. At least a year ago, Madeline Steele in changeset 40072273 removed the yard/siding members from the relation. "trimet:auxiliary=WES" was added to those ways so they could be associated with WES. The relation is ready to be converted to public_transport v2 format. Just warning you guys in case that happens.
dikkeknodel (2018-05-14 07:13:32+00:00): Hi Simon,
This was a while ago, so you may not remember. You removed the node for Pragelpass next to the Pragelpass-Denkmal (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2425350426) and left the Pass node close to the restaurant (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1533696169). I was there this weekend, and think it should actually be the other way around. I checked with both a barometric elevation measurement and and inclination measurement on my compass, the elevation at the position of the current node for Pragelpass is about 5 m below the elevation of the road next to the Denkmal. 
Therefor I think the node should be moved. Since you state Bing as a source in this changeset I suppose you did not do the measurements on location. 

Do you agree with the with the change?

Cheers,
dikkeknodel
SimonPoole (2018-05-14 08:16:00+00:00): I'm fairly sure that at the time it was simply a question of there being two nodes claiming to be the Pragelpass one with correct tagging and the locality one. And I simply potentially chose the the wrong one to remove. Please feel free to move the pass node (normally there should be a sign indicating where the official location of the pass is, but the last time I cycled over the Pragel is something like 10 years back or so, so I really can't remember :-)).
dikkeknodel (2018-05-14 08:41:44+00:00): Hi Simon,
Thanks for getting back this quickly. There is a 2m high statue with a plaque remembering the 1970-74 working years to finish the Passstrasse. It doesn't exactly say it's at Passhöhe, but it's pretty obvious when you're there. I move the pass node to this place, trying to maintain the OSM history.

Cheers,
dikkeknodel
dikkeknodel (2018-05-16 09:16:49+00:00): Done: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/58978320
eggie (2021-02-27 07:13:46+00:00): Na jaren weer een bijdrage daarom opnieuw Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 
namens de OSM Community
frosm (2019-08-10 12:16:45+00:00): bonjour,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2824446959
l'image sat ne montre aucune église à cet endroit, uniquement un champs
n'y aurait-il pas erreur de localisation avec https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68894549 ?
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-23 21:21:58+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/130657658/history has MP=73.551 key that was added in this edit (if I checked things correctly)
What you intended to express by using this unusual key? Is this tag needed? Or maybe can it be expressed in a more typical way that would be easier to understand?
kuhni74 (2025-03-10 09:57:44+00:00): Zum Nibelungenviertel: an sich ist das ja zumindest laut https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibelungenviertel geographisch exakt definiert (Gablenzgasse - Stutterheimgasse - Preysinggasse - Hütteldorfer Straße - Vogelweidplatz) - wäre es nicht sinnvoll, einen landuse so zu benennen, z.B. durch Herauslösung aus https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/403515320?
skunk (2025-03-10 10:07:48+00:00): Wow, ein 11 Jahre altes Changeset :-)

Nun, jetzt ist "Nibelungenviertel" ein place=neighbourhood. Laut Wiki-Seite dürfte das auch eine Fläche sein ...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/918045038
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:place=neighbourhood
kuhni74 (2025-03-10 12:47:33+00:00): Ja, eben. Erachtest Du es als sinnvoll, von Punkt auf Fläche zu wechseln? Mir ist kürzlich aufgefallen, als ich ein Objekt knapp außerhalb des N.v. suchte, dass es mir von Nominatim als N.v. verkauft wurde. Nominatim nimmt wohl den nächsten übergeordneten place-node her, oder?
mnalis ALTernative (2025-04-16 14:03:47+00:00): Uh, mislim da statue "Dječak" nije taj "Manneken Pis", nego je to bio šaljivi (obzirom na poznatu originalnu turističku lokaciju sa sličnim kipićem) loc_name, pa sam maknuo i subject i subject:wikidata. Artist je valjda OK?
utack (2016-01-27 17:58:39+00:00): Is the "turunc premium hotel" now opened? cheers
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/278105870
rupps (2016-01-28 16:43:36+00:00): I don't know. I haven't been there again - sorry.
utack (2016-01-28 16:44:02+00:00): Someone entered it yesterday :)
Warin61 (2018-10-10 04:09:55+00:00): Hi,

For Way: 278113429 you have tagged landuse=scrub.
Scrub is not a 'landuse', in OSM the tag to use is 'natural=scrub'.
wermak (2023-07-06 14:46:39+00:00): Hallo guegafue, 

zum von Dir hier eingetragenen Fußgängertunnel gibt es einen Hinweis, https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2727825.

Schöne Grüße
GerdP (2015-10-21 13:46:16+00:00): Bitte prüfen:
kann man hier nicht highway=no_path 
durch highway=path + trail_visibility=no
(oder horrible) ersetzen? Siehe
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility
zstadler (2017-03-27 10:12:05+00:00): Way
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/278180740
has no tags. What is it?
trial (2019-06-14 19:19:09+00:00): For https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/278188650 I gues you mean leisure=sauna instead of name=sauna
richardbrinkman (2019-06-14 20:00:48+00:00): I guess so. I only did the BAG import and merged existing tags into the buildings. So I did not placed the name=sauna tag myself.
trial (2019-06-14 20:10:55+00:00): Thanks, so I updated the way.
Map_HeRo (2026-03-15 18:28:45+00:00): Hallo bigbug21,
Du hast mit diesem CS der Halle am Bahnhof Wartha (way 194449235) den Namen "Strube" gegeben. Die Halle hat keinen Namen. Vor Ort ist nichts ersichtlich. Gibt es dafür eine Quelle. Eventuell eine Firma?
Gruß Mikke
bigbug21 (2026-03-15 21:02:43+00:00): Hallo Mikke,
der Änderungsdatensatz speiste sich aus Beobachtungen aus Zugfahrten vor zwölf Jahren. Vermutlich hatte ich damals eine entsprechende Anschrift auf der Halle aus einem Zug gesehen, die sich zwischenzeitlich geändert haben könnte.
Map_HeRo (2026-03-15 22:14:49+00:00): Ok, danke. Als ich da neulich vorbei bin, sah das ganz Gelände völlig verwaist aus. Fahre da in ein paar Tagen wieder vorbei und schaue mir das noch mal näher an.
Dakon (2015-06-24 16:17:33+00:00): Du hast an Knoten http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1789012288 sowie am daran angrenzenden Gleisstück und dem nächsten Knoten power:type=overhead neu gesetzt. Ich nehme an, an den Knoten war das ein Versehen und an das Gleisstück sollte electrified=contact_line?
bigbug21 (2015-06-24 20:03:05+00:00): Ja, das stimmt. Danke für den Tipp!
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-08-12 14:33:52+00:00): esta importación parece haberse hecho mal, múltiples duplicaciones: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2826857820
erickdeoliveiraleal (2023-09-25 16:36:31+00:00): isto é uma importação?
user_5359 (2016-07-02 06:03:14+00:00): Hello! I have delete the address from the highway. Please try again to mark the right location of the address.
GerdP (2015-11-13 16:25:59+00:00): please explain:
what is meant with 
way=yes ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/278365183
cityeditor1000 (2015-11-13 16:48:08+00:00): way=yes is used where the area is navigable and is included so that routing software will treat this as an area that can be crossed.
GerdP (2015-11-13 16:50:35+00:00): I would use 
highway=pedestrian or highway=footway with area=yes for this. 
Which routing software supports way=yes?
It is rarely used.
cityeditor1000 (2015-11-13 17:03:14+00:00): I think the wiki may have been updated since I made this changeset, agreed that this should have highway=pedestrian
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-09 09:55:43+00:00): Hello!

You used
mtb:scale:uphill=4;6
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/141325669/history

Have you maybe meant
mtb:scale:uphill=5
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?

If it is a mistake - can you fix it?
eggie (2023-03-29 21:37:42+00:00): Na jaren weer een bijdrage, maar nog geen welkomstmail ontvangen...  bij deze alsnog Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
EugenyN (2015-07-08 14:02:04+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/393092#map=16/50.9798/39.3314&layers=N
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-10-17 09:45:04+00:00): Dzięki za mapowanie tego szlaku! Wczoraj się przydał na przejażdżce rowerowej.
ndmystko (2021-10-23 14:59:24+00:00): Dzięki! To zabawne bo przeczytałem Twoją wiadomość gdy szedłem GSB ustalając nowy przebieg koło Bartnego :)
Nmxosm (2018-10-22 14:23:03+00:00): Hallo annabell,

ich habe gesehen, dass Tim1977 in dem Änderungssatz https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/63758864 einen Bücherschrank mit amenity=public_bookcase erstellt hat. Laut Wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_bookcase) wäre das die passendere Beschreibung.

Bitte ziehe eine Änderung zu diesem Tag in Erwägung.

VlG Nmxosm
Nmxosm (2018-11-27 06:48:04+00:00): Ich habe den Bücherschrank jetzt mit amenity=public_bookcase getaggt: https://www.osm.org/changeset/64817860
IpswichMapper (2020-10-27 15:38:56+00:00): Hello. In this changeset you marked "Bridge Street" ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/664808574 ) as having 1.5 lanes. What is this supposed to mean? Does it indicate a narrowed lane? (In this case there are probably better ways to map it).
TheDutchMan13 (2018-09-14 03:23:43+00:00): Please don't forget to add a descriptive changeset comment so the rest of the osm community knows what you edited :)
naoliv (2015-06-14 05:27:24+00:00): Jean, de onde você obteve os nomes das ruas?
Elas estão idênticas aos nomes do Google, diferindo em detalhes do IBGE (e de outros mapas comerciais)
jeancz (2015-06-14 21:36:45+00:00): Boa noite, quando eu comecei a mapear Ituverava, eu pegava o nome pelo Bing. Depois que eu descobri o mapa do Ibge, hoje eu sempre utilizo este mapa. Fique a vontade para corrigir. A idéia é justamente, colaborar para tornar este mapa muito melhor.
SomeoneElse (2015-10-10 10:50:10+00:00): Hello, I think that something's gone a bit wrong with the tagging of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/278742748/history . Currently it has "yes=no". I'm guessing that perhaps that happened when trying to change "tiger:reviewed=no" to "tiger:reviewed=yes"?
KristenK (2015-10-13 00:18:21+00:00): fixed here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34601896


thanks
AMDmi3 (2015-06-18 09:51:57+00:00): А точно в Первомайском улица Кислова, а не переулок?

http://kladr-rf.ru/01/004/000/035/
alfamapper (2017-12-13 16:34:49+00:00): Полигон села Большая Раковка https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/278568113 имеет дубль https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/344510451 и, второй вариант соответствует границам НП на схеме территориального планирования.
NetWormKido (2017-12-13 17:01:40+00:00): Спасибо. Кто-то вместо уточнения имеющейся границы запилил новую, а старую не стёр. Поправил.
Владимир К (2017-03-29 07:26:52+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:parking:lane&uselang=ru#Specifying_the_parking_conditions_.28terms.29

тут написано, что эти теги вешаются на линию дороги. А если полигоном нарисовано, то надо amenity=parking
eggie (2018-05-30 14:29:16+00:00): Nooit een wekkomstmail ontvangen zie ik.. bij deze alsnog.. Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privébericht.
user_2462344 (2022-08-22 16:06:08+00:00): Hi there, I noticed a parking in the middle of trees, there : 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/13.789987996847431/107.0002738538289 . Shall we delete it ?
andi9876 (2022-08-22 16:18:19+00:00): Hi.
I remember, this waterfall is hard to find, and true, at this place is a possibility to parking car/ moto. I been there.
Cheers.
FraukeLeo (2021-12-23 17:15:23+00:00): Hi DennisL, von diesen Abbiegeverboten habe ich heute beim durchfahren nichts gesehen. Auch keinen Grund dafür. War das vielleicht nur vorübergehend und kann weg?
DennisL (2021-12-23 17:22:40+00:00): Hi FraukeLeo, danke für Deine Nachricht. Das Abbiegen (Fahrräder ausgenommen) ist immer noch an der Stelle verboten. 😉 Viele Grüße, Dennis