piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
rjss (2016-08-23 03:31:37+00:00): This is the entrance to a condo (community). The road you see attached in this node to Ashford Dunwoody do not have a name. All condo units have the same address.
user_5359 (2016-08-23 04:07:35+00:00): In these case the main building or the office building get the address. It will ne nice if you can add the property of the condo. Please read http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcommunity_centre .
rjss (2016-08-28 01:49:51+00:00): Name added. No main or office building though.
AndersAndersson (2016-08-10 10:20:19+00:00): Renderingen av kartan går långsammare än vad det har gjort tidigare, så ändringarna kan ta rätt många timmar innan dom syns nu.
trigpoint (2016-08-10 12:01:13+00:00): Has Viva really become a Costa?
If it has it should no longer be tagged as a restaurant but as a cafe with cuisine=coffee.
Cheers Phil
EdLoach (2016-08-10 12:14:16+00:00): Also, has "The Filling Station" become "Beatles" - the FHRS data extract from yesterday suggests not?
Derick Rethans (2016-08-10 12:27:49+00:00): Phil, Maps.me doesn't allow you to change category ...
Kenneth Gafa (2016-08-10 15:10:35+00:00): Sorry but I do not have an idea about "The Filling Station"
trigpoint (2016-08-10 15:23:40+00:00): Hi Kenneth, was there a fast food place called Beatles when you were in Liverpool?
Have you some more details if so?
Cheers Phil
Kenneth Gafa (2016-08-10 15:29:13+00:00): Trigpoint, I do not recall such a place but in Liverpool The Beatles are mentioned at every corner. When I was there I ate at Nando's and TGI.
SomeoneElse (2016-08-15 13:01:02+00:00): It's already been changed back, but I'm pretty sure The Filling Station was still called that when I walked past it a couple of months ago.
user_870861 (2016-08-11 06:22:33+00:00): hi,
there is some duplicated ways from this changeset : 
- ways with excactly the same geometry (but with differents nodes)
- and exactly the same tags
you can see issues there :
http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/fr/map/#zoom=16&lat=50.65079&lon=17.90357&item=1230&level=1
user_870861 (2016-09-07 07:27:30+00:00): it now fixed by several changesets ; last is  
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/41972578
LivingWithDragons (2016-12-21 22:20:37+00:00): Great start. Thanks for continuing the work I did North of here.
BCNorwich (2016-08-10 12:49:50+00:00): I think you've got this cafe in the wrong place, it is already mapped under the parent company name of Benugo at 33 Commercial Road. Your POI should therefore be removed.
Derick Rethans (2016-08-20 08:53:49+00:00): I've reverted it.
SammysHP (2016-08-13 10:46:40+00:00): Ich habe mal die ganzen redundanten Kameras und die falschen/überflüssigen Tags entfernt.
Supaplex (2016-08-24 10:26:01+00:00): 恭喜您透過 Maps.Me 完成第一次的地圖編輯！ 歡迎加入開放街圖，群眾共同參與，繪製生活週遭大家關心事物的共編地圖。Maps.Me App 採用開放街圖的地理資料，由社群而非商業公司建置的地理資料庫。以下是相關的參考資料，歡迎隨時指教與提問。

編輯須知
台灣的標示依循準則可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taiwan
常見的圖徵標示方式可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features

由於Maps.Me隨著軟體更新更新最新地圖，App裡的地圖資料版本可能略舊，透過Maps.Me增添商家等資料時有可能開放街圖上已經有了，請到http://www.osm.org 網站看是否要加的商家有沒有人加上去了。

台灣社群網站
台灣 OpenStreetMap 網站 http://www.openstreetmap.tw
台灣社群Facebook社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Slack https://osm-tw.signup.team/

Happy Mapping!
Alecs01 (2016-08-12 11:49:22+00:00): Ciao e benvenuto, shop=outdoor è un negozio di articoli sportivi, non un centro sportivo, ho corretto
user_242798 (2016-09-17 20:14:52+00:00): A bridge should always have [layer=1] (or higher) set.
If not: crossing a waterway will result in an error: crossing waterway/highway.
Renderer will have to decide which one is on top. Yes, renderer will assume highway/bridge is above water. But mapper will have to make that clear by setting layer!
user_5359 (2016-10-09 16:33:47+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
user_242798 (2016-09-17 20:04:56+00:00): Please verify your work:
- Keep right!;
- OSM Inspector;
- Osmose.
Unconnected ways makes a new highway rather useless.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-08-11 22:20:14+00:00): removido
5m4u9 (2016-08-11 06:13:18+00:00): no private data
NGL-engel (2019-09-09 19:09:43+00:00): Hallo skorpion62, 
   diesem Teilstück der Bahnhofsstraße hast Du "foot=no" zugewiesen. Muss man zu Fuß dann immer den Umweg (siehe https://routing.openstreetmap.de/?z=18&center=52.635500%2C7.971890&loc=52.634756%2C7.974379&loc=52.634945%2C7.969358&hl=de&alt=0&srv=2) laufen. 
Normalerweise hätte ich es ja einfach so geändert - aber da du es im Allgemeinen immer recht genau weißt, frage ich lieber. 
Gruß Angela
skorpion62 (2019-09-09 20:08:34+00:00): Hallo NGL-engel,

das foot=no habe ich nicht eingetragen, auch die 3 Benutzer vor mir haben den Fehler nicht bemerkt.
Siehe Wege-Historie: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/322690624/history

Ich korrigiere den Straßenabschnitt aber.

Viele Grüße
skorpion62
skorpion62 (2019-09-12 18:23:23+00:00): Das foot=no habe ich entfernt.

Viele Grüße
skorpion62
pbnoxious (2019-08-22 19:38:03+00:00): Du hast hier auch https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/326803307 als "Dalheimer Weg" eingetragen… nachdem das aber eine Grenze zwischen Stadtteilen ist und teilweise andere Straßen schneidet bezweifle ich das eher. Gibts da einen Grund den ich übersehe, oder war das ein Versehen?
stvmz_rieth (2019-08-23 06:40:30+00:00): Ich denke deine Anmerkung ist gerechtfertigt.  Ich wollte damals wohl den Weg als "Dalheimer Weg" bezeichnen, nicht die Grenze selber.  Du darfst / solltest die Bezeichnung bei der Grenze entfernen. 
Danke auch.
pbnoxious (2019-08-23 11:37:31+00:00): Danke für die Antwort, hab den Namen entfernt.
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-21 21:20:07+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4344365603/history has X=617501.0 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?
user_5359 (2016-08-16 16:13:44+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have revert your changeset. Please the country language (englisch), you should use the language postfix for other language. But you chnage the name to a description ( the chinese charcatre means supermarket)
escada (2016-08-11 11:17:00+00:00): Hallo Dolar,

bedankt voor deze verfijning van de gegevens. Het toevoegen van een vrijliggend fietspad is echter niet zo eenvoudig. Je moet dan ook alle fiets- en wandelroute relaties verleggen van de hoofdbaan naar het fietspad. Verder moet de hoofdbaan de tag bicycle=use_sidepath krijgen.

Ook moet je er op letten dat als je het fietspad verbind met een kruisende straat aan de overkant van de weg, je geen overlappende wegen tekent, noch rare "V"tjes tekent.

Ik heb al een paar probleempjes opgelost op de Steenweg Baarle, maar laat de rest aan jou over.

Veel plezier ermee :-)
Dolar (2016-08-12 10:03:30+00:00): Ok, bedankt voor de tips.
user_5359 (2016-10-09 16:33:35+00:00): Hi, your map edit is similar to ones from a coordinated group of editors that we have found to be using a copyrighted source. But, I wanted to check with you to see whether that was the case or not--that way we don't potentially lose valuable data from a real user. So do you mind confirming whether this data was collected by you or if it was from another database/copyrighted geocoder? Thanks! user_5359
opendcc (2016-08-10 20:07:56+00:00): Bitte keine Brücken einzeichnen, die es schon nicht mehr gibt. Bitte reverten!
stbe (2016-08-10 20:40:53+00:00): da habe ich mich vom offizellen Inntal gpx track und dem Luftbild im google maps wohl in die Irre leiten lassen. Danke.
MKnight (2016-08-10 21:22:09+00:00): google maps ist übrigens keine legale Quelle *anmerk*
opendcc (2016-08-10 20:05:08+00:00): Hallo,

auf Grund welcher Kenntnis wurde die Brücke eingezeichnet?
stbe (2016-08-10 20:36:36+00:00): ofizieller gpx track Inntalradweg
Bayern Viewer Luftbild undKarte
opendcc (2016-08-11 05:47:29+00:00): Nun, ich wohne nicht weit davon, quasi in Sichtweite. Und diese Brücke wurde abgerissen, weiter Richtung Mühldorf eine neue Brücke gebaut. Wenn bayernviewer das nicht mitbekommt, ist das deren Sache ...
geow (2016-08-11 07:50:49+00:00): Hallo stbe, der Bayernviewer und die dort hinterlegten Layer sind leider keine nutzbaren Quellen für OSM. Verwendbar für uns ist aber das sehr gute Bayern-Ortholuftbild (80 cm) von 2015, das du in JOSM als Hintergrund verwenden kannst. 
Viele Grüße geow
stbe (2016-08-11 19:26:27+00:00): Liebes Forum, Grundlage für meine Änderung war der gpx Tack des Inntalradweges, andere Quellen wurden  lediglich zur Überprüfung herangezogen. Auch auf dem Ortholuftbild ist die Brücke noch da, aber da opendcc dort wohnt ist seine Aussage bestimmt genauer als jegliche andere Quellen. Da dieser Eintag aber solche Wellen schlägt werde ich nur noch meine eigenen Tracks nachtragen.
opendcc (2016-08-11 20:49:00+00:00): Hallo,

nicht böse sein. Ungültige Quellen können die ganze Arbeit von vielen Leuten gefährden - es wäre dann keine freie Karte mehr. Vor Ort gewesen zu sein ist sehr löblich ... Z.B. mit dieser Brücke und der Umfahrung war ich taggenau mit dem Mappen (klar, wenn die Bagger und LKW hier vorbeifahren) und damit deutlich aktueller als jedes Luftbild und andere Karte im Netz. Letzlich wollen wir alle eine gute und freie Karte, also lass DIch nicht vom mappen abbringen.
5m4u9 (2016-08-11 05:39:44+00:00): al parecer duplicado
T R SEBASTIAN (2016-08-10 16:17:15+00:00): Dear sir, the hotel Olive Downtown is wrongly mentioned by me, kindly remove it & the same actually located with in 6 km for away.
EdLoach (2016-09-20 13:32:53+00:00): There's efficient - the Gazette reports that Taco Bell opens today and I went to see if the former Fabric 8 shop was mapped.
Steve Goodey (2016-09-20 19:26:06+00:00): I was walking past and noticed the staff vacancy advert so updated OS. It's a bit of a chore trying to keep up with the changing shops. You've got quite a few edits under your belt. Wish I had more time for doing edits.
EdLoach (2016-09-21 10:13:00+00:00): I wish I had more time for doing edits. Not so much the editing itself, but collecting the data first. It would be great for example if all the shops in Colchester were mapped so if the Gazette run a story similar to "shop x has opened where shop y was" it would be a simple matter to update. I suspect for example we should retag W&G as Fenwick(s?)...
nyuriks (2017-10-01 07:21:58+00:00): Dobrogo vremeni, a chto s node 3584458664 ?  Stranny kakoito - ego udalit'?
ikost (2017-10-01 10:05:22+00:00): Вы про магазин Магнит? Он закрылся.
user_5359 (2016-08-13 14:27:58+00:00): Willkommen bei OSM! Du hast vergessen jegliche Information an den Knoten einzutragen. Bitte lies dazu auch http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance
naoliv (2016-08-12 20:36:51+00:00): Gabriel, você está duplicando muitas coisas no mapa.
Vários bairros você está colocando com mais de 1 ponto representando o local.
Só precisa de apenas um ponto para definir o bairro.
Kerim_m (2016-08-14 20:27:50+00:00): Według danych PRNG "Kościelna" została usunięta z ewidencji 2015-03-12
Rzezimierz (2016-08-14 21:28:01+00:00): Mea culpa, nie dopatrzyłem się wcześniej tej kolumny w PRNG, ale już poprawiłem to.
trigpoint (2016-08-10 18:54:06+00:00): Is this shop really called Polish Delicatessen, it sounds more like a description than a name.
Please also capitalise the names, lower case looks wrong on a map.
Thanks Phil
SomeoneElse_Revert (2016-12-14 21:39:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 44403770, 44396421 where the changeset comment is: Initial revert of some google.cn sourced data in China
luiswoo (2016-08-10 19:47:46+00:00): Про это хоть какие-то новости есть где нибудь или это вести "с полей"?
Pentium133 (2016-08-10 19:57:13+00:00): с полей, насчёт ул. московской ошибаюсь. на восток можно на авто, на запад только для автобусов. как это лучше обозначить?
luiswoo (2016-08-10 20:48:36+00:00): Есть разные изыски, если есть желание разбираться, что есть теги, но лучше сделать как было. 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:oneway
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:access#.D0.9E.D0.B3.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.87.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.8F_.D0.BF.D0.BE_.D0.B2.D0.B8.D0.B4.D0.B0.D0.BC_.D1.82.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.BD.D1.81.D0.BF.D0.BE.D1.80.D1.82.D0.B0_2
Работоспособность не очевидна, возможно, программы будут это расценивать как просто двухстороннию дорогу. Как это случилось с ворошиловским мостом: теги на реверсивное движение есть, но ни кем они не поддерживаются.
luiswoo (2016-08-10 20:52:14+00:00): Если есть желание разбираться с тегами, то для этого лучше подходить редактор JOSM http://josm.ru/
Supaplex (2016-08-24 10:33:11+00:00): 恭喜您透過 Maps.Me 完成第一次的地圖編輯！ 歡迎加入開放街圖，群眾共同參與，繪製生活週遭大家關心事物的共編地圖。Maps.Me App 採用開放街圖的地理資料，由社群而非商業公司建置的地理資料庫。以下是相關的參考資料，歡迎隨時指教與提問。

編輯須知
台灣的標示依循準則可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taiwan
常見的圖徵標示方式可參考 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Zh-hant:Map_Features

由於Maps.Me隨著軟體更新更新最新地圖，App裡的地圖資料版本可能略舊，透過Maps.Me增添商家等資料時有可能開放街圖上已經有了，請到http://www.osm.org 網站看是否要加的商家有沒有人加上去了。

台灣社群網站
台灣 OpenStreetMap 網站 http://www.openstreetmap.tw
台灣社群Facebook社團 https://www.facebook.com/groups/OpenStreetMap.TW/
郵件論壇 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-tw
Slack https://osm-tw.signup.team/

Happy Mapping!
will_p (2016-08-10 17:52:06+00:00): Here you have deleted the Nottingham administrative boundary relation, which has existed in OSM since 2009. I see you have recently created another relation for the city with admin_level=8. This is wrong because Nottingham is a unitary authority and therefore admin_level=6. It is the relation you created that should be deleted because there is no admin_level=8 boundary.

I also don't understand the purpose of the admin_level=10 boundary you have created covering the whole of the City of Nottingham area. It seems very misleading because this area isn't a civil parish and doesn't contain any civil parishes.
alexkemp (2016-08-10 22:20:18+00:00): Hello Will. Nottingham is unique (as best I can tell) in that the identical area BoundaryLine actually contains 3 admin_levels (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/alexkemp/diary/39062):
1) level=6 Nottinghamshire; County (Nottm is the hole in the county)
2) level=8 "City of Nottingham"; Unitary Authority == District == Borough
3) level=10 "Nottingham (Unparished)"; Civic Parish (even though it is unparished).
Thus the sticking point between us is (2); I was certain at first that you had got it wrong, then thought that I was wrong, and now am not certain.
 
Pro your view:
See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authorities_of_England
The Wiki says UK UAs are level=6. Wikipedia says “District gained county functions 1998”. That is all compelling!
 
Pro my view:
See http://csmale.dev.openstreetmap.org/os_boundaryline/district_borough_unitary_region.html for the list of OS level=8 .shapes.
Ordnance Survey group Districts, Boroughs & UAs together. Thus, all .shape files are together (and thus .gpx are together) on the same page. In addition, all CPs (Civic Parish) are together on a different page, and that actually *includes* the unparished areas (which simply are unnamed).

It may seem perverse, but my insistence for providing a BoundaryLine for the unparished areas is that all of the search & location functions rely on the CPs at base. Thus, wise to include them, even as “Unparished”.

Reverse the deletion if you see it to be wise to do so. You will naturally need to reset the relations that are currently in place. I spent ages & ages researching it all to try to make sure that I got it right, but it looks like I may not have done so (I'm still not certain). Bugger & oops. You will need to change the name of your old relation to “City of Nottingham”. I also think that the ‘unparished’ needs to stay for the sake of search & location.
 
Ah well.
will_p (2016-08-10 23:28:31+00:00): Firstly, I do recognise you have spent a lot of time tidying the geometry of boundary relations. That is definitely worthwhile and I've got absolutely no intention of doing anything that will negatively affect that. In this case, there's no reason why changes to the tagging and structure of the relations themselves should affect the underlying ways. I believe the deleted City of Nottingham relation could be undeleted without affecting anything else.

The tagging of administrative boundaries is confusing. My understanding is that the City of Nottingham (unitary authority) relation could be tagged as admin_level=6;8;10 because it covers all those levels, however, the general rule is to only tag the lowest level. I don't think Nottingham is any different from the City of Derby, which is also a unitary authority without any civil parishes.

I've got no plan to remove your admin_level=10 (civil parish) relation covering the whole of Nottingham, but I would support anyone else who chose to do so. More generally I would be interested to know the views of other contributors on this. To me it just seems problematic, because it makes it hard to find real civil parishes, because the only indication it isn't a real civil parish is a descriptive name.
alexkemp (2016-08-11 00:02:45+00:00): You say: “City of Nottingham (unitary authority) relation could be tagged as admin_level=6;8;10”. That is genius! Leave all other BoundaryLine ‘admin_level’ as single-values, but make UAs triple values. In that case, after undelete on old relation, both new 'City of Nottingham' (level8) plus 'Nottingham (unparished)' (level10) could both be deleted. Sheer genius!
 
You say: “I do recognise you have spent a lot of time tidying the geometry of boundary relations”. Truly, you have no idea. It is very much more than that. I'm trying to do a complete job & make full provision with each one. Each *addition* (many are missing) takes at least a morning/afternoon. Some have taken 2 days. Please, please, please do NOT merge BoundaryLines with other features (roads, rivers, whatever). Maintenance is utter hell if that is so.
 
PS
Is it possible just to undelete a single relation-set, or do you have to unpick the entire changeset? I do not want to lose Oscar, nor the other changes.
alexkemp (2016-08-12 03:16:08+00:00): See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Csmale/ukboundaries (csmale is the user that has also made all OS .shape files available as .gpx downloads). Looking inside those downloads, the designation for unparished parishes is “designation=non-civil_parish”.
SK53 (2016-08-12 14:02:06+00:00): Can I add again, the standards for admin_level assignment are clear (they were not in 2009 when this was added). You certainly should not have removed the existing relation.

The rule is tags on relation, lowest admin_level. In fact for Nottingham the highest level is 6 as it is a unitary authority without any districts (8) or parishes (10). The fact that boundary line data comes with unparished areas is more an artefact of the underlying GIS model.
Colin Smale (2016-08-13 07:36:03+00:00): I fully concur with SK53. The fact that the UA and the city boundaries are coterminal does not make them the same object.

I am not convinced that the unparished areas should be in OSM at all, as the individual areas are all purely historical, unmaintained (though liable to change) and of no current value. It is possible that the polygons may be useful as the bases for a "place=*" object, but the common perception of the (sometimes rather woolly) boundaries of a named settlement often conflict with the legally defined administrative boundaries, so care is required here.

The OS data and the OSM "boundary=administrative" objects represent administrative entities, not places! Either there is a "City of Nottingham CP" or there isn't - it is not a matter of judgement, it is a matter of fact. If Nominatim gets confused by the rather complex system in the UK then it is Nominatim that needs fixing. You could always petition Parliament to sort it out, but when they come back from recess they "may" have more pressing matters to attend to first...
will_p (2016-08-13 09:36:19+00:00): I have now undeleted the City of Nottingham admin_level=6 relation and deleted the admin_level=8 one. I checked the relation members and tags matched up between the two (where correct).
Colin Smale (2016-08-15 09:26:31+00:00): Alex, please note that there is no such thing as an "unparished parish". A location in England is either within a Civil Parish, or it is within an unparished area.
alexkemp (2016-08-15 09:30:07+00:00): This is an automated response: sorry, but I'm too busy mapping too be able to spare the time to respond to you. Thank you for your interest in my mapping. -Alex Kemp
jaed (2016-08-10 16:50:18+00:00): राजेसुल्तानपुर
mueschel (2016-08-12 08:35:23+00:00): Hi,
there are 4 ways with the tagging "construction=residential;highway=residential" E.g.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404273524
Are these ways still under construction (then you can use highway=construction) or are they finished (remove construction=residential)?

Cheers, Jan
Basstoelpel (2017-02-24 19:27:40+00:00): Hallo MeckiKichengel,

Du solltest vielleicht auf einen aktuelleren editor wechseln, der nicht dazu verleitet, an jedem Windrad das seit über einem halben Jahrzehnt veraltete power_source=wind zu ergänzen.

Gruß,

Baßtölpel
MeckiKirchengel (2017-02-27 18:13:00+00:00): Hallo,

hatte ich eigentlich bewusst so gestaltet, da das Windrad entsprechend im Garmin total daneben aussah. Ich werde das aber noch einmal prüfen.
literan (2016-08-11 12:19:34+00:00): Не надо задваивать сущности. Зачем вы ставите точку церкви, если уже есть здание церкви? Теперь в базе две церкви в одном и том же месте.
AlexDRL (2016-08-19 10:04:59+00:00): this needs to be in spanish reverting...
whb (2016-08-11 11:07:35+00:00): Sicher, dass das ein reiner Radweg (Zeichen 237) ist?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37290847
Damit wären dann Fußgänger von der Benutzung ausgeschlossen.
Vermutlich war hier eine Rad-Route gemeint, diese werden als lcn, rcn, ncn oder icn erfasst als Relation erfasst:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/169905
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/167042
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/21077
DerWormser (2016-08-11 13:04:11+00:00): habe mir gerade nochmal den Abschnitt angesehen und festgestellt, dass er mit dem Zeichen 240 ausgeschildert ist. Daselbe Zeichen steht auch auf dem rechts daneben liegenden Abschnitt zwischen Binger Strasse und Von-Steuben-Strasse und hier ist der Weg als reiner Radweg definiert. 
Nur zur Info: im Park herrscht bis auf diesen Weg generelles Radfahrverbot und er ist der einzige asphaltierte Weg im Park. Darüberhinaus verlaufen wie richtig erwähnt verschiedene Rad-Routen.
aceman444 (2016-09-25 13:32:59+00:00): Zdravim, ked sa venujete velvyslanectvam, 
nechecli by ste zadavat aj ich podtypy s klucom "diplomatic"?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:diplomatic
Dakujem
BahiRoss (2016-08-12 16:38:05+00:00): cool
Dibloni Innocent (2016-08-12 21:48:58+00:00): merci
woodpeck (2018-01-24 07:16:18+00:00): In this changeset you have added the name "212" to a number of hiking paths. Your source is "bing, knowledge". Since the number cannot come from Bing: Where does your "knowledge" come from? Have you been there and surveyed the path, has there been a sign with that number on it, or have you perhaps taken the number from another map?
Bratananio (2018-01-24 17:55:33+00:00): I am since 20 years on all these islands and I have the information from my friends there.
If it has changed, please add the new number for the path.