piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Nearby0051 (2021-12-30 21:34:20+00:00): Danke :)
nmombo12 (2022-01-03 16:45:19+00:00): Apologies for the large changeset area. I must not have finished uploading before traveling.
lucumon (2023-05-27 13:58:50+00:00): Hola jose daniel, te escribo para informarte de que é visto multples conjuntos de cambios tuyos en los que divides vias de calzada unica, en dos vias independientes. También mapeas cruces creando un montón de vías que realmente no existen. En osm, no se deben mapear vias independientes si realmente no existe una separación fisica entre las calzadas, como por ejemplo, una mediana de hormigón o césped. En el caso de los cruces, tampoco se debe mapear todas y cada una de las posibles trayectorias a seguir por un vehículo, ya que no son vías como tal. Lo más recomendable es utilizar etiquetas como "lanes", "turn:lanes" o "placement". Usando el editor JOSM, con el estilo "Enhanced Lane and Road Attributes", verás esto mucho más claro.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115578515
eggie (2021-12-30 19:48:19+00:00): Dag Xyberion..

Waarom denk je dat dit al jaren zo correct getagd is?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#The_Netherlands 

Heb je nu van te voren opgezocht of het wel correct is wat je doet?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-12-30 20:02:29+00:00): Welke routing app routeert hier over de highway=trunk motorroad=yes ?
eggie (2021-12-30 20:06:08+00:00): Maar kwaad kan het natuurlijk niet.. :)
Xyberion (2021-12-30 20:49:54+00:00): Hey Eggie,

Deze aanpassing had idd weinig nut. 
Ik gebruik de Wandrer app/website die op basis van OSM aangeeft welke wegen gefietst kunnen worden/toegankelijk zijn voor fietsers. Bij de Oesterdam worden de emergency bays aangeduid als fietsbare weg, terwijl dat natuurlijk niet juist is. Nu zie ik geen optie om hier een tag bicycle: no aan toe te voegen. Ik dacht dat de bepaling voor de emergency bays afhankelijk was van de bepaling die op de hoofdweg staat aangegeven, maar dit had ik beter eerst kunnen nazoeken.

Is er misschien een andere manier om de emergency bays zo aan te passen dat ze niet als fietsbare weg worden aangemerkt?

Groet,

Xyberion (Wouter)
eggie (2021-12-30 21:08:49+00:00): Dag Wouter,
Zou het even niet weten.
Wellicht vraagje voor het forum.. 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12
Er staat hier zelfs geen C15 bord . Gesloten voor (brom)fietsers.
Het is immers een autoweg, maar dat heb je nu begrepen.  
Wel op het meest zuidelijke stukje. .. richting zuid. 
De verschillende apps zullen zich gewoon moeten aanpassen aan de conventie van OSM.
Een idee om wellicht een berichtje te sturen naar de makers van de app.
Die zullen ook wel feedback op prijs stellen. 

Gr eggie
Xyberion (2021-12-30 21:23:05+00:00): Ik zal het idd met de app Developer oppakken. Dit gaat natuurlijk een terugkerend probleem zijn bij een wegtype wat in principe zelden voor fietsers toegankelijk is.

Bedankt voor het meedenken.

Groet 

Wouter
BCNorwich (2021-12-31 08:21:21+00:00): Hi, You've probably inadvertently removed the tag highway=path from Way: Sarasota Trail (479327896), Way: Sarasota Trail (1016959035) and Way: Explorer Trail (321031844).

Could you please add back the highway tags, need any help please just ask.

Regards Bernard.
WV-Mike (2021-12-31 14:10:50+00:00): I have made the requested changes.
Thanks for the help.
WV-Mike
vojtechzaboril (2022-03-14 13:38:42+00:00): Dobrý den,
výjezdu z kruhového objezdu se značí jako primary, secondary, ...; nikoliv jako primary_link, secondary_link, ..., pokud dále navazuje silnice označená jako primary, secondary,...
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-12-03 04:25:31+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1016961394 - what kind of traces remain of it nowadays?
NKA (2021-12-31 07:32:36+00:00): Her ble det en del feil:

* bus:lanes = yes|no angir at venstre felt er tillatt for buss, men på bakken ser man at det er høyre felt som skal være bussfelt.
* bus:lanes = yes|no angir også at høyre felt ikke er tillatt å bruke for en buss, som ikke er riktig her (busser har lov til å bruke begge felt, om de vil). Husk at bus-taggen angir om busser har lov til å kjøre der, ikke om filen er reservert for busser.
* Korrekt tagging er bus:lanes=|designated + motor_vehicle=|no. Husk at bus, motor_vehicle og andre access-tagger angir om disse kjøretøyene er tillatt, ikke om kjørefeltet er reservert for bare dem,
* :lanes tagging skal gjøres for høyre og venstre felt separat ved å bruke forward og backward, så bus:lanes=yes|no|no|yes må deles opp (og er i tillegg feil angitt, se ovenfor).
* oneway=no er unødvendig.

no_u_turn restriksjonen er ikke feil, men den har nok ikke noen praktisk betydning for rutingen (hvem vil snu der like etter en rundkjøring?), og den gjør det vanskeligere å redigere krysset senere. La oss gjerne unngå å ha mange slike restriksjoner, tenker jeg.

Lykke til videre.
NKA (2021-12-31 07:36:09+00:00): I tillegg ser jeg nå at bussrutene ikke er fordelt riktig i de nye korte enveis-gatene rundt rundkjøringen. Noen av bussrutene skal østover, andre skal vestover, men nå går alle i samme enveisretning.
jeka p (2022-01-03 20:22:08+00:00): Hi,

thanks for the corrections. I don"t speak Norwegian, but google translate helped me out.
I edited the roundabout a bit too fast and sloppy.
lanes. You are completely right. I edit lanes tagging very seldom - thanks for the tips. I will correct it here.
No_u_turn: I know it from German-speaking countries - we use it at all such roundabouts. Because legally, it is not allowed,however you are right, nobody (normal) would turn around like this. At least JOSM has no problems with proper splitting of ways with such restrictions. I would leave it as it is.

Bus routes: Tomorrow I will start correcting the routes.

Med vennlig hilsen fra Vorarlberg
Jeka
VinasCZ (2021-12-30 19:14:16+00:00): Fixmes a nedostatky zmíněny v note: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2989444
eggie (2021-12-30 19:56:28+00:00): Dag Xyberion.. Alle begin is moeilijk. Het is niet correct.
Wat bedoel je met een totaalverbod?
Er staat hier gewoon een C1 bord
Wit rond bord Rode rand. 
Dus vehicle=no
horse=no
Voor de duidelijkheid zou je er foot=yes bij kunnen zetten, want die moegen hier gewoon lopen.
Overzicht Nederlandse verkeersborden 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=NL:Overzicht_Nederlandse_Verkeersborden&direction=next&oldid=984258#C:_Geslotenverklaring 

 Dus taggen bij : Gesloten in beide richtingen voor voertuigen, ruiters en geleiders van rij- of trekdieren of vee. 	
vehicle=no  
horse=no 
traffic_sign=NL:C1

Wanneer er een bordje staat art 461 wvs wordt het anders..

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-12-30 20:09:26+00:00): agricultural=yes zou je nog kunnen toevoegen als een onderbord dat rechtvaardigt.  Up to you..
pitscheplatsch (2022-01-01 13:02:30+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.

Just a test or what's the source of your mapping activity? Thanks.

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
SomeoneElse (2023-04-16 12:51:36+00:00): Hello,
I'm removing https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1016966270 et al that were added here, for a number of reasons.
The main one is that there is only one feature here, and that feature is a cycleway.  You have added duplicate bridges where there is only one, and the alignment of the duplicate abandoned railway that you have added is very questionable in some places.
Secondly, the name is not now and I suspect never was "Temple Hirst Junction and Chaloner's Whin Junction via Selby Line".  That appears to be a description that you have made up, or perhaps some (very historical, perhaps likely pre-dating BR) _route_ description.
If you want to add historical railway detail (and it's a fine aim; I've added plenty myself) and want to go beyond what is observable on the ground now then perhaps openhistoricalmap is the place for that?  There I doubt that anyone would object to the adding of "Temple Hirst Junction and Chaloner's Whin Junction via Selby Line" as a route, with the dates when it was called that.
Best Regards,
Andy
PT-53 (2022-08-04 05:44:56+00:00): Hallo EinEngener,
bei diesem Parkplatz
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1016966311/history
hast Du u.a. die Merkmal
- access=yes
-name=Nur PKW
eingetragen.
Name sollte nur für echte Eigennamen verwendet werden. "Nur PKW" ist aber kein Eigenname.
Access=yes sagt, daß dort alle parken dürfen. Das ist ein Widersprcuh zu "Nur PKW"
Was stimmt?

Schaust Du Dir bitte das nochmal an?
Grüße
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-03-04 23:37:43+00:00): Why did you delete roads when they are still there?
user_12454690 (2022-03-05 02:21:03+00:00): construction updates
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-03-05 02:34:29+00:00): But construction hasn't started and these roads are still there.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-03-05 02:36:04+00:00): But construction hasn't started and these roads are still there, specifically https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19411359
user_12454690 (2022-03-05 03:10:55+00:00): TDOT has been preparing the area.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2022-03-05 06:15:44+00:00): If a road is still there and open to the public it shouldn't be deleted.
mat (2025-05-20 05:29:28+00:00): Bonjour,
Pour quelle raison est-ce que le pont est bloqué ? Est-ce temporaire ? Définitif ?
eireidium (2021-12-31 16:37:14+00:00): Dear osmviborg,
I note that you continue to delete trees, shrubs, and driveways from my edits. Have I missed a comment indicating how these have been improperly mapped? I would hope to do so correctly. Thanks
osmviborg (2022-01-01 11:38:35+00:00): You are exaggerating your mapping. Based on your mapping behavior elsewhere it is clear that you will not come back and do the necessary "gardening" when new aerial photos are available, so I do it now.
eireidium (2022-01-01 12:26:03+00:00): I am actually hurt by these comments and I have to say these have been the most unhelpful I have ever received on OSM. Sorry to be blunt. I have been micro mapping (in this case in my Mother's hometown and one I have appreciated visiting) and enjoying this and felt this was making a contribution to how others may use OSM data. I based this on the use of the most up-to-date imagery as you yourself suggested. As OSM is collaborative and the expectation is that others will continually review and update I would expect that everyone does when they have the time for in the moment and that is how collaboration works. Some 'own' areas and dwell in them - while others may connect with areas where they feel they can contribute missing features as a specific project. I would of course expect that others (or myself) will come along when new imagery is available and alter to reflect the current state of the world. As it is, I have been grateful to contribute but also very respectful that others may have alternate opinions and uses of the data provided. I have been respectful (or so I thought in my comments) - as I have been when validating others' contributions widely in OSMIreland tasks. As mentioned earlier tree cover and natural and planted vegetation are of interest. I am very concerned about the practice of removing objects from a map that do clearly exist with the perceived foresight that they will disappear at some future point - or conflict with particular users' mapping preferences. I will note that micro-mapping is globally practiced and taking the effort to attempt to identify individual micro-features is valuable - depending on the vastly different needs of individual users of the data. The statement that a user's mapping is exaggerated is a rather subjective one. Just to state it clearly, I believe that OSM relies on users who are respectful and appreciate different approaches and aspects of mapping, micro and macro, and when they work together and discuss this contributes to the collaborative effort. Thanks for your own efforts.
Glassman (2026-02-04 02:56:40+00:00): I was dealing with an issue given to DWG and noticed this track you touched a few years back. openstreetmap.org/way/76130888. It doesn't seem to be on any imagery. Not your doing but there is also an archaeological site nearby but it doesn't show on the imagery. Should it be on OpenHistoricalMap?
b-unicycling (2026-02-04 11:34:20+00:00): The archaeological site is clearly visible on Esri Clarity and Bing and has an SMR number which means it's a recorded and protected monument.
ElliottPlack (2023-01-03 02:29:59+00:00): Hi there,

Please don’t invent access tags for roads on military bases. This causes problems for data consumers that interpret OSM data. access=military has no definition on the OSM wiki. Private access means that the general public is not allowed. That is certainly the case at NSA / Meade.

Thanks for understanding,

Elliott Plack  
OSMF Data Working Group
PT-53 (2022-01-02 15:26:36+00:00): Hallo micha_k,
Du hast an diesem Straßenabschnitt
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188240235/history
das Merkmal
motor_vehicle=agricultural
eingetragen und damit für alle anderen KFZ gesperrt.
War das ein Versehen?

Fragende Grüße und
ein Gutes Neues Jahr
micha_k (2022-01-02 15:32:33+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, das war definitiv ein Versehen. Ich habe es korrigiert.

Viele Grüße
Micha
Schwob_JK (2026-07-10 09:12:57+00:00): Hallo micha_k,

ich bin gerade durch Zufall über diese Brückenmarkierung gestolpert - soweit ich das sehe, ist immer noch motor_vehicle=agricultural eingetragen. Gab/gibt es technische Probleme bei der Korrektur?

Viele Grüße
micha_k (2026-07-10 17:40:37+00:00): Offenbar hatte sich dieser fehlerhafte Tag damals auf zwei Wegen eingeschlichen. Den von PT-53 gefundenen hatte ich wie angegeben korrigiert (Kreuzung Cannstatter Straße / Neckartalstraße). Ich habe jetzt noch mal alles von damals geprüft und noch einen zweiten gefunden - die Brückenstraße. Den meintest du? Den habe ich jetzt auch korrigiert. 

Viele Grüße
Schwob_JK (2026-07-13 06:53:12+00:00): Guten Morgen micha_k,

genau, ich meinte die Bezeichnung des fehlerhaften Tag der Brückenstraße, speziell des Brückenabschnitts der Brückenstraße über den Neckar. Da scheint die neue Korrektur von dir das Problem noch nicht ganz gehoben zu haben, auch wenn ich aktuell nicht erkennen kann, wo das Problem liegt. Mit dem Tag highway = residential sollte die Straße ja für den normalen Autoverkehr freigegeben sein. Das Problem scheinen auf den ersten Blick die Knoten 265578734 und 88338530 zu sein - eine Routenführung mitten auf die Brücke endet je nach Richtung immer an einem der Knoten.

Lässt sich das noch beheben? Vielen Dank dir auf jeden Fall schon für deine Arbeit!

Viele Grüße
micha_k (2026-07-17 18:48:00+00:00): Ich sehe keine weitere Beschränkung, an der es hängen könnte. Kann es sein, dass es eine Weile dauert, bis OSRM die für das Routing genutzten Daten aktualisiert? Mit Valhalla und GraphHopper funktioniert es, und diese beachten das Tag motor_vehicle=agricultural auch.
Schwob_JK (2026-07-20 10:34:50+00:00): Hallo micha_k,
Danke dir erstmal für deine tolle Arbeit. Ich habs gerade bei openrouteservice getestet, da funktionierts jetzt auch, nur hier in openstreetmap funktioniert es scheinbar immer noch nicht, sich eine Route mit dem Auto über diese Brücke anzeigen zu lassen. Vielleicht tatsächlich ein Problem mit der Datenaktualisierung. Also: Nochmals besten Dank!
DD1GJ (2021-12-31 13:26:01+00:00): Hallo cuddl,

willkommen bei OSM. "Private" Zufahrten sind bei OSM durchaus sinnvoll. Sie wurden von Amazon Logistics eingetragen und dienen der Oprtimierung von Paket- und Lieferdiensten. Auch Rettungsleitstellen verwenden OSM und schätzen diese Details. Dann ist schon auf der Anfahrt klar, wie man an zurückliegende Häuser kommt.

Ich habe daher Deine Änderungen rückgängig gemacht und in mühevoller Kleinarbeit versucht, nützsliche Änderungen zu erhalten bzw. zu korrigieren, z.B. beim Dorfmuseum.

Wenn Du was Nützliches machen willst, dann drucke die Karte aus und laufe durchs Dorf, um noch fehlende Adressen zu erfassen und einzutragen.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:addr

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Osm-tutorial.pdf#

Viele Grüße und einen Guten Rutsch 
Joachim
cuddl (2021-12-31 17:00:38+00:00): Sorry, das ich euch Arbeit gemacht habe. Meine Vorschläge resultieren aus Ortskenntnis, Ureinwohner seit 1956. Deshalb beschränkt  sich die Mitarbeit auch auf Hoisdorf.
Viele Grüße, Joachim
DD1GJ (2021-12-31 13:26:34+00:00): revert, siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115580692
DD1GJ (2021-12-31 13:27:14+00:00): wieder hergestellte Zufahrten als Privat gekennzeichnet
kartler175 (2021-12-31 11:55:54+00:00): Please consider that objects you edit may be part of relations, which might be dismembered: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-66.91638&lat=52.93038&zoom=15&opacity=0.95

Why, do you think, Harrie Lake and and Little Wabush Lake disappeared?

Please do not map Snowmobile trails as common path, if it is not accessible all year by any users:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1016972967#map=16/52.9328/-66.9013.  Please use route relations with proper access tags.
mariotomo (2021-12-30 20:26:58+00:00): oops, I did too much, I only wanted to act on a single object, and I removed that "layer=-1" from all other buildings, without solving the intersection.  well, too bad, at least it will now be highlighted by quality assurance tools.
TagaSanPedroAko (2022-01-02 08:21:05+00:00): Just wondering why downgrade Andaya? Redundant with Maharlika Highway?
DP24PH (2022-01-02 13:29:14+00:00): [OPINION] I don't think about that downgrade, and most direct routes are passing thru here (PH-68/RRAH) for the sake of easier transportation to the rest of Bicol, Eastern Visayas, and Mindanao mainland.
osmviborg (2021-12-30 20:58:29+00:00): Take a closer look, you missed the 'bus_trap'
GeoTheExplorer (2022-01-05 21:18:07+00:00): Thank you for pointing out the bus trap and informing me of your edit. I will share this example with my team.
eggie (2021-12-30 21:00:03+00:00): Hoi.. Zat even mee te kijken.. foot=no heb ik ook verwijderd.
bicycle=yes hoeft ook niet.. Dat is default.
Het zal hoogstwaarschijnlijk een vergissing zijn van de voorgaande mappers. 
gr eggie
jimkats (2022-01-02 18:53:53+00:00): Τώρα διάβασα για τα εγκαίνια της νέας εισόδου από τον Νίκα. Μπράβο για την βελτίωση των καταχωρημένων-από-ikachan-στοιχείων του δρόμου :D (άντε, επιτέλους ο κεντρικός δρόμος δεν θα τερματίζει σε αδιέξοδο των ΚΤΕΛ :p)
Supaplex (2022-01-05 10:16:40+00:00): Hi，我這邊對照空照圖，有些建築好像呈現異常的大，應該是好幾棟建築都包進去了。如果覺得個別畫建築太累，或者用土地利用的畫法來框出範圍，再來處理一棟一棟獨棟建築 。
Cheng-Chi Feng (2022-01-05 10:35:05+00:00): 您好，目前是參考政府圖資、空照圖與實際走訪來畫的，主要都是我的家鄉附近，有些建築物確實都是連棟的（兩透天中間完全無縫隙），因此大概比照繪製，的確一棟棟畫挺困擾也不太可行，技術上即便AI可能都難以做到，未來應該會朝向使用土地利用畫法，市區建築物有待未來技術進步後再處理。
Supaplex (2022-01-06 01:48:47+00:00): 如果真接用NLSC地圖，其授權並不與OpenStreetMap相容，可以描圖用的是開放資料版本，zoom=15的地圖，要特別注意
另外能請你把明顯不合理大的建築改成實際的建築大小，有些地方可以用Mapillary來判斷建築大小。或者改成土地利用來標示
Cheng-Chi Feng (2022-01-06 16:19:33+00:00): 感謝建議，會注意不直接描繪僅參考NLSC。
marczoutendijk (2022-01-04 09:48:37+00:00): ok?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-06-11 11:14:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 122245102 where the changeset comment is: Following a complaint to the DWG, reverting some dubious-source edits.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6058 .
JJIglesias (2021-12-31 01:41:28+00:00): Hola, sigues alterando elementos sin saber lo q estas haciendo, antes de continuar dañando el mapa, por favor visita www.learnosm.org

Gracias
MrMoehritz (2022-02-08 21:15:58+00:00): Hallo Jonny, willkommen bei OSM. Schöner erster edit!
Grzegorz_Kujawa (2021-12-30 21:27:51+00:00): Komentarz do zmian: Zagospodarowanie terenu - podział na mniejsze obszary, wydzielenie zagród, terenów mieszkalnych; korekta i wrysowanie nowych cieków wodnych i dróg; zmiany terenu stacji benzynowej
H@mlet (2022-01-05 13:26:13+00:00): Bonjour,
vous avez laissé des tags concernant l'ancienne poste sur ce nœud : post_office:type=post_annex et ref:FR:LaPoste=10206A
Je pense qu'il serait pertinent de les enlever. 
Cordialement.
Gseb29 (2022-01-05 15:04:14+00:00): Bonjour,
Merci pour le retour.
Effectivement, ces attributs m'avaient échappés. Ils sont maintenant supprimés.
Cordialement.
bxl-forever (2021-12-31 00:25:53+00:00): Hello,

Thanks for this.
You seem to have created hundreds of changesets in the last weeks, with lots of different stuff: green spaces, buildings, moving roads, adding the name of a castle… but sadly you almost always name your changesets with the same title: "Details".

This makes it a nightmare for other mappers who try to review changes and see what is going on on the map.

I felt I had to tell you.

Can I encourage you to please spend a few seconds every time before uploading your changes, to say in a few words what the changeset is about.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Thanks in advance.
Tom Ameye (2021-12-31 22:24:33+00:00): Hi bxl-forever, sure I appreciate you provide this feedback. I use most of the time trustworthy sources for my changes: AIV Flanders GRB, the topographic map of the NGI/IGN, latest satelite pictures, etc and my own verification in the field. If I feel there is no potential discussion on a change I often put indeed "Details". I will make an effort to add better descriptions though. 

I still consider myself as fairly new and inexperienced here on OSM. I still don't know for example how to check the history of what was changed by who in a specific area. Best regards and all the best in 2022 !
marczoutendijk (2022-01-04 09:48:27+00:00): ok?
user_5359 (2021-12-31 07:37:05+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Don't add a key, if you don't know the value (e.g. access=unknown)

But a railway level crossing (OSM type node)with access rights? Is this information not better on the crossing ways?
UrbanUnPlanner (2022-01-06 02:54:43+00:00): The access=unknown was added to denote the presence of conflicting access information (i.e. a private crossing on something that's mapped as if it were a public street ROW).  It could very well be fair to map the access=private restriction on the crossing ways with ownership=private on the crossing node, though -- the notion of a "private crossing" generally implies that public access is foreclosed save for a few select exceptions.  (In fact, private crossing signage generally carries the necessary verbiage to have the same weight as a posted "No Trespassing" sign).
user_5359 (2022-01-06 05:49:49+00:00): Thank you for explaining the legal situation. 

Just so I understand correctly, the situation is as follows: The "state" is building a public road from A to B. A resident connects places C and D with a private road that crosses the A to B road. 

Does the private road builder have the right to prohibit the passage from A to B? Or is the passage permitted, but not the stopping at the crossing or the further entering of the surrounding area?

If passage is still allowed, the use of bowl access would not be entirely justified (obstructing a routing operation). Here I consider the information owner=private at the crossing point sufficient. 

Regardless of the legal situation, however, this should be documented in the wiki (important for software development).
user_5359 (2022-01-02 06:35:15+00:00): Hello! I correct your typo on the three objects near by the playground (example http://www.osm.org/node/9380476582), but I miss some ting like highway=street_lamp. Could you please check this?
RicoElectrico (2021-12-31 13:42:13+00:00): Cześć, to trzeba trochę inaczej. Wycofałem i poprawiłem, zobacz jak jest teraz. W edytorze masz samouczek dostępny z menu pomocy, bardzo polecam przejście go. Jest tam fragment o edycjach dróg.
RicoElectrico (2021-12-31 13:44:05+00:00): Wycofane i poprawione w https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115609726
RicoElectrico (2021-12-31 13:45:37+00:00): Przeciąłem chodnik w miejscu gdzie się wcześniej zaczynał i podpiąłem do tego przejścia na progu zwalniającym. Dalej poprawiłem geometrię, żeby szła tak jak w Twojej edycji.
hockie (2022-09-20 19:40:12+00:00): Hallo discontinuity,

ich habe leichte Zweifel, dass an der Dorfbushaltestelle Bötenberg Feuerwehrgerätehaus eine Anzeige vorhanden ist (Schlüssel passenger_information_display=yes) die anzeigt wie lange es dauert bis der nächste Bus kommt. Ich denke Sie meinten eine Tafel/Aushang (Schlüssel departures_board) der Busfahrzeiten.

Mit freundlichem Gruß
Hockie