piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
AlaskaDave (2025-02-25 15:30:21+00:00): I think you should change the way it's mapped. When I did this, I was under the impression that a tagging a segment of the waterway was a legitimate way to map rapids. It looks like the tagging you suggest is correct, or more correct. I may have taken my guidance from an older Wiki article, I really don't know.
AlaskaDave (2025-02-25 15:34:34+00:00): Another thought is that in this case, and I don't recall the specifics of my decision, when a rapids has a measurable length, say 100m or whatever, then drawing a weir across the river isn't a very accurate way to represent it. My intention was possibly to somehow model these rapids that way, I dunno.
quincylvania (2025-02-25 19:34:18+00:00): Hi all, avid canoe mapper here. I'm the one that updated the wiki page to discourage `waterway=rapids` as a centerline. My recommended tagging is to treat rapids as an attribute of a river and use `waterway=river` + `rapids=yes`. There are few reasons for this, but basically there are a lot of rapids mapped perpendicular to the flow (like a weir) and there's not an easy to tell which is which if we also use the same tag for centerlines. Plus there's not really an advantage to making every data consumer support `waterway=rapids` like rivers. Rapids can appear on streams, canals, etc., so we don't want to lose the waterway type information.

Discussion in Europe where they've mapped a lot of rapids: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/150012234
AlaskaDave (2025-02-25 23:58:18+00:00): Thanks for the clarification quincylvania. I was feeling embarrassed that I had misunderstood the Wiki. My memory wasn't clear enough to recall how I made the decision to tag a segment of the river with waterway=rapids but now I understand. Interestingly, the McKenzie River relation includes that segment as a member of its "main_branch" (I might've done that myself but again, my memory not clear) but apparently renderers don't look at the relation, only the way itself. 
Anyway, I retagged the segment in question to use waterway=river and rapids=yes. This doesn't break the river way yet still carries the appropriate information so overall it seems a better approach.

Is everybody okay with that?
quincylvania (2025-02-27 13:52:04+00:00): Yep, that's my preferred approach. Though personally I would put `name=McKenzie River` and `rapids:name=Eagle Rock Rapids` on the river line. Then I would also map the rapids separately as a node with `waterway=rapids` or an area with `water=rapids`, and `name=Eagle Rock Rapids`. This conveys the most information. Waterway relations don't really convey their attributes to their member ways in most OSM applications.
AlaskaDave (2025-02-28 09:14:45+00:00): @quincylvania
I updated my river tagging preset to use your scheme with rapids:name. I use the same scenario for named bridges with a bridge:name tag. Many OSM mappers change the name of the highway to the name of the bridge in such cases but that is obviously incorrect. The same logic applies here.

Why relations don't supply tags to their members really puzzles me. It seems only logical that unless specially tagged differently, all members of the main_branch of a river should have the same name tag and the tag waterway=river as it would if the it were only a simple way.

Good talking with you....
joel56dt (2022-08-09 16:41:36+00:00): This changeset and your others are a little suspicious. Did you intent to add a viewpoint and waterpoint in the middle of the harbour?
keithonearth (2022-09-17 05:01:03+00:00): Looks mistaken to me too, I've reverted it, as the viewpoints don't make sense. And some maps.me users make map edits w/o realizing they are editing the public map.
Supaplex (2022-08-09 02:21:08+00:00): Could you only add the main streams, not another river ways of its tributary
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124662190
926zzz (2022-08-09 03:32:38+00:00): 不好意思，我的本意是想使得干流和主要支流能在一张图上显示，这样可以对流域有个全面直观的了解，如果通过关系来添加支流的话无法做到这一点，必须一个一个支流点开查看。请问能否做到总流域图和干流并存？或者您有什么更好的方法能显示流域的总体图？谢谢~
Supaplex (2022-08-09 04:04:27+00:00): 請用像是 Overpass API 之類的工具，去檢索取得支流關係再去取得有實際地理位置的路徑與節點
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124662190
muralito (2022-10-11 00:02:26+00:00): Borre esta pista separada, porque ya esta mapeada en conjunto con la highway=trunk como aeroway=highway_strip que es como es en la realidad.
abakus_uploader (2022-08-09 22:31:44+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
abakus_uploader (2022-08-09 22:31:43+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
frozenrabi (2022-08-11 06:36:49+00:00): This is not the right way to map any landuse. Landuse are never square/rectangle. This is completely wrong. Please review.
Warin61 (2022-08-10 00:23:33+00:00): Hi,
Welcome to OSM. 

Some problems with this entry. 

Multipolygon relations outer ways cannot cross one another. 

What is being mapped is a multipart building.... these are mapped using the 'building:part' tag ... see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part Note! The building:part=* areas should always be within a separate building=* area representing the entire building. 

The layer=* tag is used to describe vertical relationships between crossing or overlapping elements, e.g. a bridge over a street. So layer=-2 is not appropriate here. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer
ralley (2022-08-10 21:26:10+00:00): Your edit has resulted in overlapping buildings.  Is the building itself really named "Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd" or is this merely one of the businesses contained within?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124663902
❤️‍🔥 (2022-08-11 21:54:52+00:00): Fonterra moved out of this building 6 years ago... reverted.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/fonterras-ex-hq-to-be-apartments/K6TRKOROCN46OUGDMN5EMM4NLE/
ChehrehBargi (2022-08-09 10:20:33+00:00): با سلام
ضمن تشکر از زحمات شما، در هیچ یک از مسیرهای منتهی به این میدان، دوربرگردانی نداریم، اگرچه خودروها از این مکان ها دورمیزنند ولی نه با مانع یا جدول راهی جدا شده و نه با تابلو انتظامی، دور زدن مجاز گشتهه.
🅢🅐🅜🅐🅝➤ (2022-08-24 04:03:58+00:00): با سلام؛
در مسیر بلوار های شمالی و غربی، بر اساس گزارش های دریافتی دوربرگردان رسم شده بوده. 
ممنون برای اصلاح مسیر 🙏🏻
ChehrehBargi (2022-08-24 14:52:21+00:00): اگر ممکن هست این مطلب رو به برنامه نویس ها انتقال بدید:
برای نام خیابان ها در مسیریابی، تگ short name رو هم لحاظ کنن. تگ  name برای اسم روی تابلو هست که اکثراً طولانی هست و موقع مسیریابی مشکل ساز.
باسپاس
ChehrehBargi (2022-08-24 14:53:23+00:00): بنده مدتی هست، تا جایی که از دستم بر میاد تگ short name رو اضافه می کنم.
Warin61 (2022-08-10 00:29:15+00:00): Error
Relation 14440560 - problem 	duplicate_segment.
Warin61 (2022-08-12 00:08:42+00:00): See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

In particular "consisting of multiple disjoint areas" ... the areas here are joined.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-08-09 22:54:32+00:00): porqe removeu a via de estacionamento que havia aqui? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8107531090
emersonveenstra (2022-08-10 10:55:24+00:00): Hi,

This changeset created https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1084971079, which completely overlapped https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/866171030. I've removed it, please make sure to double-check you aren't duplicating areas before uploading, thanks!
user_5359 (2022-08-10 07:02:59+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1084972924/history. You use for the word office a character which combine the two ff in one single character. Please don‘t use this utf-8 character instead of the two ff.
adiatmad (2022-08-10 08:43:28+00:00): I hope you don't mind if I'm jumping in. But, I'm interested to find a different character of "two ff". I checked PeWu (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1084972924) and still can't figure it out.
user_5359 (2022-08-10 10:45:13+00:00): Okay you are right, he use the utf8 character ﬃ (one character for the three characters f f i)
adiatmad (2022-08-10 15:50:20+00:00): Got it. So that's why it shows as a warning. Thanks for sharing!
mavl (2022-08-09 16:32:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124693034 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [Reason: transliteration - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124639538].
PT-53 (2022-10-01 11:15:18+00:00): Hallo georanger,
Du hast in diesem Änderungssatz diese Siedlungsfläche
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93801062/history
nach Nordosten erweitert.
Was war die Quelle dafür?
Gibt es dort einen Bebauungsplan?
Fragende Grüße
PT-53 (2022-10-01 11:29:14+00:00): PS:
Hab den Bebauungsplan doch noch gefunden:
- file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/06-190-Laizer-Ergat-II-Textteil-06.04.2022.pdf
geo-ranger (2022-10-01 11:45:53+00:00): gut.
emersonveenstra (2022-08-09 11:21:27+00:00): Hi,

Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#How_to_map for instructions on how to correctly tag turn lanes. Thanks!
Mahdi Nameghi (2022-08-10 04:18:55+00:00): بر چه اساسی این تغییرات رو انجام میدین؟
Chincha1 (2022-08-20 15:12:20+00:00): Hi GS_vogue,
Incorrect residential classification
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124665425
GS_vogue (2022-08-23 13:31:08+00:00): Hi Chincha1,

Thanks for reaching out. Can you please share the highway you are referring to? I have classified the way as Residential in accordance with the Eastern Africa highway tagging guidelines (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/East_Africa_Tagging_Guidelines).
s777n (2025-09-05 14:48:44+00:00): Адрессация по деревне добавляется через addr:place a не addr:street. Исправлено
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-09-15 15:35:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 126228183, 126229776, 126229784 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6330 ; subsequent actions by that user suggest this data is likely fantasy.
mavl (2022-08-09 16:32:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124693034 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [Reason: transliteration - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124639538].
literan (2022-08-09 17:54:47+00:00): там давно нет никакой disused ж/д линии. Остались местами только следы (и уже стоит тег railway=abandoned)

правку придется откатить
andrewsuzuki (2022-08-24 03:24:05+00:00): Hi CyberMinion, I saw the review_requested=yes tag on the changeset. Looks good generally, but  in reference to the "South Windsor Town Land Driveway" you shouldn't construct names as a description (unless that's the official name of the road?). If it doesn't have an official name then just leave the name blank, or you can add it in the description or note field. Learn more here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
Thanks!
CyberMinion (2022-08-24 21:43:24+00:00): Hi @andrewsuzuki

Thank you for reviewing it! I've only added metadata up until now, so I was hoping someone would make sure I hadn't messed anything up. Good to know about the name. I was having difficulty inserting the driveway without adding a name...probably my fault.
CyberMinion (2022-08-24 21:54:00+00:00): I was getting errors in red (blocking edit submission) when I tried to leave the name blank before. But apparently once I create it, I can delete the name. I've done that.
Allison P (2022-08-25 22:00:25+00:00): That should not happen. Red errors usually only appear for untagged features (not just no name, but nothing to indicate what it is). If it happens again, it would be great if you could screenshot the issue and submit a bug report here: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues
CyberMinion (2022-08-26 06:25:50+00:00): Okay, thank you Allison
SafetyIng (2022-08-13 00:08:13+00:00): Welche Daten lagen dieser Änderung zugrunde?
Es scheint sehr stark nach den Shape-Files des LVermGeo.....
user_390227 (2022-08-13 03:50:35+00:00): Die für diese Kartierung erforderlichen Geodaten habe ich vor Ort erfasst. Eine Shape-Datei wurde nicht genutzt.
@SafetyIng Den Vorwurf ich würde hier jemanden verarschen verbiete ich mir! (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124255313)
BubbaJuice (2022-08-09 06:32:24+00:00): Sorry if I messed anything up. Lots of conflicts...
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-09-15 15:33:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 126228183, 126229776, 126229784 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6330 ; subsequent actions by that user suggest this data is likely fantasy.
eggie (2022-08-09 07:18:05+00:00): Oke.. Die noordelijke track waar je tracktype=grade2 hebt verwijder.. (Dat wil zeggen half verhard)  die zou nog een tracktype kunnen krijgen.
Bv tracktype=grade3 (of4??)
Gr eggie
hvanmierloo (2022-08-09 07:25:30+00:00): Bedankt Eggie, ik heb een grade4 tracktype toegevoegd. Op basis van de voorbeeldfoto's op de wiki en mijn ervaring met het pad ter plekke lijkt mij die classificering het beste.
eggie (2022-08-09 07:55:55+00:00): Let wel op dat je met editor iD geen paden en wegen met routerelaties splitst . Dan gaan de mtb en fiets en waldelroutes stuk.
Editor iD is daar niet voor geschikt. Ik ben momenteel een rouet aan het herstellen. Geen idee of het door jouw knipacties komt.
Wegen met routerelaties alleen bewerken met editor JOSM.
Een aanrader.

editor josm stap voor stap 

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710
eggie (2022-08-09 08:03:16+00:00): MTB-route Pan-Hugten hersteld
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-09-15 15:32:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 126228183, 126229776, 126229784 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6330 ; subsequent actions by that user suggest this data is likely fantasy.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-09-15 15:34:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 126228183, 126229776, 126229784 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6330 ; subsequent actions by that user suggest this data is likely fantasy.
mavl (2022-08-09 16:32:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124693034 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [Reason: transliteration - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124639538].
pitfire (2022-08-10 04:17:31+00:00): Hallo erdnussfan, 
sorry, musste etwas nachkorrigieren. Brückenflächen benötigen Knotentenverbindung "Fläche/Trasse"
eggie (2022-08-09 07:25:29+00:00): Vermoedelijk loopt dat pad aan de zuidzijde en naar het noorden aan de westzijde van de greppel/sloot.
Nu passeert het pad 2x de sloot.
In de BGT staan die sloten/greppels ingetekend. Die transparante laag gebruik ik als achtergrond. 
Iets om nog een keer uit te zoeken hoe het pad werkelijk loopt. 

Gr eggie
eggie (2022-08-09 07:27:08+00:00): Op jouw achtergrondfoto lijkt het overigens te kloppen.
hvanmierloo (2022-08-09 07:30:44+00:00): Ja, het pad loopt daar tussen het veld en de sloot volgens mij. Er staan alleen een paar struikjes tussen het pad en het veld. Ik zal er binnenkort nog eens langswandelen om het te dubbelchecken.
4004 (2022-08-14 22:54:30+00:00): hi, thanks for the edit. if you could, it would be great if you limited the area covered by a changeset (eg by uploading in smaller, regional increments)
mavl (2022-08-09 16:32:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124693034 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [Reason: transliteration - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124639538].
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-09-15 15:33:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 126228183, 126229776, 126229784 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6330 ; subsequent actions by that user suggest this data is likely fantasy.
eggie (2022-08-09 11:21:00+00:00): Beste Sander.. We taggen altijd wat er werkelijk is. Is dit echt een stukje fietspad geworden?  Of is het gewoon een highway=residential..  Het betonblok houdt al bij default motorvoertuigen tegen.  Ligt er echt een betonblok?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-08-09 11:31:47+00:00): Ik heb je wijziging teruggezet.. 
Het zal daar echt niet voor auto's routeren. 
De bezoekers van de huisartsenpraktijk zullen toch ook hun auto moeten parkeren?

Mocht er echt een fietspad zijn aangelegd met G12a bord laat het dan even weten. 

MVG'eggie
sandervansteijn (2022-08-09 11:32:03+00:00): Hallo Eggie,

er ligt echt een wegopstakel en het is echt een brom/fiets/voetgangers pad.

Eigenlijk is het een doodlopende weg geworden vanaf de rotonde gezien, met toegang voor brom/fiets/voetgangers.
eggie (2022-08-09 11:44:49+00:00): Sander...  Iets is alleen een bromfietspad als er een G12a bord staat. 
Het wegobstakel is een bloembak. Die staat er vanaf augustus vorig jaar .
De huisarts geeft zelfs nog aanwijzingen hoe te rijden nu.

https://praktijkrijksstraatweg.praktijkinfo.nl/2022/03/31/wegversperring/

Mijn vraag is staat hier een NL:G12a bord. Volgens mijn weten niet. Dus is het geen fietspad. 
Er staat wel een bord Doodlopende weg muv (Brom)fietsen.
Wat is er dan dit maart 2022 weer veranderd hier? 

eggie
sandervansteijn (2022-08-09 11:50:21+00:00): Situatie niet veranderd, Kennelijk geen brom/fietspad .... 

De navigatie faalt dan helaas en denkt dat hij nog steeds probeert door de blokken heen te rijden.
eggie (2022-08-09 12:12:05+00:00): Welke navigatie gaat hier in de fout?  Het was allemaal correct getagd.. 
Een block zou per default motorvoertuigen moeten tegenhouden.
Ik de tagging voor motorcar en motorcycle aanpassen naar motor_vehicle=no  Volgens wiki kan dat.
Beetje arbitrair of er wel of niet een motorfiets door mag... 
Het routeerde oveigens correct.. namelijk NIET
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car&route=52.49975%2C4.65660%3B52.50008%2C4.65693#map=18/52.49980/4.65783
Dus nog even de vraag.. Welke navigatieapp kan niet omgaan met barrier=block en motorcar=no ?

eggie
sandervansteijn (2022-08-09 12:42:10+00:00): Navigatie Leafled blijft door blokkades heen willen gaan. Ik zie inderdaad dat bovenstaande link wel keurig zijn omleiding doet. Dus het ligt dan echt aan het navigatiesysteem. Helaas...
eggie (2022-08-09 12:51:00+00:00): Alle routers gaan wel ergens de fout in.

Wellicht dat motor_vehicle no gaat helpen.
BubbaJuice (2022-08-09 06:32:11+00:00): Sorry if I messed anything up. Lots of conflicts...
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-09-15 15:34:52+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 126228183, 126229776, 126229784 where the changeset comment is: Reverting edits; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6330 ; subsequent actions by that user suggest this data is likely fantasy.
JLZIMMERMANN (2022-08-09 09:29:50+00:00): Bonjour Joseph,
Je vois que tu poursuis le tour des aires dédiées aux piétons.
Il me semble judicieux que tu laisse coexister le tag émergeant 
area:highway=*
avec ceux préexistants 
highway=footway + area=yes
Le moteur de rendu à défaut pour l'instant en a encore besoin ;-)
Bonne journée
Jean-Louis
joseph83 (2022-08-09 09:33:39+00:00): Bonjour, je crois que c'est l'éditeur ID qui me fait faire ça, certains tracés surfaciques apparaissent comme une erreur avec le message "la voie piétonne devrait être une ligne et non pas une surface", d'où certaines modifications, il faut que j'ignore les messages mais parfois c'est un réflexe. Je me concentre plutôt sur les voies de circulation automobile maintenant avant d'attaquer les voies piétonnes !
Bonne journée,
Joseph.
JLZIMMERMANN (2022-08-09 09:50:04+00:00): Merci de ton retour,
L'éditeur ID pose beaucoup de difficultés et conflits à cause de propositions qui ne font pas l'unanimité. Idéalement, le mieux de ne valider que ce dont tu sais que c'est fiable.
A+
Jean-Louis
mavl (2022-08-16 13:47:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124972694 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poog mapping - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124910876].
zluuzki (2022-08-09 06:57:54+00:00): wrong account, not an import
PeterCooperJr (2022-08-09 13:56:44+00:00): Hi; welcome to OSM! I saw that you marked this change "review requested", so I thought I'd give my feedback: Looks pretty good to me, as the lanes "2;1;2" that was there before certainly doesn't make any sense. I just wanted to make sure you knew that the "lanes" tag on a two-way road indicates the total number of lanes, so "2" would be a typical road with one lane in each direction. This road looks pretty narrow on the aerial imagery, so it may be that "1" is correct here, though. (I don't really know the area myself.) Hope that's helpful to you!
ChehrehBargi (2023-05-06 14:14:18+00:00): سلام ضمن خسته نباشید
طبق قوانین ویکی در تگ name نام موجود در تابلو شهرداری یا نام اصلی و کامل را ثبت می کنیم. اگر نام کوتاه شده ای هم هست در تگ short_name
mini-me (2022-08-09 07:39:51+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F#name:language_code
mavl (2022-08-09 16:32:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124693034 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [Reason: transliteration - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124639538].
Msiipola (2022-08-09 13:04:12+00:00): Hi! Here are now 2 (!) roads next to each other.
It's an error which must be fixed!
Vika_Nosovich (2022-08-09 14:04:18+00:00): Hello, Msiipola!
Thank you for comment. I fixed the error. More here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124687853
Mordechai23 (2022-08-09 11:52:21+00:00): Te ulice nie mają nazwy. Czemu jest uporczywie dodajesz?
RicoElectrico (2022-08-09 11:56:03+00:00): Tutaj dlaczego nie powinno się ich dodawać: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_praktyki#Nie_u.C5.BCywaj_tagu_name_do_opisywania_rzeczy
Andreas Binder (2022-08-09 08:46:12+00:00): Kein tracktype mehr?
citro (2022-08-09 08:57:11+00:00): Ist holprig geteert und Tempo 30 ist auf der Straße eingezeichnet
Andreas Binder (2022-08-09 09:31:03+00:00): Wäre dann tracktype 1 oder 2? Aktuell ist in OSM gar kein tracktype mehr vorhanden https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114182875/history
citro (2022-08-09 09:38:56+00:00): Oh, dann habe ich was falsch gemacht ?
Asphaltiert steht noch dabei.
Was wäre jetzt richtig ?
Um Hilfe wäre ich dankbar
Andreas Binder (2022-08-09 09:47:32+00:00): Hi citro, Kein Problem und ich denke, dass nur das tracktype=grade1-Attribut hops gegangen ist. Soll ich es wieder hinzufügen? Grüße Andreas