piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:31:18+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:17:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
Warin61 (2023-06-02 05:43:51+00:00): The TOC Manual is STILL not correctly listed on the data base! 

I think it is time to remove the data from OSM. 

Additionally where maxspeed:backward and maxspeed:forward are the same maxspeed should be used.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:25:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
VLD549 (2022-10-04 05:30:35+00:00): Hi, could you provide a link to the BAG update? According to BAG I checked today, the correct name is Molshoek. Thank you!
Sander H (2022-10-04 17:39:56+00:00): Look again, the old industrial area used to be called Molshoek, but now they're building houses with different streetnames. Probably the background imagery of the BAG isn't updated yet.
Please revert your change.
VLD548 (2022-10-05 08:25:46+00:00): Thanks for the explanation. All clear to use the name Molshoek.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:26:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
Aleksey Gorelikov (2022-08-12 06:45:32+00:00): https://data-usdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/usdot::highway-performance-monitoring-system-fsys-3/explore?location=43.104390%2C-85.242247%2C14.25
mavl (2022-08-16 13:48:21+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].
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:50:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
mavl (2022-08-16 13:47:35+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].
mavl (2022-08-16 13:47:44+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].
mavl (2022-08-16 13:48:09+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].
Jakka (2022-08-13 07:53:02+00:00): mofa ? bromfiets typa A
moped ? type B
speed_pedelec ?
zijn deze ook verboden ?
Gemeentebestuur Oosterzele (2022-08-16 06:32:27+00:00): neen
Jakka (2022-08-16 11:41:41+00:00): extra toelatingen ingevoerd.
Maar zag dat er nu twee palen ingetekend staan ? vermoed ééntje te veel maar welke
correct.
hier staat er één https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9937470756
en hier
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9948798655
Jakka (2022-08-13 07:54:15+00:00): éénrichting voor alle verkeer ?
tweewielers ? welke borden deze vertalen in code.
Gemeentebestuur Oosterzele (2022-08-16 06:34:55+00:00): uuitgezonderd fietsers en speed pedelecs
Jakka (2022-08-16 11:45:11+00:00): vermoed dat dit deel onmogelijk oneway kan zijn... je kan er niet in .
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/78574892#map=17/50.92483/3.79612&layers=N
Verbinding gootje Molenstraat aangepast uitgezonderd fietsers en speed pedelecs
k127 (2022-09-01 13:52:13+00:00): Grüße!

Wie kommt's denn zu `opening_hours`=`00:00-00:01`?

Weiß nicht genau, wie das in StreetComplete gelöst ist, aber an sich ist dieser Tag eher von der komplexeren Sorte [1].

k

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:opening%20hours?uselang=de
Владимир К (2022-09-10 15:34:02+00:00): Добрый день!
Откуда информация, что здесь светофор? на панорамах светофора нет
BCNorwich (2022-08-12 10:02:00+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I'm sure there are barriers here so they ought not to be removed simply because you cannot route through them. I can't see that you uploaded data to say open to all vehicles, even if you did it would take several days to be used by routers. Could you say what software refused to route across the railway?

I've added back the barriers tagging them to allow vehicles and non-motorized traffic. Please wait at least a few days for the data to take effect. 

By the way, the crossing at Station Road, Lakenheath to the west of here has the barriers tagged as just lift_gate and routing is as expected allowing all traffic through.

Regards Bernard.
NeilH5044 (2022-08-17 12:36:47+00:00): Hi Bernard,

Thanks for your comments.

The software I'm using is Kurviger, which now routes over the crossing following the changes you made.

Before removing the lift gates I had looked at another crossing at East Street, Colchester, which doesn't have the lift gates feature. There is a field 'Barrier arm' within the Railway-Road Crossing feature to define the type of gates, or no gates, on the crossing. I thought this negated the need to include lift gates as a separate feature at the crossing.

Regards,
Neil
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:22:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
blef (2022-08-19 18:12:33+00:00): Bonjour,
Vous faites en ce moment de très nombreuses modifications sur les barrières de péage d'autoroute en réécrivant tous les noms en majuscules.

Les conventions dans OSM veulent que seule la première lettre est en majuscule, le reste du mot étant en minuscules.

Voir:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bonnes_pratiques#Respectez_les_conventions_d'%C3%A9criture_pour_l'attribut_name

Bonne journée.
Stéphane GUILLY (2022-08-22 07:57:48+00:00): Bonjour,

Nous allons corriger l'ensemble des noeuds que nous avons modifié pour prendre en compte la convention OSM sur le "name".

Bonne journée,
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:50:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:21:59+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
Bierphysik (2022-09-22 06:30:23+00:00): Hi. Der Weg, denn du da gemappt hast, mit jeweils zwei noexit nodes am Ende, bist Du Dir sicher, dass das so stimmt? Auf Bing kann man zumindest am Nordende sehen, dass dort eine unterBrechung des Zauns ist.
phschafft (2024-05-17 10:41:22+00:00): Beim letzten Besuch dort war dies so. Eine echte/geschlossene Umzäunung hat das ganze Gelände nicht. Und ein "offiziell" wirkender Eingang ist für mich nicht ersichtlich gewesen.

Sicherlich sollte man das ganze aber im Auge behalten und wenn jemand vorbei kommt den Zustand ggf. aktualisieren.
phschafft (2024-06-06 19:52:17+00:00): Heute geprüft. Der Weg ist weiterhin nicht verbunden. Ist mittlerweile aber auch weniger stark "ausgetreten". Bank und Mülleimer existieren noch.
SUPER HEROS 67 (2022-08-14 14:25:08+00:00): Bonjour Natchouf,

Avez vous la possibilité de vous rendre sur place pour vérifier l'information ?

Bonne journée
Cordialement
SUPER HEROS 67
Natchouf (2022-09-02 10:53:25+00:00): Bonjour,
Désolé pour le délai de réponse.
En fait nous y sommes passé début août et l'avons trouvé fermé, apparemment depuis 2019 si on en croit les arrêtés municipaux affichés.
Natchouf (2022-09-02 10:55:07+00:00): Ah non, je confonds. Nous avons appelé la Mairie, qui nous a indiqué qu'il était fermé.
Nous n'avons pas été vérifier sur place, mais la Mairie nous semble être une source sure.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-08-12 10:13:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124811513 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for vandalism
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:48:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:38:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
trigpoint (2022-08-20 14:59:42+00:00): Hi
Wondering why you have changed some footways to paths?

Path is a problematic tag in England/Wales due to access rules. Footway implies foot only, which along with designation=public_footpath is correct. The problem with path it needs a load of access tags to be meaningful. Many applications will assume that cycling is allowed oh highway=path, unless it is tagged as bicycle=no which then results in illegal routing decisions made by some apps (komoot spings to mind).

Cheers Phil
trigpoint (2022-10-30 16:45:39+00:00): Mapper has not responded so reverting these edits.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-08-12 10:13:43+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124811530 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for vandalism
mavl (2022-08-16 13:47:26+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].
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-08-12 10:14:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124811558 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for vandalism
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-08-12 10:14:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 124811580 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert for vandalism
eggie (2022-08-12 15:30:11+00:00): Dag Freek  Een (brom) fietspad geef je inderdaad niet zo aan.
Je juiste tagging even als hulpje
G11: mofa=yes, moped=no, traffic_sign=NL:G11 
G12a: moped=designated, mofa=designated, traffic_sign=NL:G12a 
G13: moped=no, mofa=no, traffic_sign=NL:G13 

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Cycleway 

In josm kun je ook presets laden. Dan hoef je alleen maar 1x te klikken in je voorkeuzemenu .
Gr eggie
eggie (2022-08-12 15:39:02+00:00): Even als voorbeeld die tagging op dat stukje fietspad gezet..  en ook van het westelijke stuk die designation= brom fietspad verwijderd.
In de fietsroute zitten geen gaten zo te zien.
Wilde je dat weten?
gr eggie
Freek_ (2022-08-13 11:08:03+00:00): Hallo Eggie,
Bedankt voor je snelle controle weer. Ik was me niet bewust dat ik tags had aangepast. Het ging mij eigenlijk alleen om de route die ik aangepast had. Heel erg duidelijk vind ik die route-relatie tool in josm namelijk niet.
Het ging dus om de fietsroute voor het verkeersexamen voor groep 7. Die route stond in osm zag ik. Maar de route is een paar jaar terug flink aangepast. Dat heb ik gecorrigeerd. (https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=300150)
Groet,
Freek
eggie (2022-08-13 11:18:34+00:00): Die route sluit ook aan..  Die komt zicht zelf wel weer tegen zie ik. 
'k Vind het elke keer ook weer lastig om een route goed te krijgen. Gewoon veel doen.
Dit waren je edits hier https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=124809454
Gr eggie
eggie (2022-08-13 11:52:43+00:00): Als een route weer over hetzelfde traject teruggaat.. even geen idee of dat dan dubbel met forward en backward in de route moet. M'n gevoel zegt van wel. 

Een andere vraag is of zo'n examenroute wel in osm hoort? Er zal niets fysiek aangegeven zijn. 

Vraagje voor het forum denk ik.
Freek_ (2022-08-13 13:06:31+00:00): Ja er hangen wel degelijk bordjes met die route bij alle afslagen.
https://www.vvnhouten.nl/verkeerseducatie
eggie (2022-08-13 13:30:07+00:00): Oke... duidelijk
SUPER HEROS 67 (2022-08-14 14:52:04+00:00): Hello Titi,

Je viens de regarder ton groupe de modification, je ne vois rien qui pourrait erroné.

Bonne journée
SUPER HEROS 67
Denis_Helfer (2022-08-15 07:18:00+00:00): Bonjour,
Il n'est pas recommandé de mapper séparément  les voies d'une même route. Celles-ci sont inutiles : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1085779203, 1085719302. Idem pour les chemins 1085834069 et 1085834068 redondant avec 777131539.
La piste cyblable 1085496745 fait doublon avec 259240701. Idem pour 56401566 et 1085719310 etc.etc.
Au besoin, je peux faire le ménage ou te laisser faire avec SUPER HEROS 67. 
A disposition pour tout renseignement complémentaire
Denis_Helfer (2022-08-15 07:18:59+00:00): Une dernière chose : il existe aussi une orthophoto sur l'agglomération de Haguenau qui date de 2019 mais à 5 cm de résolution.
StephaneP (2022-08-16 07:08:29+00:00): J'ai continué les corrections mais il y a encore pas mal de travail à faire (vérif tags turn:lanes, lanes, et suppression doublon cycleway)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/124956513
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:19:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
mavl (2022-08-16 13:48:10+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].
orthocircular (2022-08-12 12:10:59+00:00): Hi there thank you for adding your business to OSM! I've standardized the tags on your entry so that it's actually findable: OSM has a particular way of doing things that would make "Category: flooring" and "Street: SW Queen Ave, Building B" not show up. It looks to me like you're mainly offering your services in constructing countertops and remodeling floors rather than focusing on direct to consumer DIY materials? If so I think "craft=builder" is the closest tag for you, otherwise craft=flooring. The craft tag is for artisans, the shop tag is like probably shopping carts are involved (you'd be in a similar category as Home Depot or Ikea.) Finally Description is just a few words at most, it tends to get abused for SEO but pretend it's like a subtitle that actually takes up space on the rendered map cuz that's sometimes how it shows up: you wouldn't want a map where every McDonalds had their mission statement written out underneath! Thanks again and feel free to respond with any questions or concerns.
orthocircular (2022-08-12 12:31:41+00:00): Actually I noticed you've got a full remodeling parent company next door so it makes sense to specifically call out flooring. I've added the parent company and adjusted the roads and self storage in your area, please check my work:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9949257070

Also I notice your address is for the main road but a road named Calpooia Street is what actually goes to your front door, is that accurate? Is it also accurate that there's a gate people drive through to get to your location? Just checking to make sure people know how to find you! Thanks again.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:49:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 131779437, 131779414, 131779448, 131779428, 131779443, 131779417, 131779421, 131775334, 131779434 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some undiscussed imports.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6789 ; which was ignored and the imports moved to another account, hence this revert
eggie (2022-08-12 10:46:46+00:00): Dag Lucian.. Je info heb ik samengevoegd met de adresnode op het gebouw.
MVG
eggie
NKA (2022-08-14 05:27:09+00:00): Er det skiltet «fotgjenger forbudt» i disse gatene?

foot=yes betyr at det er forbudt/straffbart å gå der, ikke at gaten er uegnet for gåing eller at det finnes bedre alternativer.
9ls 1ar (2022-08-15 06:59:22+00:00): Det er ikkje forbudt for fotgjengarar i desse gatane, men iht vegtrafikklova skal dei benytte fortauet, ikkje køyrefeltet.
Har du eit godt forslag til andre måtar å  løyse det på?
NKA (2022-08-16 04:07:39+00:00): Som du vet er det unntak for dette i trafikkreglene om det ikke er "rimelig", å bruke fortauet så foot=no som er et absolutt forbud blir feil. 

Vi har ikke noen måte å tagge dette på i OSM. Det måtte i så fall ha vært gjort på samtlige veier der det finnes fortau, som ikke er hensiktsmessig.

(Min skrivefeil øverst, skulle være foot=no selvfølgelig.)
9ls 1ar (2022-08-17 13:21:14+00:00): Lovverket er tydeleg på at dersom vegen har fortau so skal dette brukast: 

§ 19.Særlige bestemmelser for gående
1. Gående skal nytte gangveg, fortau eller vegens skulder. Er det ikke rimelig på grunn av farten m.v. eller mulig å gjøre dette, kan gående nytte sykkelveg, sykkelfelt eller kjørebane.
Gående som nytter kjørebane, skal gå ytterst til venstre i gangretningen, men ytterst til høyre dersom han leier sykkel. Motsatt side av kjørebanen kan nyttes dersom den gående ellers ville bli utsatt for fare, eller hvis særlige forhold tilsier det.
(https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/1986-03-21-747)

"Rimelig" i denne samanhengen henviser til fart då  §2, ledd 3 viser til at gående regnes også den som:
a.	går på ski eller rulleski,
b.	fører rullestol eller sparkstøtting eller aker kjelke,
c.	leier sykkel eller moped, triller liten elektrisk motorvogn eller barnevogn eller bruker lekekjøretøy.

Eg meinar difor at unntaket du viser til ikkej gjelder for gåande og at det difor er forbudt for gåande å nytte køyrefeltet i gater med gangveg, fortau.
9ls 1ar (2022-08-17 13:26:40+00:00): Hovudårsaka til at eg har endra rettigheitar til fotgjengarar (som eg ser at du jobbar med å reversere) er at appar som nyttar OSM ber folk om å gå i vegbanen og dette er ikkje spesielt heldig og skapar trafikkfarlege situasjonar.
balchen (2022-08-17 14:19:45+00:00): De trafikantene som er nevnt i §2, ledd 3 er regnet som gående. Dersom du mener unntaket fra bruk av fortau gjelder dem, så er likevel foot=no feil. foot=* gjelder gående, hva nå enn lovens definisjon av det er.
Gazer75 (2022-08-17 14:21:45+00:00): Det er jo appen sitt problem at den ikkje prioriterer fortau osv
balchen (2022-08-17 14:23:36+00:00): Det er videre ikke bare fart som er nevnt, men "farten m.v.", dvs. at det finnes andre rimelighetsforhold som gjør at gående kan la være å benytte fortau. At fart er knyttet til §2 er greit, men leddet i sin helhet er ikke KUN knyttet til fart.
balchen (2022-08-17 14:25:51+00:00): "appar som nyttar OSM ber folk om å gå i vegbanen"

Som Gazer75 sier er det vel som hovedregel appens problem hva den gjør, men hvordan eksakt ber appene gående om gå på kjørebanen og ikke på fortauet?
aixbrick (2022-08-12 11:28:08+00:00): Hallo,
in deiner Begründung fehlt der weitere Text. Unabhängig davon: Bitte lese https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dpost_office. Das jetzige Tagging wurde in der Community diskutiert und im Rahmen eines Proposals verabschiedet, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop_as_post-partner und die dort verlinkten "External discussions".
Bitte lösche den Node daher wieder (ref kannst du als ref:DeutschePost am Geschäft erfassen).
Gruß
FreddyAC (2022-08-12 12:03:19+00:00): Hallo,
sorry, ich bin noch nicht so versiert in OSM, danke für die Hinweise. Der Node ist gelöscht. 
Keine Ahnung, warum der Text abgeschnitten wurde, war wohl zu lang. Ich hatte geschrieben, dass man die Post nach dem derzeitigen Tagging-Schema leider nicht in Apps wie OSMand, Organic Maps etc. finden kann, wenn man einfach nach einer Post in Nähe suchen möchte, was ein wenig schade ist, aber wohl nicht zu ändern, wenn das die Regel ist, wie es gemacht werden soll.
LG
aixbrick (2022-08-12 13:52:04+00:00): Danke.
Es ist eine Vereinbarung, wie es in der OSM-Datenbank erfasst werden soll. Für die Auswertung (sprich Berücksichtigung der Tags) und Anzeige der Daten ist dann die jeweilige App verantwortlich. Am Besten mal bei den App-Verantworlichen nachfragen.
mini-me (2022-08-13 18:56:15+00:00): Прежде чем что-то редактировать, почитайте справку (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Заглавная_страница) или посмотрите, как это сделано в других местах.

Улица, проспект итп пишется без сокращений - "Благовещенская улица"

Буква дома пишется заглавными буквами и слитно с номером - "37А"

Нет такого типа здания "верный_магазин" и дороги типа "советская_улица_17"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:building
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:service
kims23 (2022-08-12 11:04:15+00:00): thanks, when will it be not exposed in google? when i search that on korean, still exist.
artem78 (2022-08-12 18:07:34+00:00): Здравствуйте.
Зачем повороты направо обозначать отдельными линиями? Ведь они не отделены от самого перекрёстка как, например, здесь:  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/56.00761/37.20095
Guzalia (2022-08-15 10:00:04+00:00): Добрый день. Отдельные линии добавлены, поскольку в данном случае есть направляющие островки, а непосредственно на самом пересечении дорог поворот направо не предполагается (согласно знакам и разметке). Готова обсудить и при необходимости исправить, если это неверно.
artem78 (2022-08-15 20:20:41+00:00): Верно или нет точно не скажу, нужно смотреть документацию. Лично мне кажется, что наличия разметки в виде треугольника недостаточно для отделения.