piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Olga | Yanosik (2022-01-25 14:44:09+00:00): Wg śladów już po remoncie, zedytowałam go.
englu (2022-01-25 19:21:50+00:00): Ok, dzięki.
pio2_122 (2021-08-26 13:12:40+00:00): Wydaje mi się, że korzystasz z innego odwzorowania kartograficznego niż PL-1992, które jest ogólnie stosowane na terenie Polski.
Różnica pomiędzy domyślnym odwzorowaniem (o ile pamiętam: WGS 84) a PL-1992 jest niewielka. Jest jednak zauważalna przy dokładnym mapowaniu - szczególnie w przypadku obrysów budynków.
Tą różnicę zauważyłem, gdy zmieniłeś geometrię tego budynku: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/970180778 – przed tą edycją pokrywał się on u mnie z podkładem „Geoportal 2: Ewidencja budynków WMS” (zapewne z niego już korzystałeś), a teraz trochę się „rozjechał”.

Teraz krótki poradnik pt.: „Jak zmienić odwzorowanie kartograficzne w JOSM” :D
[WAŻNE: przed zmianą polecam zapamiętać/zapisać sobie odwzorowanie, które było domyślnie ustawione, ponieważ odwzorowanie PL-1992 jest ograniczone obszarem tylko do Polski i najbliższej okolicy. Mapując zagranicą JOSM, z racji tych ograniczeń, nie pozwoli na edycję. Wtedy trzeba będzie ustawić z powrotem domyślne odwzorowanie (lub ustawić dedykowane dla innego państwa).]
1)	Po uruchomieniu JOSM-a klikamy na klawisz F12;
2)	Pokaże się okno „Ustawienia”. Z listy po lewej wybieramy „Odwzorowanie kartograficzne”;
3)	Obok napisu „Rodzaj odwzorowania kartograficznego” na liście ustawiamy opcję „PUWG (Polska)”;
4)	Poniżej, na liście obok napisu „Strefa PUWG” wybieramy „PUWG 1992 (Polska)”;
5)	Następnie klikamy na „Ustaw jako domyślne”, a po komunikacie potwierdzającym, klikamy „OK” na samym dole okna.
6)	Gotowe!

Geometrię wspomnianego budynku niedługo sam poprawię przy okazji różnych poprawek w okolicy.
NieWnen (2021-08-26 13:57:46+00:00): *5 jeśli nie ma przycisku "Ustaw jako domyślne" trzeba włączyć tryb ekspercki w lewym dolnym rogu okna ustawień. Można go potem wyłączyć.
d3mol3k (2021-08-31 07:47:09+00:00): dzięki za informację. Poprawię ustawienia.
PaoloLombardi (2021-09-22 14:16:53+00:00): Ma perché continui a togliere tag che ho messo e soprattutto eliminare la mia cronologia? Spiegami cosa non hai capito di OSM!
30x26 (2021-09-22 18:02:29+00:00): buongiorno, visto che ci "incontriamo" spesso , se sei d'accordo, direi che la cosa migliore per una civile convivenza e gli interessi della comunita' sarebbe instaurare un rapporto di collaborazione.

io utilizzo l'interfaccia web , vado in modifica e la sera stessa modifico cio' che ho trovato non corrispondente a quanto mi aspettavo consultando la mappa. durante il percorso segno waypoint con nome esplicativo di quanto appena percorso.
questo faccio, non so cosa significhi "cancellare la tua cronologia"  . io modifico in base a cio' che trovo in quel momento. che puo' essere diverso da quanto mappato in passato , soprattutto in zone "abbandonate" o che in via di spopolamento. 
non cancello volontariamente i tag tuoi o di altri. tranne errori involontati , le  poche volte che l'ho fatto e' perche' in virtu' della nuova situazione sul campo li ho ritenuti ridondanti o non piu' appropriati.
Geofreund1 (2021-11-02 08:11:00+00:00): Hallo Dominic Z,
die TR 13128256 (only straight on) von der Parkstraße zur Östlichen scheint mir verdächtig. Kannst du das bitte mal prüfen?
Danke
Dominic Z (2021-11-07 18:41:06+00:00): Das stimmt natürlich nicht, es sollte auf der Parkstraße weitergehen. Danke für den Hinweis, habe das korrigiert.
wkdgs (2021-08-26 06:24:42+00:00): OSM hat es wahrscheinlich bemängelt, weil die Tags für die Hundeschule an den Zaun angehängt waren. 

Ich habe die Tags vom Zaun entfernt und eine neue Fläche dafür angelegt.
wkdgs (2021-08-26 06:29:13+00:00): Hab mich doch umentschiedne und die Tags für die Hundeschule an das Gebäude gehängt. Wie bei dem Reitverein nebenan. 

Die Fläche habe ich mit landuse=grass getaggt, da es anders als beim Reitplatz, dafür keinen wirklich passenden Tag gibt. Landuse=grass beschreibt die Fläche ja auch und es wird entsprechend gerendert.
Maarten Deen (2021-09-01 11:35:05+00:00): Hi,
thanks for contributing to OSM but there are a number of errors in your edits.
- you have placed highway=motorway_junction on crossings of residential streets e.g. node 2174781837
- you have placed individual nodes natural=wood e.g. node 9036285099. Maybe you mean natural=tree?
- you have duplicated several streets, e.g. way 976475460

Could you please review your edits?
btwhite92 (2021-08-25 21:54:41+00:00): I am extremely confused about all these very recent reclassifications. What, exactly, do you now consider a trunk road? 

You clearly aren't using "major highways" because this part of CA 99 would certainly qualify. Divided, limited access highways don't count either since you downgraded CA 108 expressway sections to 'primary'. Super-twos don't seem to count either. Four-lane limited access roads don't count, since you're downgrading those portions of US 50 and US 101. Yet, recently, you bumped up US 50 on east shore of Tahoe (4 lane undivided road with no access control) to 'trunk', as well as from Carson City through to Dayton (4 lane undivided road with partial access control) to 'trunk' as well. 

Frankly after multiple attempts by myself and others to reach out to you about these changes, it feels like you're changing classifications simply to have changed them. 

Please use the changeset comments to explain your reasoning for these changes! Especially when it is basically impossible to discern why you are making these changes based on your edit history.
user_1566574 (2021-08-28 09:38:16+00:00): Bonjour,
Pour les terrasses (ex : de café), peut-être que leisure=outdoor_seating serait plus adapté ?

+ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Doutdoor_seating

Merci de vos contributions !
tux67 (2021-08-26 05:54:11+00:00): Hi,
kannst du mal bitte erläutern, warum du hier ohne einen gescheiten Changeset Kommentar und ohne Quellenangabe in zumindest 5 Changesets die enforcement tags von den speed cameras wegnimmst?

Gruß
tux67
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110253826
L___I (2021-08-26 23:11:26+00:00): Hallo tux67,
ich könnte es probieren.
Was fehlt Dir im Detail am Änderungssatzkommentar?
Quelle hängt iD m.E. in gewisser Weise automatisch an (imagery_used=NRW Orthophoto;Bing Streetside;Mapillary Images;OpenStreetCam Images).
Bzgl. 'enforcment', diese Info' hängt an der Relation, beispielsweise hier an: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13128376
Laut wiki 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:enforcement
scheint das der gängige Weg / das gängige Schema
(|onNode=no
|onWay=no
|onArea=no
|onRelation=yes)
zu sein.
Schöne Grüsse
LI
tux67 (2021-08-27 06:46:51+00:00): Danke für die Antwort.
Wenn deine Absicht nur war die enforcment tags vom node in die relation zu verschieben, dann wäre genau das der Änderungssatzkommentar gewesen, der geholfen hätte. Für Leute die neben dem Mappen QS machen sind solche Changesets im bekannten Gebiet von (hier) unbekannten Mappern um so mehr Aufwand je weniger die Absicht klar ist. Dann muss ich per "reverse engineering" erstmal verstehen auf Basis welcher Daten was genacht wurde. Das automatisch von iD hinzugefügte Image Layer Set reicht da nicht immer aus.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments
Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110253826
L___I (2021-08-27 11:53:50+00:00): Gerne.
War es nicht 'nur', ging auch um die anderen Details :-)
Grüsse
tux67 (2021-08-27 12:05:27+00:00): Fein, mit der Frage nach besseren CS Kommentaren war ich ja scheint's nicht alleine.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110253826
tomhukins (2026-05-20 16:06:30+00:00): Thank you for your helpful work improving OpenStreetMap.  I suspect https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/976487563 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/976487564 are incorrectly tagged as historic=fort.  Given their location perhaps bunker_type=pillbox would describe them better.  What do you think?
Josbert Lonnee (2021-08-26 16:17:03+00:00): Ziet er goed uit.
mueschel (2021-09-04 09:09:43+00:00): Hi,
could you check this node, it got a strange (name?) tag:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/331902167
d1sr4n (2021-09-04 15:59:39+00:00): Yup. Thanks :)
d1sr4n (2021-09-04 16:00:22+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110722603
kartler175 (2021-08-26 11:37:09+00:00): More diligence please:https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-70.66113&lat=46.09112&zoom=15&opacity=0.95
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-70.83493&lat=46.10835&zoom=14&opacity=0.95
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-70.70797&lat=46.16445&zoom=15&opacity=0.95
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-71.02653&lat=46.45629&zoom=15&opacity=0.95
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-71.24087&lat=46.81956&zoom=16&opacity=0.95
Dimacn (2021-08-26 17:41:43+00:00): Ваша вандальная правка отменена. Пожалуйста не делайте так.
Frans S (2021-08-27 09:10:05+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
Please pay attention on these points. 
Square the buildings you've mapped.
Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping !
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110257209
SomeoneElse (2021-08-26 11:51:03+00:00): Hello,
Looks like this introduced a gap in Capital_Ring_link_to_Hackney_Wick_station_12693073 - I've joined that up again in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110283744
Best Regards,
Andy
baumann3141 (2021-08-27 02:40:00+00:00): The residential area looks incorrect. Was this possibly edited inadvertently? Please check if possible.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110258138
lmum (2021-08-27 17:04:39+00:00): Thanks, it looks like I inadvertently attached a parking area to the existing residential area. I've now made some refinements along the northern boundary to exclude retail. IMO, the feature should be subdivided.
Carnildo (2021-08-26 05:18:49+00:00): It would be nice if you explained *why* you're changing the road classification.  The last person to do so did.
Frans S (2021-08-28 15:04:26+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping hee
Please improve your mapping skills
Most Buildings have a rectangular shape and  needs to be squared. See the task instructions.
Please view this video about common New mappers Mistakes


Please square each building with the Q key of the iDeditor.
 A remark here. When your corners are not close enough to the 90 degrees angle the Issue triangle on the right hand menu don't react so try to map more precise and close to the 90 degrees corners.
When parts of a building are hidden by trees, extrapolate the rooflines rather than following the treelines.

See this picture (example) Review own work in iDeditor.jpg

Did you have seen these pages ?
https://learnosm.org/en/hot-tips/

Best regards and success with future mappings
user_2066394 (2021-11-25 10:54:31+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114200194
CENTRALHUB (2021-08-26 16:57:10+00:00): Please stop making such bulk edit since the name tagging format is not a standard. Using Chinese in name is the de-factor standard and naming style topic is still in discussion. Besides, please ensure that those local language names are validated with local knowledge (like road signs). All changes impacting Xinjiang might be reverted. Thanks.
NFZANMNIM (2021-08-26 17:02:40+00:00): Hey, yes I have verified the names with  official regional government maps in Uyghur, official and credible Uyghur language news websites from inside China, and with road signs where streetview is available. And I personally do have a decent knowledge of the Uyghur script, so I can personally verify the names as well.
NFZANMNIM (2021-08-26 17:19:13+00:00): Sure, I'll pause and wait until the conclusion of the discussion about the topic.

Bilingual name tags are pretty common on OpenStreetMap, Algeria, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somaila, etc.

And personally, I think the preservation and representation of minority languages in China's autonomous areas in the past 70 years has been a positive thing. (takes a simple internet search to find countless governmental webpages in Uyghur for example/or the bilingual road signs)
I do wish for OpenStreetMap community (and the PRC itself)  to continue representing the true multi-ethnic nature of China in this way.
CENTRALHUB (2021-08-26 18:12:36+00:00): Different countries have different situations so it's not a good idea to copy the mapping convention from one to others. Making such significant change based on personal opinion is not a reasonable practice. Using single language in the name tag is a major mapping style in OSM, since it's neutral, concise and practicable. Languages in Xinjiang is a complicated problem since Uyghur, Kazakh, Mongolia and even Tajik are used. However in your recent changes Uyghur is used in the locations where other languages are playing a sub-official role. Based on my research not all those places are assigned with a sign in Uyghur physically, and streetview service is very limited in Xinjiang. Finally, OSM name displaying with "representation" of multiple-ethnic nature shouldn't be linked together since they are two independent topics. As long as contributors put local language names in the name:<lang> tags, third party developers and websites can make any language map they like.
NFZANMNIM (2021-08-26 18:19:40+00:00): well, I didn't really go with whatever my preference is, I strictly followed the guidelines that are provided here.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#China

And you are right, that in some places in XUAR, things can get a bit complex. I followed the administrative hierarchy, Chinese being National, Uyghur being regional, then maybe Kazakh being Prefectural, Xibe being county-level.
iWowik (2021-08-27 08:06:59+00:00): День добрый!
Соблюдайте, пожалуйста, принятый порядок внесения номеров домов
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Addresses#.D0.9D.D1.83.D0.BC.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B0.D1.86.D0.B8.D1.8F_.D0.B4.D0.BE.D0.BC.D0.BE.D0.B2

К тому же в name не надо писать что либо, отличное от названия объекта, номер дома названием никоим образом не является

Не вынуждайте других участников ваши правки исправлять или откатывать

Пример ваших ошибок
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/655379330
Dodko (2021-08-27 08:21:03+00:00): Do tagu addr:housenumber sa píše celé číslo domu súpisné/orientačné.
Čisto orientačné číslo máš v addr:streetnumber
Takže oprav to ako bolo predtým.

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

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sk:MinvSKAddress#addr:housenumber
津軽人 (2021-08-28 05:31:56+00:00): warnings:crossing_ways:highway-highway修正しました
Mammi71 (2023-11-24 18:58:05+00:00): Hallo autinerd,

worauf basiert die Annahme, dass die Waiblinger Str. hier für Fußgänger verboten ist? Ich kenne kein entsprechendes Schild.
Dawid2849 (2021-09-10 13:38:09+00:00): Hello, please don't add toll=yes tag on toll-free roads! I had to revert your changes, here I put list of all reverted changesets: 110098386, 110099423, 110099606, 110099834, 110108334, 110108771, 110109715, 110110230, 110110781, 110111024, 110111886, 110112329, 110112418, 110114628, 110237970, 110237663, 110237376

Next time please be more careful with adding toll=yes.
SekeRob (2021-08-26 11:47:29+00:00): Noticed that board showing how many bikes had passed (monopiatti, prams, pedestrians may get registered too ?) Think to have seen something similar on the south side too along Lungomare Colombo but could be mistaken.

cheers.
FinixFighter (2021-08-26 12:52:52+00:00): Yes, there are four of them https://abruzzo.cityrumors.it/notizie-pescara/cronaca-pescara/873538.html but I only knew the position of this one. 
There is some note left by users about the missing stations, but I don't know their exact position.
SekeRob (2021-08-26 13:19:39+00:00): Ah yes, seen all four. You might have luck in streetview who's imagery for Pescara surrounding from nov-2020 to feb-2021. Connect them with a site relation. Got so far 7 of the Pescara ebike charge spots linked (3 still missing and by the looks of several still not active, likely never to appear9. Started on the Montesilvano Costa blu, a joint effort with Silvi. Got mapped 4, 3 site linked, main at MS Ferrovia, right click on map, query and they all flash up. There's said to be 2 more according a MS news flash. The one in Via Sele is very well hidden.... not found it yet.)

cheers
eggie (2021-08-26 07:19:20+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback...  Het meest gebruikelijk is access=private taggen ipv =no.. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
❤️‍🔥 (2021-08-26 21:44:51+00:00): This is wrong, I've reverted this and your other recent edits. Street signs were updated around July 2021. The official name has also be changed to Tūwharetoa Street (ū instead of u).
tux67 (2021-08-26 07:27:41+00:00): Könntest du deine Änderungssatzkommentare bitte ein bisschen aussagefähiger gestalten?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/110266952
RoKo58 (2021-08-26 11:02:46+00:00): Hallo, ja klar. 
Es wurde landuse=recreation_ground gelöscht und tourism=camp_site hinzugefügt entsprechend der Beschreibung der tags im OSM-Wiki.
MfG
tux67 (2021-08-26 11:51:02+00:00): Danke
mueschel (2021-08-27 15:24:36+00:00): Hi,
you added four nodes here with many foreign tags, could you check that?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9037004044 (and more close by)
Tomas Marklund (2021-08-27 15:32:52+00:00): Hi!

Bummer, the data comes from Trafikverket open shapefiles, I simply forgot to delete the raw data tags before uploading. 

Good catch, it's corrected now in changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110348142

/Tomas
mueschel (2021-08-30 17:28:10+00:00): Hi,
could you check these edits? There are many nodes on top of other POIs. They have several strange tags which look like they don't belong to OSM, e.g. this one:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9037131752

feature_type=man_made
landmark_gps=-1.3519399 29.6616646 2285.3 4.56
village=Buzeyi
mueschel (2021-09-04 08:32:48+00:00): I reverted this changeset.  All of the objects are duplicates of other nodes with the same "information" on them.
Basik71 (2021-08-26 07:38:33+00:00): Questo tratto di SS597 è oggetto di restrizioni alla circolazione dovute alla presenza del cantiere di raddoppio della carreggiata e conversione in SS729. Tenere Primary fino a conclusione dei lavori (fine prevista nel 2023).
user_177389 (2021-08-26 10:06:32+00:00): Hello,

I rolled back these wrong changes, please read the notes at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/433402128 first.

Best regards,
Mario
pantufla (2021-08-26 10:12:44+00:00): Danke Mario, 

I thought I was doing good. Good to know.
rarad74 (2021-08-30 04:36:10+00:00): Salut . Te rog nu mai folosi prescurtari. Majoritatea nu vor intelege prescuratile tale , dealtfel agramate...
Carto'Cité (2021-11-30 10:36:34+00:00): Bonjour Romy G,
J'ai connecté cette piste https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651083975 ici https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9037198143 car elle n'était pas connectée. Si tu connais bien le terrain n'hésite pas à faire des photos voir les mettre sur Mapillary ; ça peut aider pour les échanges :)
Et si tu as la moindre remarque n'hésite pas car je ne connais pas la situation sur place.
À bientôt.
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
Romy G (2021-11-30 11:04:35+00:00): Bonjour Charles,
Dans ce cas précis, je préfère ne pas connecter la piste à la Rue de Paris.
Pour information, cette nouvelle piste est finalisée mais aucune connexion sur le terrain n'a pour le moment été créée, rendant l'endroit dangereux.
La piste, bien qu'existante, est en "stand-by" pour cette raison.
A dispo,
Romain
Carto'Cité (2021-11-30 12:50:24+00:00): Super !
Merci encore pour tes réponses. Je vais corriger dans ce sens.
Charles
Lee Carré (2021-08-26 11:31:41+00:00): Why?

This changeset altered nothing about the seamark itself (i.e. any seamark:* tag), and merely seems to be a delayed revert of my surveying efforts from changeset #108840685 (which was discussed at the time) which now makes the origin of some data misleading. Thus, the comment of this changeset is also misleading, both in subject and action taken.

Is this a case of http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer ?

I would think that accuracy & verification of representing the real world would matter more than the appearance of uniformity or treating a paperwork source as more credible. What if my survey findings disagreed with the cited catalogue?

There are several unmapped seamarks around the marinas in St. Helier (and other harbours), which I presume don't appear in the paper source seemingly preferred here. If I added those, would they end up being deleted?
Carto'Cité (2021-11-30 12:40:55+00:00): Bonjour Romy G,
J'ai connecté cette piste que tu avais ajoutée https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/976592036. N'hésite pas à me dire si c'est bon ou pas ; je me suis servi de Strava pour positionner un peu mieux le cheminement.
À très bientôt.
Charles de Carto’Cité pour #CartoVeloIdF
eggie (2021-09-10 10:50:59+00:00): Dag TvdB

Lijkt me oke.
Volgens mij geldt dit wel voor de hele Beuklaan en meer straten hier.
MVG
eggie
4004 (2021-08-30 00:03:37+00:00): здравствуйте, спасибо за правку.
все официозы вроде учереждение образования в name не вносим, это official_name. name - это название, которое используют в повседневной жизни
kartonage (2021-08-26 15:09:47+00:00): Hej,

the reason why there was a place node is that this island is actually three islands that have grown together (Île Lubine, Île Cipaye, Île aux Rats). Also visible in very old landsat imagery.

I suspect it would not be accurate to assume the merged island name to be correct as Île Lubine. For that matter an actual island name can probably not be determined.

Best regards
Wynwood (2021-08-27 12:45:07+00:00): Hi kartonage, thank you for the additional info here, that’s super interesting! I’ve restored the node with the island name tag, thanks for the suggestion.
mavl (2021-08-27 15:38:12+00:00): Здравствуйте. Возможно, ошибка:  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/976572413/history
dvdhoven (2021-08-26 10:33:01+00:00): Op de Parallelweg staat nu foot=no, maar er loopt wel een rwn route 15-16 overheen en ik zie geen enkele mogelijkheid die om te leggen.
Kun jij daar eens naar kijken?
Alvast bedankt,

Vriendelijke groeten,
Dick van den Hoven
eggie (2021-08-26 10:46:49+00:00): Yep.. Ben er net geweest..

Zet weer e.e.a.op slot, want de afslagen  nog niet opengesteld.
Van de Veerweg kun je maar tot de Carpool, maar van oost naar west is open. 
Er staat op de Parallelweg een C1 bord vanaf de matenasche Scheidkade. Met Alleen bouwverkeer.
Zal die foot=no wel verwijderen.
Op het kruispunt is het een chaos. Die wandelroute heb ik al omgelegd, maar het de grote kruising is nog niet begaanbaar. 
Het kruispunt is wel klaar, maar niet opengesteld. Het verandert elke dag. Ze er wel een conditionaltagging op. 
Het noodelijke fietspad naar Bleskensgraaf is weer opengesteld. Het zuidelijk zou 27 aug (kan nooit die planning) weer opengesteld worden, maar de  aansluitingen richting Dordrecht zijn er nog niet en ook bestaande fietspad richting zuid over de A15 vanaf de kruising is dicht. Ook voor voetgangers. 
Zal even wat improviseren zodat die routes het weer doen.
Na m'n vakantie ga ik wel weer eens kijken.
Het komt wel goed
Gr eggie