piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Yunkers (2022-03-02 23:02:10+00:00): No właśnie nawigacje się mylą, były komentarze na ten temat u poprzedniego autora. Dodatkowo zmieniłeś maxspeed, a te zależą od znaku, nie było też powodu zmiany kategorii na S16 skoro znak jest właśnie ZA węzłem i tam się zmienia w 16, a nie tak jak teraz. Zasadniczo nawet nie byłoby problemu, żeby fragment drogi z numerem 527 był trunkiem (skoro ten numer S52 w miejscu znaku cię razi), tam jest na węźle Poznań-Krzesiny.
forestus (2022-03-02 23:05:53+00:00): No może i tak właśnie trzeba zrobić, utrzymać numery i relacje dróg wojewódzkich i krajowych a zostawić trunk. Całkiem dobry pomysł.
Yunkers (2022-03-02 23:08:07+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87440972#map=14/53.7139/20.4427
To link do zgłoszenia o błędzie (Olga nam zgłasza błędy, której jej ludzie zgłaszają z Yanosika)
Yunkers (2022-03-02 23:17:14+00:00): To git, będziesz w stanie to ogarnąć? Numery w sumie i tak są tam dość... płynne, ważne żeby działało jak należy.
forestus (2022-03-02 23:20:27+00:00): Jutro do południa zrobię, pozdrawiam.
emersonveenstra (2022-03-10 19:03:22+00:00): Hi,

I've removed the description and operator tags from this node. OpenStreetMap is different than Google Maps, the description is not meant for advertising or SEO purposes, and the operator field is for a parent company name, not the name of the owner of the company.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117717378
Ydel (2023-04-20 12:05:01+00:00): Bonjour Éric,
Te rappel la raison pour laquelle tu as passé ce pylône en power=tower;substation?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1422857076/history
Merci,
Yann
lyctkel (2022-06-23 10:43:59+00:00): Hi HPHenschel,
zur Zeit untersuche ich selten genutzte Tags vom Typ building=*.
Dabei habe ich https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1034107756 gefunden. Es verwendet "building=Am See".
Dieses Tag wird nur hier verwendet. Ich nehme an gemeint ist building=yes und "name=Am See"
Weitere Details können hier gefunden werden:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:building
Herzliche Grüsse,
lyctkel
elsy1 (2022-02-24 20:08:23+00:00): درود اسم خیابان اصلی 
( بازرگانی همتی ) رو درج کردید!!
بنده اصلاح کردم اشتباه شما را.
surveyor54 (2022-02-22 09:57:22+00:00): Der Änderungssatzkommentar muss heißen:
Kreisgrenze Wetteraukreis/MKK, Gemarkungsgrenze Eckartshausen/Ronneburg - Präzisierung
wkdgs (2022-02-23 11:15:01+00:00): Hi,

Wenn du möchtest, dass die Fläche der Wendestelle auf der Karte angezeigt wird hast du zwei Möglichkeiten:

Du kannst es so lassen, solltest dann aber den highway=track nicht am Rand der Wendestelle platzieren, sondern mittig. So wie auch ein Auto durch die Wendestele fahren würde.

Oder du entfernst die Schleife und zeichnest stattdessen die Fläche mit "area=yes" und "highway=track" ein. Der Hauptweg sollte dann durch die Fläche durch führen. (s. Wiki)

Ich fände aber hier wäre die bessere Lösung einfach nur "highway=turning_circle" zu verwenden und die Fläche nicht einzuzeichnen. Vielleicht noch die Größe schätzen und als "diameter=*" eintragen.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dturning_circle

Unabhängig davon, sollte der name-Tag auf jeden Fall entfernt werden. Der ist für Eigennamen, nicht für Beschreibungen gedacht.

Gruß
winkeldings
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117719018
user_13975366 (2022-02-23 23:22:51+00:00): Ok, danke für deine Anregungen.
Zuerst wollte ich es einfach wieder in "highway=turning_circle" ändern, bin dann aber zudem Entschluss gekommen es zu einer Ausweichstelle zu machen, da das ganze ja nicht mittig zum Wegverlauf ist.
Bei Rheinhochwasser sind hier große Einsatzfahrzeuge von Feuerwehr und THW unterwegs, die brauchen auf dem einspurigen Weg eben auch einen Platz zum Ausweichen 😉
eggie (2022-02-22 10:56:25+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback  Het is niet de bedoeling om persoonlijke info op osm te zetten. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-02-22 11:03:45+00:00): reverted by changeset #117721565
eggie (2022-02-22 11:01:09+00:00): Hier heb je de adresnode van het Kadaster verwijderd..  Waarom is dat?

Je edits worden teruggezet.
Besef dat iedereen in de wereld die OSM gebruikt je privacy gevoelige toevoegingen nu kunt zien op de wereldkaart. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-02-22 11:03:21+00:00): reverted by changeset #117721550
RobElemans (2022-02-22 13:49:30+00:00): Dag eggie,

Excuus, ik heb een maps-applicatie geinstalleerd en me niet gerealiseerd wat het betekend om een adres te wijzigen. Een beginners-foutje! Ik had het me zelf ook gerealiseerd en was begonnen met het uitzoeken hoe ik dat kon reverten, maar je was me voor. Mijn wijzigingen kunnen dus helemaal verdwijnen. Moet ik nog iets doen om privacygevoelige gegevens te verwijderen? Dankjewel voor de moeite!
eggie (2022-02-22 14:01:07+00:00): Dag Rob..

Je hoeft verder niets te doen... 
Je wijzigingen had ik al teruggedraaid.
 
Bedankt voor je reactie..
Eggie
user_11609320 (2022-02-22 10:18:39+00:00): past gardnerville smith's the route acts like a dial a ride service. it was recently renamed from bridgeport to gardnerville to the current name scheme because the lone pine to reno route was at capacity.
JeroenHoek (2022-02-23 12:13:41+00:00): Those two are for access to the fields (east) and the farm (west). They are not there to be used as shortcuts between the primary and its unclassified parallel road.

The western one should extend all the way to the farm, and be tagged with service=driveway to discourage routers from using it as a shortcut.

The eastern one should be highway=track, and extend a few metres into the field it is for.
C_nav (2022-02-24 12:47:23+00:00): Thank you JeroenHoek, as per your suggestion I have changed the classification of the unclassified highway (West) to highway=service and extended it to the northern side to provide access to the building (way 292971279). I've removed the unclassified highway (East) as I can see the painted median and couldn’t extend further.
literan (2022-02-23 13:24:18+00:00): обычно тротуары вдоль дворовых проездов не рисуют. Во дворах у пешехода преимущество везде, можно ходить где угодно. А с такими отрисованными тротуарами навигатор будет вести в обход
hsc666 (2022-02-23 11:18:00+00:00): Hallo mschaap und willkommen bei OSM!

Du hast erneut eine Straße "einfach so" in die Landschaft "gemalt", statt die entsprechenden Eigenschaften an den Stellen zu ändern, wo es möglicherweise notwendig sein könnte. Im konkreten Fall sehe ich allerdings noch nicht einmal den Bedarf die Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung zu ergänzen, da es vor Ort keine entsprechende Beschilderung gibt - die beiden 70er Trichter vor den Ortseingängen hatte ich bereits eingetragen.

Deine Änderung musste ich jedenfalls aufgrund der Beschädigungen wieder zurücksetzen.

Bitte beschäftige Dich mit den Grundlagen von OSM, bevor Du weitere Dinge einträgst. Gern kannst Du auch hier oder im Forum fragen, wenn Du Hilfe benötigst!

VG
hsc666
Emilius123 (2022-02-23 01:06:05+00:00): Hi Casper,

What a surprise, seeing you here!

This is my first session ever validating stuff using OSMCha. Didn't even realize this was your edit at first, just saw "User has multiple blocks".

I trust you enough to mark this edit GOOD without even checking.

Greets,
Emilius
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117721344
Friendly_Ghost (2022-02-23 07:29:27+00:00): Hi Emilius. I bet the "golf edit" comment raised a flag in OSMCha. I simply did a cleanup here and added a few details here and there before moving on. Way too much effort btw, I'm definitely not doing that again.
Emilius123 (2022-02-23 09:13:02+00:00): Good thing I don't know how to play golf. See you around someday!
Friendly_Ghost (2022-02-23 09:48:29+00:00): Sure thing! Have a good one :D
silversurfer83 (2023-03-10 07:51:36+00:00): Moin Wolfgang,
ich bin gerade über eine ältere Änderung von Dir gestolpert und wollte dir nur den freundlichen Hinweis auf diesen Artikel im Wiki da lassen:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Adressen

Sprich: Wenn du mehrere Hausnummern an ein Gebäude eintragen möchtest, dann trenne die Nummern am besten mit ";" und ohne Leerzeichen. Falls jede Hausnummer einen eigenen Eingang hat, kannst du den mit der Adresse versehen.

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117721464
user_5359 (2022-02-22 18:42:15+00:00): Hello Please have a look on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13838554? Are the building on the school property not part of the school??
opendcc (2022-02-22 20:58:29+00:00): Hallo,

wenn man auf die St2091 foot=usesidepath dran macht, dann wäre es nicht falsch, den Weg daneben auch für Fußgänger zu taggen.
redweizn (2022-02-22 21:05:03+00:00): Hallo. Danke, wird gemacht.
opendcc (2022-02-22 21:10:30+00:00): schon erledigt ..
topolusitania (2022-02-22 13:06:38+00:00): Olá
Tens a certeza do que estás a mapear ? Parecem-me vivendas unifamiliares...
topolusitania (2022-02-22 13:14:48+00:00): que devem ser desenhadas individualmente. Verifica uma pequena edição
DMConstantino (2022-02-24 19:26:17+00:00): São de facto várias vivendas unifamiliares, uma tem múltiplos andares (3) e outras não, só adicionei detalhes com o street complete, não adicionei a estrutura ao mapa.
topolusitania (2022-02-25 17:10:08+00:00): Ok. Vou corrigir. Verifica depois se há erros
Cumprimentos
mavl (2022-05-20 15:31:31+00:00): This changeset was redacted. Reason: an incompatible source.
user_177389 (2022-02-22 13:25:41+00:00): Kirche und Friedhof liegen innerhalb der Grenzen, gehören somit nicht als Mitglied in die Relation. (So wie alle sonstigen Elemente da drinnen).

Informiere dich bitte, wie Verwaltungsgrenzen und Stadtteilgrenzen anzulegen sind bzw. welche Mitglieder mit welcher Rolle enthalten sein müssen.

Beste Grüße
Mario
Layft Greater (2022-02-22 21:31:53+00:00): http://revert.osmz.ru/5964
Layft Greater (2022-02-22 22:09:43+00:00): reverted https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117745863
WhereIsNorth (2022-03-07 22:26:07+00:00): Hello Meersbrook

Thank you for contributing to OSM. I noticed that when ‘landuse=residential’ multipolygon (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13838740) was created, you added ‘oneway=yes’ to the relation and removed it from the associated highways. I am wondering if ‘oneway=yes’ should be added back to the highways, what do you think? The landuse relation won’t affect those roads so now they are all two-way.

Thank you,
WhereIsNorth
Meersbrook (2022-03-08 08:53:39+00:00): You are right. There were a few oneway=no which I wanted to remove as superfluous, it is possible a few 'yes' got included and deleted. I will add them back. Thanks for letting me know!
WhereIsNorth (2022-03-09 21:08:36+00:00): Thanks for taking a look, happy mapping!
Allison P (2022-02-23 04:44:19+00:00): OSM is not a testing ground. Even if you would revert immediately after, this can still impact data consumers. It should never be done.
Monstrofil (2022-02-23 07:43:06+00:00): I'm pretty sure that 99.9% of data consumers won't be impacted in any way by the additional non-existing tag.

Yet, I agree with you and won't do that anymore.
Emilius123 (2022-02-23 01:28:21+00:00): Hi. Thank you for your contribution.

Are all the buildings you deleted really gone? Does not seem lik that from the aerial imagery.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117724140
Rommar (2022-02-23 11:29:56+00:00): Actually, I made a small mistake. We can see on the most recent aerial photograph that a building remains. I reinstated it.
Emilius123 (2022-02-23 18:03:25+00:00): Thanks you.
jmarchon (2022-05-14 11:07:22+00:00): Shouldn't the maxspeed be 249 km/h? This website clearly states that "The maximum speed permitted is 249 km/h."
https://company.sbb.ch/en/media/background-information/gotthard-base-tunnel.html#:~:text=What%20is%20the,249%20km/h.
Halbtax (2022-05-15 15:21:55+00:00): The English version of the website you cite is contradictory to the German version and contradictory to the information provided by the BAG (https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-64811.html). In case of doubt, I trust the information of BAG. After all, this is the relevant authority.
jmarchon (2022-05-16 16:42:20+00:00): Hmm. After doing some more research, it looks to me like we have a lot of contradicting evidence, making me unsure as to which is correct.

Your website says: "Dazu gehört etwa, dass der Tunnel vorerst für eine Höchstgeschwindigkeit von 200 km/h zugelassen wird. Im Hinblick auf den Einsatz von schnelleren Zügen werden die Anlagen für Geschwindigkeiten bis 250 km/h bereit sein.", which somewhat translates to that for now the max speed is 200 km/h, and soon it will be 250. However, that article was written 6 years ago in December of 2016.
https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-64811.html

The English version of the website I cited states that the max speed is 249 km/h. The German version, however, says that "Die maximal zulässige Geschwindigkeit beträgt 230 km/h.", or ~"the max allowed speed is 230 km/h". I don't know when any of these 2 were written.
https://company.sbb.ch/en/media/background-information/gotthard-base-tunnel.html
https://company.sbb.ch/de/medien/dossier-medienschaffende/gotthard-basistunnel.html

The English Wikipedia article on the GBT also states the max speed is 249 km/h. Its source is however the same as my original one. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gotthard_Base_Tunnel&oldid=1088176602

This document from the Swiss government, dating from June 2015, says that the max speed both is AND will be 250 km/h: https://www.news.admin.ch/NSBSubscriber/message/attachments/39644.pdf

This website from September of 2021 says the max speed is 249 km/h: https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/gotthard-base-tunnel/#:~:text=The%20maximum%20permitted%20speed%20for%20passenger%20trains%20travelling%20through%20the%20tunnel%20is%20249km/h%2C

This document from the company that built the tunnel (AlpTransit Gotthard AG) says the max speed is 250 km/h (page 7): https://www.alptransit.ch/fileadmin/dateien/gotthard/facts-and-figures-gotthard-base-tunnel_e.pdf
It is from June of 2016.

Thank you for your respectful and responsive participation in this discussion. I do not wish to offend or condemn your activity on OSM and hope you have a nice day.

jmarchon
Halbtax (2022-05-17 10:53:46+00:00): Thanks for taking the time to research further. Personally, I think there has been a shift in goals since the project started almost 30 years ago. The initial goal of 250 km/h was not met due to technical difficulties at the opening. However, it turned out that this speed was not necessary for the timetable and capacity goals. The goal of higher speed has not been completely abandoned, but it now has only low priority. However, this shift in goals and priorities is communicated only very hesitantly. Mostly, the original speed target is simply published instead of the current situation. From the PR's point of view, this also sounds much better. 

Anyway, in terms of OSM, the best way to distinguish facts from tales is to watch the situation on the ground. I am sure, nobody can observe a train with more than 200 km/h at the time being.
jmarchon (2022-05-17 20:31:05+00:00): OK, leaving it at 200 for now sounds good. Maybe write a note linking to this discussion, to prevent further confusion? It appears that the maxspeed tag has been changed many times before.
Warin61 (2022-02-24 23:55:38+00:00): Hi,
Welcome to OSM.

Most buildings are 'square' - have right angles. You should be able to use the 'Q' key to square up your entries - simply press the Q key while the building/thing is still being edited and that should make it 'square'.
literan (2022-02-23 13:21:47+00:00): здесь уже стоят теги АНО на территории (что правильно). 

Устраню дублирование
trigpoint (2022-02-25 12:06:14+00:00): Has https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1034146531 reopened?

It closed several years ago and last time I went by it was boarded up.

Cheers Phil
trigpoint (2022-02-25 15:06:57+00:00): It is very definitely closed and part of the construction site although the building looks to be being retained.

Where precisely did you source the care home details from?

Cheers Phil
MxxCon (2022-02-22 14:51:00+00:00): Yet again NYMM, if you are going to be conducting business on OSM, at least learn how to properly add tags! The way you entered it now is INCORRECT and going to be reverted.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117725209
julcnx (2022-02-22 13:53:17+00:00): Hi fringo. Are these roads you reclassified as service within a private estate with gates and clear restricted access? If unsure, please kindly refer to the official wiki guidelines: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Thailand#Rough_guidelines_for_minor_highway_tag_decision-making_.28useful_in_most_cases.29
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117725254
canfe (2022-02-23 18:19:54+00:00): Ho ripreso la mappatura del Municipio di CIrié.
Guardate come è sistemato ora come relazione i livelli e il building passage.
In effetti l'oggetto è un po' complicatino.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117725379
eggie (2022-02-22 13:33:07+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback.. Er wordt periodiek geupdated vanuit de BAG. 
Het staat hier nu nog op Bouwvergunning verleend. 
Wanneer er daadwerkelijk wordt gebouwd kun je een woning incl adres versneld laten importeren door een verzoek te doen op het forum van OSM in het draadje Verzoek BAGimport. 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=12
MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-02-22 13:35:46+00:00): .. en evt een terugmelding naar het Kadaster dat de bouw is gestart..
Dan kan er geïmporteerd worden
https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#?searchQuery=Roggeveld%2027%20g&resultOffset=0&detailsObjectId=0784010000014779&objectId=0784100000024658&geometry.x=123385.103&geometry.y=394539.35400257&zoomlevel=6
eggie (2022-03-18 13:15:15+00:00): Edd.. Er loopt nu een BAG import verzoek
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=858276#p858276

MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-02-22 13:37:10+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback... Tip  format phone=+31...  in OSM

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
ElliottPlack (2022-05-02 10:36:53+00:00): Hi there, Elliott here. Welcome to the OSM project. Nice work finding this house that's been removed! However, when removing buildings, be sure to leave the address point behind. That way the address can be reused. Even the vacant lot has an address. Cheers!
Bur Dubai Call Girls 0545938546 Call Girls in Bur Dubai (2022-02-22 12:56:48+00:00): Geniune Call Girls  Dubai <{°+971545938546°}> Dubai Call Girls | Call Girls in Dubai Jumeirah-Deira-AlNahda-Marina-BurDubai-Creek-MeenaRussian Call Girls Dubai <{+971545938546°}> Marina Dubai Call Girls | Call Girls in Dubai-Jumeirah-Deira-Alnahda,Al-Barsha,BurDubai
kartonage (2022-02-22 13:19:53+00:00): Reverted in cs 117727241 due to it being nonsense.
Honey Fombuena (2022-02-24 04:21:13+00:00): Please move buildings to prevent intersections. Thank you!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117726798
Vinber (2022-02-24 10:52:53+00:00): Revert https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117764749
Emilius123 (2022-02-23 00:31:19+00:00): Hi, hope you can understand this,

You seem to be using the deprecated construction=yes. Highways in construction are usally tagged "highway=construction" and "construction=footway" (the value of construction is what the value of highway= would be.)

Thank you for your understanding and your time.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117726836
Le_Nico (2022-02-23 07:11:56+00:00): Thanks for pointing this to me.
Openstreetmap indeed recommends using "highway=construction" instead of "construction=yes".
I will use this from now on, and change it on recently modified features.
Emilius123 (2022-02-23 09:13:52+00:00): Thank you.
benoitdd (2023-03-24 20:59:20+00:00): vandalisme supprimé
benoitdd (2023-03-24 20:59:47+00:00): pas plus malin==>vandalisme supprimé
kartonage (2022-02-22 13:22:29+00:00): Should have been "TW" instead of "JP" obviously.
Supaplex (2022-02-22 13:32:05+00:00): Thanks kartonage for fix the vandalism
fabiotofy (2022-02-24 12:43:01+00:00): Ciao, nome sentiero già presente nell'etichetta MTB:NAME
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117727513
Honey Fombuena (2022-02-23 15:57:42+00:00): Hi, if this is a broadcasting station, please change shop to amenity=studio. Thank you!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/117727870
eggie (2022-08-09 11:23:36+00:00): Dag Sander.. Je hebt hier een oneway=yes van gemaakt. Is er een uitzondering voor tweewielers hier?

Dan bijtaggen oneway:bicycle=no en evt ook voor moped en mofa.
MVG'eggie
eggie (2022-08-09 11:50:59+00:00): Beste Sander. Ik heb het aangepast, want het routeerde hier niet meer voor tweewielers.
Het klinkt gek, maar ga in gedachten op een fiets zitten en kijk waar het dan spaak loopt in de routering.
MVG
eggie
Warin61 (2022-02-22 23:57:27+00:00): Hi,

Multipolygon relations outer ways cannot share segments. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=115.76253&lat=-32.09809&zoom=18

Possibly a site relation?
tabjsina (2022-02-23 00:04:58+00:00): Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware. I originally was considering site relation, however was dismayed by "Site relations have poor support among data consumers, so consider better supported alternatives for what you are trying to map."

Looks like it is the best option nonetheless, and i'll change it over
tabjsina (2022-02-23 00:10:10+00:00): Fixed thanks
tabjsina (2022-02-23 00:27:15+00:00): Doesn't seem to appear - @Warin61, the other thought I had was to make a smaller landuse=residential here with the complex name, but wasn't sure of the appropriateness of having nested residential areas. Any thoughts on that?
Warin61 (2022-02-23 08:17:24+00:00): Q1 Is the name for the buildings or the development? 

If for the development then a nested relation could be done. The pedantic may chose to make it an inner in the outer residential relation. 

If for the buildings .. then site is the best that you can do I think.
Warin61 (2022-02-25 09:49:19+00:00): Looks like the residential relation appears.
Scout Jens (2022-12-29 15:43:57+00:00): Gibt es die Holzrückewege noch? Die werden so schnell unbrauchbar...
sola29 (2022-12-30 09:10:03+00:00): Geprüft habe ich die einzelnen Wege nicht, ob diese noch vorhanden sind. Für mich ist prinzipiell klar, dass Waldwege nicht beleuchtet sind.