piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Pieter Vander Vennet (2022-08-18 19:19:30+00:00): Hallo Martin,

In België heeft het onderbord "jaagpad" wel degelijk een betekenis in de verkeersregels. Dit mappen wij in België dus met "designation=towpath". Hierbij zijn er niet noodzakelijk extra onderborden die aanduiden welke andere voertuigen erop mogen. Een typisch voorbeeld (zoals op de wiki) is de C3 (verboden voor alle bestuurders, incl. fietsers en paardrijders). Het onderbord 'jaagpad' maakt dat fietsers, paarden en dienstvoertuigen er wel op mogen volgens onze verkeersregels. In Belgie zijn er geen extra borden vereist.

Afhankelijk van de toestand van de weg is "highway=unclassified" een goeie optie, maar ook "track" of "service" kunnen van toepassing zijn. 

Ten slotte: s8evq heeft idd veel aan die wikipagina geschreven, hij weet dus goed hoe het in elkaar zit.
s8evq (2022-08-18 19:25:03+00:00): Het gaat mij niet zo zeer om die towpath=yes of designation=towpath. Dat is minder belangrijk.   

Ik heb het vooral over de toegankelijkheid. Als er effectief een C3 met onderbord 'Jaagpad' staat, zoals Thierry schrijft, dan is een highway=cycleway gewoon fout. Het gebruik van een highway=cycleway brengt namelijk default access restricties met zich mee (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Belgium). Zo mag een speed_pedelec en een moped (klasse B) (in sommige gevallen) wel op een highway=cycleway, maar auto's niet. Een onderbordje jaagpad betekent dat er wettelijk gezien beperkingen zijn qua toegankelijkheid. Zo mag er standaard geen speed pedelec op (tenzij een uitzondering aangegeven is), en kunnen auto's er in principe wel op (als ze toelating hebben).
s8evq (2022-08-18 19:28:09+00:00): Martin: https://www.vlaamsewaterweg.be/jaagpaden
Martin Borsje (2022-08-18 19:29:05+00:00): De zinsnede "s8evq heeft idd veel aan die wikipagina geschreven, hij weet dus goed hoe het in elkaar zit." is een selffulfilling prophecy. Mijn ervaring is - en ik rijd regelmatig langs zowel het Albertkanaal als de Kempische kanalen- dat de onderborden altijd van een nadere bepaling over toegelaten en verboden bestuurders voorzien zijn. towpath sec zegt imho dus niets en zou niet als aanduiding voor (ge)(ver)boden toegepast kunnen worden. Routeerders kunnen er geen gebruik van maken itt unclassified of zelfs cycleway.
Thierry1030 (2022-08-18 19:56:49+00:00): Dag allen,
Dank voor de waardevolle discussie.
De consensus onder de tussenkomsten net zoals de uitleg in de wiki lijken me duidelijk. 
Ik kan tot slot alleen nog maar verwijzen naar de beheerder van het pad zelf -> De Vlaamse Waterweg.
Zij stellen zeer duidelijk dat een "jaagpad in de eerste plaats een dienstweg voor de beheerder zelf is".
De facto betekent dit dat het geen fietspad (cycleway) kan zijn.
https://www.vlaamsewaterweg.be/jaagpaden
@Martin:
Heb je nog iets aan te merken dat nog niet geschreven is?
Martin Borsje (2022-08-18 19:58:38+00:00): Nee hoor; I rest my case.
Frans S (2022-06-27 13:27:34+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please keep in mind that many buildings are round. You can see it on the shadow it gives and the roundness of the buildings. Rectangular buildings are better recognisable,
Best regards and keep mapping
rene78 (2022-06-26 20:40:07+00:00): Hi hmkaiser,

nette Idee die Anbauflächen separat einzuzeichnen. Die "Halbwertzeit" ist aber wohl leider gering. Wenn Du Dir zum Beispiel die neuesten Satellitenbilder für FN ("Maxar"-Layer) anschaust wirst Du sehen, dass zum Beispiel diese Anbaufläche gar nicht mehr vorhanden ist:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1073570429

Na ja, nur ein Tipp.

Ciao
René
bxl-forever (2022-07-01 10:44:57+00:00): Thanks for this information.

Probably to be mapped as such: motor_vehicle:condition=no @ (Su 11:00-18:00)

Not to be confused with a "living street", which is the F12 sign in Belgium (woonerf).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dliving_street
silversurfer83 (2022-06-27 07:40:19+00:00): Hi. Sehe, du (dein Account) bist relativ neu hier. Schön, dass du hilfst, die Karte zu verbessern :)
Wenn du in Hessen eine Adresse eintragen willst, musst du nicht zwingend vor Ort gucken. Wir haben hier mittlerweile ein OpenDataPortal und da kann man vom PC aus die Adressen recherchieren und die Daten dieses Portals sind auch frei für OSM nutzbar.
Unter https://gds.hessen.de/INTERSHOP/web/WFS/HLBG-Geodaten-Site/de_DE/-/EUR/ViewDownloadcenter-Start;pgid=NIZSrncl7gBSRpNPt1AR16YC00004Kx6sxUW kannst du dich mal durchklicken, falls du Interesse hast. Das LIegenschaftskataster ist für uns schon recht hilfreich

Wenn du Fragen hast, immer raus damit.

Grüße
silversurfer83
mroehn (2022-06-27 11:24:22+00:00): Hallo, danke für die Infos. Ich schaue dort mal nach. Habe meinen Heimatort mal "überflogen" und neu gebaute Gebäude ergänzt.
ivanbranco (2022-06-27 17:34:04+00:00): Hi cepesko,

if this is a peak the proper tag is natural=peak

good mapping :)
ivanbranco (2022-06-27 17:39:40+00:00): Ups I forgot the link: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4022082704/history
ygcgjp5 (2022-06-30 13:11:50+00:00): Sveiki,
Savanorių pr. sankryža Nuo Kauno į Karmėlavą yra 70.
Frans S (2022-06-27 09:26:57+00:00): Hello SSekitoleko,
Good work.
Just a remark. On the south-east size are quite a lot of detached buildings which actually are 2 buildings under 1 roof.
These have to be split manually.
Hint. Often you see a fence between the buildings, draw a line (key A) connet this on both sides, select all, square the 2 buildings and hit keycombination Alt+ X Now you get 2 seperate buildings.
btw Try to square each rectangular building. (Use the mapathoner plugin)
Best regards
Sotavento (2022-07-02 21:39:52+00:00): Hi nurdafur,
Was hast du an dem Weg 954079636 und an der Brücke 1073580242 geändert? die gibt es doch in echt garnicht mehr?
Gruss Sotavento
nurdafur (2022-07-03 05:05:36+00:00): Hallo Sotavento

Oh je, ich hatte in meiner Erinnerung vom Vorbeifahren den Weg gesehen. Auch auf den neuesten Tiris-Bildern ist der Weg vorhanden.
In dem Fall müsste wohl meine Änderung rückgängig gemacht werden. Bei solchen Aktuellen Änderungen empfiehlt es sich, statt die Wege ganz zu löschen. Den Prefix demolished:* zu nutzen.
Ich kann die Änderung nicht selbst rückgängig machen, da ich noch mindesten 2 Monate auf Tour bin.

Liebe Grße
Urs
snoozingnewt (2022-06-26 22:43:09+00:00): Hi! You seem to be an organization. Please check this out - https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines
AppLogica (2022-06-27 09:47:34+00:00): Dear snoozingnewt, 

Hope you are doing well.

Really, I am a SS organization in Egypt for software and map development technology in Egypt and the Middle East, I welcome cooperation with an individual or organization to work on developing maps on OpenStreetMap.
We have good experience in dealing with the environment of editing, modification, maintenance, and follow-up of daily changes.

Regards
AppLogica Team
impiaaa (2022-06-27 15:10:33+00:00): Regardless of your editing experience, all organizations are required to adhere to the organized editing guidelines. This includes documenting your activities on the wiki and announcing your intentions on an appropriate mailing list.
SomeoneElse (2022-06-27 18:16:15+00:00): Hello,
Andy from OSM's Data Working Group here. The two discussion comments above are correct.  If it applies to you, you need to follow the Organised Editing Guidelines.
Any questions, please email the DWG at data@openstreetmap.org .
Best Regards,
Andy
AppLogica (2022-06-27 21:39:54+00:00): Thank you so much for your advice we will document our activities on the wiki and announce our intentions on an appropriate mailing list.
We have thoroughly read the local policies at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Egypt and will be closely following them.
Regards,
AppLogica
iriman (2022-06-26 16:26:04+00:00): there are 2 more edits following this:
122873114
122872814
JeroenHoek (2022-06-27 10:57:28+00:00): Goede toevoeging. Tip: bij een highway=footway mogen standaard alleen voetgangers er komen (dat klopt hier ook). Je hoeft bij footway niet bicycle=no en horse=no toe te voegen.

Eventueel (maar voel je daartoe niet verplicht), kun je bij voetpaden waar dat blauwe bord hangt, deze tag toevoegen:

traffic_sign=NL:G7

Daarmee geef je aan andere mappers ook aan dat hier ook echt alleen voetgangers mogen komen. Voor routeplanners is dat verder niet nodig.
gscscnd (2022-06-26 19:05:40+00:00): access=private implikuje foot=private.
SHARCRASH (2022-06-26 15:56:31+00:00): + highways split/detailed, sidewalk added
Eric S (2023-03-05 16:54:11+00:00): Pas d'accord. Les morceaux à 70 km/h restent à 70 km/h. ;-)
chimel38 (2023-03-07 09:19:55+00:00): Bonjour Eric j'ai découvert ton message passé dans mes spams...
Je vois que as fait le nécessaire et je t'en remercie.
Cdlt
Eric S (2023-03-07 13:27:15+00:00): Globalement, le repassage à 90 km/h, ici ou ailleurs, c'est un foutoir sans nom. Entre les villages de Livet et de Gavet, ils semblent avoir tout descendu à 70 km/h. Sur le contournement de Gavet, c'est devenu explicitement à 90 km/h à la montée mais pas bien défini à la descente. Deux aller-retours en 15 jours et je ne sais toujours pas à quoi m'en tenir...
wkdgs (2022-07-05 08:22:43+00:00): Hi,

willkommen bei OSM und Danke, dass du dabei hilfst die Karte zu verbessern.

Du hast bei deiner Änderung aus Versehen den Tag "highway=footay" entfernt. Dadurch konnte der Weg nicht mehr korrekt angezeigt werden.

Das wurde aber mittlerweile von jemandem behoben. Der Weg ist jetzt korrekt als privater Fußweg eingetragen.

Gruß
winkeldings
Strubbl (2022-06-26 16:47:10+00:00): siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3239014
Supaplex030 (2022-06-28 12:47:42+00:00): Hallo MisterMapy, du scheinst ab und zu Straßenpumpen zu aktualisieren - das ist super! Vielleicht kannst du beim nächsten Mal noch ein "check_date" mit dem Datum ergänzen, an dem du geprüft hast. So behalten wir einen Überblick, wie aktuell die Daten in OSM sind.

Es gibt übrigens seit kurzem einen speziellen Editor zum Aktualisieren der Berliner Straßenbrunnen, der u.a. in der Gieß-den-Kiez-Community verbreitet werden soll, um die Brunnen einfacher zu pflegen - vielleicht ist das ja auch was für dich: https://mapcomplete.osm.be/theme?z=15&lat=52.47525&lon=13.44245&userlayout=https%3A%2F%2Ftordans.github.io%2FMapComplete-ThemeHelper%2FOSM-Berlin-Themes%2Fman_made-walter_well-status-checker%2Ftheme.json&language=de&welcome-control-toggle=true#welcome

lg, Alex
Supaplex030 (2022-06-28 12:48:04+00:00): P.S.: Zum Pumpen-Tagging siehe auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Berliner_Stra%C3%9Fenbrunnen.
flohoff (2022-06-26 19:03:41+00:00): Moin,
du hast diesen Way von einem path zu einem track gemacht und dann ein motor_vehicle=no getagged.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37746059

Wie ist denn das Beschildert? Wenn ich das richtig in erinnerung habe - bzw vielleicht hab ich da den Anfang sogar als Mapillary Bilder ist das ein kombinierter Rad-/Fußweg oder?

Flo
flohoff (2022-06-26 19:06:12+00:00): Habs gefunden - Da ist das Schild:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=559892772328864

Das ist kein Track. Da steht ein Zeichen 240.

Flo
Kovoschiz (2022-06-27 10:20:40+00:00): 1. Please don't delete the platform area. They mean different things, and roads can also be added as areas. 
2. Please don't mention irrelevant sources. Wikia has an imcompativle licence . This may infringe copyright.
Patrickov (2022-06-27 13:39:06+00:00): The platform is bad or wrong for at least three reasons.

1.  It does not address all the columns and structures in between.  In effect that's not a single platform, but two corridors with a third in between for much (but not most) of their lengths.
2.  It leaves a very bad looking dark grey area and covers up the buildings above them.  I admit that you probably drew that it before Ocean Pride was built, but now as it's up and running leaving such a thing in the middle made the map very hard to read.
3.  The presence of the platform made other mappers put up bus line relations arbitrarily, and the platform became a horrid rectangle with line numbers on them in Transport view.  In reality they all have their own stopping positions (and quite some of them like 31 and 36 had been so for most of their tenures in the complex), and all queue structures are not labelled. It's far more accurate to put the stops up as I did.

I have been wanting to get rid of the platform for quite some time, but after I found out it's you who made it, I KNEW you would complain if I simply do it without some backing, so I actually went to the place and did a survey myself to ensure my initiative is justified.

About the source, I only looked up HKBUS for the KMB reference numbers; every other bit was from my own outing and records, so I admit that I should just have stuck to "self-survey".
Patrickov (2022-06-27 13:40:36+00:00): Sorry, I retract the word "hard to read".  It only hurt my eyes, but I do think it's inaccurate and caused quite some problems.
Kovoschiz (2022-06-28 06:41:21+00:00): 1. OSM works by iterative refinement. That's why you can change it to a `type=multipolygon` and add `inner` members for the column. 
2. This is a renderer issue. Don't Map For Renderer. 
3. `highway=platform` is not the same as for `highway=bus_stop`.
Kovoschiz (2022-06-28 06:42:43+00:00): You are not allowed to directly copy from Wikia and Wikipedia. Please at least use KMB's official website only. (Although there are still grey areas with database rights, so you should rely on it alone)
Kovoschiz (2022-06-28 06:44:47+00:00): For comparison, a railway platform would be occupied by other structures as well. However, the meaning of `railway=platform` is the entire area for it, including everything on it. Walkable areas should use `area:highway=footway`.
Patrickov (2022-06-28 07:34:43+00:00): I did NOT map for the renderer.  As said, I *actually* did a survey myself and all pathing and stop positions (stop posts) were put down as they are *at the ground*.

Conversely treating the entire area as a single platform is not accurate at all.  You mentioned multipolygon but let me tell you, mapping all those columns would need many, many more "inner" shapes.  Paths both represent the ground feature more accurately and cause much less intrusion to the surroundings.
Patrickov (2022-06-28 07:51:04+00:00): (Re: 'highway=platform' is not the same as for 'highway=bus_stop')

That's exactly why drawing a single platform in the middle caused problems.

As I said before, when the platform was around, other mappers (or is it just you?) put relations to *the* platform, making it look like anyone can board any bus anywhere, when it's simply not true.

I also noticed that some mapper(s) used "platform edge" to denote specific places for designated routes.  IMHO that's more applicable to railway platforms, but for buses (where people board at a single door on the bus) it's not accurate either.

Other bus terminals (e.g. Nina Tower next door) simply put boarding spots as stops, and bus companies do put up poles at designated spots, so it's an accurate depiction.

Even "open space" terminals like Tsing Yi AR Station specifically spot the boarding places instead of drawing a horrific platform area and using platform edges.  I fail to see why I cannot do the same here.
Kovoschiz (2022-06-28 08:02:10+00:00): 1. They are not mutually exclusive. As I said, you can use `area:highway=` for the exact walkable areas. You should not delete something simply because it is inaccurate. The platform represents the entire area. There are many `=multipolygon` that can removed by this suggestion of yours simply because they need to have more `inner` added.
2. Again, this is a matter of iterative refinement. As I remembered, there were no individual `highway=bus_stop` + `public_transport=platform` added at first. Therefore I used the `highway=platform` first. You are definitely welcomed to add individual points to replace the `highway=platform` as members. `=platform_edge` only augments them.
Kovoschiz (2022-06-28 08:15:19+00:00): `=platform_edge` would represent the entire usable length, similar to `bus_bay=` on the road where they exists. (There are not even standards for bus stops per se) You considered boarding, but not disembarking. Other countries would use multiple doors, and even articulated buses. 
You can look at HZMB to why `highway=platform` and `=platform_edge` may be needed. They are separated into platforms A alphabets onwards, then each position gets A1 numbers onwards. Each route can board at any slots on their area. Is it totally accurate to claim there are that many bus stops, for reasons of many stopping positions alone? As for door position, what about accessing the luggage bay? There will also be discrepancies in the stopping position every time. That's why both door position and `=platform_edge` is useful.  Of course, here it is indeed one bus stop for every position.
Other countries use `highway=platform` on roadside stops as well. Which I don't agree with entirely, but it does show the variations.
Patrickov (2022-06-28 08:26:52+00:00): Let me rephrase.

I removed that platform because it caused certain problems (e.g. people adding relations to them arbitrarily) *and* had become an eyesore after new buildings are built over it.  That doesn't mean other platforms of similar kind necessarily need to go, and other multipolygons whose creators had bothered to create are, of course, very good.  I simply don't have that leisure, and besides areas still need pathing, I believe?

I did take extra care to actually survey.  Admittedly it's because I found out that you were the creator, although you would probably still complain even if not.  I never satisfy you.
Kovoschiz (2022-06-28 08:41:59+00:00): "people adding relations to them arbitrarily" is because there weren't any `=bus_stop` points until you added them now, thank you. " had become an eyesore after new buildings are built over it." is a renderer issue.
Kovoschiz (2022-06-28 08:51:55+00:00): The area is also a sawtooth shape, which is pending to be added. It will be easier to draw this as a `=platform`, rather than `barrier=`, or `area:highway=footway` and `area:highway=service`. 

For other countries, eg in Berlin, there are  even  `highway=bus_stop` (no `=platform`) on a `highway=platform` + `public_transport=platform` (where the `platform` goes) . It's not a settled topic, including `=bus_stop` vs `=stop_positions` That's why there are discussions. 

I review every changeset, and apply the same standards to myself. I don't delete anyone else's work lightly. I always try to improve on them. One reason being, there is one user here who keeps deleting everything to redraw them, often at a lower quality and missing tags; which others have complained before to no avail, and nothing can be done because technically it's not "wrong". It's not good practice. 

You removed the area with reason being it looks bad. That's why I remind you  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_renderer By the same token, don't delete objects you don't understand either. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_remove_tags_that_you_don't_understand
Patrickov (2022-06-28 09:23:15+00:00): It's inevitable that mapping needs to balance between factual description and what renders better.  Here, rendering is a reason but not my primary reason.  Accusing me for "mapping for the renderer" is not factual here -- I mean, I would not have done a survey if I do just that.  I wanted to make sure what I did was factual (or to be precise, more factual) too.

On a side note, is there anywhere for me to complain Open Carto for overemphasizing roads and bus platforms?
Trevor_1 (2022-06-26 17:15:44+00:00): *also deleted note=cash lanes because  cash is no longer accepted
flohoff (2022-06-26 18:59:31+00:00): Moin,
du hast in diesem Changeset die eine Fahrtrichtung der Carl-Bertelsmann-Straße Ecke KampStraße/Annenstraße gelöscht. Ich hab es nur im Avchavi gesehen und wenn ich das richtig interpretiere ist da jetzt das routing kaputt. D.h. aktuell geht es auf der Carl-Bertelsmann-Straße nur noch Stadtauswärts.

Oder hab ich was übersehen?


Flo
flohoff (2022-06-26 20:12:54+00:00): Ich habe den changeset partiell wieder reverted. Also die teile die die Carl-Bertelsmann-Straße gelöscht haben. Den teil an der Medienfabrik habe ich hoffentlich gelassen.
Langlaeufer (2022-06-26 18:16:12+00:00): Danke, ich sollte mal lieber die Brille beim Mappen auflassen
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122875704
Đuro Jiří (2022-06-29 18:37:21+00:00): Scusa, hai aggiunto "Water source" senza tag. Ho inserito tag "water point".Devi aggiungere anche tag, altrimenti non si capisce nulla..
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-11 20:25:29+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9848568712 - is it an unmarked pedestrian crossing?

(I tried to fix it based on aerial but I see no crossing there)
Sovushka (2025-05-18 12:29:04+00:00): I was here so long ago that I don't remember. I don't plan to be there anytime soon. Almost 3 years have passed, so what is actually there right now is a mystery to me. Do what you feel is right.
Sovushka (2025-05-18 12:31:42+00:00): And thank you for commenting, that warmed my heart. I'm curious what did you do to get to that node? This edit is almost 3 years old, how did you find it?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-05-19 14:17:19+00:00): For start, thanks for mapping and have a good mappy happy day!

For this location: I opened note then, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4766857

And how I found it? I am trying to fix amenity=fixme broken tagging, see https://github.com/Zverik/every_door/issues/880
Sovushka (2025-05-20 10:51:43+00:00): Thank you!
troglobiont (2022-11-07 12:49:55+00:00): Hallo Skipaul,
du hast hier mehrere Relationen für die neue MTB-Route #6 angelegt. Ich habe die Wege falls notwendig an den Kreuzungen getrennt, die Relationen bis auf eine gelöscht und die Wege zu dieser Relation hinzugefügt. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14296986

Ich habe auch die access-Werte korrigiert. access=forestry + bicycle=yes würde bedeuteten das Fussgänger nicht rein dürfen, außer sie sind Waldarbeiter. Für Straßen die mit Forstweg-Schild gekennzeichnet sind reicht vehicle=forestry.
Niiepce (2022-07-01 15:05:31+00:00): Diese Straßenlaternen heißen nicht "alte Gaslaterne". Achte bitte auf die korrekte Verwendung des name-Tags. Ich habe es korrigiert. :)
jodd (2022-06-26 18:19:06+00:00): source war survey
Niiepce (2022-07-01 14:50:25+00:00): Dieser Picknickplatz heißt nicht "Picknickplatz". Achte auf die korrekte Verwendung des name-Tags. Ich habe es korrigiert. :)
Andrea Musuruane (2022-06-27 06:50:49+00:00): Ciao. Puoi spiegarmi su quale base hai riclassificato queste strade? Non seguono assolutamente l'importanza e il traffico attuale. Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122877484
Andrea Musuruane (2022-07-03 13:39:17+00:00): Reverted in 123151880
Andrea Musuruane (2022-06-27 06:50:52+00:00): Ciao. Puoi spiegarmi su quale base hai riclassificato queste strade? Non seguono assolutamente l'importanza e il traffico attuale. Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/122877784
Andrea Musuruane (2022-07-03 13:38:08+00:00): Reverted in 123151842
user_18305684 (2023-06-11 22:07:23+00:00): Hi,

I just made some changes on your work with better tags I think (because bare_rock will be visible on maps and because to use one word for the tag geological will be sufficient, the word that we can find on wikipedia) : https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/137220944

My question now is : I will suggest to use the same tags on the ways 1103943183 and 1103943196 (maybe some others) because of what I can see on Maxar imagery but I don't know this area.

What is your point of view about that ?

Best regards
JamJar II (2023-06-12 13:00:25+00:00): Thanks for getting in touch. The castles/kopjes are prominent above the surrounding hill top. They are natural but look like supernatural castles. From satellite imagery you might see shadows cast but it may difficult to identify without visiting or using ground level imagery. That said, any mapping is useful. Hope that helps?