piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
adrianojbr (2022-10-13 16:36:47+00:00): Algumas observações adicionais:

1. a principal etiqueta para o ponto de ônibus é public_transport=platform. Porém essa não é renderezida ainda no mapa principal. Assim, como exceção aos princípios de "não mapear para o renderizador" e "evitar redundância", se pode adicionar também a etiqueta antiga highway=bus_stop (pois essa é renderizada);

2. O ponto de ônibus pode ser mapeado como ponto (nó), linha ou área; nos dois últimos, há uma certa incompatibilidade com highway=bus_stop, gerando alertas no validador do Josm; e

3. Até onde entendo, bus=yes deve ir no ponto adicionado na via e etiquetado como public_transport=stop_position, sem necessidade de incluir também em public_transport=platform.

Abraço!
user_5359 (2022-10-15 05:51:27+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/697781248. What is the meaning of the tag „amenity=*“ = „pier“?
Friendly_Ghost (2022-10-15 11:25:06+00:00): that's a misclick. I've fixed it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127566410. Thank you for bringing it up.
adiatmad (2022-10-20 03:11:06+00:00): Good day, Rizki!
Your edit looks awesome (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1103314966). Allow me to suggest you press Q (square building).
bbmiller (2022-10-19 18:05:32+00:00): Hi! Thanks for working on the map. I just wanted to call out that some of the features you mapped in this changeset could be better tagged. You created a bunch of "golf courses" that are really individual holes on a mini-golf course.

There's already an area for the mini golf course. I'd suggest re-tagging the individual holes, perhaps as a Putting Green.
eggie (2023-03-30 08:51:53+00:00): Beste Erik,
Ook hier weer vehicle=no op fietspaden.
Geef dan specifie aan wie er niet mogen komen. Een fiets is immers ook een vehicle. 
Zou je svp je edits willen nakijken.
Het routeert allemaal niet meer voor fietsers terwijl er gewoon fietsroutes lopen.
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=127438816

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-03-30 08:57:22+00:00): Wellicht heb je hier iets aan. 
Wel even op run klikken

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1t7s
eggie (2023-04-01 11:08:07+00:00): Dag Erik,

Er bleken nog veel meer vehicle=no tags op fietspaden te staan. Ze worden nu als er instemming is met een mechanical edit verwijderd.
Er loopt momenteel een draadje op het forum.. 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/verwijderen-vehicle-no-op-fietspaden/97576

MVG eggie
Erik vd S (2023-04-01 13:56:11+00:00): Hi Eggie, inderdaad, vehicle=no is niet handig als ik naar de default valies kijk. Die had ik niet scherp, dus dat zal ik voortaan doen.
Als ik kijk naar https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access, dan wordt daar de veolgende voorbeelden gegeven:
> access=no, bus=yes - means that only buses are allowed to enter (for example a road only for buses and forbidden also to pedestrians)
> access=yes, motor_vehicle=no - means that all transport modes except motor vehicles can use the element
M.i. betekent vehicle=no dat er geen voertuigen mogen komen, behalve de voertuigen die een yes hebben. Dus bij routering is kijken naar vehicle=no onvoldoende. Is dat inderdaad zo, of begrijp ik dat verkeerd? De access zijn niet de makkelijkste :-). Desondanks: niet handig op een fietspad. Met vriendelijke groet, Erik
eggie (2023-04-01 14:29:47+00:00): Hoi Erik..
Yep.. accesstags zijn lastig.. dat is zeker.
Combinaties met access=no worden ook ontmoedigd. Gewoon aangeven wie er niet mogen komen. Vaak zitten die accesstags al ingebakken.
Op een fietspad zal het nooit routeren voor bv een auto.
Kijk even op het bewuste forumdraadje. Daar heb ik de tagging van g13.. g12a en g13 aangegeven.
Gr eggie
eggie (2023-04-01 14:34:22+00:00): Een G13 fietspad is dan
mofa=no
moped=no
traffic_sign=NL:G13..
De rest is default

...access=no gebruik je bijna nergens.. zal zo hier even de link naar de tagging van de verkeersborden zetten.
eggie (2023-04-01 14:40:55+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=NL:Overzicht_Nederlandse_Verkeersborden&direction=next&oldid=984258#C:_Geslotenverklaring

en specifiek fietspaden

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
TelsiuurajonoosvaivlTtllti24ii2 (2022-10-18 14:27:35+00:00): you're not based
marczoutendijk (2024-04-19 20:43:37+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1103318710
What exactly do you mean with:
opening_hours=24h/24h
24/7 is something that we understand.

  
Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
Allison P (2022-10-13 02:06:27+00:00): There is no island anymore. It was demolished about a year ago. Why did you readd?
WoodWoseWulf (2022-10-14 22:07:20+00:00): Hi again!

In this changeset, you added a footpath to the outer wall of this building: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/481671723#map=19/38.91138/-77.07736

I'm assuming the building is underground? Either way, the footpath would need to be added separately as it appears to be located over where the building is mapped rather than along its walls.
seattlefyi (2022-10-13 15:03:30+00:00): Sorry to hear it, was a long-time spot in the neighborhood! Thanks for the update. I've restored the node but instead removed all of the business-specific tags, so we don't lose the still-valid address tags. Thanks again!
adrianojbr (2022-10-14 14:35:08+00:00): Olá, AWaltrick!

Não há radares de velocidade ativos próximos ao Queijo e Companhia.

Tanto pela ferramenta do DNIT (https://servicos.dnit.gov.br/multas/informacoes/equipamentos-fiscalizacao?uf=SC), que mostra os radares ativos nas rodovias federais, quanto pela do Inmetro (https://servicos.rbmlq.gov.br/Instrumento), que controla a verificação de todos os radares. Radares sem aprovação do Inmetro não podem geral multas.

Aliás, de acordo com o Inmetro só há 1 radar no município de Capão Alto/SC no Km 308.420, o qual já está mapeado em https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6927034/.

Aproveitando, o "radar" que você incluiu ao norte do Queijo e Cia. é um limitador de altura (barrier=height_restrictor). Não achei qual o limite de altura (maxheight=*), inclusive quando passei por lá há 1 mês não lembro de ver sinalização sobre isso.

Abraço!
AWaltrick (2022-10-14 15:36:56+00:00): Boa tarde meu amigo! tudo bem?
Ok, ótimo. Eu passei no local essa semana e visualizei as câmeras e as placas de fiscalização eletrônica no local. Bom saber que podemos consultar os radares no https://servicos.rbmlq.gov.br/Instrumento.
Obrigado por sinalizar e fazer a correção.
Att,
adrianojbr (2022-10-14 22:35:30+00:00): Fiz as correções.

A ferramenta do DNIT é mais fácil, por ser mais visual, mas é mais restrita.

O Inmetro é mais completo e confíavel.

No mais, estamos aí.

Abraço!
PlaneMad (2022-11-09 04:50:27+00:00): Thanks for this update. Had no idea it had got renamed!
Frans S (2022-10-13 09:15:57+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project. 
I am a Sr Validator and review mapped tasks at random or as requested. 
I am sorry to say, but your mappings are not that accurate and in according to the HOT/ OSM quality standards.
Please pay attention to next points:
Not accurate mapped and squared.



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 !
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127440934
ڕاستی (2022-10-13 00:06:31+00:00): ئەو پۆست کۆدانە کە سڕیمەتەوە، لایەنی میری گۆڕیونی و لەسەر شێوازەکی نوێی ناونیشان بۆ کوردستان دایاندەڕێژێتەوە، کە هێشتا کارەکان تەواو نەبوونە.
Niels GM (2022-12-17 16:44:42+00:00): Hej,
Du har ændret vores 'Cycle and Foot Path' til 'Path*; det virker ikke godt med routing og navigation (på cykel).
Skriv gerne hvis jeg har gjort noget galt her.
Hilsener,
Niels
b-holdet (2022-12-18 05:46:40+00:00): Hvilken routing-maskine bruge du siden du insisterer på denne kombination?

Det virker nemlig som et dobbelttag at benytte 
highway=cycleway + cycle=designated

Hvorimod
highway=path + cycle=designated
ligner mere korrekt tagging.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
b-holdet (2022-12-18 05:58:48+00:00): Eller du kan benytte denne kombination, hvis det er en egentlig cykelsti

highway=cycleway + foot=designated 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
Niels GM (2022-12-18 08:07:43+00:00): Tak for feedback! Jeg bruger mest RidewithGPS, men også Komoot og Strava for planlægning. Med NEL's klassifikation kan jeg ikke route korrekt mere på Fodsporet, men bliver sendt i alle mulige retninger. Min brug af 'Cycle and Foot Path' i ID virker derimod perfekt og viser sig også som cykelinfrastruktur i CyclOSM. Det er mit overordnede svar og observation... N
Niels GM (2022-12-18 08:09:28+00:00): PS. Fodsporet er en kombineret cykel- og gangsti, uden separation af trafik.
Niels GM (2022-12-18 09:14:43+00:00): PPS. I dokumentationen for 'highway=cycleway' hedder det: 

"The iD preset "Cycle & Foot Path" uses highway=cycleway along with bicycle=designated and foot=designated. On the other hand, the equivalent JOSM preset tags this as highway=path with bicycle=designated and foot=designated.
In either case adding also segregated=yes or segregated=no is helpful."

Så jeg har vel bare fulgt iD praksis?
b-holdet (2022-12-18 09:25:25+00:00): Ja, og ID, Potlac, Streetview og JOSM er blot værktøjer til at hjælpe os med at lægge data ind. Deres "hjælp" er ikke altid en hjælp, når det gælder alle tags.

Du rammer lige ned i et grundlæggende problem her.

OSM er i og for sig blot en stor database, som alle kan tilføje data til. Data skal helst have samme format for at kunne virke ens for alle. Men det sker ikke, da ting vil kunne repræsenteres på flere måder.

Udenom ligger så forskellige applikationer, som trækker data ud og benytter dem i forskellige sammenhænge, såsom routing og rendering af kortet.

Her er det så at vi skal skelne mellem database og applikationen. For spørgsmålet er, hvor "fejlen" ligger, når routingen eller rendingen svigter.

I bund og grund gør databasen sit arbejde og data vil være dynamiske og ændre sig alt efter hvilken bruger der lægger dem ind. Desuden vil der være flere måder (som vi har her) til at repræsentere samme typer i virkeligheden.

Derfor vil jeg som udgangspunkt mene, at det er et problem hos routingssoftwaret, som har låst sig fast på, at eks. higway=path ikke er en mulighed for cykler. Og altså ikke en fejl i data hos OSM.

I såfald det skal være et OSM-problem, så kommer du til at skulle rette mange steder på kortet. Pt. er der over 12 millioner highway=path der så skal gennemgås for om de kan cykles på. Heraf er 1,2 mill. tagget med bicycle=*

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=path
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2022-12-18 22:04:18+00:00): I følge Mapillary billederne er det ikke en cykelsti. Den første del over broen ser ud til at være en service vej.

Så kommer der en træbom og på bommen er der to små skilte med motorkøretøjer forbudt og hund-i-snor.

Det fremgår ikke at det skulle være en cykelsti. Men man kan  jo cykle på stier.

ORSM bicycle ruteren har ikke noget problem med at rute på highway=path.
Niels GM (2022-12-18 22:19:05+00:00): Hele Fodsporet er en kombineret cykel- og gangsti, uden separation af trafikanter. Derfor har jeg brugt "Cycle and Foot Path" i iD, i overensstemmelse med OSM wiki.
Jeg ved ikke hvilken lokation du refererer til, så det kan jeg ikke kommentere.
Flere kommentarer følger snarest.
Niels GM (2022-12-19 08:01:14+00:00): @b-holdet: Tak for udførligt svar. Jeg er i store træk enig i din beskrivelse, men har alligevel følgende kommentarer og reservationer:
1.	Den praksis jeg har fulgt, er beskrevet i OSM wiki og implementeret i iD, og er følgelig tilladt. Der er derfor ingen grund for andre brugere til at ændre i disse data.
2.	Det problem du påpeger, bliver tilsyneladende ikke vist i fx Osmose eller KeepRight.
3.	Min praksis er muligvis ikke optimal, men den indbyggede iD-editor er enkel, logisk og ligetil at bruge på dette punkt – og understøtter en praksis a là min.
4.	Min praksis vises efterfølgende korrekt i CyclOSM kortet og virker ydermere korrekt i alle de applikationer jeg kender til. Dette er ikke tilfældet for din foreslåede (forbedrede) praksis.
5.	Nogen bør selvfølgelig informere applikationerne om deres begrænsninger og muligheder – og OSM databasens egenskaber. Det vil jeg meget gerne gøre når jeg er kommet længere i min analyse og forståelse af problemet.
6.	Routing software kan tydeligvis forbedres, men det kan OSM, iD og OSM-wiki vel også?
7.	Rent sprogligt synes jeg, at der en forskel på en "Path", der kan være af meget forskellig type og hvor forskellige former for trafik kan være tilladt; og så en "Cycle and Foot Path", der er en bred sti / vej specielt designet og implementeret som en gang- og cykelsti. Fodsporet er af den sidste type, 2.5 m bred og asfalteret hele vejen.
8.	Ved de ændringer jeg har kommenteret på, går Fodsporet fra at være en sammenhængende, konsistent størrelse til at være en sti/vej der består af forskellige stykker og repræsenteres på forskellige måder i kortene. Det er ikke praktisk eller befordrende for brugeren.
9.	Dobbelt-tag er i mine øjne et mindre problem ift. ingen tag, forkert tag eller ’korrekt’ tag 😊 iD preset "Cycle & Foot Path" samt beskrivelsen passer godt på Fodsporet.
Håber det giver mening, N
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-10-16 11:23:41+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 127611592 where the changeset comment is: Removing some made-up names. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6452
MxxCon (2022-10-14 16:35:50+00:00): Hello.
That parking lot shouldn't be named like that since that goes against https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

It's perfectly normal if a parking lot doesn't have a name..
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127441807
Michael Alvarez (2022-10-15 02:29:56+00:00): While I know parking lots aren’t named this parking lot had a sign with the aforementioned name in front. Whether or not this deserves to be documented is up to you.
WoodWoseWulf (2022-10-14 00:45:11+00:00): Hi Casey Painter,

I'm not sure what you were trying to add here, but you created a massive park over multiple houses, roads and other features.

I have removed this addition.
Trevor_1 (2022-11-06 14:28:06+00:00): Hello. The "city" tag here on OpenStreetMap is used for only the largest settlements. Many small towns and villages are officially called "City of ....", but that's actually not how they should be classified here. I'm going to have to change a lot of these back to "town".
adiatmad (2022-10-20 03:16:22+00:00): Good day! Your edits look great (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1103338434). Allow me to suggest you press Q to square buildings. Happy mapping!
Shogo Hirasawa (2022-10-20 03:58:40+00:00): Sorry, I forgot push Q key. Thank you for fixing m(_ _)m
user_8101879 (2022-10-13 18:21:49+00:00): Hi,

In a boundary relation, you can have only members with the roles admin_centre (on a node), label (on a node), outer or inner (on a way) or subarea (on a relation). See wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary#Relation_members

The roles مرکز شهر or مرز با فردیس are not allowed for example.

Could you fix the roles of some members of this relation ?

Best regards.
WoodWoseWulf (2022-10-14 06:36:15+00:00): The footpath you added here a couple of years ago now runs right through the water you modified in this changeset. Does the footpath no longer exist?
Prefix7 (2022-10-14 11:34:38+00:00): there is a spot the path goes over the water.
WoodWoseWulf (2022-10-14 12:14:40+00:00): Do you mean there's a bridge? At the moment the path is mapped along what is almost the longest part of the water here.
watmildon (2023-01-13 07:48:42+00:00): There's a few places with odd geometry in this changeset. One particular thing that can be improved is adding the use of multipolygons for areas with cutouts in them. I have fixed up one such instance here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131217381. Here's some reading about how to achieve this in iD and avoid the warnings and potential errors in rendering https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon

Definitely let me know if you have any trouble with it. Happy mapping.
Harel M (2022-12-27 12:28:00+00:00): The image left behind is not a valid link and it leads to no where.
Can you please remove these invalid images? There are about 50 of those in different places in Israel.
snopas24 (2022-10-13 04:10:56+00:00): source should include survey
user_5359 (2022-10-13 16:59:28+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please don't mark the building as area=yes. Please use building=yes. I have modified your entry.
pitscheplatsch (2022-10-15 06:59:32+00:00): Hi, just a test edit?

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
snopas24 (2022-10-13 04:10:43+00:00): source should be survey
RussNelson (2022-11-15 07:12:37+00:00): Your changeset claims that you have looked for every single removed object and not seen them on aerials.

I have photographs of the P&SB and Ithaca Branch railbeds which you claim are "truly gone with no traces".

You need to stop doing this, or you will be stopped. Mappers have been banned for less!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:11:58+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
Mxdanger (2022-10-13 17:46:01+00:00): Please split up your changesets, thanks.
marczoutendijk_repair (2022-10-15 08:49:30+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 127558159, 127559578 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: undiscussed low quality import of buildings. Also this user has circumvented a previous block by creating new accounts.
emersonveenstra (2022-10-13 11:06:42+00:00): Hi,

Are you sure Ford Road is one lane? It looks wider than that on imagery, but wanted to double-check
mmahmud (2022-10-17 02:53:34+00:00): @BonnetPlumeRiver: Looks like you modified the highway here to match Maxar Imagery. However all the data of the area has an offset to it so moving the highway has created many conflicts.  When the data area offset, you have to use offset otherwise the relations between features are not accurate. Can you fix the conflicts?

This is the way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204089942#map=16/0.3381/29.7416
BonnetPlumeRiver (2022-10-19 05:04:05+00:00): Hi mmahmud, thank you for reaching out about these alignments. After reviewing this area again, I now see that ESRI is more closely aligned with the surrounding data. I have now updated the highways in this area to improve their alignment. Happy mapping!
gscholz (2022-11-05 07:42:47+00:00): Hi Kanhaia,
this changeset has added some errors to the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=80.22394&lat=26.26557&zoom=9&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=127908399

This kind of errors irritate routing software and looks ugly on the maps.
Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
pza (2022-10-13 11:23:36+00:00): It seems you accidently deleted the amenity=restaurant and website tags. I have put them back in changeset 127464689, retaining your additions.
eggie (2022-10-13 07:52:37+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback Wanneer bepaalde tags niet begrepen worden dan liever niet verwijderen.
tracktype=grade3 geeft de klasse van de weg aan en is van belang voor de routering.
tracktype=grade1 is verhard  en grade5 nauwelijks zichtbaar. 

Je edits

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=127447490

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2022-10-13 07:57:21+00:00): Tip... Svp het gebied van de edits klein houden.. Beter niet schuiven met de kaart in editmodus. Je hebt dan kans dat je objecten ongemerkt verplaatst.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2022-10-13 07:58:21+00:00): tracktype=grade3 hersteld
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-01-27 16:51:57+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
Emilius123 (2022-10-13 20:19:49+00:00): Bro, bist du dahin geradelt??
Karthoo (2022-10-14 05:00:11+00:00): Ja, mein Ziel ist Georgien 😅
Und wenn ich dann noch Lust hab, fahr ich weiter nach Asien.
emersonveenstra (2022-10-13 11:09:30+00:00): Hi,

Some of these are incorrect, for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/727433592 and Handy Lane are residential roads, not driveways. Driveways lead to one building, residential roads are for roads that go through residential areas. Would you mind fixing that? Thanks!
mariotomo (2022-10-13 13:14:22+00:00): hi Guido, thank you for reviewing the data here in Panama. do you think you could spend a few more words to explain what happened here, in particular what was the problem that you saw, and only briefly on how you fixed it? IIRC, MauCal created relations for waterways, it was part of a global effort of I don't recall which project. Maybe you also want to comment on one of the changesets where the mistakes were introduced, that you fixed here.
OSMCha.org says that you removed waterway=river from a large set of nodes, but also from two way elements: w1065547775, w1103003186.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127448094
gscholz (2022-10-13 13:47:01+00:00): Hi Mario,
OSMI reported self intersecting ways. But a closer look exposed as well rivers flowing uphill and every single node of those waterways had the tag "waterway=river".
Guido
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/127448094
mariotomo (2022-10-13 14:19:30+00:00): rivers flowing uphill like up and down hills? or just the wrong way? 
https://github.com/OSMLatam/pow/issues/6
gscholz (2022-10-13 15:55:12+00:00): ... and yes I forgot, some rivers were not connected downstream, which may still be the case for some of them as I did not check all rivers in this area.
Guido
gscholz (2022-10-13 15:57:10+00:00): ... just the wrong way.
gscholz (2022-10-14 06:38:45+00:00): Hi Mario,
the waterway view in OSMI shows some errors in your country regarding flow directions and missing connections. May this is a start for you to fix more errors:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=water&lon=-81.16025&lat=8.31118&zoom=9&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=coastline%2Cwaterways_drain%2Cwaterways_canal%2Cwaterways_stream%2Cwaterways_river%2Cwaterways_riverbank%2Cwaterways_other%2Cwaterrelations_drain%2Cwaterrelations_canal%2Cwaterrelations_stream%2Cwaterrelations_river%2Cwaterrelations_riverbank%2Cwaterrelations_other%2Cwaterways_in_tunnels%2Cwaterways_on_bridges%2Cwaterways_width%2Cwaterways_width_error%2Cwaterways_without_names%2Cwaterway_nodes%2Cwaterway_nodes_direction_error%2Crivermouths%2Coutflows

Guido
mariotomo (2022-10-14 14:05:19+00:00): shorter link, I don't know if it shows the same information as geofabrik, because I got lost in the details there.

https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=8&lat=8.738&lon=-80.000&item=1220&level=1%2C2
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2022-10-27 10:51:19+00:00): Brug "." (punktum) som decimalkomma. Fx 0.5 og ikke 0,5
user_1566574 (2023-04-12 12:08:43+00:00): Doublon de l'historique https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7479745474, le nom en moins...
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2023-04-12 12:10:40+00:00): Doublon supprimé

Cordialement,
L'Equipe DB