piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
PT-53 (2020-02-06 09:36:06+00:00): Hallo trichterul,
ich bin da einem Fehler in Maps4BW (kann man in JOSM und in ID als Hintergrund einblenden) aufgesessen und hatte zudem übersehen, daß da auch noch eine weitere Straße Ziegelhausweg (auf Flst. 1002/1,1004/4 ) eingezeichnet ist. Sonst hätte ich meine Anfrage an die Stadt Munderkingen detailierter gestellt. Du hast ja aber auch von einer Umbenennung geschrieben, die es laut Auskunft der Stadt gar nicht gegeben hat.
Ich habe jetzt noch die Anschrift am Gebäude der Fa. FAHNEN-BURGER GbR entspr. berichtigt.
Danke für die Klarstellung
Grüße
trichterul (2020-02-06 13:24:13+00:00): Hallo, die Umbenennung von Ziegelhausweg in Am Höhenblick wurde mir so kommuniziert da in den Navies auch ein falscher Straßennamen eingetragen ist. Der Flst. Plan kennt an dieser Stelle nur Am Höhenblick. Erst weitere Recherchen zur Plausibilisierung haben bei mir den Verdacht geweckt dass dieser Weg schon immer falsch in Plänen übernommen wurde. (siehe meine 2. Rückantwort). Das Bauamt Munderkingen hat das nur nochmal bestätigt. Grüße aus Ulm
skorpion62 (2020-01-31 10:08:48+00:00): Hallo NGL-engel,

schön, das Du den Kreisverkehr in Essen/Olb angelegt hast.
Du hast geschrieben, dass Du Wanderwege nach GPS angelegt hast,
also warst Du auch vor Ort, oder? 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/767270226

Ich frage mich dann nur, wo Du das Schild um den Kreisverkehr für einen ausgewiesenen Fahrradweg mit Fußgängerbenutzung gesehen hast und dann auch noch alles in einer Richtung auch für Fußgänger.

Vor 14 Tagen war ich schon vor Ort , hab auch Fotos gemacht. Gestern war ich  auch wieder vor Ort, leider habe ich immer noch keine Beschilderung für Deine Eintragungen gefunden. Es sind nur Zebrastreifen vorhanden. Also müssen Radfahrer die Straße benutzen bzw. ihr Fahrrad über den Zebrastreifen schieben, um die Straße zu überqueren. Den kombinierten Fuß- und Radweg in Richtung Cloppenburg gibt es ab dem Kreisverkehr auch nicht mehr. 
Was sagst Du dazu?
Deine Aussage in diesem Changeset  „Wanderwege nach GPS-Track überarbeitet“ sagt nicht aus, was Du wirklich gemacht hast. Hier hätte es zB. heißen können: „Kreisverkehr neu angelegt.“

Ich werde den Kreisverkehr nach meinen Fotos korrigieren.

Viele Grüße skorpion62
NGL-engel (2020-02-04 12:18:20+00:00): Hallo skorpion62, 
    ich würde mich freuen wenn Du, unter Zuhilfenahme meiner Eintragungen, die Situation am Kreisverkehr noch weiter verbessern könntest.
Gruß NGL-engel
skorpion62 (2020-02-04 14:14:46+00:00): Hallo NGL-engel,

ich kann leider Deine Eintragungen um dem Kreisverkehr nicht verbessern, ich kann nur Deine Fehler korrigieren. Der Radweg ist hier völlig falsch. Nicht alle Wege die Du siehst, sind ausgewiesene Radwege.

Viele Grüße skorpion62
DaveF (2020-01-30 16:15:36+00:00): Hi
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/767300457
To check, You stopped the platforms short. Iis the station/cafe building accessible ot the public?
gurglypipe (2020-01-31 09:20:14+00:00): The station/cafe building is a private business now, and has different opening times from the train station. The north-west end of the platforms are fenced off and seem to belong to the cafe (although it wasn’t open when I was there).
MikeN (2020-01-27 15:45:12+00:00): Hi, please save changes before moving to a new area: these changes span half the country
skquinn (2020-01-27 19:51:06+00:00): Also, it is misleading to have a changeset tagged as "Edits around DFW" when there are edits clearly hundreds of miles away. (It would also help to have a more specific changeset comment; really, the bounding box is supposed to tell us it's "around DFW" on its own.)
Blueberry (2020-01-27 16:58:00+00:00): Bonjour et bienvenue dans OpenStreetMap ! :)
Pour "tagger" un bar tabac, ce n'est pas le champ "Name" qu'il faut utiliser mais mettre "shop=tobacco" plus "amenity=bar" si il fait bar/tabac. Voir :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Comment_cartographier_un...#T. 
Par contre, si il y a un nom, le mettre dans "name"
Bonne continuation :)

Eric [Blueberry]
user_5359 (2020-03-01 06:18:54+00:00): Hello! Please be careful when editing the map data. You moved the solor panel https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6743957506 over 100 meters (from building to an open area). Please check the situation.
messpert (2020-03-01 12:35:23+00:00): Weird. I have absolutely no idea how that happened. Maybe I accidentally dragged the node in josm and didn't notice, but why just that point?
I wasn't even mapping in that area.

Actually, josm thinks that I moved it by 1.51km! 

I have put it back almost exactly where it was, but I must say that it does not look like a photovoltaic panel to me. Much more like a evacuated tube thermal solar panel(s). At least on the Clarity beta image. On the ordinary Esri image it looks more extended, so there it looks more like a possible photovoltaic panel array.
I leave it to you to decide whether to change it to a thermal solar generator, depending on which imagery you believe.

I am really embarrassed by this mistake, and worried that there could have been others. I am impressed that you picked it up.

I think that edit was from a long series, and maybe I was just tired and somehow missed the problem.
user_5359 (2020-03-01 16:14:09+00:00): Hello, it's pure coincidence that I found the error. I have a program that checks a changeset for various potential(!) errors. One cause of errors is the (unintentional) moving of nodes. In order not to get too many erroneous warnings, I set the minimum shift to 100 meters (hence this value in the message). 
I actually wanted to test a completely different error type (no tags on the path https://www.osm.org/way/767308667, found by an overpass API query). This error has not (yet) been registered, but the shift came to light. 
For beginners and road users (especially iD users) I like to correct the errors directly and leave only an info. For single points, however, it would be better if the submitter would check against it.
messpert (2020-03-01 17:22:35+00:00): Oh, err. An untagged way :-) I don't know why the josm validator didn't object. But it sometimes flags up spurious stuff which I ignore, so perhaps this slipped through.

Kit HIll was in a bit of a mess before this set of edits, and I may have been a bit overwhelmed. Fortunately I have kept the gps-enabled dashcam videos as well as the additional accurate gps tracks, so I should be able to look into what went wrong.

I will see if I can find time to fix this later this evening, 'flu-like bug permitting :-) 

Feel free too flag up any other rubbish. But the validator should pick up any other problems. IIRC, there were many warnings from previous mapping that I hadn't surveyed, so in the main left alone.
messpert (2020-03-01 19:56:17+00:00): OK, Untagged way fixed. It was a parking place.
Klaus Schwer (2020-01-29 14:49:49+00:00): Vandalism reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80264423
skyper (2020-05-26 00:59:39+00:00): Changed my mind and change it back to gtfs:shape_id
PT-53 (2020-01-27 18:01:52+00:00): Infos über Frischwasser im Abwasser!?
user_5359 (2020-07-13 18:38:49+00:00): Hello! Please use currency:CZK instead of currency:czk .
skquinn (2021-10-01 04:31:00+00:00): Hi,

What is your source for this data?
Blue Buckaroo (2021-10-02 15:40:51+00:00): Sorry that one area I had accidentally set to 70 vs 65. Corrected now.
user_5359 (2020-12-22 06:41:16+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/765709295: Is the admin_level value correct?
ElliottPlack (2021-01-26 16:57:29+00:00): @user_5359 that boundary looks wrong. This looks like one of the 'for profit' golf mappers we've been seeing. @Jay any comment here? The course looks beautiful, but the boundary here is an issue, as is the naming of all the hazards. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_use_name_tag_to_describe_things
user_5359 (2021-01-26 18:55:02+00:00): @ElliottPlack Thanks for remembering, I have deleted the border and moved the naming towards description
Marcos_Itba_Kaart (2021-05-05 11:44:15+00:00): Olá,

verificando as imagens do Mapillary, a restrição de conversão 10641883 (Proibido retornar / no_u_turn) não era sinalizada em campo em 01/01/2015, ela foi sinalizada posteriormente? 

Restrições do tipo proibido retornar são desnecessárias, a menos que estejam sinalizadas em campo.

Restrições desnecessárias criam diversos problemas, como dificuldades de edição dos membros e renderização incorreta de nomes no mapa devido à microsegmentações, entre outros.

Para entender melhor, veja essa discussão sobre o tema:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2527

E os alertas logo no inicío da Wiki de restrições de conversão:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction
eggie (2020-01-27 18:06:34+00:00): Dag Johan, 
Het zuidelijk stukje Wethouder Beverstaart richting Zyiderval heb ik ook maar van access=no ontdaan. Waneer dat niet klopt geef even een seintje.
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2020-01-27 18:10:16+00:00): Mijn edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=80156836
sdoerr (2020-01-28 15:20:52+00:00): This church of St George seems to be in the same place as an existing church with the name Ayia Napa. It seems unlikely that both are correct.
freebeer (2020-01-28 17:52:11+00:00): Two objects here have been infected, one for the second time, with the spam of a couple years ago that plagued cyprus and even today causes maps.me false alarms when people use ancient data from that time.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/516407797/history

DWG will be getting an earful Real Soon Now.
camelCaseNick (2020-01-29 02:07:58+00:00): Hey,
you have added a wikidata tag to node/2788680420 here. The wikipedia, i.e. it's language should be marked here with the syntax wikipedia=[lang]:[article].
Would you please do that?
Thanks,
CamelCaseNick
LLlypuk82 (2020-01-29 02:18:10+00:00): Hello. Yes of course. Did you mean this one?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2788680420
camelCaseNick (2020-01-29 02:19:16+00:00): Yes, I did. Thank You!
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 18:25:52+00:00): Note that I did NOT create it, it was already thre and causing conflicts and geometry errors locally for an unrelated edit.
I tried to solve it but it was already there, created by someone else in one of the related ways.
Look at the history correctly (I've deduplicated some ways, the way where it was done by "Alecs" is still there !)
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 18:27:32+00:00): Also I had not changed the positions of nodes of any related claim. Like what you did just there (possibly to restore them from cadastral sources from both countries.
Verdy_p (2020-01-27 18:32:49+00:00): why did you move nodes ?
This is not a restoration.
These moves do not match either the French or the Italian cadastre... The nodes were correctly positionned (don't use Bing photos, it is incorrecftly orthorectified).
The locations you put are now offseted to the west.
eggie (2020-01-27 19:19:37+00:00): Welkom bij OSM Je bankje bevindt zich hier midden op de rijbaan. Dat zal niet het geval zijn. 
Ik heb het verwijderd. Bij het monument is wel een bankje.
MVG,
Eggie
KingJames888 (2020-01-27 18:03:13+00:00): #ATX #amm
skquinn (2020-01-27 19:49:18+00:00): Please try to avoid combining edits hundreds of miles apart in the same changeset. Because you have an edit in Austin, TX, somewhere in Florida, and somewhere in Central America, the bounding box stretches across a huge chunk of Texas including Houston as well as many other non-pertinent areas.
freebeer (2020-01-28 11:20:06+00:00): It's trivial to review these four changed objects, though, and the nice thing about these globe-spanning changesets is that so many more eyes will concentrate on them, unlike a remote backwater Pokémon remapping vandalism unnoticed for years.

It catches my eye that two of the four objects seem to be involved in a DWG revert war now, the second round for a remote mechanical edit without on-the-ground survey for currentness and applicability.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1544883395/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4484663040/history

I don't see any clear boners like a drogerie that knocks you off your feet with an overwhelming parfumerie, but is not limited to just perfumes.  now if you'll excuse me and my allergies i'll gasp for fresh air just remembering being suffocated by passing the open doors of one of those drogeries.  *wheeze* *gasp* *hork*

(and people say *I* stink just because I haven't bathed for weeks)
Arnaud Champollion (2023-06-16 17:33:16+00:00): Je m'interroge sur la qualification de bande cyclable sur la D4 www.openstreetmap.org/way/311927466
même avec l'attribut cycleway:lane=advisory on est très loin de ça https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:cycleway:lane?uselang=fr
En l’occurrence comme on le voit ici https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=44.042176&lng=6.038147&z=17&pKey=955237815222596&focus=photo&x=0.4129651795364701&y=0.5274249108997449&zoom=1.7563636363636361 il y a tout juste un accotement.
Colin Smale (2020-01-27 20:04:14+00:00): Hi Andrew, 2 questions: Firstly you seem to have created two copies of this relation, the other one here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/80156012#map=14/51.5405/-0.0166
Secondly, I don't think making this an admin boundary is appropriate, as there is no local government with an elected representation. It's a quango whose leadership is appointed (in this case by the Mayor).
spiregrain (2020-01-27 21:28:12+00:00): It's an interesting one; LLDC's remit is to be the planning authority for some of the territory of existing (admin_level=8) London Boroughs (including Hackney and Newham).   They are not a Civil Parish, which is what level 10 should be used for; but on the other hand there is no accepted way to tag this sort of thing.   

I expect Way 766721111 (Old Oak Park Royal Development Corporation) is similar.
spiregrain (2020-01-27 21:29:19+00:00): See this similar initiative:  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Neighbourhood_Planning_Project
Colin Smale (2020-01-27 22:03:11+00:00): Yeah, but the fact remains they are not a layer of local government. The neighbourhood planning areas are only loosely based on parishes, and don't replace CPs or introduce any layer of government into unparished areas. They don't change who the planning authority is. I wouldn't expect to see a boundary=administrative springing up for every case where government draws a line, like CCGs or Fire and Rescue. IMHO they are different types of boundary, just like the neighbourhood plan areas and development corporations should be. They don't fit into the (more or less) neat hierarchy of admin areas and should have their own top-level boundary type, possibly boundary=town_planning or boundary=zoning.
Andrew Speakman (2020-01-28 06:05:49+00:00): I'm new to this so will adjust as required. The fact is that both London Legacy and Old Oak are planning authorities although not part of local government structure. In this respect they are like national parks. boundary=town_planning sounds appropriate.
trigpoint (2020-01-28 12:46:33+00:00): You state your source as map on website, please could you provide a bit more detail. Also what license is this data released under?

Cheers Phil
Andrew Speakman (2020-01-28 13:25:31+00:00): The boundary map is a PDF openly available on the LLDC website - with no indication of licensing (https://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/planning-authority/planning-area-map). I am new to this so please advise whether this has implications.
trigpoint (2020-01-28 13:39:25+00:00): The terms and conditions do say 'We are often willing to share this content but please check with us first before you use anything from this website.'
You do need to check whether they are prepared to license it for inclusion in OpenStreetMap and not simply for personal use.

Cheers Phil
Andrew Speakman (2020-01-28 14:00:07+00:00): Sorry missed that. Am checking with them
aixbrick (2021-03-23 12:43:22+00:00): Hallo,
kannst du hierzu etwas sagen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2516228?
Gruß
eggie (2020-01-27 19:03:08+00:00): Dag pLDEV,

In dit geval zou ik de algemene regel access=permissive verwijderen.
De specificatie van de verschillende weggebruikers staat al genoemd. 
MVG,
Eggie
De Valouwe (2020-01-27 21:15:51+00:00): Ok, goed idee, klopt het dat jij het al veranderd hebt? Ik keek net en zal bij 'alles', 'no' staan?
eggie (2020-01-27 21:54:48+00:00): https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=80157336
Dit waren de tags die er op stonden. Ik heb niets veranderd.
Ik heb alleen de lus weer ingetekend mbv de bgt omtrekgericht. 
Eigenlijk gebruiken we eerder access=private
access=no staat op het noordelijke stuk. wellicht beter access=private. Dat alleen al zou volstaan en dan zijn de andere tags niet meer nodig. 
Je kunt aan de minder duidelijke rendering zien als iets op access=no staat.
eggie (2020-01-27 21:55:54+00:00): Hier de uitleg van de access tags
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
eggie (2020-01-27 22:05:33+00:00): Alles staat op access=no  dat zijn je eigen tags.
Zelf begin ik nooit het riedeltje met access=no.
Het gaat dan vaak fout als andere mappers er aan gaan rommelen.
.. of het moet voor alle categorieën gelden. Die heb je nu ook al geduid. Dus dan is ook access=no niet nodig. 
Best lastig die accesstags. 
In principe de weggebruikers alleen taggen als er uitzonderingen zijn.
Maar zoals het nu getagd is zal het overigens wel juist routeren Namelijk niet. Het staat behoorlijk op slot. :)
De Valouwe (2020-01-27 22:09:10+00:00): Hoe zal het uiteindelijk van elkaar verschillen in bijv Garmin of andere maps? En hoe lang duurt het meestal voor ik dat kan bewonderen? 
Ik ben er nog niet achter wat je met bgt omtrekgericht bedoeld :-] Is dat één van de andere kaarten? Die met satelliet?
eggie (2020-01-27 22:18:35+00:00): Je wijzigingen komen direct in de data van OSM. In de standaardkaart ziet je veranderingen al snel. Op een windowscomputer help het om de chache leeg te maken met F5 en CTRL F5 of en beetje in= en uitzoomen. Elke layer heeft z'n eigen tijd nodig.
Of andere afgeleide kaarten duurt het vaak langer. Fietskaartlayer en OV layer vaak meer dan een week.
Garmin...
Dat ligt er aan welke kaart.
De Openfietsmap heeft elke zaterdag een update.  www.openfietsmap.nl
De Free Garminmaps 
http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl/
is dat maandelijks. De Garmin topomap soms maar 1x per jaar. 
Welke bedoel je?
Ik gebruik als editor JOSM. In die editor heb je meer achtergrondmogelijkheden.
De (meeste)  layers van de overheid zijn vrij te gebruiken. De BGT omtrekgericht is er één van.
eggie (2020-01-27 22:23:20+00:00): Hier wat leesvoer over de josm en de BGT omtrekgericht
editor josm stap voor stap
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710       

BGT implementeren 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=59021
Forumdraadje ..  De beste imagery layers om NL OSM te mappen met JOSM.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64644
Hier kun je zien hoe je de .jos file kunt gebruiken binnen JOSM. 
https://youtu.be/33EenoZezWg

*( Ervaren mappers gebruiken eigenlijk alleen JOSM.
eggie (2020-01-27 19:09:07+00:00): ... Beter is het om de PDOK actueel als achtergrond te gebruiken. 
De BING ligt enorm verschoven.
Wanner de lus naar de woning niet meer bestaat kan die natuurlijk weg.. Wanneer die er wel is zou je die ook gewoon mey access=private kunnen taggen.
Is er een goede reden om de weg te verwijderen?
MVG,
Eggie
De Valouwe (2020-01-27 21:20:32+00:00): Hij kan ook wel terug, dan zet ik 'm op private. Kan ik zelf undo doen ergens? Of alleen direct na de bewerking? Heb nu de kaart in mijn app op DPOK gezet. Maar bedoek je dat er verschoven is bij BING?
eggie (2020-01-27 21:31:10+00:00): De track richting lus ligt goed.. Als achtergrond gebruik ik de transparant van de landmeetkundige dienst. BGT omtrekgericht.
Ik zal het wel aanpassen.. dan blijven je andere tags inaangetast.
Een revert zet alles terug. Met GoMap kan dat trouwens niet. 
In GoMap kun je dacht ik wel de PDOK actueel gebruiken. Er ligt hier verder niets verschoven. het was een algemene opmerking.
Je "moet" zomaar even naar de lus kijken.
Wanneer je nog vragen hebt stel ze gerust.
MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2020-01-27 21:38:41+00:00): type  inaangetast>onaangetast :)
Mijn aanpassingen https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=80162607
MVG,
Eggie
SomeoneElse (2020-02-21 13:21:46+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 81318595 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some mechanical edits, where other mappers have not since edited, mainly in the USA.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3511 and previous blocks for details
MFlamm (2022-01-21 14:06:31+00:00): Hello Peet,
I think this data you added is clearly in the scope of OpenHistoricalMap and not OSM. I therefore copied it here: https://openhistoricalmap.org/changeset/29428
Do you have an objection if I delete it from OSM?
Rom1 (2020-01-28 08:26:13+00:00): Bonjour Christian, est-ce que les ways passés de track en service sont toujours sur le terrain des ways sans revêtement où les tags surface=gravel et tracktype=grade2 sont toujours d'actualité ? Merci.
cherbe (2020-01-28 09:37:48+00:00): Bonjour Romain
Oui les chemins sont empierrés en calcaire avec une finition  fine (granulométrie du sable) et compactée
viloan (2020-01-27 18:50:54+00:00): Bem-vindo(a) ao OpenStreetMap e parabéns pela sua primeira edição! :-)

Temos um portal brasileiro sobre o OpenStreetMap, com várias informações úteis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brasil

Enquanto você está se acostumando com o OpenStreetMap, é recomendado que sempre pergunte aos usuários mais experientes antes de remover ou modificar objetos do mapa, especialmente aqueles que são aparentemente "estranhos" ou "fora do lugar".

Além disso, pedimos que não copie dados de mapas proprietários (como nomes de ruas do Google Maps, por exemplo) e que mapeie apenas o que existe na realidade.

Se você está mapeando por causa do Pokémon, dê uma olhada em https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/12/01/dicas-para-novos-mapeadores-pokemon-go/?lang=pt-pt
Se você está mapeando por causa do jogo do Harry Potter, as dicas e explicações na página anterior também são úteis para você.

Se tiver qualquer tipo de dúvida você pode entrar em contato com a comunidade brasileira através de algum dos canais disponíveis em https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Contact
O canal "Comunidade" do Telegram costuma ser o mais movimentado.

Abraço e boa diversão com suas edições!
seichter (2020-01-27 20:34:54+00:00): Vorsicht!
ruins=no bedeutet, dass da ein unbeschädigtes Bauwerk steht.
Siehe Diskussion in 
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=68517
maxerickson (2020-02-10 01:21:07+00:00): Hi-

Most roads in a rural area are probably highway=unclassified or highway=residential. highway=tertiary would be for connecting routes that receive less funding compared to primary/secondary, or for major collectors.

It's more a rule of thumb than a strict rule, the general idea is that a map maker can use the classifications to reduce the amount of information they try to include in maps that cover larger areas.


Max
tarta (2020-10-21 14:08:22+00:00): Obrigado por essa alteração, vinha postergando coisas do tipo aqui no estado a tempos.
ToniE (2020-01-28 11:16:40+00:00): Hallo EinsJonas,

in der Linie "Buslinie Spangler 45" würde ich gerne das 'ref' wieder auf '45' (statt 'Spangler 45') setzen.

Hintergrund: laut "Public Transport" (version 2) (siehe [1] und [2]) gehört der Name des 'network' oder 'operator' nicht in 'ref' (oder 'name') rein. Bei 'ref' steht hier nur die Nummer der Busses, so wie auf der Anzeige oben vorne beim Bus, ...
Der Rest ergibt sich ja aus 'network' und 'operator' 

Viele Grüße,
Toni

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Public_Transport&oldid=625726

[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Public_transport