piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
rbonnefoi (2015-01-28 10:04:27+00:00): Salut,

Tu as raison, le fait que mon logiciel ait pu ne pas avoir tenu compte de ta modif en étoile aurait pu être une raison. Mais j'ai vérifié, et il est (et était déjà à l'époque) avec ta config. Tu peux vérifier sur maps.skobbler.com et faire un essai d'itinéraire pour traverser le carrefour en restant sur la rocade Charles de Gaulle, depuis le sud ouest vers le nord / nord est. Il te fait faire un détour invraisemblable par l'avenue Pierre Sémard au sud est.

J'ai essayé une nouvelle modif pour rationaliser encore et essayer de rendre tout ça le plus lisible possible. Mais je ne peux pas encore vérifier que c'est mieux, vu que dans OSRM, la màj de la couche graphique est rapide, mais la màj de la couche pour les calculs d'itinéraire semble prendre plus de temps. Dit autrement, OSRM affiche sur le plan la nouvelle mouture du carrefour, mais continue à utiliser pour le calcul d'itinéraire l'ancienne (on le voit quand il trace l'itinéraire, qui ne correspond pas au plan).

Et j'ai pris connaissance de la page que tu avais mise en note (que je ne connaissais pas, et je n'avais pas vu ta note, dsl), mais je ne suis pas absolument convaincu par leur argumentaire de lisibilité et d'efficacité. Sachant qu'il est question d'un rendu simplifié sur la carte (il y a une image), mais je n'ai rien compris. J'ai l'impression qu'il perd de vue la question du guidage. Il y a selon moi 3 choses à avoir en tête quand on cartographie un carrefour : le rendu de la carte proprement dit, le calcul d'itinéraire (par où je dois passer) et le guidage ("à 200m tourne à gauche", donnée vocale et visuelle). Et avec un truc en étoile, je ne vois pas comment ça peut se faire...

En outre, il faudra selon moi un moment avant que les interdictions de tourner soient prises largement en compte par les logiciels de guidage.
FABRIZIO FRANZOI (2015-01-20 13:23:56+00:00): Tratto mancante della Strada Romana
5m4u9 (2015-01-21 07:43:58+00:00): hmm... acá hay un problema, debemos estandarizar los nombres de los barrios o los quitamos como debe ser (por redundancia) o los añadimos todos y se arruina por sobrecarga de datos.
emiliod (2015-01-21 09:19:52+00:00): aggiunti sensi unici (esistenti da almeno 40 anni)
emiliod (2015-01-21 09:22:06+00:00): aggiunte fontanelle
emiliod (2015-01-21 09:17:54+00:00): Impianto di depurazione (in realta' ora ampliato, ma non sono disegnate ancore le nuove vie di accesso)
XaMi (2015-01-21 22:55:49+00:00): Fixme-Tag entfernt, ohne die entsprechenden Informationen hinzuzufügen? Leider ist im Changeset auch kein Kommentar angegeben (das hilft anderen durchaus beim Verständnis, wenn er die Änderung auch wirklich beschreibt)
XaMi (2015-02-02 23:09:21+00:00): Mit changeset 28578827 rückgängig gemacht.
gnlpfth (2015-01-27 21:12:03+00:00): Bitte unbedingt http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dtrunk durchlesen!
sfancy (2015-01-27 22:25:39+00:00): Ja ein trunk ist laut Definition kreuzungsfrei. Aber muss man alle 200m die Straßenkategorie ändern? Dass kann nicht der Sinn sein!
gnlpfth (2015-01-29 16:13:49+00:00): Ich weiß nicht, wie es vorher ausgesehen hat, aber ein Trunk darf auf gar keinen Fall eine plangleiche Kreuzung besitzen. Eher hätte man die umliegenden Trunks herabstufen sollen.
emiliod (2015-01-21 09:16:35+00:00): Crocifisso al muro che da il nome alla via al Cristo
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-08-14 07:28:05+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3300451092/history - to jest publiczny przystanek lub sa tam jakieś regularne linie czy tam tylko jest obsługa wycieczek?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3309463
esaulenka (2015-01-22 18:41:31+00:00): ЧТО ЭТО?!
Это никак не "создание дорог", это типичнейший вандализм.

Объясните, пожалуйста, свои действия.
Danidin9 (2015-01-23 01:54:27+00:00): Полностью откатил этот пакет правок:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/28340645
s0mik (2015-03-17 19:50:20+00:00): Опа, я что-то пропустил... тут мои дороги удаляли?
esaulenka (2015-03-17 20:50:42+00:00): Вообще-то тут восстанавливали почти 10 тысяч удалённых точек и под тысячу удалённых линий.
s0mik (2018-09-07 07:30:40+00:00): больше 3 лет этот пользователь не правит ничего, за то примерно теже 3 года назад появился Петрович, который как-то подозрительно себя ведет!
esaulenka (2018-09-24 08:23:32+00:00): Приведите примеры, пожалуйста. Можно сразу на форуме ( https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=6129 )
jotpe (2015-01-22 07:03:36+00:00): Gut das opening_hours drin stehen, aber ist das maschinenlesbar ?
jotpe (2015-01-22 07:15:13+00:00): Oh, wurde ja schon gemacht.
SomeoneElse (2015-01-22 20:35:58+00:00): You've used a changeset comment here of "mispelled tag", but the changes made do seem to have caused information to be lost.  Previously http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43099722/history was "landuse=vineyard; crop=WINE GRAPES".  Now it is "landuse=agriculture; crop=grape".  Previously it was obviously a vineyard producing grapes for wine; now it is not possible to tell that from the tags - it could just be producing the raw materials for grape jelly or even vinegar!
sdruzijanic (2016-09-12 12:31:37+00:00): a gdje je Vatrogsna ulica u Vukovini
SomeoneElse (2015-01-21 16:43:52+00:00): The changeset comment used here is "mispelled tags" yet http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30953829/history was changed from to "highway=footway" to "highway=track".  Did you make that change based on survey (i.e. is the changeset comment incomplete)?
Jonathan Bennett (2015-01-20 22:00:09+00:00): Peter,

Thanks, and welcome to OpenStreetMap. Footpath mapping is one of OSM's strong points so any contributions are helpful. 

You don't generally need to make existing paths fit aerial imagery providing they aren't massively inaccurate. Particularly in hilly areas, the imagery itself can be misaligned, so it may not improve the overall accuracy of the map. Instead, using multiple GPS traces to fix the position of paths tends to work better. 

Equally, if you know of paths that aren't on the map, and you can't record GPS traces for them, mapping them to the aerial imagery is fine.
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-09-26 20:01:31+00:00): Szlaki turystyczne oznacza się jako relacje. Zdjąłem nazwę.
SomeoneElse (2015-01-21 16:25:42+00:00): Hello and welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I notice that you've added a "peak" called "Annesley Park Forest" at http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3300618138 .  Just wondered where the name came from?  Although the ground undulates a bit there, there isn't much of a "hill" to speak of at all.  Are there any signs on any of the nearby paths using that name?
SomeoneElse (2015-01-21 11:04:21+00:00): What does "#map-feedback #851" mean?  You've edited http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/87779787 .  Does that mean that you've surveyed it (i.e. actually been there) or are you just guessing based on aerial imagery?

What makes you classify this as a "path" rather than a footway?  Based on my knowledge of the area (I've walked many paths around here) I'd say that footway was probably correct for part of it; track was probably correct for part of it, and path was wrong for all of it, but that an actually walk-along-the-path survey was needed to do it properly.  If you haven't done that, you really shouldn't be changing tags like this.
SK53 (2015-01-21 11:20:19+00:00): Yeah amazed that you thought to change this. This area was recently edited by at least 2 people with genuine local knowledge highway=path is not widely used locally in the UK because we find footway/track/bridleway/cycleway meet 95% of usecases better than path.

I get a 404 on the link given. This is inadequate documentation for this remote edit in an area which actually has a reasonable coverage by regular mappers.
andygol (2015-01-21 20:00:20+00:00): Hi, SomeoneElse and  SK53
concerning yours comments
1. About 404 link: because this is a private repo you are not allowed to look it and that is why you get 404 err. 
2. I didn't visit this area but I rely on people with local knowledge. If my tagging is incorrect/inappropriate please fix it, I won't mind. 
For this way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/87779787 I got the feedback which contained "Path mis-aligned, should all be further west". I fixed it using sat Bing imagery and GPX-traces.
pnorman (2015-01-21 20:12:08+00:00): Please use a meaningful changeset comment, not one like "#map-feedback #851" which doesn't allow someone to figure out what you were intending and why.  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments has more information about writing good changeset comments.
SomeoneElse (2015-01-21 20:30:03+00:00): @andygol How was the feedback "Path mis-aligned, should all be further west" submitted?  If it's an area that you're not able to survey in person wouldn't it make more sense to add an OSM note so that someone local (of which SK53 and I are just two of many) could survey it on the ground?
andygol (2015-01-21 20:31:37+00:00): Thank you pnorman for your comment! I agree that such description is informative and misleading. Further I will leave more meaningful descriptions.
andygol (2015-01-21 20:34:20+00:00): I meant "uninformative" instead of "informative"
SK53 (2015-01-21 20:49:24+00:00): I would also point out that even if the comment said "path is misaligned" your edits did more than this they changed the tagging in such a way that the quality of the data was degraded. In practice you turned entirely usable routeable data (highway=footway) into non-useful, only routeable with considerable post-processing data. The path mis-alignment had already been edited, perhaps by your informant, before your own edit. I checked it out and it seemed valid: you should have checked for recent edits.
Supaplex (2015-01-20 17:59:51+00:00): https://osmtw.hackpad.com/Relation-19s3HpvIZrY
最近幾個OSM Mapper在處理臺鐵的軌道部分，像是該雙軌化的地方雙軌，以及有橋樑什麼的標示，不過這是大工程，需要不少人力，歡迎加入討論！
Durko_freemap (2015-01-23 13:59:47+00:00): Ahoj, poprosim o opravu,

budovu nakresli samostatne (teraz je zakreslena na ceste co nieje spravne), dik
Владимир К (2019-05-22 11:59:23+00:00): добрый день.
Откуда на дороге в лесу лежачие полицейские? или вы ими отметили что-то другое?
mcld (2015-01-25 14:30:33+00:00): Hi - thanks for contributing! I noticed that some of the objects you added were buildings, but you hadn't marked them as buildings. In iD you need to choose one of the building types from the list on the left. I've tweaked these now.
mavl (2015-01-21 16:45:43+00:00): Здравствуйте.

Вы рисуете дороги по уже имеющимся дорогам (например, Школьная улица и улица Крупской). Это ошибка топологии.
neuhausr (2015-01-21 17:50:13+00:00): Hi, I see you created a way (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323261135) for the 46 bus route (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4502291). This is NOT how to do bus routes. You should add the existing road ways to the route relation, not create a new, overlapping way. See these examples of the 84 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3840819) or the 21 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3859430) routes. Also please see the wiki for instructions on how to do route relations: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#How_to_map
deleted_account (2015-01-20 21:21:35+00:00): adres bez ulicy wymaga addr:place zamiast addr:city
manutor (2018-11-01 19:03:31+00:00): Bonjour,

Vous avez supprimé un bâtiment dans le cadre de modifications sur un équipement scolaire. est-ce volontaire ?
chillly (2015-01-20 20:45:08+00:00): Welcome to OSM
You seem to have deleted High Street and a residential landuse area. I guess you didn't mean to do that. I suggest your edit is reverted to put these deletions back. I'll revert these mistakes unless there's a reason to remove them.
Mistakes like this occur, especially with new editors, but as you see mistakes can be corrected.
chillly (2015-01-20 20:58:49+00:00): I reverted the edit, except that I kept the new church node.
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-02-15 08:59:44+00:00): A co to jest? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323329663
Dachów nie zaznaczamy w ten sposób.
Alecs01 (2015-01-22 19:42:46+00:00): ciao, ho fatto il revert di questo changeset, un tratto di autostrada vicino a Rho era finito quasi alla Malpensa, può succedere, fai attenzione ;)
Ale
chillly (2015-01-20 21:38:37+00:00): Welcome to OSM.
I wonder what the area is for that you have added? It doesn't appear to coincide with anything on the aerial imagery.
You need add a tag or tags to describe what the area is that you have created.
Maijin (2015-01-20 21:37:13+00:00): Not related to previous comment
ForstEK (2019-05-21 06:41:23+00:00): Hi, PmaiIkeey! I corrected two pipelines from your changeset (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320374539, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/323350554) according approved tagging scheme https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:man_made%3Dpipeline
Wulfmorn (2018-10-13 09:52:04+00:00): Hello. It seems you added the unusual value "lit=1" to the way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/51964097. I have "reverted" this edit as all the surrounding roads have lit=no, but after more careful study of the edits it seems you may have attempted to change this part of the road to lit=yes. Please revisit this edit and add the correct value.
pnorman (2015-01-21 01:06:28+00:00): Hello,

It's good to see the buildings filling out in Edmonton. I was wondering what you were using as a source. JOSM lets you fill in a source automatically based on the imagery you have open
edmontongeo (2015-02-16 20:40:42+00:00): Hello, The current imagery being used is a combination of Bing Imagery and Imagery from the City of Edmonton. I will ensure future edits contain this information.
ViriatoLusitano (2015-01-30 17:33:20+00:00): Barrocas, porque é que apagaste a antiga estrada que estava bem mapeada da EN 206 e voltas-te a meter a que é muito confusa e que não corresponde à realidade?
ViriatoLusitano (2015-01-30 18:03:51+00:00): Eu fui adiante e reverti todas as tuas alterações em Famalicão no dia 20 de Janeiro.

Por favor aprende a respeitar o trabalho dos outros, se tal eventualidade acontecer novamente e se vir que alteraste os dados para pior eu irei contactar a DWG sob a crítica de que andas a vandalizar o trabalho de outros.
Barrocas (2015-01-31 13:44:40+00:00): Boa tarde,
para primeiro contacto, parece-me algo exagerado partir com uma acusação de vandalismo, para alguem que nem conhece, e que contribui activamente (e quase diariamente)  para o OSM desde 2012.

Vandalismo seria se apagasse Famalicao do mapa... Porventura apaguei alguma estrada definitivamente, ou algum pormenor que me tenha escapado?
O que considera que nao corresponde à realidade?
Eu separei as vias, apliquei os seus devidos sentido unicos, e fiz diversas modificações, a meu entender, para melhorar o mapa e tambem os dados para os diversos programas de navegação que usem mapas OSM (eu uso diariamente o Osmand).

Quando faço alterações, sao sempre com a intenção de melhorar, mas se nao concorda com algo que fiz, pode entrar em contacto particular comigo e debatemos o que considera que fiz de mal, pois como em tudo na vida, algumas coisas dependem do ponto de vista do utilizador.

Ao desfazer o meu trabalho, parece-me à partida que foi sua a falta de respeito, pois eu nunca agi com má intenção, e nem sequer tive tempo para responder à acusação feita.

Pode nem ser de seu conhecimento, mas tambem ja tive de refazer o meu trabalho anterior, para corrigir erros na zona do Rio Minho por causa das suas importações com a conta "ViriatoLusitano_import", e nao desatei a acusar ninguem (tambem recebo a mailing list).
ViriatoLusitano (2015-01-31 15:36:39+00:00): Olá, a minha intenção nunca foi de te criticar e por isso peço desculpa se falei de forma muito negativa. Pretendia sim era apenas chamar a atenção e admito que trazer o DWG ao rubro foi bastante desnecessário. Por favor continua com as contribuições já que nunca vi alguém com tanta contribuição de POI como tu. Novamente, peço desculpa.
Barrocas (2015-02-01 09:07:30+00:00): Ok, sem stress, vamos trocar ideias sobre o tema e continuar a mapear :)
erickdeoliveiraleal (2022-07-14 15:53:46+00:00): existe asi? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3301614278
mweper (2022-07-14 16:20:20+00:00): Hola erickdeoleveiraleal. No estoy 100 % seguro. 
A ese barrio y algunos otros, los había visto hace varios años en un mapa de una inmobiliaria con ese nombre y límites, pero no he encontrado información oficial al respecto.
5m4u9 (2015-01-21 08:11:49+00:00): mucho cuidado con el desplazamiento de la imagen satelital. No son ortofotos así que hay variación respecto a lo "real". Usar guía => https://cloud.openmailbox.org/public.php?service=files&t=f66503a5929876cc957ec1be80cba577
Locopon (2015-01-21 16:17:09+00:00): Estimado. estoy tomando en cuenta la posicion. Justamente active la capa de trazas de GPS y luego procedi a alinear el mapa. Todavia faltan alinear algunas calles que mas bien no estarian alineadas.

Me ayudaria saber como ustedes estan realizando la alineacion....es decir... como saben cuantos puntos hay que mover las teselas para arriba o para abajo?

A la espera de comentarios...un saludo
5m4u9 (2015-01-22 03:51:32+00:00): Excelente, casi todo Bolivia fue cartografiada usando el satélite Yahoo que tenía desplazamiento de 8-10 mts, en el cambio a Bing Maps se redujo a 4-5mts. Genial saber que ajustas usando trzas GPS. 

Cómo sabemos del desplazamiento?  Acá en Cochabamba -como en otras partes del mundo- lo hacemos experimentando. Haciendo mediciones en diferentes situaciones, veocidades, condiciones de tiempo, altitud, etc. Así cargamos las trazas a OSM y hacemos una ponderación... no es exacto pero nos aproximamos. Quisiera ser más exacto pero nos falta equipos más potentes, más trazas mas preciso.... https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/24303764/tmp/OpenStreetMap_20150121_234005.jpeg
emacsen (2015-01-21 12:28:41+00:00): This changeset is a mass edit and that, as far as I can tell, has no other other purpose than mass reclassifying (downgrading) of roads for no reason.
woodpeck (2015-01-21 12:53:42+00:00): SH17, what was the purpose of these edits? Are you working with a specific routing engine and getting undesirable results?
snake21 (2015-01-28 21:23:28+00:00): It doesn't make sense to have a primary designation end at a lower priority road. I'm just trying to fill in the gaps, if that makes sense. Full disclosure: this is one of my first edits on OSM, and I'm still trying to grasp the standards here. I'm sorry if I did something wrong, but it doesn't make sense to have a road where all but 3 blocks are primary (take Water St/Pearl St/St. James Pl/Bowery, these are all the same "trunk" corridor, as they handle a significant portion of the north-south traffic.
emacsen (2015-01-28 21:40:24+00:00): SH17, there are really a few issues here, but before going into them, I want to be sure you understand that we're all just trying to make the best map, and I'm sure you are too.

OSM folks are pretty forgiving about new edits and not strict about standards, but what stood out to me about this edit was that it touched lots of roads, and reclassified them. Now, maybe you have reasons for reclassifying them, but when you make lots of changes in a short time over a large area, people become concerned.

So really it's a few issues here. The first is that this is a mass edit, which has its own set of rules.

The second is that this changeset didn't have a changeset comment (the thing when you hit save) or a source other than Bing. Since your edits are also in DC, where are you geographically, and are you making these determinations from another datasource?

If you're using another source, then let's talk about that source. If you're local, maybe we could sit down in person and talk about the changes? It seems like maybe you're doing some router or other work with OSM, hence the reclassifications?
Grodno-man (2015-01-21 06:57:38+00:00): Номерация домов Мичурина, Гастелло, Маяковского
ad47 (2015-11-21 10:40:43+00:00): Что-то здесь всё-таки не так с полосами туда и обратно на односторонних участках https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48559805
j-wills (2015-11-21 11:01:50+00:00): Согласен, исправлю
ToniE (2015-01-22 18:16:04+00:00): Hallo mya9999,

die Busspur hier ist nicht "baulich getrennt" von der eigentlichen Silberhornstraße. 
Das mappen eine neue Straße (service) entspricht daher nicht den allgemeinen Mappingregeln. 

Besser wäre gewesen, die Silberhorstraße hier aufzuspalten und das entsprechende Segment mit diesen zusätzlichen tags zu versehen, bzw. entspr. zu ändern:

lanes=3
acccess:lanes=motor_vehicle|motor_vehicle|bus

und evtl:

placement=right_of:1

wobei letzteres noch in der Vorschlagsphase ist und andeutet, dass  der "way" rechts von der äußerst linke Spur ist (an deren rechtem Rand, d.h. auf der Mittellinie), die anderen Spuren sind rechts davon. Das ermöglicht dem Kartenmaler (Renderer: Mapnik)

1. ) die Silberhorstraße entsprechend auszurichten und
2.) mit Hilfe von access:lanes ... ganz rechts eine Busspur zu malen.

Leider wird das bisher nur von einem experimentellen Renderer unterstützt.

Viele Grüße,
Toni
emiliod (2015-01-21 09:15:00+00:00): Real name: Largo S. Floriano
bigbug21 (2020-04-10 18:56:04+00:00): Hallo GP4Flo, vielen herzlichen Dank für die Ergänzung der Geschwindigkeiten. Bei der Auswertung eines Führerstandsmitfahrt-Videos fiel heute auf, dass in einzelnen Bahnhöfen die Geschwindigkeiten nicht plausibel waren. In mehreren Bahnhöfen scheinen die Geschwindigkeiten der verschiedenen Gleise vertauscht. Habe im Zweifel die Geschwindigkeiten nun herausgenommen. Es wäre sehr wertvoll, wenn du dir das gelegentlich einmal ansehen könntest.
Hjart (2015-01-21 11:13:57+00:00): Har Energivej ikke forbindelse til Svendborgvejs nordlige spor?
jeppec (2015-01-21 11:42:22+00:00): Jo det har den vel egentlig :)
Hjart (2015-01-21 11:44:10+00:00): Undskyld. Jeg sidder bare og følger lidt med i hvad du laver :)
Hjart (2015-01-21 11:45:30+00:00): Hvornår er rundkørslen blevet fjernet?
jeppec (2015-01-21 11:46:01+00:00): Bare i orden var ude at køre der tidligere i dag og lagde mærke til at rundkørslen ikke er blevet slettet.

Har aldrig selv bidraget til OSM før så kan godt være det ikke er lavet korrekt jeg kigger lige på det :)
jeppec (2015-01-21 11:53:15+00:00): Det er lang tid siden, til at starte med var der vej arbejde. nu er det blot en lys regulering.
aceman444 (2015-01-21 19:30:20+00:00): Dobry den. Tu bola povodne budova a teraz je z nej bazen? Ak je to kryta plavaren, potom budovu nechajte a dajte samostatny bod do budovy, ktory bude mat leisure=swimming_pool a indoor=yes  a covered=yes.
Clira14 (2015-01-22 11:17:45+00:00): Upravene. Takze na tej budove ten tag swimmingpool nema byt? Teda, ze v OSM je budova proste budova a swimming poolom sa mysli to, co je v budove, preto tam mam dat pin?
andrewsh (2015-01-22 12:40:32+00:00): @Clira14, nie úplne. Ak je to budova, je postup ako napísal @aceman444: vytvori bod, dať tag. Mazať building vo väčšine prípadov nie je dobrý nápad ;)
Clira14 (2015-01-22 12:41:54+00:00): budovu mazat nechcem... len ja by som ten swimmingpool a indoor a covered dala aj na nu, tym padom by tam nemusel byt aj ten pin naviac. pride mi to zbytocne duplikovanie akoby... ci? @andrewsh
Clira14 (2015-01-22 12:45:44+00:00): este jedna vec mi nejde do hlavy... ze preco tato mapa nesedi so satelitnymi snimkami - myslim napriklad tvar budovy? http://puu.sh/eRO5V/a1552c9d7a.png odkial sa vzalo, ze ma ta budova takyto tvar? ... a prave som zistila, ze som to tu asi uplne zle oznacila... jedine, ze by nie, este musim popatrat, v pamati..
andrewsh (2015-01-22 12:58:06+00:00): source=kapor2 → asi je to z katastru importované.

Ďalšia vec je že sa obkresľuje podľa ako keby podľa ‘tieňa’ budovy: predstav si že na budovu svieti zhora (90°) paralelný prúd svetla. Ten obraz, ktorý zostáva na zemi, sa obkresľuje (a na tej presnej polohe). Preto niekedy budova môže mať iný tvár a inú polohu ako jej strecha.

Okrem toho, satelitné obrázky väčšinou sú trocha posunuté o pár metrov, a ten posun sa mení ako výsledok toho, ako snímky sa spracovávajú.
andrewsh (2015-01-22 12:59:17+00:00): Inak ale asi tu je táto budova označená nesprávne, asi ju prestavali od toho času kedy to bolo importované.