piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Mike Baggaley (2020-07-02 15:40:04+00:00): HI, in this change you have set access=private on a number of ways that have highway=footway with designation=public_footpath and foot=yes. This has no effect on the access  and is leading to confusion over what access there should be. If you mean that other access than pedestrian than foot is private, please use vehicle=private instead, or just use the foot= tag and omit any other access tags. If the paths are no longer public footpaths, please correct the designation and foot tags.
Can you please review the change?

Thanks,
Mike
StephenRD (2020-07-02 16:44:38+00:00): Hi Mike. Would access=no be better? Essentially, the information is that access to the general public isn't permitted except on foot. This seems a much more elegant way of conveying the access information than listing modes of transport that aren't permitted, which is long and non-exhaustive. In the case of England & Wales, where the status of bicycles on public footpaths is disputed, it also avoids having to commit explicitly one way or the other. It's also consistent with the wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#List_of_possible_values for "no", though I'm still unclear as to the real difference between "private" and "no". 

Look forward to your thoughts.

Stephen
StephenRD (2020-07-02 16:48:46+00:00): Sorry, just re-read the start of your query. I'm not aware of having done that or the reasons for that - in general where I've made that change on particular ways, in the broader Suffolk area, it has been to mark tracks as access=private that are public_footpath or public_bridleway, with appropriate access permissions added in. I agree that what you've descrbed shouldn't be needed - though I'm not sure that it's wrong either, in that the land is generally private without public access except on foot.
Mike Baggaley (2020-07-02 17:59:38+00:00): HI Stephen, thanks for the quick response. Whilst both access=no and access=private are 'correct', when used with highway=footway they lead to confusion because it is quite common for mappers to add access=no to indicate that a path has been closed, whilst forgetting that foot=yes will override it. The next mapper than has to examine the history to try to work out what access was intended and any routing tool will not be able to properly decide. The default access for highway=footway is foot=yes and vehicle=no (i.e. only pedestrian access is allowed) so adding access=no is unnecessary and confusing. Hence my suggestion of vehicle=private or vehicle=no which bars all vehicular access without confusion - there is no need to list each type of vehicle. If access for bicycles is different from other vehicles then you can use motor_vehicle instead. The situation is entirely different for highway=track, which could be expected to allow various types of vehicle. The difference between private and no is that in general no means no-one is allowed access and private means some limited group can use it (e.g. residents, employees). In theory I suppose even military areas could be tagged as private, but generally the prohibition value is used instead. In practice, I suspect that users of the data group private and no together anyway, so it probably makes little difference.

Hope this helps,
Mike
StephenRD (2020-07-02 18:22:06+00:00): Thanks, Mike. My original focus was on the track, so my change(s) on the footway(s) can be reverted. I believe I have done this (my skills in selecting particular listed ways from a changeset are not good), but if there are any I've missed, I'm happy for you to change.
mariotomo (2022-08-11 23:46:14+00:00): tres casas perdidas al lado de un río, estás seguro que se trate de "El Chorrillo"? y que califique a "hamlet" al par que tu consideración de Calovébora?
Didiel Pimentel (2022-08-12 17:10:45+00:00): Yo conozco perfectamente ese lugar y tiene mas de 3 casas , por  lo que puedo dar fe de eso , trabaje 3 años en el lugar.  La gente tiene ranchos y tienden a confundirse con la vegetación.
eggie (2020-06-30 13:39:07+00:00): Alle paden zitten hier vastgeplakt aan de landuse. Dat wordt lastig bewerken voor mappers na jou.
beter lsohouden.
Plakken kun je voorkomen door de linker alttoets te gebruiken. 

een pad hoort niet de naam name=track te krijgen. 
dat is het zelfde als je een weg name=straat noemt. Kijk svp nog eens naar dit stukje mapping.
Je edits https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87261319#map=17/52.00245/5.80263

Gr eggie
eggie (2020-06-30 13:49:11+00:00): Ik heb wat paden losgemaakt van de landuse, maar nog niet overal. 
paden die eindigen op de landsuse ipv op een andere weg of pad routeren niet.
Goed inzoomen of een beter editor gebruiken
Kijk eens naar JOSM
editor josm stap voor stap
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710       
Gr eggie
ajf3934221 (2020-06-30 08:09:58+00:00): Hi, vielen Dank dass Du Dich um den Schönbuch kümmerst. Dei Änderung beim Arabrunnen war mir aufgefallen, da ich die Stelle kenne. Aufgrunddessen habe ich nochmals recherchiert und meine Quellen zusammengefasst sie belegen eindeutig die Schreibung ARAbrunnen. Du findest Sie hier: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/87333341

Grüße
Andy
hpsess (2020-06-30 15:17:38+00:00): Deine Argumente sind schlagend;-) Die Schreibweise auf dem geschnitzten Schild ist andererseits wirklich irreführend. Aber so passt es ja mit dem Namen des Arenbachs zusammen ! Gruß HPSESS
ajf3934221 (2020-06-30 20:43:18+00:00): freut mich! vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung!
Grüßle, 
Andy
pitfire (2024-10-11 09:15:24+00:00): Hallo 431c57,
gibt es für Deinen Linienzug (Weg: 820530733) eine Objektbeschreibung?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/820530733

Objekte müssen Eigenschaften haben die beschreiben, was sie sind.

VG pitfire
431c57 (2024-10-11 10:48:53+00:00): Da fehlt wohl ein adequater landuse dran. Sowohl commercial, als auch residential wären hier zu rechtfertigen.
Zusammen dem nordöstlichen, nich ungetaggtem Gebiet böte sich (bis auf ein Wohnhaus) letzteres an. Ich schau nochmal nach, was ich da machen kann.
Moldovan_Merkator (2020-07-30 15:44:05+00:00): Conform deciziei CMC nr.19/1 din 28.09.2000, acest parc oficial se numește „Grădina Catedralei”.
Moldovan_Merkator (2020-10-06 20:33:51+00:00): Drumul de după Guvern, conform Cadastrului și se numește "Piața Marea Adunare Națională", și nu "Piața Marii Adunări Naționale", verifică datele înainte să le introduci.
Tilia_J (2020-06-30 12:58:22+00:00): Ik begrijp dat je mountainbiketracks toevoegd, deze kunnen dan beter als fietspad gemarkeerd worden i.p.v. "path"
Tilia_J (2020-06-30 12:56:25+00:00): Ik begrijp dat je mountainbiketracks toevoegd, deze kunnen dan beter als fietspad gemarkeerd worden i.p.v. "path"
eggie (2020-06-30 13:15:55+00:00): @Tilia,, Beter geen mtb paden als cycleway gaan taggen.
Dat geeft verwarring. 
Zie https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Mountain_biking

MVG,
Eggie
eggie (2020-06-30 13:17:59+00:00): @Fiselier AAn de oostzijde zit het pad vast aan de grens 	Natura 2000 boundary protected area "Veluwe"
Het zal daardoor niet routeren.
Je edits http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=87261673

Dus losmaken en vastmaken aan het fietspad.

Kijk je nog even.
eggie (2020-06-30 14:10:30+00:00): Pad aan de ooszijden verbonden met fietspad. Fietspad Mosselsepad  en track teruggelegd naar juiste plaats. 
Naam even onder description gezet. Dat zal dan een routerelatie moeten worden. Vraag desnoods even hulp op het forum van OSM.
gr eggie
Kathyaus (2020-07-04 05:59:50+00:00): Try not to let your buildings 'snap' together. You can prevent this by holding down the 'Alt'  key when mapping.
Tilia_J (2020-06-30 12:58:46+00:00): Ik begrijp dat je mountainbiketracks toevoegd, deze kunnen dan beter als fietspad gemarkeerd worden i.p.v. "path"
eggie (2020-06-30 13:34:52+00:00): Dit routeert niet. Je pad eindigt op een val van de landuse Zie http://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=87261718
highway=path is wel correct. Een naam hoort niet op een mtb pad. Het is niet de straatnaam. Dat hoort op de relatie van de route.


MVG,
eggie
eggie (2020-06-30 13:50:13+00:00): typo val=vlak
A67-A67 (2020-06-29 08:58:10+00:00): Deze route is weer helemaal volledig en op de juiste volgorde.
user_8101879 (2022-06-28 16:29:32+00:00): Hi,

good work.
But you have created a lot of boundary relations with no borders.

According to the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary#Relation_members, ways for the borders are required (red box).

I fixed one of this relation : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11249973

But for others I changed the type=boundary to type=collection : all the relations I have changed are here https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/122964360

You can of course put back the tags type=boundary but if you do so, please add the outer borders.

In the next days I will probably fix some others (I mean add the borders and put back the type boundary) but it is quite long so if you want to do some, you're welcome.

Best regards
AngocA (2022-09-15 20:06:58+00:00): Hi Fred, thank you for this comment. I didn't know the type collection. I will convert some relations to this type.
user_6771650 (2020-06-28 22:20:09+00:00): Sorry for the large bounding box
Anton Khorev (2020-07-15 23:45:08+00:00): Why do you prefer Maxar imagery to Bing in this area? What imagery offset are you using?

Bing seems to have a better angle here, tracing it would cause less distortions.
tugceyildiz (2020-07-16 06:08:48+00:00): Hello, thank you for your comment.
Bing is angularly smoother. However, I compared Maxar and Bing in detail. Maxar is more current, new. I saw new buildings in Maxar. Mapillary images(gps and photos) are the same as Maxar. That's why I used Maxar.
IknowJoseph (2020-06-29 12:22:54+00:00): The Cotswolds don't appear to render any more? Commenting here not because I blame this changeset, but it's just the most recent on the relation.
DaveF (2020-06-29 13:56:19+00:00): Hi
1. Large relations tend to be at the back of the rendering queue, especially if done in sections, as I have. This is work in progress.
2. There was a recent problem with OSm-carto rendering. This may have increased the delay.
The old relation is still rendering.

As someone of 12 years & 12,832 changesets experience, I'm surprised you're unaware of 'rendering patience'
IknowJoseph (2020-06-29 14:08:47+00:00): Thanks for assuming that I'm just being impatient.

Could you let me know what the "old relation" is? I'm looking at

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/166570
Version #759 · Changeset #87297916

Is there an older one?
DaveF (2020-06-29 14:49:55+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/166570#map=11/51.5662/-2.1074

Note the diagonal straight green line to the East of Malmesbury. This is the old data. The tiles haven't rerendered yet. For some reason OSM-carto is quick to remove a render but slow to re-add it.

What do you think requires amending to enable the relation to render?
DaveF (2020-06-29 16:31:32+00:00): * West of Malmesbury
A67-A67 (2020-06-29 08:57:01+00:00): De route Zeisterbos 1 klopt weer. 

De volgorde was nog niet helemaal goed, maar dat leek al fout te zijn gegaan, voor je bent begonnen met editen. Ik heb dat ook even verbeterd.
Eric Ferguson (2020-06-29 20:57:40+00:00): Dank je wel.  Ik begrijp dat de volgorde van "relations" elementen niet met iD te editen zijn.  Ik weet dat ik op JOSM zal moeten overstappen.  Komt nog wel.

Groeten,

Eric
SomeoneElse (2020-07-02 12:00:59+00:00): Test - does formatting work here?

* [Umap](https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/)

(end)
HeyItsAdam (2020-06-29 03:08:41+00:00): This is obviously not a park accordingly to recent imagery. I assume that this motorway hasn't been entirely reworked, though I could be wrong. Please feel free to add any proof of this parks existence - I've removed it for now since it is extremely likely just spam
Kathyaus (2020-07-04 05:58:21+00:00): Try and remember to square off your buildings using the 'Q' key. You can prevent nodes snapping together by holding down the 'Alt' key when mapping.
HeyItsAdam (2020-06-29 03:27:35+00:00): Did you remove the trails from the map simply on the basis that they are on private land? If they actually exist in real life, then they shouldn't be removed from the map
GaM_comment (2020-06-29 15:46:25+00:00): Дорогой ergio, какой вандализм?
Вы хоть раз ночью на ожидании мостов стояли? Мосты НИКОГДА не сводят по этому "расписанию".

Разводка мостов начинается не "с апреля", а в конкретную дату, которая каждый год разная и дата обещанная в прессе, не совпадает с реальной жизнью как правило +- неделя.

Это совершеннеший абсурд вносить данные расписания разводки, которое плавает ежедневно жестко в карту. Я не против его иметь сам, но проблема в том что оно не исполняется. И переменным расписаниям не место в карте, это я думаю вполне логично. Мы же не вносим расписания сапсанов, электричек и т.д. Хотя они то не ломали бы навигацию....

Простой жизненный кейс 2 раза в неделю - я жестко знаю что литейный в 4.05 лежит, но из-за этих чудо правок мне не проложить маршрут через него до 4.50 или сколько там по оф. расписанию и в чём смысл?

Сайт razvodka-mostov, кстати, не является вовсе источником официальных данных, ну так, на минуточку.
SomeoneElse (2020-07-02 00:10:32+00:00): "s/psth/path", obviously!
habi (2021-04-29 14:34:09+00:00): Hey anebophil

I'm improving some data in this regions.
On the aerial imagery I don't see anything that looks like doctors, is there a doctor somewhere in Foula?

Greetings from Switzerland,
habi
anebophil (2021-04-29 16:38:46+00:00): Hello,
I received your message, it is while doing some fieldwork that I added this information (last year). On the imagery used in JOSM the area does not contain buildings, the imagery is not new so it is normal that you have a doubt about the information, but if you do a tour on the Google imagery you will see that the area has evolved. 
Sorry for my bad English.
Thanks
habi (2021-04-30 13:16:41+00:00): There's nothing more visible on Google Imagery: https://share.getcloudapp.com/nOuoQWdK, but if you've added this based on some fieldwork, then it must be correct.
Have a great day,
happy mapping,
Greetings from Switzerland
Kathyaus (2020-07-04 06:04:05+00:00): Thanks for your contribution. Try and remember to square off your buildings - make sure they are the same size as the imagery.
DUGA (2021-04-27 16:39:07+00:00): Do NOT connect roads if they are not in junction. Reverted.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/820789378
DiogoBaptista98 (2020-07-31 20:02:52+00:00): Posso entender porque foi alterada a rotunda way 820792615 no passeio do tejo onde foi destruída a sua forma circular perfeita e desconectadas várias relações subjacentes (rotas de autocarros)? Cumprimentos
AntMadeira (2020-08-01 01:23:13+00:00): Olá, Diogo.
Isto não é uma rotunda.
Podes confirmar isso pelas imagens Mapillary. Não existe sinalização de rotunda, por isso, é um cruzamento, que deve ser mapeado com as devidas restrições. 
É normal acontecerem quebras de relações quando se usa o iD, especialmente nos mapeadores mais inexperientes. Já vi que as relações foram corrigidas, mas a correção que fizeste para roundabout não está correta.

Ao dispor,
António.
AntMadeira (2020-08-12 03:48:00+00:00): Uma vez que não houve qualquer comentário, dou o caso como resolvido e passei a rotunda para cruzamento circular.

Cumprimentos.
Rainero (2020-06-29 15:00:21+00:00): Hallo wermak,
mit addr:suburb=korail ist sicher etwas schiefgegangen; das sollte nach wie vor addr:suburb=Dornach sein.
Servus,
Rainer
wermak (2020-06-29 18:30:31+00:00): Korrigiert, danke.
dead10ck (2021-01-01 02:03:46+00:00): Hi, where exactly are you getting your data for this import? I am currently in the process of working on an import of the NYS GIS ClearingHouse address points, located at:

https://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=921

And I am noticing that since of the addresses on Snowpine Village contradict what's in the GIS data set. For example, the building that says it is 102 is actually "C 201" in the NYS data; the building marked as 203 is actually "A 204" in the NYS data; etc.

Also, I do not recall seeing a previous discussion of the NYS Clearinghouse data. Did you discuss the import in the mailing list before?
Frans S (2020-07-02 13:01:03+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping hee
Please pay more attention on squaring buildings. Use the Q key to square buildings
* If you are new to HOTOSM, this webpage is worth reading
Two-minute Tutorial: Buildings - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1YJV6I_rhY
Best regards
dval (2020-06-29 05:32:13+00:00): Hi, Mir76! Я неделю назад был на некоторых из тех дорог, которые вы охарактеризовали. Начну с той, которую называю Буртымка. Она самая западная в вашем пакете. Не могу согласиться с тем, что она хорибл и анпейвед. Она скорее bad и гравийная. Хотя скажу, что до конца я ее не проезжал, планирую сделать это в скором будущем. Дорога на север до Каквы в хорошем состоянии, по крайней мере интермидиейт, вполне проезжая для Жигулей. От развилки до моста через Лягушку дорога вполне пригодна для движения. Проблемный участок, как мне показалось, от моста на восток вдоль Лягушки. На нем я был в конце весны. Его я сейчас сделал bad.
Mir76 (2020-06-29 12:10:17+00:00): Хорошо, правьте по факту.  Я старые отчеты читал.
Кстати, что там с дорогой в Каквинские Печи? Говорят ее размыло насовсем.
dval (2020-06-29 12:49:06+00:00): Я был на К.П. весной, во время после павадка. Подразмыта, но проезжая. При мне местный житель на УАЗике лопатой правил обрывы промоин, чтобы к нему могли приехать родственники из Краснотур. на легковушке.
Fizzie-DWG (2022-01-11 23:48:17+00:00): Hi. Just going through OSM Inspector & this one came up. Can the "temporary closure" now be moved / removed? Thanks
nevw (2020-06-29 07:39:20+00:00): Hi
welcome to the OSM.
I reverted this as you accidentally shifted a segment of the road (dragged a node).
Easily done, keep on mapping  :)
PLima785 (2020-06-29 12:39:00+00:00): Boas
Gens não será melhor place=hamlet?
aenariel (2020-06-30 01:34:47+00:00): Tens toda a razão, vou corrigir.
PT-53 (2020-06-29 06:59:18+00:00): Hallo Rener Frank,
Willkommen bei OSM.

Ein Briefkasten hat keinen Namen.
Bitte das Name-Merkmal nur für echte Eigennamen verwenden und nicht als Beschreibung des Objektes.
Löscht Du die Name-Einträge wieder?

Fragende Grüße
Rener Frank (2020-06-29 21:17:27+00:00): Hallo PT-53,
OK, alles cool, nun hat den Postbox keinen Namen :)
PT-53 (2020-06-30 06:50:54+00:00): Die falschen Name-Einträge sind aber immer noch vorhanden. :-(
Rener Frank (2020-06-30 11:49:36+00:00): Ich habe es mit Maps me und Vespucci geändert... Komisch. Kannst du mir klären, wie es geht? Ich habe leider nicht viel Erfahrung damit... Danke!
PT-53 (2020-06-30 13:48:09+00:00): Da wird ein 3. Änderungssatz vom 29.06.2020, 21:22 Uhr aus Maps.Me angezeigt, das war aber nur die Änderung von
name=Postkasten in
name=Postbox
und keine Löschung.
Da siehst Du, wenn Du Dir die verschiedenen Versionen im "Knotenverlauf" ansiehst:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7662968285/history

Wie man eine Löschung in Maps.Me oder in Vespucci vornimmt, kann ich Dir nicht sagen, da ich diese Apps nicht nutze. Ich vermute mal, daß man nur den Wert löschen bzw. entfernen muß und beim Hochladen dann der Schlüssel gelöscht wird.

Ich habe die Name-Merkmale jetzt im Editor JOSM gelöscht und hochgeladen.
Siehe Version 4.

Grüße
Rener Frank (2020-06-30 21:23:55+00:00): Ok, super. Nun weiß ich bescheid für das nächste Mal 👍 Vielen Dank für die Bearbeitung!!
StephaneP (2020-07-10 10:43:20+00:00): Salut hkleinespel,

Tu as interdit l'accès au vélo sur certaines sections. Si pour https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/330825774 je suis tout à fait d'accord, en revanche je comprends moins pour https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/824832155
Car l'accès vélo est bien indiqué sur le sol : https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/cM4jrnvQz5uW-Ap86djtDg

Il y aurait eu des modifications depuis cette photo ?

A bientôt

Stéphane de Carto'Cité pour #CartoVeloIDF
hkleinespel (2020-07-10 11:23:15+00:00): Erreur de ma part en effet ! J'ai corrigé. Merci !
StephaneP (2020-07-10 12:57:44+00:00): Super !
A bientôt

Stéphane
chriswhy (2023-12-15 07:49:09+00:00): You added a node for Tau Kappa Epsilon:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7662996373
And you also tagged that building as Tau Kappa Epsilon. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/209950732
However, the node you created has the address of 1222 W Albion, while the building you put the node in was already tagged as 1224 W Albion.

Having both a node and a building tagged as the same thing is redundant, but now I'm not sure whether it's 1222 or 1224. Which building is it?

Thanks!
tehkni (2020-06-29 05:36:05+00:00): won't extend so far this kind of modification again, will keep that local.
VitalieS (2020-06-29 09:00:44+00:00): Cunoașteți cărei bănci aparține bancomatul respectiv ?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87271585
highflyer74 (2020-06-29 07:51:29+00:00): Moin und danke für Deine Arbeit hier :-)

Ich habe noch den landuse=contruction entfernt (hatte ich doch richtig verstanden, dass die Gebäude fertig sind?).

Noch zwei Tipps:

-die mit building:part=yes getaggten Gebäudeteile waren nicht an allen Nodes mit dem building=commercial Umriss verbunden. Vermutlich entstand das durch das Hinzufügen der Eingänge, die dann nur an eine von beiden Linien gesetzt wurden.

- eine Relation type=building kann man machen, muss man aber nicht, sofern alle Teile den gleichen Umriss gemein haben.

Viele Grüße!
user_5359 (2020-06-29 18:57:47+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have delete your SEO SPAM (mostly no standard keys, no verifiable data or not positive verifiable address data). If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. For the most information in the description we have own keys. Please have look on the website http://wiki.openstreetmap.org.
CodyNZL (2021-01-14 08:56:14+00:00): Nothing exists here.
borovac (2021-01-14 10:21:16+00:00): Hi CodyNZL,
You have deleted my edit and than created new geometry on the same place
https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/820862436
I do not know what was the problem
best regards borovac
Aleksandar Matejevic (2021-01-14 10:36:11+00:00): Hi CodyNZL,
you have flagged borovac on osmcha for fictional mapping because of an error that you have created in changeset 96954114

https://osmcha.org/changesets/96954114/

You have moved node 7663126784 to a new position and created bad geometry on 2020-01-05 and then you have deleted way in this changeset and created a new one.

https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/node/7663126784

Just pay attention before flagging someone.

Best regards,
Aleksandar
wielandb (2024-04-18 22:38:49+00:00): Hello :)
This CS looks really strange. Are you sure there is a Honey Shop here in the middle of nowhere? :D
Danilov Artur (2024-04-19 03:52:31+00:00): Es verdad.
user_7581226 (2020-08-08 21:38:03+00:00): Hallo jomacks,
mir ist aufgefallen dass Du in Aschau den Zugang zum Hirzegg Jagersteig gelöscht hast. Der Steig wird zum Beispiel auf der Bergfex Karte angezeigt. Ich habe den Steig heute begangen und festgestellt dass dieser durchaus begehbar ist, und eine praktische Verbindung zum Parkplatz herstellt.
Kannst Du das löschen näher begründen.
Du bist sonst ebenfalls in der Region im Bearbeiten von Wegen aktiv, ich habe mir Deine weiteren Arbeiten noch nicht angesehen, vielleicht kannst du auch auf diese Änderungen näher eingehen.
Lg Johann Haag St. Johann in Tirol
Cancerian (2020-11-23 09:31:55+00:00): Hi , do have a look at node 7663205167 . There is no connection . Please do improve the routing here . Thanks
UW Maddie (2020-09-02 13:03:25+00:00): use of bird's eye is not allowed on osm, so i have deleted all of the features that were based on bird's eye
user_5359 (2020-06-29 18:56:48+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I have revert your SEO SPAM because your business is not the street. If this is an error, you can report it here, then we will be happy to help restore the data. Please try again to mark the main place of your business (and not the street) to add your business information.
GinaroZ (2020-06-29 12:27:23+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM and thanks for the edit. Are you able to tell me more about the custom background imagery that you've used here?