piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
ivanbranco (2022-11-29 20:11:02+00:00): Scusate se intervengo. Anche se la relazione fosse necessaria, duplicare il tag name=* nella relazione non è corretto imho, dalla wiki: "This outline must be tagged with building=*. The outline also holds any other tags (e.g. address, name, overall height, operator, ...) which apply to the building as a whole."

In pratica queste relazioni dovrebbero avere type=building come _unico_ tag essendo un mero contenitore, tutto il tagging vero e proprio va sull'outline.

traduzione automatica:

Sorry to interrupt. Even if the relation was necessary, duplicating the name=* in the relation is incorrect imho, from the Wiki: "This outline must be tagged with building=*. The outline also holds any other tags (e.g. address, name, overall height, operator, ...) which apply to the building as a whole."

Pratically these relations should have type=building as the _only_ tag being a mere container, all the actual tagging goes on the outline.
ivanbranco (2022-11-29 20:15:15+00:00): p.s. per me queste relazioni sono al piu' superflue ma non errate, la descrizione base è "Relations of type=building are used as one way to group elements that form a building in Simple 3D Buildings." e tra le casistiche c'è anche "or the building has a complex structure with lots of parts", che non è questo il caso, ma era per segnalare che avere "a building part hanging over" non è l'unico requisito.
ivanbranco (2022-11-29 20:21:50+00:00): also @SekeRob, I just noticed you keep using the member role "buildingpart" instead of the documented (see Simple 3D Buildings schema) role "part". "buildingpart" was used in the past by tagging schemas such as IndoorOSM that are now obsolete and/or deprecated.
ivanbranco (2022-11-29 20:34:41+00:00): Sorry for the multiple comments, but more I look into it, more I don't understand it.

Why you set the building with height=0? The building outline should have the max height, in this case height=11.5

also:
- bigger building part has height=9 and building:levels=3
- smaller building part has min_height=9 and height=11.5
BUT 
building:levels=1

was it meant to be building:min_level=3 + building:levels=4 (in this case the outline should have building:levels=4 as well)? Please see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Minlevel.svg

^but this link case is about having "void" under it, in this specific case I think it would be more correct to just tag the smaller part as building:levels=4 and exclude the bigger part from it, also to avoid overlapping (which is not appreciated by 3d renderers based on what I know)
SekeRob (2022-11-30 07:00:27+00:00): If you put the maxheight=11.5 on the outline the result in 3D is the whole thing renders with that height. You wont see the elevated element. Height=0 makes sure the elements each render correctly (not  documented but seen being used by other mappers after researching the vexing issue and it sure resolved the 1 single box 3D appearance). OSM assumes 3 meters per building level, where the height=* overrides the defaults.

The outline should in fact have building:levels=4 too.

The name (Municipio Tollo) on the 'type' outline is to make it recognisable in editing when picking relations, it does not render anywhere. What renders is "Municipio di Tollo".

buildingpart obsolete is new to me. 

Anyway, the quick check is StreetComplete (well 'quick' is it updates every few days to a week). It rendered exactly as intended and reality. It's my routine check if all is well with multipart buildings.
ivanbranco (2022-11-30 09:28:39+00:00): Then the 3d renderer you are using is wrong and you should open a issue on their github, when a building part is mapped the renderer should ignore the outline: "The building outline provides backward compatibility for 2D rendering software, such as Mapnik, and other data consumers not interested in 3D modeling. When a building has any building:part=* areas, the building outline is not considered for 3D rendering."

The wiki is clear about this, adding height=0 to the outline is wrong and the users you saw doing the same thing are wrong as well, I quote from the Wiki: "Where a building has been split into parts, the whole building way should still have the tags building:levels=* and height=*. These values should be the maximum of all the building parts."

All other data consumers (which completely ignore 3d tagging) will think there's a building with a 0 height, which is not true (hence lying to the renderer).

You can see in the relation wiki page that the member role is "part": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:building

In order to continue 3d mapping I would suggest you to read at least these 3 pages:
1. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_3D_Buildings
2. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
3. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:building
SekeRob (2022-11-30 10:44:13+00:00): Initiated GitHub bug report.
SekeRob (2022-11-30 11:43:36+00:00): The results are in

"pinging @Joxit - what was outcome of #2205 (comment) ?

(pinging again because two years passed, let me know if I should ping less)"

Topic to bin.
JassKurn (2022-11-29 21:26:05+00:00): Hi, In this changeset you've deleted the highway=crossing tag for node 342413162 (a Toucan Crossing) , and I think you've done the same for several other crossing. You've added Traffic Signal information but removed crossing information. You've also used the key traffic_signals=pedestrian_crossing when it appears it should be traffic_signals=cyclist_crossing 

The crossing tag needs to be retained.
The wiki pages might help

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=traffic_signals

This junction in Exeter is a bit of a mess so I'll try and edit the whole thing in the next few days. 
Jass
collect (2022-11-30 00:51:24+00:00): 冷静，多说多错
快乐的老鼠宝宝 (2022-12-07 23:46:38+00:00): @collect 校友请上大号
archie (2022-11-29 17:21:27+00:00): Hej, du ändrar massvis med korrekt taggade gc-vägar/stigar. Du måste ju granska dig själv och ställa dig frågan varför har så många kartritare innan dig (kolla vägarnas historia) taggat dessa gc-vägar med "path". Var de allihopa jubelidioter och du kommer nu med uppenbarelsen? Jag menar om jag hade varit i ditt ställe och hade sett att så många vägar är taggade på detta sätt, då hade jag ju ställt mig frågan: varför har så pass många kartritare före mig taggat så pass många gc-vägar på detta sätt. Jag hade inte så - som du tydligen gör - utgått ifrån att alla dessa kartritare som editerat före mig har gjort fel och varit okunniga.   
Var vänlig kolla:  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath#Usage_as_a_universal_tag
kapazao (2023-01-16 12:54:36+00:00): Hi, you did use "BOCA DE RIEGO" as the reference of this element and it seems to be the description. It should not be used as ref tag.
Could you check it and fix it if necessary?
Regards
SekeRob (2022-11-30 16:55:52+00:00): Hi,

Where are the sidewalks now... went for a hike?
SekeRob (2022-11-30 16:57:43+00:00): Found them, you moved them to the highway itself.

👍
legofahrrad (2022-11-30 17:56:42+00:00): Yup, the sidewalk tags should be on the highway and not on the bridge's outline. ;)
gektor1488 (2022-11-29 20:00:30+00:00): please, do not map military objects during the war in Ukraine
gektor1488 (2022-11-29 20:00:18+00:00): please, do not map military objects during the war in Ukraine
mego_map (2022-11-30 07:03:16+00:00): Hello Captain Maper;
I noticed you deleted many geocodes and it already exists.
Examples of geocode you deleted building "259":
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/node/6393322946
Link Mapillary showing the Building:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=199452321997137
Can you revert it back, please?
and if you need any help please let me know.
Regards
mego_map
Captain Maper (2022-12-13 19:14:28+00:00): أنا اضفت مطعم قصر الكبابجى  و مسحت مطعم اسماك الكتعة لانه غير موجود
mego_map (2022-12-14 09:06:45+00:00): شكرا علي تواصلك لقد تم استرجاع الجيو كود الذي تم حذفه من خلالك.
Captain Maper (2022-12-17 15:55:29+00:00): هل فيه طريقة نقدر نغير بيها الأسماء المكتوبة على الخريطة نفسها
لانه بيبقى احيانا فى اسماء غير لائقة

وسؤال تانى هل ينفع اخلى البرنامج بتاعى يقرأ خريطة مصر فقط لانه بيجبلى نتائج فى البلاد
mego_map (2022-12-18 07:55:15+00:00): يمكنك استخدام" JOSM , Id Editor  "
بعض الروابط التي قد تساعدك في ذلك 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Basic_editing
https://learnosm.org/en/josm/start-josm/
https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/id-editor/
gektor1488 (2022-11-29 19:59:37+00:00): please, do not map military objects during the war in Ukraine
pitscheplatsch (2022-11-30 05:52:46+00:00): Hi,
this changeset should be reviewed by the local community. Thanks.

---
Detected by #SuspiciousOpenStreetMap
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-suspicious
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-30 05:39:49+00:00): DWG revert:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141937232
ChristopherGS (2022-12-28 21:12:10+00:00): Hello, and welcome to the OSM project! I noticed you have deleted two trails and the name of a field with the reason of "unauthorized". If a trail exists it is fair game to be put into OSM; consider adding "access" tags to something that is private or has limited access.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
hu9o (2022-12-02 08:48:35+00:00): yes it is!
LudovicG (2022-12-02 12:15:25+00:00): Ah mais ce n'était pas une question :D
Je vois que les modifs sur Tours sont surveillées :D
gektor1488 (2022-11-29 19:59:56+00:00): please, do not map military objects during the war in Ukraine
muralito (2022-11-29 18:59:04+00:00): This was not oneway at least a few weeks ago... Can you specify which imagery you use?
aaronq227 (2022-11-30 16:35:02+00:00): Hi muralito, I appreciate the feedback. I have added a oneway along Barroso because of Mapillary imagery (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=427344732716410). There is a oneway sign that was taken on August 19th, 2022 that restricts drivers from heading east along here so it seems appropriate to include a oneway here to prevent traffic from heading the opposite direction.
muralito (2022-12-01 12:59:16+00:00): Thank you. I must not have seen it when I passed by.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-22 03:50:51+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15083
gscholz (2022-12-16 10:35:24+00:00): Hi kikihadwiyanti,
this changeset has destroyed the boundary relation of "Cantón Monte Largo" and "Cantón Santa Bárbara":

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=129531488

I have just fixed this error. Please watch out what you are doing.
You may like to educate yourself about JOSM internal validator to avoid such errors:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Validator

Kind regards
Guido
kikihadwiyanti (2022-12-17 15:36:04+00:00): Thank you for clarifying this further dear gscholz. 
It appears that I removed a part of the wall barrier because I confirmed that it did not exist in any imagery and the location is in the middle of the forest. (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/relation/6385790) I had no idea it was a multirelation. Could you kindly tell me how you detect this? so that I can learn and improve my edits in the future.

Thank you for clarifying this once again. Please do not hesitate to ask questions or share any information with me. It would means a lot to me. Cheers!
gscholz (2022-12-17 15:54:18+00:00): Hi kikihadwiyanti, 
you can use OSM inspector to find such errors. The "Areas" view shows them, especially interesting are "Ring Problems" and here the magenta indicators "Ring not closed":

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-88.78345&lat=13.73565&zoom=9&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways


The views of OSM inspector are updated once per day at about 00:00 UTC.

Guido
NorthCrab (2022-11-29 19:47:27+00:00): Witaj, poprosiliście o weryfikacje.

Ten budynek https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1118134035 ma obok wiszący punkt adresowy. Jeśli nadajesz budynkowi adres uznawane jest to za większy detal i pozostałość jaką jest ten punkt należy usunąć. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9103376414

W edytorzy iD tego typu punkty można bardzo łatwo łączyć z budynkami zaznaczając oba obiekty na raz i klikając "C" albo wybierając opcję złączenia z menu kontekstowego (prawy przycisk myszy).

Widzę, że ten punkt adresowy ma dodatkową informację addr:city:simc, której nie dodałeś więc opcja złączenia automatycznie przeniesie brakujące tagi na budynek.

Dodatkowo, na https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8405398395/history podany numer telefonu jest niezgodny z obowiązującym standardem. Brakuje prefiksu +48. Więcej informacji na: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:phone

Pozdrawiam
flohoff (2022-12-01 18:46:14+00:00): Hi,
guck dir das hier nochmal an - Das passt so nicht. Entweder das ist "living_street" also Verkehrsberuhigt mit Zeichen 325 - dann muss das maxspeed komplett da runter. (In der StVO steht "Schrittgeschwindigkeit" was alles zwischen 3 und 13km/h sein kann - je nach Gericht) oder das ist ein maxspeed=30 - z.b. Zone 30 - dann kann das keine living_street sein.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32395151
user_3022894 (2023-03-26 17:07:52+00:00): Hallo StiggurBohn,

vielen Dank erst einmal für deine Änderungen! :D

Darf ich dir 1-2 kleine Tipps geben?

Die Mülleimer im Stadtgebiet von Wuppertal werden witziger Wese tatsächlich nicht von der AWG, sondern von den ESW (Eigenbetrieb Straßenreinigung Wuppertal) betreut.
Quelle dafür ist https://www.wuppertal.de/microsite/esw/strassenreinigung/papierkoerbe/102370100000223403.php .
Es ist aber sehr gut, dass du hier mitgedacht hast, du meintest ja das Richtige.

Dass Objekte wie Recyclingcontainer und Mülleimer sich draußen befinden und nicht überdacht sind, wird erst einmal als Standard (default) angenommen. Natürlich *kann* man das explizit taggen, man *muss* es aber nicht. Allerdings bleibt einem die Entscheidung natürlich letzten Endes immer selbst überlassen.

Viele Grüße
Lukas
julcnx (2022-11-30 03:18:05+00:00): Hi, thanks for your contribution! Just a little tip for next time, don't forget to save your changes before you move to the next country :) Cheers, Julien
More info: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129532759
SomeoneElse (2022-11-30 13:58:41+00:00): Rather than just saying "added restriction" can you explain what the reasoning behind adding it was?
Famlam (2022-12-23 18:35:45+00:00): Een spoorweg kan niet gelijktijdig railway:abandoned=* + railway=disused hebben.

abandoned = herkenbaar traject, geen sporen (maar bijv. wel bovenleiding)
disused = sporen liggen er nog, maar niet meer in gebruik
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1074232192

(p.s. disused=railway=rail zoals op https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1068491229 is ook zeer ongebruikelijk, de syntax is disused:railway=rail, bedoelde je dat)
jeslop (2022-11-30 13:37:40+00:00): Hi Ahmad-0772

Please read this carefully: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Your changesets lack comments that can help other mappers better understand your contributions. Change this.

Regards

Jesús López
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
rskedgell (2022-11-29 23:17:52+00:00): Why delete the landuse=grass polygon? I can understand deleting the increasingly useless landcover=grass tag, but surely it's still grass there.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/768135678
rskedgell (2022-11-29 23:22:24+00:00): Apologies. I see you've replaced it by a larger landuse=grass polygon covering both sides of the cycle track.
dankarran (2022-12-08 23:30:41+00:00): Sorry, just spotted this. I think there may have been two overlapping areas, so I was just trying to clean it up a little.
rskedgell (2022-12-09 00:07:38+00:00): No problem. If I'd been paying attention in the first place, there wouldn't have been anything for you to spot :-)

BTW, you're doing a fantastic job of adding buildings in Newham, thanks!
dankarran (2022-12-09 17:36:44+00:00): I seem to have caught the mapping bug again recently having discovered that higher res imagery is available :)
HaPe-CZ (2023-10-16 06:33:35+00:00): taky by to chtělo dělat aktualizace toho, co tam kreslíš, rozhazování poznámek po mapě nestačí
vojtechzaboril (2023-10-16 06:36:20+00:00): Co konkrétního tady chybí? Dnes jsem tudy jel a na žádné změny jsem nenarazil. Rozhodně není moje povinnost aktualizovat nějakou část jen proto, že jsem ji někdy upravoval.
HaPe-CZ (2023-10-16 14:20:01+00:00): jo aha, tak budeš kreslit rozestavěné cesty a necháš je trvale rozestavěné? když tak rád mluvíš o slušnosti, bylo by stehně slušné po sobě "uklidit" a když jsi tudy jel tak ten most tam snad nebyl?
a ten most kreslil kdo asi ???
Upraveno před 11 měsíci uživatelem vojtechzaboril
Sada změn #129533421
Marián Kyral (2023-10-16 21:00:30+00:00): Pokud je tam nějaká změna, tak to uprav dle aktuálního stavu. O tom OSM je. O spolupráci a postupné evoluci. Peskováním ničeho nedosáhneš. Maximálně lidi od mapování odradíš a zůstaneš na všechno sám.
HaPe-CZ (2023-10-18 07:06:36+00:00): Aha, tady někdo objevil Ameriku :D. Jasně, přizvi ještě další kamarády a může tu společně diskutovat. Hlavně se navážet do jiných, to je nejspíš tvoje záliba. Podle tvého názoru je tedy polovina práce lepší než celá práce.
Marián Kyral (2023-10-18 07:27:30+00:00): Čau, tahle diskuse se mi objevila v RSS a zaujal mně. Nic více.

Zřejmě si neuvědomuješ, že mapování nebude nikdy hotovo. Když někde něco jednou zmapuji, není mou povinností se o to navždy starat. Obzvláště, když mi do toho může kdokoli vrtat. Přebírá pak snad zodpovědnost on? Proto se bojíš do toho hrábnout? ;-)

Ad polovina práce)
V době kdy to mapoval, udělal celou práci, ta cesta byla ve výstavbě.

Pokud chceš někoho požádat, aby něco v mapě upravil, udělej to prosím slušně. Budeš mít větší šanci na úspěch.

Marián
HaPe-CZ (2023-10-18 07:48:41+00:00): Hele, strč si ty přemoudřelé rady někam ...
Marián Kyral (2023-10-18 08:43:50+00:00): Díky za podnětnou diskusi.
PulisakZ (2023-12-20 13:11:48+00:00): Sorry to start the topic again, but are these roads finished? Czechia CUZK orthophoto does not show any works and around these one 1078421085 on OSM they are finished.
vojtechzaboril (2023-12-20 13:44:34+00:00): No, it is under construction. You can visit rsd.cz for more information.
ivanbranco (2022-12-01 22:15:15+00:00): Ciao kaitu,

il valore giusto è File:Ristoro San Michele al Monte 03.jpg ?
kaitu (2022-12-02 07:47:56+00:00): Ah, ci sono cascato ancora, grazie per avermi fatto notare l'errore. 

In realtà ho speso per il ristoro una sua categoria, ma mi ero dimenticato il prefisso, lo ho corretto.
rskedgell (2022-11-29 22:33:47+00:00): Is there a source for this list?
conifermapper (2022-11-30 08:51:54+00:00): The source is personal knowledge and the wikipedia page
jpennycook (2022-11-30 10:02:16+00:00): Is this an example of what the article "Relations are not categories" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations_are_not_categories) is talking about? The relations (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation) article has this:-

"Usage
Relations are used to model logical (and usually local) or geographic relationships between objects.

They are not designed to hold loosely associated but widely spread items."
conifermapper (2022-11-30 19:05:52+00:00): It is ,should I delete it then?
Hugoren Martinako (2025-11-21 17:50:25+00:00): Absolutely, this relation is just a set of peaks, exactly what @jpennycook mentioned: "Relations are not categories"
Piskvor (2022-11-30 10:04:07+00:00): Ahoj, tahle pěšina je osvětlená nějak na časovač, nebo na detekci? Totiž když jsem tam šel minule, byla tam tma jak v pytli, ani jsem žádný světla neviděl, ani zhaslý...nepřipadlo mi, že by to z ulice nebo z parku bylo osvětlené dost na lit=yes...
Lukáš Jelínek (2022-11-30 19:11:27+00:00): Ahoj, jsou tam LED lampy (a včera v těch cca 21 hod. svítily). Dost mě překvapilo, že je to tam osvětlené.
Piskvor (2022-12-01 12:06:36+00:00): Vot technika! Tak to je mazec, to by mě nenapadlo, že tohle budou osvětlovat:) Díky za doplnění.
1998alexkane (2022-11-30 01:14:16+00:00): Heh, it appear that this was added by mistake to the from the neighborhood map at UWM (it doesn't appear in the map index). Funnily enough, this is an interesting example of the places where OSM data is used: https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/n/zoo-milwaukee-wi/ (I wonder what "young professionals" are living in the zoo...
Taksine (2024-09-22 02:45:45+00:00): 你确定这里有码头？我去的时候没看到有这些啊
Friendly_Ghost (2023-02-02 14:26:37+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132005671
74523978 (2022-11-29 23:10:35+00:00): Ben de hele dag al op deze locatie bezig. Op hetzelfde moment op dezelfde locatie werken kan leiden tot problemen. De kaart is groot genoeg.
74523978 (2022-11-29 23:13:43+00:00): Bovendien heb je een aantal zaken die ik net op BGT heb uitgelijnd weer scheefgetrokken.
74523978 (2022-11-29 23:19:45+00:00): Geldt voor changeset 129534752. En het pad dat je hebt toegevoegd bestaat volgens mijn info niet.
Branko Kokanovic (2022-12-02 17:59:08+00:00): Hi, I will revert this change. We adhere to PT v2 schema and we don't use "stop" role members, only "platform". I understand that you are just trying to be helpful, but this will require changing our automation (which we use to let us know about new GTFS releases or regressions like this) to "know" about stop positions too, and if you are really, really into adding stop positions, you should probably start topic at https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/rs/64
Branko Kokanovic (2022-12-02 18:05:04+00:00): plus you vandalized "name:en" in bus names, like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1331577993. This is very unfortunate
Branko Kokanovic (2022-12-03 17:35:22+00:00): Please reply here before we go in process of reverting. It might take us days to fix everything. You might be able to help us with your tooling.
Branko Kokanovic (2022-12-04 20:12:41+00:00): Removed name:en in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129716901. Please if you do any big changes or anything involving automated tooling, please contact us on https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/rs/64 or at least on Telegram at https://t.me/osm_sr
silversurfer83 (2022-11-30 19:31:20+00:00): Moin. Da du nur deinen wenig aussagekräftigen Kommentar "Ergänzungen..." geschrieben hast muss ich halt fragen: Was ist denn mit dem Spielplatz passiert?
Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129535964
palimpadum (2022-12-22 19:28:12+00:00): Hi,

da ich immer etliche Korrekturen vornehme, meist die kurze Erläuterung. Ich vermute, du meinst den Spielplatz bei Pieper Holz. Da stand ein note, dass der spielplatz seit längerem nicht mehr vorhanden ist. Und so ist es tatsächlich, daher habe ich den entfernt und dann auch den note als erledigt gekennzeichnet.
silversurfer83 (2022-12-22 20:21:43+00:00): Ok. Danke.
Ja. Deine Erläuterungen sind halt immer sehr knapp. Ich gehe idR davon aus, dass du keinen groben Bock schießt, aber ich frag dann lieber nochmal nach

Grüße
StC (2022-12-03 10:35:56+00:00): Bonjour, et merci pour cette mise à jour. Attention néanmoins qu'elle a "cassé" la relation 13935981 représentant un itinéraire pédestre entre Saline de Montaigu et Parc des Bains.
GEO ECLA (2022-12-06 08:34:45+00:00): Corrigé. Merci de votre vigilance.
Je crois que ça vient plutôt du changeset 129538715.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/129535992
map per (2023-01-06 08:46:45+00:00): Hallo Meskalin,

der Radweg war hier (1) schon eingezeichent. Hab den doppelten Radweg wieder gelöscht.

Viele Grüße
map per

(1) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1118160966/history