piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
nmombo12 (2021-12-20 19:41:27+00:00): Hello DSanchez, thanks for your contribution. In the future, fairways with "cutouts" for bunkers, mounds, etc. should be mapped as multipolygons. Here are some references with examples.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon_Examples
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Golf.png
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114943737
highflyer74 (2021-12-15 06:45:57+00:00): Moin!

Hier ist ein landuse=* auf einem building=* gelandet. Soll das so sein? 

Dein Änderungssatzkommentar "ok" sagt da nicht viel aus. Da es anderen Mappern hilft, versuche doch bitte, aussagekräftige CS Kommentare zu verwenden. Mehr dazu hier:

- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments

Viele Grüße!
marczoutendijk (2021-12-17 15:01:11+00:00): “ok", "ij", "pok", und "ook" sind keine eindeutigen Kommentare in dem Änderungssatz. Lesen Sie hier, wie dies möglich ist und auch für andere Mapper angenehmer ist.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Andere Mapper haben mehrmals um klare Kommentare gebeten.
jmilot (2022-05-12 18:37:09+00:00): Please, don't add ways that don't exist yet on OSM. 

If you wish to add proposed or planned features, refer to : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed
jmapb (2021-12-15 15:17:18+00:00): Not sure about the double addr:street (addr:street=State Route 28;Route 28) on the building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/862114186 -- I've never seen this tag with multiple values, and I doubt that software will handle it well.
CurlingMan13 (2021-12-15 16:46:20+00:00): Ok, I don't think I did the double street names, but good catch.  May be other buildings in that locale with the same issue.

Do locals refer to it as just "Route 28", if so how do you map both terms?
lklepner (2021-12-17 17:33:53+00:00): Hi! I can confirm locals do refer to it as "Route 28".
jmapb (2021-12-26 14:15:43+00:00): As far as "mapping both terms"... when a building actually has two distinct addresses, it's common to map two address nodes inside the building perimeter instead of adding the addr: tags directly to the building way. But this is not the case here -- this is just a single address, with two different valid styles of writing the street name. In this case, we just need to pick one or the other. I've already updated the building and changed "addr:street=State Route 28;Route 28" to just "addr:street=State Route 28".

Of course, it's still possible that users might search for this place using the short version of the highway name. OSM handles this by tagging the road itself with the name variations. The highway here ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48207234 ) is tagged name=State Route 28, short_name=Route 28, and alt_name=State Highway 28. You can find Kingston Collision by searching on any of these three variations:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=960%20Route%2028%20Kingston%20NY

https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=960%20State%20Route%2028%20Kingston%20NY

https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=960%20State%20Highway%2028%20Kingston%20NY

Happy Boxing Day! J
pitfire (2022-09-30 04:06:29+00:00): Hallo wermak,

a little hint :-)
Roundabout in UK should turn left before starting course.
Western Distributor (995667260)

Gruß pitfire
Luzandro (2021-12-18 05:39:22+00:00): Hallo Thomas,

du hast beim folgenden Weg highway=path entfernt und diesen damit effektiv gelöscht. Ich gehe davon aus, das war nicht beabsichtigt, und habe diesen wiederhergestellt.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40365410/history
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114944345
habi (2021-12-16 08:43:33+00:00): Hey
You've added the building color with a typo, which I just corrected in changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114995398
Greetings from Switzerland,
habi

PS: I came here via http://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htm
ZeLonewolf (2021-12-15 15:22:20+00:00): Good change to downgrade to primary here, but we should also eliminate the small trunk section on the overpass as well.
TobyOrr (2022-03-18 00:03:16+00:00): Thanks for your feedback.

I have just become aware that, for quite a few months, my email account has been sending emails from OpenStreetMap directly to spam because of a large number of dubious ladies seeking my friendship via the OpenStreetMap message system.

I want to reassure you and others who messaged me or left changeset comments that I was not deliberately ignoring messages - I was just unaware that they were being trashed as spam. I have now changed account settings regarding mail from OpenStreeMap.
nmombo12 (2021-12-16 20:05:48+00:00): Hello zmdaubs,

This is a minor thing, but fairways should have shared nodes leading up to the green according to this wiki page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Golf.png

An acceptable alternative would be to consider the fringe as part of the fairway and make the fairway a multipolygon with the green as the inner part ofthe relation.

Noah
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114945362
Kovoschiz (2021-12-15 05:47:25+00:00): Please don't change to `=path` without more specific tags. It is meaningless.
Warin61 (2021-12-15 22:23:50+00:00): Hi, 

There is an error in the method used to map these 2 buildings - see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=142.47957&lat=-38.37850&zoom=18

For way 1012329935 they should be 3 separate ways as they are 3 separate buildings.

For way 1012329933 ... I make it 7, yes 7 separate buildings. 

Consider using other imagery ... Mapbox looks clearer here compared to Bing. 

One tip: square up the buildings using the key 'Q'.
YoshiMaster67 (2021-12-15 22:54:22+00:00): Sorry about that, I just tried to fix it now. Hopefully it's better.
ravali_78 (2021-12-16 05:56:04+00:00): Hi Chung Thanh Vinh,
I have removed restaurant amenity as it is overlapping with other buildings and highway. Kindly check with w1012330292, https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114988666.
Thank you.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114947300
rthik007 (2021-12-16 07:00:42+00:00): "Hi Stece Squad,
I have removed untagged way 1012331798
Kindly check with
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114990516.
Thank you."
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114947563
highflyer74 (2021-12-15 06:28:31+00:00): Moin und danke für Deinen Beitrag!

Wenn etwas nicht mehr vorhanden ist, sei es ein Gebäude oder ein POI (z.B. Geschäft), dann empfiehlt es sich, dies nicht zu löschen, sondern es per https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lifecycle_prefix zu kennzeichnen. Dadurch erhält man die Historie eines OSM-Objekts (die beim Löschen verloren geht) und man verhindert (z.B. bei einem Gebäude) dass dieses vom nächsten Mapper wieder eingezeichnet wird, weil er es noch auf irgendeinem Luftbild sieht.

Mehr dazu hier:

- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice

Schönen Tag Dir!
Oregonian3 (2021-12-16 14:45:02+00:00): Hey! Seems like we both do pretty similar work around here, fixing up trail systems. I wonder if it's worth having a discussion about making sure we're consistent in tagging of trails around SLC, both in terms of name and in terms of stuff like bike = designated and foot = designated.

Personally, I've been using the "designated" tag if and only if there is signage or another official document (e.g. a forest service page) that explicitly states that bikes are allowed to use the trail (e.g. the BST section up in the avenues). If there's no official documentation (e.g. the Bobsled Trail) then I've been using the "yes" tag instead. Do you have any methodology you've been using?

For trail names, this more impacts the BST rather than anywhere else. Should we use "Bonneville Shoreline Trail" for the whole thing, or should we use something like "Bonneville Shoreline Trail - Avenues section" to distinguish individual sections?
tcarlisle (2021-12-17 05:25:43+00:00): Happy to chat about this.

"Designated" Attribute:  
We have the same idea here, though until you put it into words it wasn't a concrete thought in my head and I've probably be less exacting on the differentiation of xxx=designated vs. xxx=all.  I'll be more strict about using "all" when I know a traffic type is in use/allowed but I haven't yet found documentation.  Having said that I've been checking for a source before using either attribute tag.

BST Naming:
It might be worth one or both of us contacting the BST governing board to get an official answer, or make an official recommendation.  That being said I've added a few recently completed BST sections and I've based the names on what the trail builder called it--though it was hard to tell if that was a formal or informal designation.

I do think that naming sub-sections of the BST would be a good idea.  For one, some sections of the BST use already existing and named routes.  For example the section of the Old Parley's Road is a historical route that has had a name for decades. Secondly, giving sections of the BST trail names makes it much easier for people to communicate about where along the BST they are referring to.

Since the BST is at once a trail, a route, and a concept, I like the idea of creating a route relationship to tie it all together--which I saw you already did, nice job.  

As for a section-specific naming convention we could employ something that uses a combination of the trail name and BST or Bonneville Shoreline Trail. I used "Bonneville Shoreline Trail Parley's Pointe Section" and "Bonneville Shoreline Trail Ferguson Canyon Section" recently, but while they do a good job indication the over BST connection and the specific sub-section of trail, the names are a bit long.

What are your thoughts?
Oregonian3 (2021-12-21 15:46:48+00:00): Awesome, glad we're on the same page with the "designated" attribute!

And I see that argument for naming BST subsections; makes sense to me. For trails that have other names (e.g. Old Parleys Road), then I think using the BST section name as an "alt_name" is probably best, and then the other common name as the "name".

Perhaps a standard could be something like "Bonneville Shoreline Trail - Parley's Pointe section"? That way, the dash indicates that the first part is the larger trail name, while the part after the dash is the section. I think it's easier for the reader to parse than something without a dash.
tcarlisle (2021-12-22 00:32:09+00:00): Adding BST as an alt_name is a great idea for sections with other names already.

I like the hyphen idea.  The only reason I didn't recommend it in the first place is I didn't know if other systems that pull data from OSM would have an issue with the hyphen.  Special characters sometimes are handled differently with different systems.  But I guess we're already using an apostrophe for this section name so let's go with the "Bonneville Shoreline Trail - TrailName Section" naming convention and see how it looks when other mapping systems read OSM data.  If in time there's an issue we can rethink this.

Thoughts?
Oregonian3 (2021-12-22 21:08:42+00:00): Sounds great to me. I can go ahead and implement these on all Salt Lake County BST sections.

That brings up one more question: what to do about uncompleted sections (like the part between Emigration Canyon and Jacks Peak). Should we have the BST relation applied to the roads in the area that form the temporary connection, or just skip it? The official map calls these sections "BST connector" segments, distinct from the "BST official" segments.
tcarlisle (2021-12-28 22:20:18+00:00): If the BST uses an existing road like to connect trail segments, like Lakeline Drive between the Parley's Pointe and Jacks Mtn Segments I would think it would be best to just add the road to a relation rather than tagging the road as part of the BST trail.

For trail segments that have yet to be completed or that are under construction we could just tag them as per discussed but also use the highway=proposed or highway=construction tags--that is if we decided to map before that segment is completed.
Oregonian3 (2022-01-01 22:13:10+00:00): Yeah that totally makes sense for road sections: tag with the relation, but not with the name.
user_5359 (2022-01-05 19:26:40+00:00): Hello! What ist the meaning of the key WDPAID? Did you mean the key https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:WDPA_ID:ref (see World Database on Protected Areas)
AmanBD (2022-01-06 05:58:27+00:00): Yes, this is meant to be WDPA_ID:ref. Going to fix this.
DP24PH (2021-12-15 12:24:34+00:00): You might have encroached on several countries, including the Republic of the Philippines. To avoid this, kindly separate all changes into one country/area per changeset basis.


DP24
ququruzka (2021-12-26 18:02:24+00:00): добрий день.
вже не вперше помічаю, що ви займаєтесь перейменуваннями вулиць на невідому мені мову.
Треба зазначити, що на усій території України діють правила нанесення вулиць, бульварів, провулків, проїздів, тощо виключно державною мовою. в разі недотримання цих правил, ваші зміни будуть відкочені без зазначення причини.
дякую за розуміння.
user_11418917 (2021-12-15 08:30:38+00:00): Thanks! keep up the good work
algot (2021-12-16 12:58:49+00:00): Пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с правлильным тегированием smoothness
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Uk:Key:smoothness?uselang=uk

Вы выставляете very_horrible и impassable для городских улиц. А это неправильно.

Все похожие правки будут удалены, если такие неточные теги будут применяться дальше
vojtechzaboril (2021-12-15 08:46:28+00:00): Dobrý den,
toto jsou polovičaté změny. Přidáte novou cestu pro odbočení, ale cesta rovně má pořád 4 pruhy. Další info třeba zde: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cs:J%C3%ADzdn%C3%AD_pruhy
Navíc toto ani pořádně nevidíte v iD editoru (vlastně vůbec). Doporučuji JOSM, tam lze pruhy a obecně všechno upravovat mnohem lépe.
VZ
habi (2021-12-16 08:46:39+00:00): Hey, in this changeset you've mistyped the `buildng:levels` :)
I just corrected that in changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/114995526
Greetings from Switzerland,
habi

PS: I came here via http://osm.mueschelsoft.de/taginfo/newkeys.htm
ivanbranco (2021-12-24 15:15:44+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9339741063

tags are in british english in OSM, can you fix it?
ivanbranco (2022-01-08 11:55:17+00:00): Hi,

you posted 5 new changeset after this comment, the last one 3 days ago, so you're still active. Maybe you forgot to reply?
ماجراجوهای ایرانی \ iran adventurers (2022-01-09 11:33:11+00:00): hi
user_4493657 (2021-12-16 04:14:39+00:00): Siemka. Ta droga przy ogródkach działkowych to żart, czy ogródków już nie ma?
user_12717205 (2021-12-16 08:57:09+00:00): Hello Aim311,

Thanks for your time in reviewing the edits made. I have changed the road classification to service and also added restriction gate near Inwalidzka road. Please review the edits made and provide your valuable feedback if any.

Thanks,
Akhilvas
opendcc (2021-12-15 08:18:29+00:00): Jetzt läuft da aber das Wasser aus dem Staussee raus ...
MichaelFS (2021-12-15 16:28:53+00:00): Ooops, Sorry.
Kann mann das revertieren? Wie? Ich kann es ohne Hilfe nicht ...
opendcc (2021-12-15 17:17:04+00:00): Den revert habe ich gemacht, was wolltest Du mit dem Edit erreichen?
MichaelFS (2021-12-15 17:26:00+00:00): Vielen Dank!!
Ziel war es, den Osmose-Fehler zu bereinigen, aber exakt identifizieren lässt der sich nicht mehr?
https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/de/map/#zoom=15&lat=48.4811&lon=11.97632&item=xxxx&level=1&issue_uuid=f16090c0-9322-0361-bc2e-b48ee3ccad33
MichaelFS (2021-12-15 17:28:00+00:00): Doch identifiziert: Dieser Parkplatz
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/849077501#map=19/48.50189/12.04874
war ein Multipolygon, das wollte ich eigentlich löschen ...
opendcc (2021-12-15 19:13:42+00:00): Done.
eggie (2021-12-15 08:39:57+00:00): Dag Jeroen,

Wanneer het een echt fietspad is hoort er niet bicycle=yes op motor_vehicle=no en horse=no kan ook weg. Dat is allemaal default.
De juiste tagging van de verschillende typen  fietspaden vind je hier 
G11: mofa=yes, moped=no, traffic_sign=NL:G11 
G12a: moped=designated, mofa=designated, traffic_sign=NL:G12a 
G13: moped=no, mofa=no, traffic_sign=NL:G13 

 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Cycleway 
Staat er echt een bord fietspad? 

MVG
eggie
Jeroen Roest (2021-12-15 08:59:12+00:00): Excuses, ben geen expert op het gebied van kaarten.

Het aangeven pad is een fietspad en is voorzien van fiets paaltjes.

Is het niet mogelijk om ergens inrichtingstekeningen te uploaden :)
eggie (2021-12-15 09:33:02+00:00): Niet in die simpele editor iD.
Ook is niet altijd toegestaan om alle bronnen te gebruiken 
Wat is vaak gebruik is de transparant van de BGT omtrekgericht. Die mag wel.
Ik map met editor JOSM. Die heeft veel meer mogelijkheden voor verschillende achtergronden. Lijkt even lastig in het begin, maar alles went. je zult als je doorzet toch niet aan JOSM kunnen ontkomen.
editor josm stap voor stap 

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53710        

 

BGT implementeren  

https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=59021 
(zo doe ik het meestal- Als die achetrgronden schakel ik naar believen in) 


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
eggie (2021-12-15 09:37:21+00:00): In het begin is veel rijstebrij.. maar dat gaat vanzelf over. 
Paaltjes kun je aangeven op een node verbonden  met het fietspad.
barrier=bollard..
Paaltjes wil niet zeggen dat het een fietspad is. Geen G11,13, 12a dan is het een highway=path met surface=??? .
Daarop kun je wel aangeven bicycle=yes foot=yes.

eggie
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-12-15 08:31:41+00:00): To be 100% clear - there was some minimal matching (geometries placed over areas of houses) but beyond that geometry was not matching at all and deletion makes easier to map it than keeping them would
Mateusz Konieczny (2021-12-15 08:31:44+00:00): To be 100% clear - there was some minimal matching (geometries placed over areas of houses) but beyond that geometry was not matching at all and deletion makes easier to map it than keeping them would
eggie (2021-12-15 08:44:31+00:00): Dag Jeroen,
Het is wat ongebruikelijk om het zo te taggen.
Zie ook wiki.
Er loopt nog een weg dwars door een huis. 
warnings:crossing_ways:building-highway

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached
Gr eggie
eggie (2021-12-15 08:54:35+00:00): detached heeft niet de betekenis van   'gesloopt'.
Gebouwen die niet meer bestaan kun je gewoon verwijderen.
eggie
Jeroen Roest (2021-12-15 09:02:44+00:00): In dit deel zijn een aantal gebouwen gesloopt om plaats te maken voor nieuwe woningen. Nu staat alles dubbel. Ik heb de gebouwen aangegeven die gesloopt.

De nieuwe weg loopt ook anders dan nu op kaart is aangegeven. De nieuwe openbare weg is aangegeven.
Jeroen Roest (2021-12-15 09:08:37+00:00): Gebouwen verwijderd. Bedankt voor de tip
eggie (2021-12-15 08:47:17+00:00): Fout is het niet, maar foot=yes is ook default op een fietspad 
Kijk even naar de tags op het lange stuk fietspad.. Dat zal ook de tagging van dat kleine stukje moeten zijn. 
eggie
Adiatma IRM-RV (2021-12-16 06:24:43+00:00): Halo nurdiana_ui! Semoga sehat selalu.
Objek ini terdeteksi crossing/melintasi bangunan (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1012372710), berdasarkan Maxar Premium seperti tidak ada jalan atau mungkin ada jalan tapi tertutup di citra. Apakah memang ada jalan di situ? Terima kasih
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/114954118
AndersAndersson (2021-12-19 18:09:59+00:00): Hej!
Om man tittar på Lantmäteriets topografiska karta så står Foskros längre norrut. Jag gissar att det är husen i närheten av där Foskan rinner under vägen.
Platsen dit du flyttat noden heter väl Foskros fjällby.
eggie (2021-12-15 09:27:06+00:00): Jeroen.
De gesloopte gebouwen zijn verwijderd. Top!
Je kunt dan de opmerkingen die je op de kaart hebt gezet sluiten.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.14596/5.57084&layers=N
Doe je dat zelf?
Gebouwen toevoegen doen we niet zelf, maar dat gaat via periodieke import vanuit de BAG.
Je kunt dat zelf bespoedigen middels een verzoek op het forum in het draadje Verzoek BAG import.
Wat bedoel je met landuse=farmyard?
Dat is een boerenerf en geen gebouw
De wettelijke maxspeed op een woonerf is 15 km en geen 20.
Kijk je nog even?
Eggie
eggie (2021-12-15 10:08:36+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback .. De weg is kennelijk opegengesteld. Dus is je actie prima.

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2021-12-15 09:28:56+00:00): Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=114955290
Al die accesstags kunnen eraf. Niet bicycle=yes e.d. gaan toevoegen aan reguliere wegen.
De maxspeed achter het bord woonerf (staat dat er wel?)  is 15 in Nederland. (In België 20)
pyram (2021-12-15 21:20:45+00:00): Review:
Grundsätzlich passt das.
Eine kleine Überlappung der Häuser 30a und 30b ( an diesem Punkt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9339865215 ) könnte man noch bereinigen (Punkt löschen reicht).
Was unwahrscheinlich ist: alle Hausnummernzusätze im Umfeld sind mit Kleinbuchstaben geschrieben - nur "30A" hat ein großes A. Ist das so gewollt?

Gruß
pyram
EdStraker (2021-12-16 08:11:08+00:00): Hallo pyram, danke für die Hinweise. Die Hausnummer habe ich angepasst und die Überlappung bereinigt.
rskedgell (2022-01-22 06:02:32+00:00): Trees removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116382236 by new mapper @BorekSigar
zstadler (2021-12-26 06:08:27+00:00): שלום בירנית,

מה משמעות המספר 18 שהוספת לשם?

האם זה היה בטעות?
zstadler (2021-12-30 15:27:53+00:00): שלום בירנית,

נקודות עניין ציבוריות לא מיועדות לצרכים פרטיים.

הדרך הנכונה לשתף נקודות ומסלולים עם חברים בשימוש ב
Israel Hiking Map
היא ליצור מסלול פרטי , לשמור אותו בענן ולשלוח את הקישור למי שתרצה.

Fixed in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115570651
eggie (2021-12-15 10:13:08+00:00): Ziet er goed uit.
eggie
ivanbranco (2021-12-15 15:59:58+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/177511134

This building is called "ex saint john church's bell tower", are you sure it's a shed?
zstadler (2021-12-26 06:09:05+00:00): שלום בירנית,

מה משמעות המספר 21 שהוספת לשם של הר גוונים?

האם זה היה בטעות?
zstadler (2021-12-30 15:27:38+00:00): שלום בירנית,

נקודות עניין ציבוריות לא מיועדות לצרכים פרטיים.

הדרך הנכונה לשתף נקודות ומסלולים עם חברים בשימוש ב
Israel Hiking Map
היא ליצור מסלול פרטי , לשמור אותו בענן ולשלוח את הקישור למי שתרצה.

Fixed in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/115570651
eggie (2021-12-15 10:15:54+00:00): Je zou nog evt. kunnen kijken welk bord vooraan staat en de paaltjes toevoegen. barrier=bollard
Die accesstags hoorden er inderdaad niet. 
gr eggie
zstadler (2022-01-07 08:55:09+00:00): Hi,

In this edit, the east side of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256340514
was converted into a footway and disconnected from road 87.
However, the service road remained one-way.

Should the service road be reconnected to road 87 on both ends or should the one-way tag be removed?
hatul (2022-01-08 21:42:08+00:00): החניה אכן נראית מוזרה אבל לא אני סימנתי אותה. רק סידרתי את שביל ישו לפי הקלטה.
zstadler (2022-01-09 17:41:18+00:00): כנראה שלא שמת לב שניתקת בעריכה הזו את היציאה מהחניה לכיוון מזרח

תעשה זום-אין ב
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=114956372
ותראה באדום את הדרכים שלפני העריכה הזו
hatul (2022-01-10 14:05:16+00:00): תוקן, תודה על תשומת הלב.
Alexey Vazhnov (2021-12-18 10:52:08+00:00): Спасибо, что ещё и сам трек тоже выложили на сайт!

Из мелочей: лыжня обозначается не именем, а специальными тэгами. Посмотрите, пожалуйста, вот этот пример: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/93697949 — там используется ski=yes, а также piste:type и piste:grooming. Не все статьи на wiki переведены на русский язык, но вот эта переведена: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:piste:type