piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
habi (2022-01-11 12:53:44+00:00): Very happy to help (or give input).

I am going as far as reverting [1] your deletion, so the parkings will show up on the map again, this was done in changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116023056
You can now add the proper `access`-tag to the parkings, according to the 'Introductory examples` in the OSM wiki page on the tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Car_parking_without_public_access

Happy mapping and don't hesitate to contact either me or someone from your local community (https://openstreetmap.community) for any help and tips!

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Change_rollback
CloCkWeRX (2023-08-14 10:51:16+00:00): What's the source of this name?
CloCkWeRX (2026-02-09 09:10:03+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9409128558 removed.
Its not there on the ground from when I last was there; no response.
MikeN (2022-01-11 12:23:10+00:00): Hi, Please save changes in one area before moving to another area.
gpserror (2022-01-11 05:09:07+00:00): If anyone finds an issue with this path/changeset due to the deletion, this route is now marked as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13659236 which highlights the original cycle path.  The original cycle path was a data violation due to having two traversable ways drawn on top of each other.  Feel free to name this new relation - the original path did not have a name.
AkuAnakTimur (2022-01-12 12:22:27+00:00): Hello, thank you about your edit.

You sure about these classification change? I've actually commuted the route on New Year's Eve.
JonesFalls (2022-01-12 23:51:53+00:00): Hello and thanks for reaching out, AkuAnakTimur. 
I changed the classification to unclassified since the OSM wiki mentions most roads may warrant the tag highway=unclassified for roads with three digit refs (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Malaysian_Roads_Tagging). Looking further on the wiki, I can see that it also says that a road that acts as a connector road between a village and a main road may be tagged as highway=tertiary. Based on this I think tertiary is more appropriate and I will change the classification back to tertiary. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and have a great day.
Anim Mouse (2022-01-20 05:04:34+00:00): Hi Open Paint Maps
Sampaguita Oval Street is not a roundabout, please revert this edit.
Frans S (2022-01-13 11:28:18+00:00): Thank you for mapping. 
A remark. Please decide which tag to be added to a trace , based on the Highway wiki, the widht and the route of that trace. 
If it wide enough to be driven by a 4 wheel vihicle, it can be tagged as highway=unclassified.  This tag covers all kinds of roads in the country side where it connects settlemens, farms etc. For traces, leading to farm fields, woods, riversides, depending of the widht, track or path can be used,

A hint: how to measure the width of a road in iDeditor to decide which tag to be used Zoom in as far as possible and draw a line between the shoulders of a trace and click ctr +shift+M to shows measurements click on the line between the nodes and you get the width.

Best regards and keep mapping
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116007583
Diacritic (2022-01-11 11:43:39+00:00): Gday MapMeister!

Thanks for your contribution. :)

This laneway appears to be mapped pretty well, but I'd recommend one or two minor adjustments.

The name of the laneway appears to be a descriptive name of what it used to be, rather than the signposted, official name. It's ok to leave a road without a name tag, and instead use the description tag to  provide more information.

I'd also suggest this is better suited as a alley, rather than an unclassified road. (Or maybe a footway, if it's too narrow?) The alley tag is pretty much an equivalent of what we would call a laneway in australian english.

Keep up the good work :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116007596
kolasau (2022-01-20 12:50:54+00:00): Hello, I found your trace. I understand that it was supposed to be a gps trace, but it is loaded on OSM as a road, which is not visible on satellite images - please fix it ( WAY: 1020180007 )
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116007852
Hufkratzer (2022-06-23 00:04:15+00:00): I think, to make the tagging of this rancho compatible with the wiki the (round) riding arena would have to be tagged with leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian (like here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1017919854) and leisure=horse_riding would also have to be removed from the buildings and instead be put only once for the whole rancho either on the node together with place=farm or on the area of the rancho (like here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/543831678). Compare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=horse_riding . Do you agree?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2022-06-19 13:19:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 122579361 where the changeset comment is: Following a report to the DWG, reverting some changes that appear to be mostly vandalism in Iraq.
Makkaroni_100 (2023-01-20 00:59:31+00:00): Wie kommt es, dass der Name hier von Dessau-Roßlau wieder zurück zu Dessau geändert wurde? Stadt ist hier ja Dessau-Roßlau und nicht Dessau.
elsy1 (2022-01-11 09:44:37+00:00): درود، بر روی خیابان گوهری جنوبی تگ پل هوایی اعمال کردید در حالی که پلی وجود ندارد
elsy1 (2022-01-11 17:09:21+00:00): اصلاح کردم در صورتی اشتباهی رخ داده اعلام بفرمایید تشکر
SafetyIng (2022-01-23 22:20:50+00:00): Why do you have changed this to path? This way is created as way (the width allows to drive trough. I think this tagging is false.
aepunavy (2022-01-27 07:51:03+00:00): Hi, 
Thanks for flagging this point with me. I have made this as a path based on latest aerial imagery i.e Bing, in which the path seems to be unpaved with grassy patches. As there is no street view to check, I have modified based on available aerial imagery. Kindly let us know if this is right so that I can make the necessary changes. 
Regards, 
aepunavy
timetrap (2022-01-11 16:53:29+00:00): Änderungssatz revidiert in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116031995
timetrap (2022-01-11 07:09:36+00:00): Durch die Änderungen überlagern sich zwei Wege an der "Service-Straße" bei Eingang Wilo Factory Süd.

Ich kann das Problem nicht beheben, weil ich aus der Fern nicht weiß, welcher Pfad dort richtig ist.

Ich weiß, dass du neu dabei bist, das ist klasse :), aber pass bitte ein wenig mehr bei deinen Änderungen auf. 

Einen guten ersten Einstieg geben dir die Wiki-Seiten: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice und https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bearbeitungsstandards_und_-konventionen.

Besonders letzteres hat gute Details zum Mappen von Wegen und Linien, die häufig übersehen werden.
timetrap (2022-01-11 07:14:43+00:00): Ich werde einen Hinweis erstellen: Du kannst, solltest du das Problem beheben im Onlineeditor (den du benutzt) rechts auf das Ebenen-Symbol gehen und den Punkt "Hinweise/Fehlermeldungen" aktivieren. Dann siehst du meinen Hinweis auf der Karte. Den könntest du dann als erledigt markieren.
the_cool_guy (2022-01-11 06:31:31+00:00): Sorry, the road is residential road and not service road.

Only some part of the road has been mapped. I cannot identify the complete road from the satellite imagery.
timetrap (2022-01-11 06:43:21+00:00): Der Fahrradweg an der Ruhrwaldstraße wurde durch die Änderungen fehlerhaft.
timetrap (2022-01-11 06:49:39+00:00): Fehler behoben
McPomHH (2022-02-05 15:20:35+00:00): Moin, du hast den Operator der U-Bahn Linie von "Hamburger Hochbahn AG" auf "Hamburger Hochbahn" geändert. Warum?
Jorisbo (2022-02-05 18:45:48+00:00): Hallo McPorn :-)   Das währe hochstwarscheinlich die '
Empfehlung' des ID-editor. Entschuldige wenn die änderung zu schnell acceptiert is. Ich werde versuchen das zu ertauschen. Sonnst hilfe mir bitte.  Grusse
 Joris
joost schouppe (2023-06-18 17:04:05+00:00): Hey Martin, why did you remove the building passage? It does actually exist...
user_5359 (2022-01-13 07:51:06+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/node/8479544987. What is the meaning of the tag Branch = 스타필드위례1F R?
LordGarySugar (2022-01-12 00:24:35+00:00): Hi, if you want to update some tags about a business please modify the existing node rather than deleting it and retagging a nearby parking tickets machine. Thanks.
Dardy (2022-01-18 14:23:28+00:00): Ciao, ho visto che in questo changeset hai messo i vari sentieri che scendono dalle Combette come access=no?
Sono stati chiusi o vietati o una svista?
Inoltre mettere foot=yes e bicycle=yes su dei sentieri è inutile, qualunque sentiero è percorribile a piedi o bici a meno di esplicito divieto.
Fulvio Senore (2022-01-18 15:51:45+00:00): Se non fatto errori ho messo access=no alla strada sterrata che da Chiotetti porta a Combette perché subito dopo Chiotetti c'è un cartello stradale che limita l'accesso ai soli proprietari e conduttori di fondi. A questo punto ho aggiunto  foot=yes e bicycle=yes per chiarire che il divieto è limitato ai veicoli a motore.
Questo è quello che ho visto fare da altre parti (ad esempio track sopra VillarFocchiardo) e la cosa mi sembra sensata. Se pensi che ci sia una soluzione migliore dimmelo e vedremo di sistemare la cosa.
Dardy (2022-01-18 16:09:04+00:00): Ok grazie del chiarimento, pare sensato anche a me (forse avrei messo acces=private anzichè no ma la differenza non è così evidente).
Fulvio Senore (2022-01-18 16:42:00+00:00): Non saprei, nella wiki access=private è descritto con "Solo su permesso del proprietario su base individuale". In questo caso la limitazione non proviene dal proprietario del terreno ma da una delibera di un qualche ente. Comunque concordo che la differenza è sottile.
Jrachi (2022-02-21 19:14:05+00:00): La differenza tra private e no non è sottile, ma sostanziale.
access=no significa che nessuno può avere accesso. Si usa per strade che sono chiuse per motivi di sicurezza.
access=private significa che possono accedere chi ha diritto per proprietà propria o concessa, di solito è presente un cartello che indica "accesso consentito ai proprietari e conduttori di fondi" o simile.
Che rileggendo è quello che hai segnalato.
Quindi è access=private e si applica a tutti i veicoli, non ai pedoni.
access=no significa che non si può accedere neanche a piedi ed implica la chiusura di due percorsi escursionistici a catasto regionale.
access=no è proprio un tag estremo e non andrebbe applicato alla leggera.
Dardy (2022-02-21 23:56:14+00:00): Fermo restando che considero anche io più preciso il private, chiarito che è presente sul posto una restrizione il tagging utilizzato non mi pare comunque scorretto.
Da nessuna parte ho visto usare l'access no per motivi di sicurezza. Al più può essere uno dei motivi, in quanto rimane comunque un tag generico.
Al contrario è contemplato utilizzare l'access no, specificando poi le specifiche eccezioni, in questo caso bici e pedoni.
Il tutto è chiaramente indicato qui:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IT:Key:access#Restrizioni_di_transito

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno
Fulvio Senore (2022-02-22 15:29:07+00:00): Ho letto la documentazione e concordo con Dardy: il tag access=no può essere associato ad altri che ne specificano meglio il campo di applicazione, non è una chiusura assoluta. Come ho già scritto mi ero limitato a copiare una impostazione che è presente in una track sopra Villarfocchiardo, poco lontano.
Comunque, ripensandoci, sono d'accordo che sarebbe meglio usare access=private: come procedo? Basta cambiare il tag access?
Altra domanda: la strada sopra Villarfocchiardo è anche chiusa da una sbarra, quindi la limitazione di accesso è più "energica" rispetto ad un semplice cartello. Questo giustifica il tag access=no che ho trovato o bisognerebbe modificare anche quello?
Un veloce ricerca mostra che in valle ci sono parecchie strade con access=no.
Jrachi (2022-02-22 16:16:15+00:00): Trai tanti tag il cui uso non è chiaro, access=no è il peggiore.
Partendo dalla considerazione che i cartelli stradali regolano l'accesso alla strada ed ai veicoli che potrebbero poter accedere, è evidente che non si applicano a pedoni/escursionisti. 
Secondo me dove esiste un cartello che indica "consentito a residenti e conduttori" si mette access=private.
Dove invece è scritto LR 32 andrebbe access=forestry o agricultural.
In tutti i casi alle bici è proibito il transito, in teoria, non ho mai sentito un forestale lamentarsi delle bici in montagna...
In caso di sbarra si mette il nodo sulla way con tag barrier=* access=private (di solito è un privato o un consorzio di privati) e li si può mettere un foot=yes + mtb=yes se è lasciato intenzionalmente un passaggio adatto. Parlo di spazio ben chiaro non che su un lato della sbarra esiste un notevole calpestio!
E per i foot va solo sulla barriera, perché nessuno mi vieta di arrivare sulla strada attraverso un sentiero o camminando sul versante. A meno che non trovo dei cartelli di terreno privato e/o una recinzione.
Sulle tante strade con access=no non mi pronuncio ma potrebbe essere lo stesso discorso.
Sulla pagina wiki (tra l'altro solo in inglese) dice che il tag è usato dove esiste un divieto forte, come l'accesso ad una zona militare.
È accettato anche dove il transito è vietato a tutti a causa di un ponte crollato o pericolante, ad una frana o altro, deve esserci comunque un cartello specifico firmato dal sindaco o altra autorità competente.
A parte casi non rari si tratta sempre di restrizioni di accesso temporanee.
Fulvio Senore (2022-02-23 21:29:04+00:00): Ho fatto la correzione cambiando da access=no ad access=private.
Spero che sia tutto a posto.
Dardy (2022-02-24 15:53:44+00:00): Va benissimo, grazie. Tra l'altro se sei fresco di rilevamento per caso sai rispondere alla nota che avevo lasciato tempo fa tra Chiotetti e Combette?
Fulvio Senore (2022-02-25 14:56:14+00:00): Mi spiace ma non so cosa dire. Sono passato un paio di mesi fa ma non ho fatto caso ai cartelli.
Jrachi (2022-02-25 15:33:39+00:00): Ho passato la patata di controllare i cartelli ed eventuali cambiamenti sul catasto ad un amico rilevatore CAI che abita in zona.
E anche un mappatore e quindi dopo il rilevamento andrà a fare le correzioni su OSM
SekeRob (2022-01-11 08:26:24+00:00): Just a minute of work, 22 issues resolved.
Tilia_J (2022-01-11 14:04:17+00:00): Waarom trek je hier de begrenzingen recht die ik juist conform de kadastrale grenzen heb aangepast?

De NSW-status "Hemelse Berg - Oranjerie" is inderdaad onlangs komen te vervallen.

Maar is het perceel ook daadwerkelijk weer teruggekeerd naar het oorspronkelijke landgoed?

Zie mijn uitgebreide antwoord elders. Het is nog even wachten tot de definitieve status van de grondoverdrag gemeente Renkum aan Geldersch landschap rond is.

Het lijkt me veel te vroeg om voetstoots aan te nemen dat het hier om één en hetzelfde landgoed gaat.

Dat ze wat betreft naamgeving op elkaar lijken zegt niets over de eigendomsverhoudingen.
jaap de vries (2022-01-11 14:24:46+00:00): Beste Tilia, 

Ben je lokaal ook bekend? Er staan heel veel bordjes, bij diverse toegangspaden en op de slagbomen dat het natuurgebied de Hemelse Berg groter is dan wat jij eerst hebt getekend, volgens de regel "map whats on the ground" heb ik het aangepast.
jaap de vries (2022-01-11 14:33:42+00:00): De Vreeberg bestaat ook niet meer, is ook onderdeel geworden van Hemelse Berg
jaap de vries (2022-01-11 14:35:59+00:00): Daarnaast is er bekend gamaakt in Rijn en Veluwe dat al wat nu onder de Hemelse Berg en Pietsersberg valt wat gemeente Renkum in beheer heeft naar het GLK gaat, m.i. klopt de kaart zo en is jouw informatie verouderd.
jaap de vries (2022-01-11 14:38:00+00:00): zie ook deze brief die deels in Rijn en Veluwe is gepubliceerd https://raad.renkum.nl/documenten/raadsbrieven/Raadsbrief-overdracht-landgoederen.pdf
Tilia_J (2022-01-11 15:34:29+00:00): Ja ik ben lokaal bekend (Arnhemmer)

Nee, ik heb geen survey rond de Hemelse Berg gedaan nadat de eigendomsoverdracht gedaan is.

Dat er gebieden aan GLK worden overgedragen brengt mee dat ze in een bestaande beheereenheid worden ondergebracht en dit kan tot gevolg hebben dat de geplaatste bordbenaming niet overeenkomt met de werkelijke geografische naam die - in tegenstelling tot de borden - wel weer door GLK op hun website en andere communicatie genoemd worden.

Het omgekeerde kun je ook terugvinden bij GLK, zij is dan ook niet consistent in de naamgeving op hun borden.

Ook wil GLK (net als Staatsbosbeheer) verdwenen borden tijdelijk vervangen door een algemeen bord (met enkel als naam de beheereenheid) omdat de specifieke gebiedsborden niet op voorraad zijn en bijbesteld moeten worden. En hier maken ze geen haast mee, wat voor hun telt zijn de juridische implicaties van bebording.

Ik laat het van de situatie ter plekke afhangen wat de keuze in naamgeving is op OSM.

Het is nog even wachten totdat GLK zijn website heeft bijgewerkt.
Tomas Straupis (2022-01-11 13:35:52+00:00): Laba diena
Trackingo informacijos (?utm_source=OSM&utm_medium=Utena&utm_campaign=store_id=72) galima ir nedėti, ją mes vis tiek nurankiosime.
user_5359 (2022-01-11 12:01:53+00:00): Willkommen bei OSM! Wenn Du schon gegen den Wegeplan protestieren willst, dann mach es bitte auch richtig: lösche auch das (dann) überflüssige abandoned:highway=path. Allerdings kann ich mich nicht erinnern, dass wir gegen den Wegeplan mappen.
Matthias Knauff (2022-01-11 12:37:51+00:00): Hallo,
ich kenne mich noch nicht so gut aus, werde mich aber bemühen. Das Attribut "abandoned:highway=path" habe ich nicht gesetzt und finde es auch nicht auf Anhieb. 
Zu den Wegen, diese werden täglich von Spaziergängern und Wanderern benutzt, somit bin ich der Ansicht das auch zu zu kennzeichnen.
user_5359 (2022-01-11 15:13:28+00:00): Hallo Matthias, ich habe mir direkt den ersten Weg in Deiner Änderungsliste angesehen (https://www.osm.org/way/940816556/history).  Ich habe Dich übrigens nur darauf hingewiesen, dass Du eine Widerspruch erzeugt und nicht dass Du diesen Schlüssel angelegt hast. Bitte beachte in Zukunft besonders die Schlüssel die den Begriff note beinhalten (siehe https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/DE:Key:note).
Caerandir (2022-01-11 19:38:15+00:00): Hallo auch von meiner Seite!
Die Wege an der Wolkenburg sind von verschiedenen OSM-Nutzern als "abandoned:highway=path" gekennzeichnet worden, was soviel heißt wie "Aufgegebener Pfad, wird nicht mehr gepflegt, ist in schlechtem Zustand" (Siehe auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned:). Für den Naturpark Siebengebirge gibt es einen Wegeplan, der festlegt, wo man Wandern, Radfahren und Reiten darf. Die Wege an der Wolkenburg sind nicht mehr erlaubt. Trotzdem gehen dort noch Leute spazieren, aber als ich vor Jahren zuletzt da war, waren die Wege wirklich schlecht, mit umgestürzten Bäumen drauf etc. Von daher finde ich "abandoned" gerechtfertigt. Bist Du da anderer Ansicht?
Polarbear-repair (2022-01-12 14:22:28+00:00): Hallo Matthias, 
der Fall wurde der DWG vorgetragen. 
Die access-Tags beschreiben die rechtliche Situation zur Nutzung eines Weges, nicht die physische Begehbarkeit. Selbst wenn ein Weg gegen ein Verbot benutzt wird, rechtfertigt das nicht, aus access=no ein yes zu machen. 
Auch wenn jemand bei Rot über die Ampel läuft, ändert die Handlung an der rechtlichen Gegebenheit nichts. 
 
Ich habe die Änderungen revertiert.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/116069130

Nebenbei wäre es hilfreich, wenn sich deine Änderungen nicht über halbe Bundesländer erstrecken und du die Quelle deiner Informationen angibst. 
 
Danke
Caerandir (2022-01-12 14:52:56+00:00): Hallo Polarbear,
Matthias hat aber nicht access von "no" nach "yes" geändert, sondern highway=path hinzugefügt, wo bisher abandoned:highway=path stand (und damit einen Widerspruch erzeugt). In sofern ist für mich die eigentliche Frage: ist der Weg noch begehbar/intakt, oder eigentlich schon verfallen? Das war auch das Ziel meiner Frage an Matthias. Denn wenn die Wege an der Wolkenburg de facto noch existieren, dann müssen sie meiner Ansicht nach auch als highway=path gemapped werden, eben mit access=no. Meines Wissens sind die Pfade nicht mehr in einem guten Zustand, deswegen scheint mir Matthias' Änderung falsch, aber seine meinung würde mich schon noch interessieren.
Caerandir (2022-01-12 15:04:38+00:00): Oh, sorry, nicht richtig hingeguckt -teilweise wurde doch no nach yes geändert - das ist tatsächlich falsch.
Polarbear-repair (2022-01-12 17:53:37+00:00): @Caerandir:
Das access no->yes war eigentlich die wesentliche Änderung, das reaktivierte 'path' der Einzelfall.
 
Die Naturschutzbehörden sind derzeit sehr sensibel bei falschen access-tags, da es im letzten Jahr einen Boom von OSM-basierten Outdoor-Apps gab. 
 
Zur Sachlage zum aktuellen Zustand stimme ich dir zu, das darf dann gern auch z.B. per mapillary dokumentiert werden.
julcnx (2022-01-14 06:30:27+00:00): Thank your for your contribution!

As a new mapper, please kindly refer to the Thailand wiki page for detailed guidelines and recommendations (e.g. imagery and road classifications)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Thailand

Especially please be aware that Bing imagery is often outdated and misaligned.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact the Thailand forum:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=46

How to choose a good changeset name:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116014096
willkmis (2022-01-12 01:06:11+00:00): Hi Jason, thanks for editing OSM. I noticed you're modeling intersections. Typically in OSM, intersections involving dual-carriageway roads are modeled as keeping the dual-carriageway through the intersection, rather than squeezing it to one segment at each intersection, even if the physical separation briefly disappears. This site has some helpful illustrations of typical practices https://labs.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/modeling-intersections-for-map-navigation/.

Best,
Will
Ahmed karay (2022-01-11 09:00:14+00:00): the best
GinaroZ (2022-01-27 23:58:55+00:00): You might want to use sidewalk=separate on these roads instead :)
Maxlefaffage (2022-01-28 12:17:19+00:00): Hi, the reason behind moving away from the tagging method for these footways is that mapping them separately to the carriageway allows routing engines to follow the footway and crossing points more accurately, and in particular so that wheelchair routing profiles can make use of mapped features such as lowered kerbs on crossings. 
Without this the route will simply follow roads rather than taking users to usable crossing points. If sidewalk tags are left in place at the same time as separate footway exists, then in certain circumstances the routing engine ignores the footway. 
e.g. maps.openrouteservice.org
GinaroZ (2022-01-28 21:09:15+00:00): Thanks but I was referring to the separate value, which can be used to indicate there is a sidewalk mapped separately as described here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk
Dimitar155 (2022-01-14 20:12:03+00:00): Здравей Ники,

Имената на улиците в България следва да се изписват без "ул." преди името им. Може да погледнеш https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bg:WikiProject_Bulgaria. Ако имаш някакви въпроси, оставам на разположение.

Поздрави,
Митко
habi (2022-01-11 09:55:47+00:00): Hallo 'Stadt Altstätten'

Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap, schön macht ihr hier mit!

Beachvolley-Felder sind in der Standard-Ansicht von OpenStreetMap (leider) immer grün eingefärbt, das kann nicht geändert werden.
Die Tags dazu sind aber aus meiner Sicht korrekt, also 'weiss' OSM auch, dass das ein BeachVolley-Feld ist :)

E Gruess us Bärn,
habi
user_5239402 (2022-01-11 11:35:36+00:00): trunk in korea : Divided highway without ramps.
Higher speeds. Few stop lights or stop signs.
user_5239402 (2022-01-11 11:36:04+00:00): In Korea, it is called a "national road" (a logo with numbers in a blue ellipse), but this tag should not be used on all national roads.
user_5239402 (2022-01-11 11:37:13+00:00): Is the national highway with the intersection trunk?