piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
GerdP (2015-10-26 18:33:18+00:00): Danke für die Rückmeldung.
Aus den Daten hätte ich nie auf diese Treppenanlage geschlossen, ist aber auch
wahrlich nicht trivial.
Ich würde gar nicht versuchen, dass so
im Detail zu erfassen, sondern einen Weg mit highway=steps, ungefähr da, wo jetzt 
way 345024524 ist, mit incline=*.
Die area als solche dann vielleicht noch als
landuse=residential, surface=concrete
Die Relation ist aus meiner Sicht überflüssig.
Ist der Zick-Zack-Weg wheelchair=yes ?
MichaH (2015-10-26 20:33:45+00:00): landuse=residential hat mit einer Treppenanlage aber nun wirklich nichts zu tun und ist damit komplett falsch!

Der zigzag Weg ist die stufenfreie Rampe, die im zigzag die Treppenanlage hoch führt. Also ja, was wäre ein wheelchair=yes.
GerdP (2015-10-27 08:13:28+00:00): Habe mal drüber geschlafen .
Ich habe bisher immer landuse=residential
als Synonym für so was wie innerstädtische
Bebauung verstanden, in diesem Sinne würde es schon passen, aber laut wiki ist doch eher eine grössere Fläche gemeint.
GerdP (2015-10-27 08:20:56+00:00): Was hälst Du von
place=locality
surface=concrete
name=Treppenanlage
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:place%3Dlocality
MichaH (2015-10-27 17:01:50+00:00): Sorry, aber nein. 
Das ist auch kein place=locality und"Treppenanlage" wäre auch nicht der Name von dieser "Lokalität".

Es ist nunmal ein highway=steps aber eben nicht eine lineare Treppe (mit konstanter Breite), sondern eine Treppenanlage über eine große, nicht rechtwinklige Fläche mit einer sich von unten nach oben verringernden Breite.
Erschwerend kommt noch dazu, dass eine stufenlose Rampe S-förmig (eigentlich Z-Förmig) über die ganze Breite der Treppenanlage führt.
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 13:16:55+00:00): We don't delete roads if they are private.  If they can viewed on the satellite imagery, they can be mapped.  I've restored both roads and appropriately tagged them to reflect that they are 'private'.
the CHURCH institute (2015-05-14 13:21:48+00:00): this seems counterintuative to road navigation - we have actually had truck drivers on this driveway
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 13:40:44+00:00): Well, I think that problem would be coming from people using Google Maps, not OSM.  Here in OSM, the road didn't connect to anything else.  Routers wouldn't put somebody on that if it wasn't the final destination.
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 13:42:02+00:00): If you look at Google Maps, you can clearly see that they have the road as a thru road. (See: https://goo.gl/maps/x8HbU ).  You should report a bug with them to get it fixed on their end.
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 13:43:22+00:00): Anyways, with the proper 'access' tags I applied to the road after restoring it, routing along it with software that uses OSM, there shouldn't be anymore problems with it.
the CHURCH institute (2015-05-14 13:51:40+00:00): hear you and yes, I have put in map requests with Google on these miss labeled features - with over a decade of GIS under my belt, I have seen past updates get purged with database update (GDT/ESRI) were notorious for it - regional based corrections have always been a better solution to capturing the nuances lost by current heads up digitizing
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 22:17:48+00:00): Don't get me started with Google and some of the idiots they have hired to approve/deny changes. Had so many fights with them it's crazy. Took over 2 months of fighting just to fix a simple interchange along PA-28 that had a small segment of 2-way road to access Rialto Street from the 31st Street Bridge after one of their mods changed it to one-way. They kept putting it back to one-way after I put it back to two-way, even though they had StreetView to verify it WAS two-way.. Shakes my head in disgust with them.  That's why OSM is way better in that aspect, I know it to be right since I've used it and didn't have to deal with people from India who don't know the roads here.  Too bad too many people don't use it yet for the data in their routers.
SomeoneElse (2015-05-15 14:28:54+00:00): It was a while since I was there, but I don't remember the Centralbron ever having a name in English...
uvi (2017-02-22 15:57:03+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/232217889
Handelt es sich hierbei um einen richigen Milchautomaten oder nur um eine Verkaufsstelle?
Kommen Waren aus dem Regal, ist m.E. zusätzlich shop=farm mit der description, welche Sachen es dort gibt, korrekt. Sobald ein Automat steht, sollte der doch so auch erscheinen und recherchierbar sein. Einige vertreten auch die Meinung, dass der Punkt mit shop=dairy ergänzt werden sollte. Ich denke, es empfiehlt sich folgendes Beispiel ganz gut: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4264211545 . 
Bist du ortskundig, kannst du dies ändern?
Gruß Uwe
Demido (2017-02-23 10:25:45+00:00): Es ist ein richtiger Milchautomat. Ein Liter kostet derzeit 0,90€, es werden nur ganze Liter ausgegeben.
Bin leider nicht eingearbeitet in das richtige Bearbeiten, vielleicht kannst Du das machen?
uvi (2017-02-23 12:51:28+00:00): Werde ich machen. Weißt du, ob auch Scheine oder nur Münzen genommen werden. Ich habe keine Erfahrung mit Automaten in Österreich, daher bleiben dann wohl einige Fragen offen. Gruß Uwe
Demido (2017-02-23 13:01:53+00:00): Fragen kann ich gerne beantworten. :)
Es werden nur Münzen angenommen und es gib kein Retourgeld.
uvi (2017-02-23 17:31:52+00:00): Danke, habe den Automaten eingetragen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4701857291
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 13:34:50+00:00): Just so you know, we don't use the 'highway=road' type unless nobody knows what type of road it is for sure.  I looked at it in Bing Imagery, and to me, looks like an 'unclassified' highway.  So, I've corrected it to that type of highway.
the CHURCH institute (2015-05-14 13:39:31+00:00): it is an unpaved roadway not even used by locals - dirt bikes and people dumping along the road are the primary travelers (again another roadway truckers get hung up on)
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 13:53:05+00:00): Tweaked the tagging some more on it in Changeset 31142299 after looking at Bing some more and your comment above.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31142299

This should fix any problems for any routers that use OSM data.
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 13:57:11+00:00): Just curious, but does this road really have a 5 MPH sign posted on it?
yaugenka (2017-01-08 12:15:21+00:00): На вики неверное название - вместо ё должно быть е, так как ударение на второй слог.
iWowik (2017-01-09 15:27:12+00:00): То, что не Ё могу согласится, но есть вот ударение на первом
yaugenka (2017-01-09 17:42:53+00:00): Похоже я не указал ссылку на объект, о котором идет речь. И уже сам не вспомню )).
yaugenka (2017-01-09 18:11:16+00:00): Вот об этом нп речь
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/243042297
yaugenka (2017-01-09 18:13:49+00:00): А вот у этого два варианта написания
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/243021189
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 14:03:36+00:00): Hate to say this, but this is clearly a 'highway=unclassified' road in OSM standards and not a 'highway=track'. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=unclassified

I've changed it to that and added in a missing bridge on it.
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 14:04:17+00:00): BTW, is it really posted @ 5 MPH?  Looks like most of it would be posted @ 25 MPH to be honest.
the CHURCH institute (2015-05-14 14:13:34+00:00): don't know if any speed is posted - simply know that travel is very slow and bumpy - it is a dirt covered road that acts more like an access way to the creek it borders - there are no structures on it except as you approach the very western end past the bridge - again not something that would be a navigational road
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 22:01:45+00:00): It may not be a 'navigational' road, but still, it's an unclassified road in the terms of OSM tagging.  Just have to add the appropriate tags to it like surface, width, and other similar tags.
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 22:04:18+00:00): As for the speed, please don't add incorrect speed limits into the database.  The 'maxspeed' tag is for the 'posted' speed limit, not what the user thinks it should be.  Heck, I know a road in Butler County that is posted @ 30 mph, but can't really go more than 15 mph in sections on it because of big holes in the gravel base, even though it's straight.
rickmastfan67 (2015-05-14 22:08:18+00:00): Anyways, I'm going to now remove the speed limit from the road.  ( page on maxspeed: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed )  Also, this proposal on how you tagged the road @ 5 MPH might be an interesting read, however, it was rejected: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Practical_maxspeed
the CHURCH institute (2015-05-14 23:31:29+00:00): understood - never saw a posted speed on that "road" but I get the rules, simply didn't feel it was practical application and if OSM was on it they would question it being a road - put it this way if a wagonpath was zero and an alleyway was a 10 - and Kiger which we updated earlier was a 4 this would be a 5
the CHURCH institute (2015-05-14 23:35:11+00:00): as for the voting - it read like a WIKI inclusionist vs exclusionist debate
Jojo4u (2016-08-29 21:30:30+00:00): Hallo BobSi, auf dem Kaiserstuhlweg hast du access=destination getaggt. Das Tag ist auf Straßen eigentlich immer falsch vgl. mal hier: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:access#H.C3.A4ufige_Fehler

LG Joachim
Gregory Peony (2025-04-03 02:33:44+00:00): Hi it looks like you've accidentally modified an admin boundary in this changeset. To avoid this you can filter out boundaries via the map features drop down in the map data panel of ID editor, or the filter window of JOSM. I've restored the geometry of the boundary in changeset 164444498. Please keep this feedback in mind when contributing in future.
Yorvik Prestigitator (2015-05-14 16:46:31+00:00): I would dispute that is an official sign from Yorkshire Housing, just someone being grumpy and as there is no indication that North Moor Gardens (southern section) is a Private Road then it would need an official sign to have any authority.
Even then the written cyclist dismount is only advisory unless there is a bicycle icon in a red circle sign.
SomeoneElse (2015-05-14 16:55:06+00:00): It did look like an official sign from Yorkshire Housing.  It wouldn't surprise me (given the history of the area - until surprisingly recently post-war prefabs) if it was a private road.
Yorvik Prestigitator (2015-05-14 17:05:46+00:00): Sorry, worded that badly, I was disputing Yorkshire Housing's right to create such a regulation, than whether it was genuinely their sign. But if you think it might be a private road then I guess they are allowed to be so anti-cyclist.
SomeoneElse (2015-05-15 08:17:23+00:00): ... and I suspect it'll also apply to the northern bit too (though I didn't get chance to look for a sign there).
Svalbard (2015-05-14 19:23:25+00:00): Hello Med,

are your fixes mechanical edits?
Med (2015-05-14 21:00:06+00:00): It depends what you would call mechanical. I am certainly not running a blind script. I get errors and fixes from osmose. I limit myself to trivial changes such as these ones. I also run the josm validation tool and I fix problems that appear to be reasonably easy to fix. I upload everything by hand in josm after all that. If you see any mistake, please let me know and revert if necessary. Thanks!
amapanda ᚛ᚐᚋᚐᚅᚇᚐ᚜ 🏳️‍⚧️ (2015-05-17 14:15:37+00:00): Is Aghanloo correct? ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5139679 ) It's tagged as a townland/admin_level=10, but it is quite large, and overlaps many other townlands. Is this, in reality, a Civil Parish?
Stereo (2015-05-14 22:43:53+00:00): My bad! Thank you!
naoliv (2015-05-22 13:07:00+00:00): Bernard, você colocou vários pontos sem nenhuma informação em algumas edições suas.
O que você quis representar?
tyr_asd (2015-05-15 20:48:04+00:00): hay. What was wrong with the previous tagging? Those are actual plazas/squares, so highway=* plus area=yes seems like proper tagging to me.
andygol (2015-05-16 15:32:41+00:00): @tyr_asd
for now (from http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:area)
 > Note: There is currently no clear agreement on how highway tag values other than pedestrian should be treated when also tagged with area=yes.

> Note: Most pedestrian routing algorithms do not currently route correctly across area features, tending to route around the edge.

Based on the above, I prefer tagging area as an "area: highway" to avoid these situations. 
More information about this is on the page - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/area:highway
tyr_asd (2015-05-18 06:14:10+00:00): I'm still not sure this is a good idea here. The wiki page you linked talks only about using this tagging in addition to one-dimensional streets, not squares and explicitly excludes/special-cases pedestrian areas from the tagging: “Pedestrian areas (for example squares and piazzas) should be formed using a closed-way around the perimeter and be tagged with highway=pedestrian and also area=yes.”
ukasiu (2015-06-09 14:54:22+00:00): place_of_worship na placu budowy?
DiahW IRM-ED (2022-12-07 08:14:13+00:00): Hi, wwwFrank.

Thanks for your mapping contribution. I see a change in the road segment based on the latest Maxar imagery. 

https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/341152822

I'm not sure to modify the road segment because I've only seen the change in the road segment from the satellite imagery. Could you please modify the road segment? Thank you.


Kind Regards,
Diah
wwwFrank (2022-12-07 10:31:50+00:00): Hallo Diah,
sorry, I'm far away in Europe/Germany.
I edited the road 7 years ago only based on sattelite images from that time, possibly taken before the earthquake.
This happens as part of a HOT-projekt https://tasks.hotosm.org/projects/1018.
If the road was destroyed und rebuild and new sattelite images ar available, then feel free to modify the road as it is today.
I don't know where I can find this images and I dont know the lokal mapping rules.

Frank
DiahW IRM-ED (2022-12-08 01:57:17+00:00): Thanks for the confirmation Frank, I'll ask the local mapper. Thank you

Kind Regards,
Diah
russdeffner (2015-05-17 20:01:00+00:00): Hi James, this should not be tagged as a building; it appears to be a commercial or industrial site with several building within.  I will fix it up, but refer to the wiki for tagging information (wiki.openstreetmap.org)
Larry0ua (2015-06-16 20:39:28+00:00): У цьому наборі змін до будинку https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/197033452 було додано теги зупинки громадського транспорту. Будь-ласка, перевірте, можливо, ви мали на увазі зупинку поряд з будинком. Якщо зупинка там є, її потрібно включити в маршрути транспорту, бажано також назвати її і намалювати відповідну зупинку на оберненому маршруті
trigpoint (2015-05-16 09:19:52+00:00): Hi Tracy, welcome to OSM and thank you for your contribution.
One minor problem when adding footpaths is that you have not joined them to the roads. This is a common mistake, the path does need to join the road otherwise no router will use it. Bear in mind that the line is the centre of the road. If you could join these it would be appreciated and keep adding the useful stuff.
Thanks Phil
TracyLboro (2015-05-17 15:09:10+00:00): Thanks Phil




But how do I do that?




Tracy
naoliv (2015-05-15 04:34:49+00:00): rprenhol, não é correto ficar realinhando objetos quando há mudanças na camada de imagem.
Toda vez que há atualização das imagens de satélite ocorre um pequeno deslocamento (já que nunca está corretamente georeferenciada).
Note que muita coisa ao redor também se encontra deslocada.
Quando encontrar objetos deslocados (principalmente quando muita coisa em uma área aparenta estar deslocada), o correto é deslocar a imagem de fundo, e não os objetos.
rprenhol (2015-05-15 11:01:21+00:00): Obrigado, naoliv!
Não conhecia esse recurso de alinhamento da foto. Isso se faz muito necessário quando tem detalhes pequenos na edição muito próximos uns aos outros.
;-)
mathieuS (2015-05-23 11:36:17+00:00): La modification que vous avez apportée aux numéros d'un bâtiment (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150067371) est erronée. En effet, vous avez spécifié un intervalle allant de 129 à 135, y incluant de facto les numéros pairs 130, 132 et 134 qui n'ont rien à y faire.
La manière de faire que j'avais choisie, à savoir spécifier un par un tous les numéros, était plus judicieuse dans le cas précis. Alternativement, vous auriez pu ajouter un nœud par porte d'entrée. Lisez cet article du wiki : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Buildings_with_multiple_house_numbers
De manière générale, vous n'êtes sensé modifier ce qu'a fait un autre mappeur que si vous ajoutez ou corrigez des détails, ce qui en l'occurrence n'est clairement pas le cas.
Nakaner (2015-07-18 10:05:35+00:00): Bitte schalte deine Validationsregeln in JOSM ein. Du hast ungültige Multipolygone hochgeladen! http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=multipolygon&lon=12.38142&lat=51.34305&zoom=18&overlays=invalid_geometry_hull,duplicate_ways,intersections,intersection_lines,ring_not_closed_hull,ring_not_closed,unconnected_end_nodes,role_mismatch_hull,role_mismatch,duplicate_tags_hull,duplicate_tags
Nakaner (2015-07-18 10:07:33+00:00): Ursache Nr. 1: Inner-Ring und Outer-Ring berührten sich an diesem Node: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3042208565
JochenB (2015-07-22 19:54:42+00:00): Hallo Nakaner, 

das Multipoligon Gerberstraße hat eine nicht konvexe Hülle, hat also eine Einbuchtung. Warum das ein Fehler ist, verstehe ich nicht. 

Der andere Hinweis bezieht sich darauf, dass die inneren Ringe die äußeren berühren. Dass das ein Problem ist wusste ich nicht und kann mich auch nicht entsinnen, dass der Validator gemeckert hat. Aber mitunter übersieht Mensch auch etwas. Wollte die Relation gerade anpassen, da hat es ein anderer schon getan.
Grüße,
Jochen
Nakaner (2015-07-25 12:48:42+00:00): Ich habe nach dem Entdecken des Fehlers in der Leipziger Innenstadt die Straßenflächen-Multipolygonen in kleinere Stücke aufgeteilt und area:highway=yes durch area:highway=residential/tertiary/… ersetzt.
Mateusz Konieczny (2022-07-24 07:09:24+00:00): Zerkniesz na https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3280534
Robert Whittaker (2015-05-15 12:13:38+00:00): Am I right in thinking that one of the actions in this changeset was to merge two post box nodes http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/343522465/history and http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/343522467/history ?

If these two nodes mapped two physically separate boxes (presumably a meter box and a type C double pillar), then they would be better mapped as two distinct nodes as they were before. Can these changes be undone?
buchmark (2015-05-15 02:20:06+00:00): Bridge repaired and reopened.
GerdP (2015-10-12 14:57:30+00:00): please review:
way 198553702 now has the invalid tag
highway=unclassified;track
I think it changes at node 2086756742,
maybe also the maxspeed value changes
here?
Scare! (2015-10-12 15:32:58+00:00): Road changes type there, fixed.  Speed limit for both is default "rural".
GerdP (2015-10-12 15:43:13+00:00): thanks, did you also check the lanes value?
mavl (2015-05-15 18:25:31+00:00): Да. Для территорий автовокзалов у нас нет ничего подходящего.
Ну, давайте пока обозначим так:
barrier=fence (забор)
landuse=commercial (коммерческая территория).
Тег area=yes уберём.
Если есть желание, можно уточнить тип забора: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:fence_type
Владимир К (2019-01-24 11:53:53+00:00): Добрый день!
я увидел, вы сделали два отношения destination_sign  на вьезд и выезд из Пряжи. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5141718
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5141717
Но на панорамах знаков возле этого перекрестка не видно. Знаки действительно существуют, или вы добавили отношения просто чтобы указать направления?
Транквилитатор (2019-01-24 12:30:05+00:00): Указателей там нет,
Мог ошибиться в тегах
скорее всего хотел отобразить то, что на том повороте въезд разрешен только при движении от С-Пб.
Выезд из поселка - только направо
Владимир К (2019-01-24 14:03:16+00:00): да, эти отношения должны быть только там, где стоят указатели в реальности. 
Удалю и расставлю необходимые запреты поворотов. Спасибо.
Владимир К (2019-01-24 14:20:52+00:00): Опять возник вопрос. судя по панорамам разметка не запрещает поворот налево на пряжу при движении со стороны петрозаводска.
Транквилитатор (2019-01-25 05:00:47+00:00): Вам спасибо
Это старые панорамы, как в яндексе, так и в гугле
Почему отредактировал - поскольку сам там езжу регулярно и навигатор пытается меня тутда увести, хотя сейчас висит знак запрета поворота налево. При выезде - только направо.
Это сделали недавно, потому и нет на панорамах
Владимир К (2019-01-25 06:10:10+00:00): Понял, сделал запреты, проверьте
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66621849
Транквилитатор (2019-01-25 07:12:07+00:00): Все ок, спасибо
PlaneMad (2016-04-14 09:04:34+00:00): Great work on mapping Shirur Anantpal. I have made some tag fixes in the area for villages, please check if it looks ok.
literan (2015-05-15 11:15:08+00:00): Нагороный? или все же Нагорный?
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-05-15 12:24:05+00:00): A ulica jaka? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/197201514
tassman (2015-05-15 12:49:02+00:00): Poprawiłem
freeExec (2015-05-15 09:28:33+00:00): Доски лучше так отметить http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landmark=memorial%20plaque?uselang=ru
bekreyev (2015-05-15 09:32:00+00:00): поправил, а что ещё можно добавить? фото:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-LNY0vRAI2G0/VVWdIiR98uI/AAAAAAAAhWs/ObrhJWtt6a4/w477-h847-no/ingress_20150515_083019_0.png
freeExec (2015-05-15 09:35:17+00:00): Во, вспомнил http://shtosm.ru/2013/02/12/2/
Stemby (2017-02-03 20:56:49+00:00): Come mai il cambio nome? Non si tratta di questo? http://www.monterossogroup.com/contatti.html
Esiste anche questo, ma non c'entra niente (almeno apparentemente): http://www.desogusscavi.com/dove-siamo.html
Herbert167 (2017-12-25 12:41:53+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29971071
Ist die Parkzeit von „2“ (Minuten), da Grundwert von maxstay:conditional ^= Minute, nicht etwas kurz? Müsste es nicht „2 hour“ heißen?
Herbert167 (2017-12-25 12:47:30+00:00): sry, der Link ist falsch, es war way/299710776 und angrenzende gemeint
z∈ℂ (2017-12-25 23:12:14+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, das müssen natürlich “2 hours” sein. Da der Tag weiterhin gültig ist, wurde dies von mir korrigiert. Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/54917595
GerdP (2015-10-24 07:36:38+00:00): Bitte prüfen:
was bedeutet 
highway=area,access=no
an way 79635540 ?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/79635540
okilimu (2015-10-24 08:26:34+00:00): da wurde ein früher von mir vorhandenes highway=pedestrian entfernt, weil das jetzt abgesperrt ist (Baustelle). area kommt wg. des vorhandenseins der Flächen aus einer Datenspende her
okilimu (2015-10-24 08:27:00+00:00): P.S.: ich habe eben das highway=pedestrian wieder ergänzt
GerdP (2015-10-24 08:33:28+00:00): danke
HoldBike (2015-05-15 08:08:39+00:00): Wrong hashtag, sorry
chnav (2015-05-17 06:05:43+00:00): Так не делается - вы удалили тщательно нарисованные корпуса, а нарисовали типовую коробку.
Ничего не удаляйте пока не появится опыт.
Восстановил обратно.
chnav (2015-05-17 05:59:20+00:00): исправлено:
проезды во дворах помечаются highway=service
BeKri (2015-05-15 12:00:33+00:00): Servus,
gibt es ev. noch einen Web-Link ?
Schaust Du Dir den Tag 
opening-hours noch mal an ;-))
zimba (2015-05-15 13:05:09+00:00): Wozu das ref=, wenn der wert ident mit den name= ist?
emergency99 (2015-05-15 14:07:32+00:00): Die Namen der "Haltepositionen" werden irgendwie nur auf der Karte angezeigt, wenn sie im Ref stehen. Der Name selbst wird nicht angezeigt. Der eigentliche Name wird nur bei "Bushaltestellen" angezeigt. Und da auch nur, wenn eine Linie mit der Station assoziiert ist. Ich dachte halt, bevor der Name überhaupt nicht aufscheint besser Doppelt... Sobald die Änderungen Sichtbar sind werde ich noch mal schauen, und unnötige (doppelte) Namen/Refs löschen...