piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
iriman (2021-02-24 15:07:49+00:00): سلام. دوربرگردانی که شما حذف کردید رو دیروز یک کاربر دیگه رسم کرده بود. و منبعش رو زده گزارش کاربران یکی از مسیریاب‌ها. به نظر میرسه به خاطر عملیات عمرانی در میدان مقاومت (برای احداث زیرگذر) این راه اضافه شده باشه البته من تازگی از اینجا رد نشدم و اطلاع دقیق ندارم. شما فقط طبق تصاویر ماهواره‌ای پاکش کردین یا اطلاعات بیشتری دارید؟ اگه طبق تصاویر ماهواره‌ای هست به نظر بهتره دوربرگردون رو دوباره رسم کنیم.
با تشکر از شما
SekeRob (2021-02-23 17:21:25+00:00): Something I've been doing the last few weeks, destinations tagging (love it showing in Mapfactor Navigator),  except where lanes are involved. Leading by example, now I know how to add destinations to lanes (effectively the same as directions on lanes). If you have a tip or pointer how to do this on 1 lane and multilane roundabout well appreciated. Live examples far exceed in value to the often in, to me, franglish written wikis.
ciao
mueschel (2021-02-23 17:32:54+00:00): Hi,
this scheme helps to remember the order of parts of the key:
destination
[:hgv|:bicycle|...]
[:subkey]
[:lanes]
[:forward|:backward|:both_ways]

To test tagging, I can only point you to my own tool:
http://osm.mueschelsoft.de/destinations/example/index.htm#wayid=19729792&direction=0&country=FR

Or, to try it without uploading:
https://osm.mueschelsoft.de/destinations/example/sandbox.htm

For a 1 lane road, just remove the :lanes and the separation by |.
SekeRob (2021-02-23 18:17:20+00:00): Thx, I give your tool a swirl in the near future. As said the destination signs in navigators are brilliant. You woosh by a sign or the view is obstructed by a brumi in the right lane and miss it, the display giving assurance you're still on the right track and honestly, cant say I've seen it being used in Italy by any mapper (probably because my antenna was not tuned in).
cheers.
Kevin Kofler (2021-03-02 14:56:33+00:00): Wie kann es sein, daß du ein- und denselben Kindergarten innerhalb von nur 4 Monaten als "Leukental Kindergarten", "Kindergarten Leukental", "Kindergarten Kitzbüheler Alpen", "Edmund Angerer Kindergarten" und "KIM" (also 5 verschiedene Namen!) benennst, während ihn User Sainihåns (bist das auch du?) zuerst als "Kinderzentrum Innsbruckerstraße" und dann als "Kinderzentrum KIM" bezeichnet? Wie kann ein einziger Kindergarten innerhalb von nur 4 Monaten 7 verschiedene Namen haben? Wieviele Edits braucht es noch, bis wir wissen, wie der jetzt wirklich heißt?
user_7581226 (2021-03-03 08:08:14+00:00): Hallo Kevin,
ist nicht mehr meine Angelegenheit... wie ich gehört habe, hat es hierzu über 700 unterschiedliche Namensvorschläge gegeben. Da ist OpenStreetMap ja noch glimpflich davongekommen.
Grüße
Cristoffs (2021-03-27 16:19:16+00:00): Cześć! Proszę opisuj zwoje zmiany trochę lepiej ...
rskedgell (2021-02-23 19:35:49+00:00): It may be worth keeping the building=yes tag, as it remains a building whether or not it contains a branch of Tesco.
WalthamCity (2021-02-23 19:52:03+00:00): You are absolutely right! Added back. :-)
user_5359 (2021-12-27 10:32:38+00:00): Hello, hoping you are still reading the information email on this comment: What is the meaning of the tag yes=bing? I guess you have mixed up building=yes and source=bing, but unfortunately there are also deviations from the aerial image.
ivanbranco (2021-02-24 16:49:16+00:00): Hi Amr@Gis,

you used many invalid tags in this node: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6790616649/history

For example 95=Meters, Away=From, Mosque=About ecc.
Amr@Gis (2021-02-25 19:03:39+00:00): Hi ivanbranco
Thank you for your comment, it uploaded by mistake, sorry for that  And I corrected it
trigpoint (2021-03-11 13:01:02+00:00): Hi, please be careful when removing closed businesses that you do not throw away still valid tags.

It is better to update as for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1097110333/history tags such as the address information will be valuable to mappers when it becomes something else. It is also nice to keep lifecycle history of what was there previously.

Cheers Phil
EPea (2021-03-11 13:55:02+00:00): Hi, I confess I don't know how to do that and didn't know it was necessary. I thought it was just supposed to show what is there now
alesarrett (2021-03-09 10:49:58+00:00): Ciao, da dove hai derivato il nome "Parco Commerciale di Rubano"?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99839633
alessandrocarmeli (2021-03-09 18:16:06+00:00): Ciao, lo ho sentito nominare in un video di un noto ragazzo che fa video su YT nella quale parlava di un raduno a questo "Parco commerciale di Rubano" ed usava il loco come ritrovo per un raduno motociclistico, ma forse sarebbe meglio mettere un loc_name?
alesarrett (2021-03-10 04:27:43+00:00): Mi pare di capire che tu non sia del luogo, giusto? Onestamente mi giunge del tutto nuovo. Se hai un riferimento per favore condividilo per poterlo verificare, altrimenti direi di cancellarlo.
alessandrocarmeli (2021-03-10 20:04:12+00:00): Certamente, capisco e rimedio ora
felipeeugenio (2021-02-23 16:32:35+00:00): Estimado. la información que agrega no corresponde a casas de hospedaje. parece ser información privada. Por favor no hacer eso.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99839704
xronos (2021-02-24 17:03:48+00:00): поясните, пожалуста, вашу мысль, будте любезны
xronos (2021-02-24 17:08:56+00:00): смотрите, я вам уже писал по этому поводу:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83420726
xronos (2021-02-24 17:16:29+00:00): я восставновил удаленные теги, поскольку сомневаюсь что получу комментарии от вас
SekeRob (2021-02-23 18:46:59+00:00): A courtyard https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/courtyard , an area 'fully' enclosed by buildings at the horizon line. "A courtyard is an area open to the sky and horizontally (completely or to the most part) enclosed by buildings."  Don't think the one you tagged so is one.
damianeue (2021-02-23 19:12:13+00:00): ok, deleted
SekeRob (2021-02-24 16:00:42+00:00): Please please don't touch any roundabout you claim to be fixing and then break because you don't see the wider implications. You cant just go merging segmented junctions. It was done for a reason. Took 24 hours for the first domino to fall "Roundabout shortcut
way 850117502 josm iD edit". The same bus route circled the junction twice and the other not at all, that cant have been the plan. Should be fine now, but unless QA spits out a report, resist the urge.
TIA
jleedev (2021-02-26 13:37:23+00:00): The OSM 'place' key generally goes by population, so given 3185 for Wesleyville and 3813 for Lawrence Park it would be reasonable to tag them both as place=village or both as place=town. The borough/township distinction isn't relevant. See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dtown#place.3Dtown_vs._other_settlements
kylebakerpa05 (2021-03-01 14:00:12+00:00): Alright thank you.
gileri (2021-02-23 19:42:50+00:00): Bonjour TitiABCD,

J'avais changé ces tags car un transformateur car vu la position et la taille du bâtiment c'est surement une sous-station et pas des transformateurs plus grande échelle.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:power%3Dtransformer

vs

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:substation%3Dminor_distribution
TitiABCD (2021-02-23 19:55:54+00:00): Justement, en regardant les exemple, ça me semblait plus correspondre à transformateur de distribution. Ça doit faire passer de la haute tension vers de la basse tension qui alimente les 3 entrées de l'immeuble.
J'en en ajouté plusieurs comme ça, donc si c'est pas bon, j'irai corrigé
gileri (2021-02-23 21:02:35+00:00): Oui c'est le rôle d'une sous-station :)

Je suppose que ça ressemble plus à ça :

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Service_building.png

qu'à ça :

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Power_transformer_transmission1.jpg
gileri (2021-02-23 21:03:55+00:00): Description de substation = minor_distribution :

A small substation at the lowest level of transforming in the distribution grid. This kind of substation directly supplies households and small businesses with low voltage power.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:substation%3Dminor_distribution
TitiABCD (2021-02-24 09:09:56+00:00): alors c'est que la définition est pas très claire, dans la partie transformateur, j'ai ça : "Un transformateur de distribution (distribution transformer) transfère directement l'électricité du réseau de distribution chez les consommateurs. Le voltage de sortie est celui utilisé par la grille locale (par exemple 400/230 volts en Europe ou 240/120 volts aux États-Unis)." mais du coup, ça correspondrait plutôt à des grosses entreprises ?
gileri (2021-02-24 11:26:01+00:00): Je comprends le wiki comme ça : on peut cartographier les transformateurs eux-mêmes et/ou les sous-stations.

Une sous-station comprends un ou plusieurs transformateurs. Le bâtiment (souvent préfabriqué) en question est une sous-station, je pense pas que le transfo ici fasse cette taille. D'ailleurs il n'est pas recommandé sur le wiki de cartographier les transfos en zones, et c'est incompatible avec building :

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:transformer%3Ddistribution

Les transfos peuvent être seuls sur un poteau, comme aux états-unis, dans ce cas il n'y a pas de sous-station et juste un transfo.
slgidley (2021-04-07 17:51:32+00:00): This change set should be reversed. There is no evidence these roads exist or construction is occurring. NAIP imagery show forested areas and open fields. Most current NC imagery shows same. No sources given.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2021-04-17 11:06:04+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 103098305 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some dubious edits that have been marked as such in the USA - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/4832 and http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=12713263 .
felipeeugenio (2021-02-23 20:27:33+00:00): Bien. Ahí si
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/99841970
Filip009 (2022-04-17 09:53:27+00:00): Dobrý deň, ďalší popis, ktorý by som potreboval vysvetliť prečo je zasa v name. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/722402396
Mirecnet (2022-04-17 13:13:13+00:00): Rizna je stary spust dreva - dnes uz skor Trhlina-Maly rez v reliefe vytvoreny vodnou eroziou > natural=gully
eggie (2021-02-23 16:54:29+00:00): Dag welout..
Tip
Bij het speeltuintje ontbreekt leisure=playground
historic=monument
name=Vleermuizenhotel

Wat bedoel je precies?
Een historic=monument is o.a. een graftombe/gebouw  Zoiets als de TajMahal?
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-02-23 16:59:13+00:00): Tip In Go Map kun je ook PDOK actueel op de achtergrons zetten. BING is gedateerd en ligt op veel plaatsen meters verschoven.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-02-23 17:08:47+00:00): Wanneer je pdok op de achtergrond zet zul je zien dat je alles beter op de juiste plek kunt krijgen.
Een vleermuishotel kun je taggen met 
building=yes
building:type=bat_dormatory

MVG
eggie
eggie (2021-02-23 20:04:15+00:00): -Historic=monument verwijderd (graftombe)  en omgetagd naar bat_dormatory
-leisure playground toegevoegd op vlak.
highway=service verbonden met Larinkmars. Zat niet vast. 
Gebouwen Erve Vechtdal aangepast conform BAG (kadaster)

MVG
eggie
welout (2021-02-24 17:19:36+00:00): Check, zie nu al je berichten. Bedankt voor alle tips en meedenken. Ik zal mij er verder in verdiepen en aanpassen waar (nog) nodig!

Gr
Wel
eggie (2021-02-24 17:22:17+00:00): Prima Wel,

Laat je niet weerhouden door wat kritiek.

MVG
eggie
Jakka (2021-02-24 10:02:17+00:00): Beste,
Een aantal van deze wegen staan reeds jaren op de kaart. Ze lijken minstens deels op basis van terreinbezoek te zijn ingetekend. Ben je zeker dat op terrein goed aangeduid staat wat de toegangsbeperkingen zijn?

We willen alvast duidelijk meegeven dat we niet zomaar wegen op de kaart kunnen wissen omdat die privaat zijn. Wat we wel kunnen doen is deze weg markeren als privaat.

Waarom? Er zijn verschillende redenen:
- Door ze correct aan te duiden als niet-toegankelijke weg kunnen we het duidelijkste aangeven dat je ze niet mag gebruiken. Als de weg er niet meer is, kunnen we ook niet zeggen dat die niet toegankelijk is.
- Als we de weg verwijderen, kan er misschien later een andere mapper komen en de weg opnieuw intekenen op basis van satellietbeelden. Dan zijn we terug naar af.
- Onze kaarten worden ook gebruikt door orde- en hulpdiensten. Een weg die niet toegankelijk is voor wandelaars, kan dat wel zijn voor een ambulance.

Dus, om ervoor te zorgen dat het kaartmateriaal het minst hinder veroorzaakt voor u, draaien we je verwijdering terug en zullen we deze wegen als privaat markeren. Kan je eventueel extra duiding geven dat deze wegen effectief niet toegankelijk zijn?

Normaal gezien zullen routeplanners wandelaars en fietsers niet meer langs deze weg sturen.

Let wel, OpenStreetMap is eigenlijk slechts een gegevensbron. Het zijn de verschillende producenten, apps en websites, zoals Garmin, RouteYou en Strava die onze gegevens downloaden en gebruiken in hun eindproducten. Daarom is het mee de verantwoordelijkheid van deze producenten en website om up to date kaartmateriaal aan hun gebruikers door te geven. Concreet wil dat zeggen dat het enkele dagen, weken, maanden,... kan duren voor iedereen de nieuwe gegevens gebruikt.

De meeste kaarten gebaseerd op OpenStreetMap tonen duidelijk of wegen toegankelijk zijn of niet. Dat is echter niet altijd het geval. Hoewel we als mapper vooral bezig zijn met de kwaliteit van de data dan met de kwaliteit van de vele toepassingen die onze data gebruiken, zijn we wel initiatieven aan het nemen om zoveel mogelijk apps deze info duidelijk te laten visualiseren.

Als je hier nog vragen bij hebt, kan je gerust contact opnemen met community (at) osm.be

Met vriendelijke groet,

OpenStreetMap Belgium
dieterdreist (2022-08-31 10:49:32+00:00): Ciao Ivan, ho notato che hai aggiunto "brand:wikipedia" con valore "en:Lidl" al Lidl di Ovada, ma non mi risulta tratti di questo Lidl, perché l'articolo tratta di "Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG". Ha veramente senso aggiungere un riferimento del brand a wikipedia (oltre ai 2 tag già esistenti, "brand" e "brand:wikidata")? Dove c'è il limite (quando un brand è lo stesso e quando no, se ci sono leggere differenze)?

Saluti,
Martin
ivanbranco (2022-08-31 11:02:42+00:00): Ciao Martin, non ho capito. Anche il Wikidata lo chiama "Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG". nel value di P1448. In tutto il database vengono ripetuti i tag wikidata e wikipedia, es. Ovada stessa è "wikidata=Q17629+wikipedia=it:Ovada"
dieterdreist (2022-08-31 15:10:10+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256020379
l‘operator è Lidl Italia s.r.l. a socio unico
L’ho verificato. Forse la GmbH & Co. KG è quel „socio unico“?
dieterdreist (2022-08-31 15:20:25+00:00): Scusa, non è GmbH, è „Stiftung & Co. KG“, mi sembra che controllino completamente la Srl., quindi a posto. Sarebbe forse meglio linkare a it:Lidl perché menzionano la Lidl Srl.
dieterdreist (2022-08-31 15:24:17+00:00): in realtà, mentre per l’oggetto penso potrebbe avere senso linkare (o no, secondo la situazione) wikipedia e wikidata, per le proprietà come “brand” mi basterebbero 2, “brand” e “brand:wikidata”
OSM_RogerWilco (2021-03-04 17:41:59+00:00): Hallo letumb,

ich habe die Geh- und Radwege in Klecken angepasst und den von Dir als separate Linie gemappten Fußweg zwischen Friedhof und Dorfplatz Klecken gelöscht. Gehwege als separate Linie sind schon etwas aufwändiger, da man alle Verbindungen zur Straße, anderen Wegen, Zufahrten und Ampel sorgfältig herstellen muss. Ansonsten macht man das Routung kaputt. Außerdem war der Gehweg teilweise schon mit sidewalk-Tags an der Straße erfasst. Darauf muss man auch achten und mit anpassen. Ist wie gesagt etwas komplizierter. Du kannst Dir das mal ansehen, wie ich das angepasst habe.

Hier gibt es weitere Infos:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Gehsteig

Gruß Roger Wilco
Arma IRM-ED (2021-07-01 16:14:41+00:00): Hola NicoVargas
Espero que lo estés pasando bien

Descubrí que sus ediciones se cruzan entre sí (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/910086550 y https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/910086533). ¡Por favor échale un vistazo! ¿Te importaría arreglarlo? ¿O tiene alguna sugerencia sobre qué debo hacer? Porque no pude encontrar ninguna fuente válida para solucionarlo. Gracias

Mapeo feliz

*traducido por Google
NicoVargas (2021-07-02 06:16:54+00:00): Se trataba de un sendero que atravesaba un cuerpo de agua. Se ha realizado el ajuste. Gracias por reportarlo.
Stratula (2021-02-23 18:59:10+00:00): Здравствуйте. Старайтесь, пожалуйста, избегать правок, которые охватывают половину всей Земли.
ZLima12 (2025-10-21 20:13:10+00:00): Hello,

I recognize that this change happened a long time ago, but please do not set refs like "IL 48" in the name tag.
Kovoschiz (2021-02-23 19:44:25+00:00): They were changed to a walking area already. I haven't had time to re-draw them yet.
Kovoschiz (2021-02-23 19:48:33+00:00): I suppose iD may not show `highway=footway` + `area=yes` clearly.
SomeoneElse (2021-02-23 20:34:14+00:00): Hello,
You appear to have created this account just to make this one political edit.  Please don't do that.
The current mapping in this area is the result of a community discussion, which resulted in https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=606038#p606038 . If you think that the current mapping is incorrect then please do discuss with the rest of the OSM community - at the moment, the main talk list https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk is probably the best place to do that.
Best Regards,
Andy Townsend, on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.
Carnildo (2021-02-24 06:55:00+00:00): Some renderers treat anything with a layer of less than 0 as being underground.  If you've got a situation where two above-ground objects intersect (such as a service road running under a gas-station canopy), it's better to raise the canopy than to lower the road.
deven_smith_ (2021-02-25 22:30:10+00:00): Noted, thanks for the tip
Cristoffs (2021-02-23 23:09:26+00:00): Proszę zaprzestań błędnego oznaczania  dróg. To co robisz to wandalizm.
Allison P (2021-02-23 18:50:02+00:00): Please respond to the changeset comment here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/99797891
--Alex (2021-02-23 19:51:13+00:00): Hi Victor. Thanks for fixing. Could you please, in a few words, explain what I did wrong exactly so I don't map incorrectly again?
Was it about having only one point on the 2 roads crossing?
VictorIE (2021-02-23 21:11:08+00:00): There's no 'wrong way' to do things, just certain things that make things complicated and ambiguous. One thing is that we are mapping using lines (ways) of objects that have areas.

The piece of footway on the traffic island and the roadway were one on top of the other on Templeogue Road and Templeville Road, so I just moved a single node on each.

If you take a look at this junction https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.32173/-6.26628 each traffic island and flow of traffic is given it's own way, which is probably over-mapping the junction.
--Alex (2021-02-24 08:56:55+00:00): Got it, thanks ;-)
ftrebien (2021-02-24 17:05:00+00:00): Algumas alças de acesso têm só um meio-acostamento, outras nem isso. Podemos realmente dar esse salto lógico? CTB art. 244 "§ 1º Para ciclos aplica-se o disposto nos incisos III, VII e VIII, além de:" ... "b) transitar em vias de trânsito rápido ou rodovias, salvo onde houver acostamento ou faixas de rolamento próprias" ... "§ 2º Infração - média" Google e Here consideram proibido o acesso de ciclistas à Rodovia do Parque.
rkdaudt (2021-02-24 19:14:50+00:00): Olá!

De acordo com o "Art. 58. Nas vias urbanas e nas rurais de pista dupla, a circulação de bicicletas deverá ocorrer, quando não houver ciclovia, ciclofaixa, ou acostamento, ou quando não for possível a utilização destes, nos bordos da pista de rolamento, no mesmo sentido de circulação regulamentado para a via, com preferência sobre os veículos automotores." Seiq que há outros artigos que deixam margem para dúvidas, no entanto a PRF não considera infração o trânsito de ciclistas nas rodovias (salvo em casos excepcionais), pois tem como base o artigo supracitado.

As alças da Rodovia do Parque possuem meio acostamento, o que para um ciclista é mais do que suficiente. Além disso, a Rodovia do Parque oferece acostamento generoso em toda a sua extensão, inclusive na ponte sobre o Rio Gravataí e o trânsito de ciclistas ali é corriqueiro.

Além disso, percebi que o OSM possui restrições muito pontuais para bicicletas (a BR-386, por exemplo, é infinitamente menos segura para um ciclista do que a Rodovia do Parque e não possui nenhuma restrição no mapa), mas que no entanto acabam por inviabilizar muitas das ferramentas de rotas (Strava, etc.) que utilizam o OSM como base. A própria BR-290, no sentido do litoral, também está com essa restrição, que não representa a realidade da rodovia (que recebe ciclistas, sozinhos ou em grupo, há anos, passando constantemente em frente aos postos das PRF sem caracterizar infração alguma).

Acredito que pelo bem dos ciclistas (e de suas ferramentas que têm como base o OSM) podemos dar esse salto lógico sim.

Saudações!
ftrebien (2021-02-24 20:55:30+00:00): A BR-290 tem placas proibindo o acesso dos ciclistas em várias entradas.
rkdaudt (2021-02-24 21:10:05+00:00): Antes de efetuar estas alterações, eu li os artigos sobre isso e por fim, conversei com um patrulheiro, que me confirmou que a PRF não considera isso infração (desde que trafegando no acostamento, ou na ausência deste, junto ao bordo da pista e sempre no sentido do fluxo da rodovia). Acredito que as placas, certamente colocadas pelas concessionárias, estão em desacordo com o CTB.
ftrebien (2021-02-24 21:28:02+00:00): Talvez, mas se há placas proibindo na Freeway, deve ser bicycle=no no OSM. Não podemos induzir as pessoas a infringir a lei. Pela mesma razão, mapeamos oneway=* para que os motoristas não sejam induzidos a dirigir na contramão, colocamos highway=pedestrian em ruas onde os carros não são permitidos, colocamos foot=no em túneis onde não há calçada pros pedestres, etc.
rkdaudt (2021-02-24 22:01:04+00:00): Entendo. Na Rodovia do Parque, no sentido de quem sai de Porto Alegre não visualizei nenhuma placa (e estava restrito no OSM). Não vejo nenhuma forma de indução à infração, até porque, conforme mencionei, é permitido trafegar nas rodovias (cabe à concessionária explicar a placa neste caso). Esta restrição no mapa acaba com os mecanismos automáticos de rota e gera transtorno pra quem anda de bicicleta. A alteração que fiz neste pequeno setor certamente só estará disponível daqui um ou dois meses nestes mecanismos. De qualquer maneira, vou buscar mais informações (e documentos) junto à PRF. Saudações!
ftrebien (2021-02-24 22:09:40+00:00): Estamos discutindo a respeito disso no Telegram. A princípio, o que você colocou na rodovia do Parque é geralmente aceito, embora eu penso que é muito perigoso pro ciclista. Já na Freeway o atual consenso da comunidade (que tem pouco envolvimento com ciclismo) é de que não deve ser mapeado como permitido porque há placas proibindo. Existem algumas outras rodovias fora do Rio Grande do Sul onde há placas proibindo também, mas há muitas importantes (ex.: Rodoanel de São Paulo) onde é permitido, embora as autoridades não recomendem. Sobre o impacto nas aplicações, acredito que em menos de uma semana o roteamento para bicicleta no site já vai refletir as alterações.
JochenOSM (2021-02-25 19:10:42+00:00): Da parallel via PN angefragt mit PN geklärt, und in Absprache mit Rotflamingo2 nicht verbundene Straßen korrigiert in Change 99924677