piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
GerdP (2015-10-20 07:42:41+00:00): please review:
way 257485715 crosses the building?
Maybe a part of it is a tunnel=building_passage?
Candelaere (2018-12-07 16:02:24+00:00): Just noticed this comment 3 years after the fact. Yes it's a building_passage, I've fixed it now.
canfe (2021-06-17 07:09:42+00:00): ma questo edificio da che foto aeree l'hai visto che non c'è su nessuna?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/373090438
Nakaner (2015-10-10 15:24:20+00:00): FYI https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34547413

Dieses Posting ist nur ein Hinweis und enthält keine Bewertung eines Changesets.
Claytonlukes77 (2015-10-01 00:15:54+00:00): Readjusted where the road is according to the Bing GPS imagery
Nakaner (2015-09-30 23:00:44+00:00): Quelle der 25 cm ist ein Nachmessen mit einem Zollstock.
neuhausr (2015-10-28 14:00:42+00:00): I'm assuming you know this, but just in case: there are a number of these buildings that must somehow have lost a node or something because they are now triangular or similar.
rickmastfan67 (2015-10-01 01:37:52+00:00): See comments about this here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34237498
andrewpmk (2015-10-01 13:27:31+00:00): Please tag parking lots as amenity=parking. I have corrected the parking lot you added near Drewry Avenue and Yonge Street.
Rom1 (2015-10-01 08:40:08+00:00): Hi, you made a mistake by changing the tag contact:housenumber to addr:housenumber. The addr:housenumer already exists https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3586678929 and see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/House_numbers/Bremen_Schema for definition of contact:housenumber.
GerdP (2015-10-01 09:24:45+00:00): okay,sorry, I've reverted that change.
The tag contact:housenumber is only used once in the database.
chnav (2015-10-02 03:01:33+00:00): Здравствуйте, поясните, пожалуйста, тут в комментарии что за перекрытие, надолго ли и в каком виде (бетонные блоки, куча земли, в каком месте и т.д.)
В данном виде линия будет удалена.
vitkor (2016-06-29 20:47:47+00:00): Sorry, but it is now in the wrong direction!
pratikyadav (2016-07-29 05:48:50+00:00): @viktor my bad
would be nice if you can revert/correct this.

Thanks for reaching out :)
pjhooker (2015-10-02 08:22:03+00:00): ;-)
bubix (2015-10-02 09:04:15+00:00): che metodo speditivo utilizzi per stimare l'altezza del fusto?
BeKri (2015-10-01 11:10:02+00:00): Hallo,
wärst Du so nett, uns die "Aktualisierung" (es sind alles Nodes V1) von 50001 "Nicht-Punkten"/ ohne jegliches Tagging zu erklären ?
Danke.
Nakaner (2015-10-01 19:48:29+00:00): Revert läuft! http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=52226
Nakaner-repair (2015-10-01 22:21:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 34375993, 34378430 where the changeset comment is: Revert der Änderugnssätze 34363128 und 34361216 wegen Verstoss gegen die Import-Policy
Hjart (2015-10-01 09:26:45+00:00): Der er vist noget med at det ikke er nemt at se liniestykkers retning i Potlatch, men hvis du har mulighed for det, så er det bedst at undgå oneway=-1.
Niels Beck (2015-10-01 10:08:19+00:00): Hmm? Jeg har forstået vejledningerne således, at Tværvej, der består af 2 spor med et spor i hver retning med adskillelse af hvid markering på asfalt, og uden adgang for øvrig trafik if rom af cykler og gående, bedst og mest korrekt markeres ved 2 linier med hver sin retning i stedet for en linie uden retning?
Niels Beck (2015-10-01 10:09:57+00:00): Jeg kan udmærket se liniernes retning i Potlatch!
Hjart (2015-10-01 11:28:05+00:00): Det lyder som om du slet ikke har forstået hvad jeg mente. Udmærket. Jeg har rettet det nu.
Niels Beck (2015-10-01 11:32:04+00:00): Kunne du prøve igen at forklare det problem du ser?
Hjart (2015-10-01 11:39:05+00:00): Alle liniestykker i OSM har en retning og når du på en ensrettet kørebane tilføjer et oneway=* der går imod denne retning, så kommer tagget til at være oneway=-1. Dette kan være forvirrende og i visse situationer direkte uheldigt, så derfor anbefales det at man sørger for at vende liniestykket "rigtigt" inden man tilføjer oneway=*
Hjart (2015-10-01 12:06:48+00:00): Hmm.. Der er ikke nogen egentlig midterrabat på vejen, men kun en malet stribe?
Hjart (2015-10-01 12:12:00+00:00): Ok, Jeg har lige set nogle Mapillary billeder fra strækningen og jeg vil mene det absolut er overkill at bruge 2 linier på denne strækning. Jeg vil personligt foretrække en enkelt linie. Hvilke vejledninger har du kigget på?
Hjart (2015-10-01 12:19:56+00:00): Jeg vil stemme for en revertering til en enkelt linie.
Hjart (2015-10-01 20:58:37+00:00): Jeg har bragt sagen op på IRC og der er stemning for at revertere til en enkelt linie. Der er kun en malet midterstribe, som ikke engang er fuldt optrukket hele vejen og jeg vil mene det er at komplicere vejen helt unødigt at bruge 2 parallelle linier her.
Hjart (2015-10-01 21:18:40+00:00): Jeg har hermed ført Tværvej tilbage til en enkelt linie, hvilket efter min overbevisning er det mest korrekte.
halfliferua (2015-10-01 08:15:02+00:00): there was used GPX file
FTA (2017-09-28 23:07:14+00:00): Hi, do you have any information about where you got this village name data? Is it from personal experience, word of mouth, some online source? Thanks! Ethan aka FTA

(automatizované) Ahoj, máte nějaké informace o tom, kde jste získali toto jméno? Je to z osobní zkušenosti, z úst, z nějakého on-line zdroje? Dík! Ethan aka FTA
Helmchen42 (2018-01-27 15:35:33+00:00): I fear the names were copied from the 38north digital atlas (http://38northdigitalatlas.org/ - copyrighted) as claimed by one of the authors Curtis Melvin. (https://twitter.com/CurtisMelvin/status/952947641058516992)

See also history of: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3723463569/history#map=13/41.0552/126.6610
BeKri (2015-10-01 11:11:02+00:00): Hallo,
wärst Du so nett, uns die "Aktualisierung" (es sind alles Nodes V1) von 4451"Nicht-Punkten"/ ohne jegliches Tagging zu erklären ?
Danke.
Nakaner (2015-10-01 19:48:42+00:00): Revert läuft! http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=52226
Nakaner-repair (2015-10-01 22:21:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 34375993, 34378430 where the changeset comment is: Revert der Änderugnssätze 34363128 und 34361216 wegen Verstoss gegen die Import-Policy
Dam Tuan (2015-10-01 09:33:44+00:00): http://giasuminhduc.com/gia-su-toan-hoc/
Dam Tuan (2015-10-01 09:33:56+00:00): http://giasuminhduc.com/gia-su-toan-hoc/
robert (2015-10-03 14:55:36+00:00): Hi - Careful when merging two ways - this has given the resulting way the name "The Grangeway;Vera Avenue", which breaks an OS Locator match: http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=741864

The fact that the two ways had different names suggests to me that perhaps they shouldn't be merged at all. OS Locator lists the two separately and the split appears to be by the rail bridge: http://ris.dev.openstreetmap.org/oslmusicalchairs/map?osl_id=779364
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-10-01 11:20:10+00:00): Proszę o poprawienie: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/373186922
d3mol3k (2015-10-01 11:24:03+00:00): Właśnie poprawiam. Niestety błędy w mojej pracy widać po jakimś czasie i obecnie poprawiam te które są i pracuję nad nowymi a:h. Uczę się na swoich błędach. Ten cały odcinek do wieczora powinien być poprawiony. - Inaczej mówiąc będę go poprawiał do skutku.
wambacher (2015-10-01 17:10:04+00:00): Hi, what are you doing there?????

there are existing boundaries im osm for armenia and aserbaidschaen, which are much, much better than your straigt lines. 

they are technically wrong (just a closed linestring), some have have admin_level=1, which is never and nowhere used in OSM, they donts fit the existing Boundaries, and source is never ever BING.
And changesets comments are missing too.

5 reasons to revert all your edits.

Would like to here what ist going on there.
btw: may be thats only a socketpuppet?
4rch (2015-10-01 21:24:01+00:00): I've reverted CS #34365399 to #34363418 as the edits of user mapmap12 do not meet OSM guidelines, etc.

It also other mappers have noticed and reverted the edits of mapmap12: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34361683
utack (2016-07-06 12:43:02+00:00): Hallo,

Ist das die Hausnummer von einem der Gebäude südlich der Straße?

MfG
kartler175 (2015-10-12 16:11:11+00:00): Please do not destroy simple Polygons and create Multipolygons instead if not necessary. It is not best Practice:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Mapping_Style.2C_best_practice
malenki (2016-05-07 10:34:09+00:00): Es wäre sinnvoll, Kartenabmalerei mit Ortskenntnis zu verbinden.
Man vergleiche https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256894178
mit 
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/25Gy4I61z4ez2IJSSs3JQg/photo
WiebkeCHH (2016-05-07 11:04:40+00:00): Verehrter Malenki,
es wäre sinnvoll, Kritik mit Freundlichkeit oder zumindest Höflichkeit zu verbinden. Das ist sogar bei berechtigter Kritik so. Mach nur hin, wegen Figuren wie dir habe ich schon lange keine Lust mehr. 

Freundliche Grüße.
malenki (2016-05-07 11:24:35+00:00): Mir geht es ähnlich wie dir. 
Nur dass ich es nicht mag, wenn Leute Sachen mappen, die es nicht gibt – oder Sachen löschen, die durchaus existieren.
Ab August bin ich eh weg. :)
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-01 11:53:57+00:00): 
    Hello!

    Sorry for bothering about an ancient edit.

    But is PFM:garmin_type=0x2 meaning anything at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372548497/history ?

Can you remove this tag or replace by more clear one? It looks like debris from GPS trace import, handling similar tags on this object would be appreciated

(if there is more than one surviving tag like that from your edits: do you prefer separate message for each, list of all at once or something in between?)
hebolz (2024-02-01 18:25:25+00:00): Hello Mateusz, 
this was really a long time ago and i cannot remember any details. The history shows that i introduced these tags, but i have no idea what they mean. And for sure i have no local knowledge of this street name. 
Is it possible that these tags were produced by JOSM when i split an existing way? This would be typical for mapping streets with e.g. bridges. 
In that case, user "Osm153" could be the one who used these tags first, as in way 372546906 . 
Henning (hebolz)
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-02-01 19:56:43+00:00): maybe you merged this road with another?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372548497/history shows that this road existed before your edit already, so it could not be created in merge

(and given that it happened 8 years ago - it is perfectly understandable to not remember what happened here - even answer that you have no idea what is going is appreciated)

And I guess that more important part is whether this tags have meaning or not - if not then, they will be safe to remove
dudka (2015-10-01 12:47:12+00:00): http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2122784#map=16/49.2859/23.4849
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2595306#map=16/49.2872/23.4893

Бориславська і Трускавецька міськради стали перетинатися між собою
muralito (2015-10-09 18:14:56+00:00): Hola. rvidarte, tuve que revertir tu cambio completamente porque habia dejado mal la ruta 102, y afectaba de forma importante los ruteos.

Por favor hace el cambio del almacen nuevamente.
Si precisas ayuda no dudes en preguntar.
rvidarte (2015-10-13 12:24:28+00:00): Dale, sin problema. Ya se agrego nuevamente.
richardbrinkman (2016-02-29 09:18:02+00:00): De verwijderde adres nodes (huisnummers met toevoeging) van deze changeset zijn teruggezet.
Mazezito (2016-01-17 14:17:47+00:00): Isto assim já tem o "uso do solo"?
ViriatoLusitano (2016-01-17 15:39:24+00:00): Não porque este limite é mesmo um pouco bruto, ignora as várias áreas de mato ou ser habitações. No centro estou a mapear com mais detalhe para evitar isto. Podes ver isso na parte histórica da cidade onde comecei.
Luuuddooo (2015-10-02 19:03:57+00:00): Bonjour,
Il faudrait qualifier un peu plus à quoi correspond ce nom, avec par exemple le tag
amenity=social_facility (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility)
ou office=association
species (2015-10-02 12:07:47+00:00): Hi!
schöne Arbeit :-)
Könntest du das nächste Mal versuchen, die alten Nodes nicht zu löschen, sondern in die Ways zu integrieren, dass die History nicht verloren geht?
Das geht mit JOSM mit "More tools→Replace Geometry" (Plugin utilsplugin2)
Danke!
Weltstaat (2015-10-03 11:09:43+00:00): Hi, 
alles klar! Mach ich!
lg
robbieonsea (2015-10-01 19:47:11+00:00): You seem to have removed the 
amenity=bicycle_parking tag in this edit.

This don't seem quite right.
trisosaurus (2015-10-06 08:27:32+00:00): Hi,

Yeah Gunwharf removed them a few days ago, and have moved them outside tesco
robbieonsea (2015-10-06 20:08:25+00:00): I see, this might have been what I've been hearing on Facebook too.

Wouldn't it be better/simpler to delete the Node: 1495236772 (rather than the primary tag)?
trisosaurus (2015-10-07 11:54:46+00:00): yeah that seems better
Polyglot (2015-11-11 22:54:19+00:00): Hi Rowers,

Something seems to have gone very wrong with this edit. It extends all the way from Poland into The Cameroon...
ndm (2015-10-01 23:06:11+00:00): 45 mph seems an odd number for maxspeed -- most roadsigns seem to be either 40/50 mph?
RFaith (2015-10-02 08:11:39+00:00): True - it isn't a posted limit, but a personal assessment of how safe it would be at different speeds on this road. 50 is too fast in many places, 40 too slow in others. Motorbikes could go faster but for the surface, which limits bikes. It is an attempt to average the speed you'd manage on this road. To be routed through these lanes when travelling Colerne-Bath is crazy, and it seems that classifying the lanes effectively as C-roads (national speed limit) overstates what they are - rural lanes. It would be better in parts to classify them as residential (as they are at Mill Lane in Box). Going back to Colerne-Bath, the residential road into Batheaston is infinitely preferable to a backtracking detour through lanes. Since this data is a staple of community satnav applications, describing these lanes as a preferable (60-70 mph) alternative to a 30mph direct route is way off-base. The description needs to more accurately describe what these lanes are really like. As a local, my reaction to apps like Navmii and Osmand choosing these lanes in preference to a faster route (even when limited to 30 mph in one section) was incredulity, and part of the problem is one of classification. We can intellectually argue that they are roads of a particular type, but practically, they just aren't! Ironically some of these roads are a little narrower these days because HGVs have been using them and chewing away the edges - and they were there because a satnav told them it was okay! Road Hill down to Ashley is a far inferior road to Bannerdown to Batheaston - they may notionally be the same "sort" of road, but in real terms they are very different (Bannerdown is wide enough to have HGVs pass each other at speed, Road Hill definitely isn't). Of course we're often able to "drive" these routes in Google Streetview and see for ourselves what they're really like!

Sorry for the lengthy and probably repetitive response, but bearing in mind the use to which these maps are put, it seems there needs to be a mechanism to disincentivise routings based on them - one that reflects the reality of using these roads. I'm new to this project and think it is a wonderful effort, and arguably how satnav applications use the data is their business, not OpenStreetMap's. Then again I defy anyone to drive at the notional max speed for Mill Lane in Box!

Suffice to say that a local travelling between Colerne and Bath would be scratching their heads if told to route through Ashley (barring road closures, at least!).

As a general note, maps like these might benefit from "environmental" factors being worked in, not only actual-vs-posted speed limits, but the existence of traffic calming (already done, I think) but also on-street parking.

If there's a better way to make Road Hill reflect its non-whitelined reality (such as making the classification vary more frequently along its length) that might serve the purpose.
SomeoneElse (2015-10-02 11:30:41+00:00): Hello RFaith, welcome to OpenStreetMap!
For info, the "maxspeed" tag is used for the actual posted limit.  Where there's an advisory (such as green signs for school areas) you can use "maxspeed:advisory" for those.  See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed#Related_keys , http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory in the wiki for a bit more information.  Routers are entirely free to use any / all of these tags when deciding how to route traffic. http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=maxspeed shows how often each are used in practice.
Cheers,
Andy
RFaith (2015-10-02 15:47:28+00:00): Hi Andy -

I had another look at it this morning and realised that one of the roads listed as Tertiary in in fact a single-track access road to farms that also just happens to lead almost directly to the A4, which might explain why satnavs are so enthusiastic about it as a viable alternative (drive it in Google streetview and you'll get the idea!). I made it "unclassified" since that description is closest to what the road actually is (single-track with passing places, all but the segment closest to the A4, where it becomes two-way again).

If I left the limit posted, I'll remove it ASAP, since it doesn't reflect signage (or indeed the speed some people drive that road if the little patches of glass are anything to go by).

Thanks for your understanding of a novice!
SomeoneElse (2015-11-20 11:42:33+00:00): Thanks for fixing (and sorry it took so long to reply!).
SomeoneElse (2015-11-11 23:03:35+00:00): Somehow I suspect that the name of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/373220554 isn't really "wisnia #c64040".  Please don't use OpenStreetMap for test data - there are lots of other options for doing that.
muralito (2015-10-07 00:48:22+00:00): Demian, solo se les pone nombre (etiqueta "name") a los elementos que realmente lo tienen. Es mejor no poner nombres descriptivos. Para eso esta la etiqueta "description".
Saludos,
M.
Hjart (2015-10-01 18:19:37+00:00): Hejsa
Du er meget velkommen til at lave beskrivende titler på dine rettesæt (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments). Det gør det lidt nemmere at følge med på bl.a. http://osm.expandable.dk/osm/index.html
JBacc1 (2015-12-27 11:55:08+00:00): Encore un groupe de modifications malvenu !
rickmastfan67 (2015-10-11 14:03:14+00:00): I'm curious, but why are you adding 'FUT I-99' tags to the ref tags along these ways?

There are no 'Future' shields for I-99 posted, and I highly doubt PennDOT will be added any soon. The future route of I-99 may be defined, and in some rare places have an occasional 'I-99 Future Corridor' sign, however, that doesn't qualify it to be added into the ref tags yet since it isn't posted.
rickmastfan67 (2015-10-11 14:17:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted in Changeset 34570113.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34570113
teddyfox78 (2015-10-01 16:29:24+00:00): Огромнейшее спасибо!! очень признателен.)
felipe rout (2015-10-01 15:42:32+00:00): Acrescentado nome a rua.
MarkusHD (2015-10-30 21:11:56+00:00): Auch hier wurde der Mini-Kreisverkehr am Kaiserdenkmal in einen normalen Kreisverkehr geändert, was falsch ist.
MarkusHD (2015-10-30 21:13:33+00:00): Und dadurch nebenbei noch sämtliche Bus- und Wanderrouten zerstört.
MarkusHD (2015-11-18 21:51:19+00:00): Korrigiert: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35421202
Warin61 (2017-06-12 09:38:28+00:00): Lake? Way 373247065 looks like it is a flood plain .. not much water in it most of the time!

Deleted! Entered new smaller way that has water in bing + digital globe. Modified another of your entries - smaller area. Added river between the two.
mdomnita (2017-06-12 09:44:32+00:00): Thanks for the up. The data was extracted through remote sensing from the Landsat images I had available at that time. Most of the forests and lakes I added in 2015 are extracted with the same methods. I am aware that more recent data is available now and the resolution is higher. Also, I only added areas that were small enough to handle by hand and checked most of them over Bing as far as I remember. Since I did this JOSM evolved and data can be improved but when I added these there was nothing on landuse in the areas.
rickmastfan67 (2015-10-11 14:03:08+00:00): I'm curious, but why are you adding 'FUT I-99' tags to the ref tags along these ways?

There are no 'Future' shields for I-99 posted, and I highly doubt PennDOT will be added any soon. The future route of I-99 may be defined, and in some rare places have an occasional 'I-99 Future Corridor' sign, however, that doesn't qualify it to be added into the ref tags yet since it isn't posted.
rickmastfan67 (2015-10-11 14:17:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted in Changeset 34570113.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34570113
Warin61 (2017-06-12 09:22:41+00:00): Looks more like south America... 

You are not taking much care with your mapping?
Nakaner (2015-10-04 12:45:50+00:00): Ein Gleis wird entweder mit usage=* oder mit service=* getaggt, aber nicht mit beidem, Industriebahnen (usage=industrial) und Militärbahnen (usage=military) ausgenommen.
GerdP (2015-11-04 18:55:19+00:00): please review 
I've removed
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/373250872
and added the corresponding tags to the way and the nodes. see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/35085838
and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcrossing
Ryan Lash (2015-10-08 21:15:36+00:00):  I've changed the tags from highway:tertiary to highway:residential or highway:path to be consistent with -http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa.
Ryan Lash (2015-10-08 21:16:30+00:00):  I've changed the tags from highway:tertiary to highway:residential or highway:path to be consistent with -http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Tag_Africa.
emvee (2023-10-03 18:13:19+00:00): 

Hoi,

In deze changeset heb je enige paden toegevoegd met surface=paving_stones:30 en daar is nu een poll over, zie

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/paving-stones-30-en-gebruik/104143/38
Zbigniew_Cz (2015-10-01 19:35:31+00:00): Hej
Tam funkcjonują dwie nazwy, z tego co widzę. W TERYT jest Jelinka, ale adresy w iMPA mają Jalinka. Dlatego dodam tę usuniętą wioskę - niech leżą obydwie.
olo81 (2022-03-25 19:33:51+00:00): Czy jest tam oznakowanie dopuszczające rower? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/373278329#map=17/50.31321/19.06893
Takie tagowanie jak teraz oznacza że jest tam droga dla pieszych z dopuszczeniem roweru które od wielu lat jest nielegalne!
muralito (2015-10-03 22:14:01+00:00): Hola Mario, ¿que fue lo que quisiste hacer con esta calle de "Carril de giro Avellaneda"?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/183801399
mario ojeda (2015-10-03 23:25:23+00:00): En este momento la Avenida San Martin a la altura de Avellaneda mano a capital esta cerrada por arreglo de paso nivel subterráneo.
muralito (2015-10-06 14:35:03+00:00): OK. ¿Te acordas entre que calles esta cerrada asi las marco bien?
¿Tenes idea de cuanto demoraran las obras?
Nakaner (2015-10-11 20:46:55+00:00): Könntest du bitte ref=1;2 zusätzlich ans Multipolygon taggen? Wenn man als Datennutzer aus den OSM-Daten ein Polygon erstellt, welches in OSM als Multipolygon mit mehreren Outer-WAys erfasst ist, erwartet man, dass alle nötigen Tags am MP hängen und man sich diese nicht von den Ways zusammenklauben und dann auch noch Widersprüche ref=1 vs. ref=2 mergen muss.

Dasselbe gilt auch für tactile_paving=*.

ref=1 bzw. ref=2 können ruhig an den gleisseitigen Outer-Ways stehen bleiben, dann sollten diese aber mit railway=platform_edge getaggt werden, damit Datennutzer einfach verstehen können, wozu die Referenznummer (ref=*) überhaupt da ist.
Wolle DD (2015-10-12 00:02:47+00:00): ref=1;2 habe ich ergänzt (auch an den Bahnsteigen DD-Hbf bis DD Flughafen). Die anderen genannten Sachen, die PeterDRS verzapft hat, habe ich erstmal gelassen. Wenn in einer Woche meine Changesets noch vollständig sind, mache ich weiter und ändere das auch.
Wolle DD (2015-10-12 00:04:47+00:00): Achso: die Haltepositionen habe ich auch gleich etwas verschoben. Hoffe, es ist jetzt besser so.