piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
CRCulver (2025-11-17 20:55:02+00:00): I see that you added the North Chorro Neighborhood Greenway as a separately mapped cycleway. This is not ideal IMO: areal imagery shows that generally one is sharing a the road with cars, and the California shared-lane marking is painted one the road. You would be giving bike routers more accurate information by deleting the separate highway=cycleway way, and tagging the road as cycleway:shared lane instead. Of course, you could have the “North Chorro Neighborhood Greenway” itself mapped as a relation.
danguino (2025-11-18 18:18:35+00:00): I'd added it as a separate cycleway after a project was completed to separate the part north of the freeway into a two-way cycle lane curb-separated from the road. Also the parts south of the freeway were curb-separated and I decided to map them separately where those were present. Happy to adjust if this is not the most-preferred approach but figured I'd try to add as much detail as possible here. Here is the detail on this reconfiguration project: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/programs-and-services/transportation-planning-and-engineering/north-chorro-neighborhood-greenway
CRCulver (2025-11-19 04:00:59+00:00): I went ahead (changeset 174842033) and deleted the separate cycleways, instead using the cycleway:both=lane and cycleway:both:buffer=yes tags on the roads themselves. This is how such cycleways in SoCal are overwhelmingly mapped. 

If you want to preserve the name “North Chorro Neighborhood Greenway”, then please create a new relation with all the road segments that make it up, and add the name there. Was the creation of a relations for California Cycle Route 95 also your work? That will also need to be adjusted accordingly.
Udarian (2024-03-12 17:16:00+00:00): Why’d you remove the link
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148317448
notd3nny (2024-03-12 21:35:09+00:00): Because the link no longer exists. The link has since been removed when sw 107th ave was extended.
eggie (2024-03-07 08:16:39+00:00): Hou Zou het geen hgv=designated moeten zijn.
MVG
eggie
Jvitegem (2024-03-07 08:56:54+00:00): Ja dat was dus precies mijn vraag...
Maar er staat een vrachtwagen op het wegdek, dus dacht ik dat deze afslag alleen voor vrachtwagens is....
Daarom heb ik access = no en HGV  = only getagged.
Maar als jij denkt dat hgv=designated beter is ...
eggie (2024-03-07 09:10:32+00:00): Hoi Ik heb geen idee wat de router met =only doet.
takeway=only en second_hand=only ken ik wel.. , maar niet in de routering.

Of die vrachtwagen op het wegdek rechtsgeldig is vraag ik me af. Denk meer een aanwijzing. Denk dat ander verkeer daar ook welkom is. 
Denk dat access=no beter weg kan. 
En welk bord staat dan bij de volgende afslag. (verboden voor vrachtverkeer)?

Groet
eggie
Jvitegem (2024-03-07 10:38:45+00:00): Ik heb het aangepast
Bedankt voor het mee denken
Jos
gscholz (2024-03-08 06:20:21+00:00): Hi thisishowidoit
your recent changesets have created errors in the OSM database regarding duplicate nodes:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=53.70758&lat=28.79916&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148317685

Can you please fix this?

Kind regards
Guido
woodpeck_repair (2024-03-06 22:26:58+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 148175515, 148175836, 148176237, 148176723, 148176820, 148177344.
Đuro Jiří (2024-11-04 12:05:53+00:00): Ciao nick,
questo nome è giusto? Visto che lo hai aggiunto tu,te chiedo, altrimenti cancello quelli numeri subito.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3020171527/history
ivanbranco (2024-11-04 12:26:12+00:00): Io a Vercelli ho spostato quel numero in ref:tamoil: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1952392424
nick1993 (2024-11-04 17:10:10+00:00): Sul sito del mise, sono ancora nominati cosi, ma come dice ivan sembra piu' un ref che un nome, ditemi che linea seguire e io mi adatto
Đuro Jiří (2024-11-04 18:19:58+00:00): Sono per la soluzione di Ivan.
Xvtn (2024-03-07 15:19:28+00:00): Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks good overall, but there is an issue. The turning circle you've added is tagged as highway=primary. That typically means it's a major highway, freeway, or similar. So in this case, highway=service would be the better choice. Other than that, no problems! Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your contributions!
Xvtn (2024-03-07 15:20:58+00:00): I went ahead and reclassified that road.
Ewrt1 (2025-08-17 22:00:44+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170588311
gscholz (2024-03-08 06:20:09+00:00): Hi thisishowidoit
your recent changesets have created errors in the OSM database regarding duplicate nodes:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=53.70758&lat=28.79916&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148318274

Can you please fix this?

Kind regards
Guido
The-Lorax (2024-03-07 08:16:54+00:00): Bonjour,
Voous avez pointé un Fix-Me mais je ne distingue pas quelle est la question; s'agit-il de la limite administrative de la circonscription? Dans ce cas il est suggéré de tager la ligne et de la séparer de l'axe de circulation. Sinon toute modification de l'axe routier entraîne automatiquement une modification de cette ligne sans tag avec lequel il est confondu. Merci.
gscholz (2024-03-09 06:50:57+00:00): Hi Lucas Marques,
your recent changesets have left behind several errors regarding self intersecting lines:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=36.08078&lat=47.23392&zoom=9&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148318485

Can you please fix this?

Btw. you can avoid uploading such errors by using the internal validator of JOSM.

Kind regards
Guido
gscholz (2024-03-18 06:48:21+00:00): Hi Lucas Marques,
these errors still exits, can I get your feedback here?
Guido
bradrh (2024-03-07 00:00:39+00:00): Comment: tabeguache trail.  Source: USFS, BLM
Plumf (2024-03-07 09:44:58+00:00): En regard de la non complexité des polygones formés, une relation multi polygone ne semble pas nécessaire.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148319376
Plumf (2024-03-07 09:44:51+00:00): En regard de la non complexité des polygones formés, une relation multi polygone ne semble pas nécessaire.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148319637
Xvtn (2024-03-07 15:16:33+00:00): Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes. Everything looks good to me. Thanks for your contributions!
Plumf (2024-03-07 09:44:22+00:00): En regard de la non complexité des polygones formés, une relation multi polygone ne semble pas nécessaire;
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148319789
Plumf (2024-03-07 09:44:12+00:00): En regard de la non complexité des polygones formés, une relation multi polygone ne semble pas nécessaire;
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148319817
michael60634 (2024-03-18 05:28:23+00:00): This changeset was reverted in full in changeset 148798840.
Benoît C MdP (2024-03-07 08:31:52+00:00): Bonjour

Pour la cité Debergue, il n'y avait pas de panneau d'aire piétonne en entrée. Est ce qu'il a été ajouté récemment ?

Merci

Benoît
xnorthlander (2024-12-03 21:19:06+00:00): I don't think streets and POI in a francophone town should be tagged by default in english. See the wiki for Key:name which states that the default name tag should be the "name in the local language"
map per (2024-03-20 16:22:51+00:00): REVERTED
Warin61 (2024-03-07 21:28:33+00:00): The removal of way 532084501 brakes the residential relation ... 

Probably the removal of the other 3 ways also brakes the residential relation... 
Partially reverted to restore residential relation 7609253
Stretch Longfellow (2024-04-25 22:32:52+00:00): Why did you mark several roads as no access?
Sohlman (2024-05-17 17:08:36+00:00): I'm sorry, I didn't realize it would override the other access tags.
NeisBot (2024-03-19 15:45:47+00:00): Hello Sarthak Patil, thank you very much for your contribution to the OSM project.

It would be great if you could use the comment field to describe your changes. This makes it easier for others to understand and follow your adjustments on the map more quickly.Please see https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments \n
Thanks!

#HappyMapping
#ADescriptionSaysMoreThanASingleChar
Kovoschiz (2024-03-08 04:21:21+00:00): This still cause a mismatch between the primary section. and name of the lower forms. Please lookup how `landuse=education` is used. Separate features is used when they have a separate identity.
Enock4seth (2024-08-13 12:34:41+00:00): Hello and thanks mapping.
The tagging of ways is not correct. It will be very helpful to take some time to familiarize yourself with what OpenStreetMap is and how to contribute.

Here is a Beginner's guide for getting started https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners%27_guide 

I hope will help you to improve data you have added.
tastrax (2024-03-07 10:21:18+00:00): Welcome to OSM and thanks for your first changesets. A great place to get information on Aussie tagging is the wiki - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines

I have made a change to the phone number to use both the country and area code as per the wiki.

Have fun mapping - Cheers
mcliquid (2024-03-08 10:22:47+00:00): Hi, ist das hier wirklich ein highway=service?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42504735/history
wermak (2024-03-08 13:32:16+00:00): Ist korrigiert.
mcliquid (2024-03-08 14:19:47+00:00): Danke dir!
gscholz (2024-03-08 05:57:31+00:00): Hi Gabriella sandjong,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=3.24129&lat=6.63078&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148322282

Can you please fix this?

Btw. you can avoid uploading such errors by using the internal validator of JOSM.
Kind regards
Guido
mueschel (2024-03-09 10:57:44+00:00): Hi,
you uploaded some ways with only strange tags, could you check this?
e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1258474072
ZeLonewolf (2024-03-09 11:05:52+00:00): Ugh ok thanks for catching this
TheSwavu (2024-03-18 07:11:24+00:00): Hi, 

If you are going to remove a turn restriction then please delete the relation, don't just break the existing one.

Thank you.
jtracey (2024-03-07 16:53:53+00:00): It looks like you tagged a bunch of regular paths as crossings (cycleway=crossing). Crossings are for street crossings, not general paths. I went ahead and fixed it.
pbilk (2024-03-07 20:53:10+00:00): Oops, my apologies. I realised I did that accidently at some places, but I must have missed fixing that section of the Iron Horse Trail. Thank you!
tastrax (2024-06-07 04:58:10+00:00): Hi Caleb,

A user has suggested this edit has broken some routing. Could you check the turn restrictions  (near Ayliffes Road) to make sure everything works as it should. It appears from the south you can turn onto the expressway (which I suspect is not correct) and likewise from Sheperds Hill Road it looks like you can do a U turn and return to Shepherds Hill Road which I also suspect is not allowed. There is also a remnant tertiary link.
Caleb NHVR (2024-06-07 05:28:11+00:00): Hi Tastrax,

I've returned to this changeset and agree that both turn restrictions must be amended. 

Photo overlays on Shepards Hill Road indicate no u-turn signage 
at the signalled intersection on northbound Shepards Hill Road - in contrast to U-turn signage on Ayliffes Road.

Photo overlays and turning lanes (visible from Bing Maps Aerial) indicate that a left-hand turn from Shepherds Hill Road to southbound Southern Expressway thru motorway link is invalid. Left turning traffic must turn onto Main South Road.

I will also change the section of Shepherds Hill Road from a trunk road to a secondary road, in line with road classification of the entire road. I believe this trunk road is a remnant was omitted from a large road classification change on Shepherds Hill Road from trunk to secondary.

Thank you for the message; a correction will soon follow.

Cheers,
Caleb
tastrax (2024-06-07 05:55:07+00:00): Many thanks
Fischkopp0815 (2025-01-07 07:52:33+00:00): Was ist der Grund für layer=-1?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1258481189

Verläuft der Weg unterirdisch/im Keller ? Oder durch ein Gebäude im Erdgeschoss? Das wäre dann  eine building_passage. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tunnel%3Dbuilding_passage

Ansonsten ist layer=-1 überflüssig.
uhaase (2025-01-07 08:21:55+00:00): da nicht willentlich gesetzt, habe ich die Ebene -1 entfernt.
flohoff (2024-03-07 15:20:13+00:00): Moin,
ich hab den changeset reverted. Die gebäude waren schon als building:razed drin - aber im DOP und ALKIS sind die noch zu sehen. Damit die keiner als "neue" Gebäude einträgt solange die sichtbar sind in ALKIS und DOP drin lassen mit razed:building
HolgerJeromin (2024-03-07 19:42:51+00:00): In ein paar Tagen ist der Parkplatz (bis in den Süden verlängert) fertig gepflastert. 
Hab den genauen Verlauf beim Vorbeifahren nicht genau gesehen, hatte in dem Changeset eigentlich vor beides zu machen.
War aber dann abgelenkt und hab nur den delete hochgeladen. Die paar Tage waren mir dann auch egal. 
COCO hat auch schon ein vierten Block fertig.

Aber auch gut, dann mach ich das nächste Woche sauber. Wenn da ein Parkplatz quer drüber liegt, trägt das alte Gebäude auch keiner mehr "neu" ein.
flohoff (2024-03-08 08:35:35+00:00): Ich würde die razed:buildings drin lassen bis die im ALKIS und Luftbildern verschwinden. Sonst trägt das nur jemand neu ein.

Es hindert ja niemanden den Parkplatz nicht auch einzutragen 

Dazu ist das in meinem ALKIS diff auch gut weil man dann keine false-negatives bekommt.

Flo
IMAN SELEMAN (2024-03-07 05:40:46+00:00): I added buildings
jtracey (2024-03-07 16:56:55+00:00): You tagged a width as "a", I'm guessing that's a typo:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1117294685
pbilk (2024-03-07 20:54:53+00:00): Yes, that was a mistake. Sometimes I find Open Street is really jerky or lagging to move around I make silly mistakes like typing some incorrect things and then finding those things to fix them. Thank you again!
jtracey (2024-03-08 03:20:56+00:00): No worries, thanks for the edits!
arjunaraoc (2024-03-07 09:30:21+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  India page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India) and  join OSM India Telegram channel (https://t.me/OSMIndia).
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148324366
eggie (2024-03-07 08:04:10+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

Feedback Wellicht hier even kijken... https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
slice0 (2024-03-08 01:30:51+00:00): I have created a discussion to ask about these weird edits, https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/user-randomly-adding-weird-doglegs-to-turn-lanes/110275 is there a need that I am missing here?
literan (2024-03-09 11:24:42+00:00): надо же, в какую пердь они зашли, там такие несимапатичные дворы. Ну, может булки будут не так рано кончаться.
gscholz (2024-03-08 06:07:59+00:00): Hi Nabbossa,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting lines:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=32.06811&lat=0.39025&zoom=17&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148326346

Can you please fix this?

Btw. you can avoid uploading such errors by using the internal validator of JOSM.
Kind regards
Guido
eggie (2024-03-07 08:07:13+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback Paden over priveterrein hoef je niet te verwijderen en dat heb je nu wel gedaan.
Ik zet het pad weer terug met de juiste accesstags.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148327148


MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
Ewen Hill (2024-03-10 11:26:30+00:00): Hi, thank you for mapping the driveway however it needs to be set to access=private. Can you please arrange to do this please?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148327198
gscholz (2024-03-08 06:20:40+00:00): 

Hi thisishowidoit
your recent changesets have created errors in the OSM database regarding duplicate nodes:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=53.70758&lat=28.79916&zoom=10&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=self_intersection_ways%2Cself_intersection_points%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_node_in_way

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=148327255

Can you please fix this?

Kind regards
Guido
Ewen Hill (2024-03-10 11:26:11+00:00): Hi, thank you for mapping the driveway however it needs to be set to access=private. Can you please arrange to do this please?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/148327267
sembelst134 (2026-05-02 17:03:34+00:00): Hallo, könntest du mich bitte über way/1258539601 aufklären.
Mir ist dort glaub noch nie offensichtlich eine neue Straße aufgefallen und dafür, dass es im März 24 als Baustelle hinzugefügt wurde, sieht man im Bing Luftbild (August 24) immer noch grüne Wiese.
Also bitte auf aktuellen Stand prüfen und bei lifecycle-Tags wie construction oder proposed wird highway=residential wie folgt getaggt:
highway=[lifecycle]
[lifecycle]=residential
Tommybara (2024-03-07 19:24:42+00:00): Why removing the woods on the islands? What's the matter with those?
1. From the satellite images, it's completely clear that the islands are covered with wood.
2. Those islands themselves are also ecosystems with birds living there and are also managed by the national park.
Please, please... really do (a lot of) research when you map, rather than doing things subjectively.
user_14538650 (2024-03-08 01:30:28+00:00): I remove them because I will use it as the outer way of the islets. The forests do not occupy 100% of the islets.
Tommybara (2024-03-08 02:42:50+00:00): “The forests do not occupy 100% of the islets.” Agree BUT you are aware that in the dictionary there is a word called “relative”, or “tương đối” in Vietnamese right? It does not occupy 100% of the islet, but somewhere around > 90%. So drawing 100% of the islet wood can be considered an A- work. That being said, it is not a D or F work (aka not erroneous) so as the code of conduct goes, deleting such a work should mean that it will be replaced with a >= quality work ASAP.
user_14538650 (2024-03-08 10:52:15+00:00): Mình nghĩ nói chuyện với ông như vậy ko hiệu quả. Thà mình bắt tay vào làm còn hơn cứ nói lảm nhảm ở bên cạnh. Xoá mấy cái rừng có chết ai đâu mà lo, mà chẳng qua mấy cái rừng này là được autofill từ ranh giới của vườn quốc gia mà thôi. Có cái gì đâu mà cứ xồn xồn hết cả lên
user_14538650 (2024-03-08 10:55:23+00:00): Ông còn ko thèm nhìn là mấy cái đảo ấy vẽ nguệch ngoạc và còn lệch khỏi ảnh viễn thám hả? Còn dám nói rằng mấy đảo đấy là "A- work" hay không nữa đây?
Tommybara (2024-03-08 16:18:53+00:00): Wow! It seems like you still haven’t looked up the definition of the word “relative”. Those islets were mapped years ago. And do keep in mind that since this is a reservoir, water level doesn’t stay still, so are other rivers and lakes.

Borders of forests also don’t stay still. More  areas might be reforested, or even deforested by “lâm tặc”. The current forest border you are drawing, might have been incorrect as of now (March 2024). So in short, almost everything in this OSM is relative. Cho nên là: “Ừ, tôi vẫn dám khẳng định rằng đó là A- work đấy.”

“Xóa mấy cái rừng có chết ai đâu, chẳng qua cũng được autofill từ ranh VQG”. Cũng lại cái văn mẫu “có chết ai đâu” nữa à bác. Văn mẫu kiểu này thường là dùng để nguỵ biện đấy bác ạ.

Và quan trọng nhất là đây: Đống rừng autofill đó ít ra vẫn tô xanh bản đồ, nhìn vẫn đẹp mắt hơn nhiều cái version mà bác tẩy hết nó đi sau đó mà chưa thèm vẽ lại. Một mặt bác tỏ ra khá cầu toàn về cái ranh rừng (thứ mà vẽ lên bản đồ chỉ có tương đối chứ không bao giờ tuyệt đối được), một mặt lại khá cẩu thả xóa mà không thèm vẽ lại (ở Mũi Cà Mau). Sao lại mâu thuẫn thế nhỉ? Tôi không “xồn xồn”, khả năng vài tháng tới hay thậm chí năm sau nhiều chỗ rừng bác xóa trắng cũng sẽ trống hươ trống hoác đấy chứ.

Đây là cộng đồng có nhiều người, cho nên bác học cách tôn trọng những đóng góp của người khác chút đi.
user_14538650 (2024-03-09 07:38:20+00:00): ok ông
Hungerburg (2024-03-07 10:54:56+00:00): Meines Wissens führt der Lustige Bergler Steig vom Halsl zur Marchreisenspitze und endet dort.
Hungerburg (2024-03-07 11:01:26+00:00): So steht es auch hier https://www.axamer-lizum.at/de/ampferstein-marchreisenspitze.html - die verlinkte Topo enthält den Abstieg westwärts, aber der gehört nicht mehr dazu.
metjowagner (2024-03-07 13:05:10+00:00): Es freut mich, wenn du bereits Relationen korrigiert hast. Wie bereits erwähnt finde ich fehlende Relationen genauso schlecht wie falsche. Jetzt ist beispielsweise Der Weg von der Malgrubenscharte zum Hochtennboden ohne Wanderwegrelation - der Weg ist aber markiert und es gibt Wegweiser. Er sollte also als Relation (vielleicht ohne Nummer und Name?) eingetragen werden. Siehe:
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#?map=15.0/47.1713/11.2965
Hungerburg (2024-03-07 19:11:30+00:00): Ich sehe das nicht so. Das sind allesamt Zielwegweiser. Für Wegmarkierungen gibt es https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trailblazed - das allein reicht nicht hin eine erfassenswerte Route aus einem Weg zu machen.

Auch wenn es sich in Waymarkedtrails gut macht, es ist kein Grund openstreetmap wie ein Malbuch mit Routen Relationen zu füllen die vor Ort keinen Bestand haben.

Lies mal hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/439641411 - welche Marchreisenscharte ist da wohl gemeint?
metjowagner (2024-03-07 19:45:32+00:00): In den Alpen werden trotzdem markierte Wanderwege in der Regel als Relationen in osm angelegt. In vielen Anwendungen (nicht nur waymarkedtrails) werden die Relationen zur Visualisierng verwendet und da wirkt es derzeit leider so, als ob es in Tirol viel weniger Wanderwege als in Südtirol oder der Schweiz gibt. Es ergibt meiner Meinung nach also durchaus Sinn auch Relationen anzulegen, die keinen Namen haben (sondern nur Start und Ziel angegeben werden).
Hungerburg (2024-03-07 23:34:26+00:00): Ich hab einmal im Forum angefragt, ob vielleicht die Dokumentation an der ich mich richte veraltet ist, https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kein-wanderweg-wenn-nicht-in-waymarkedtrails/110268 und Visualisierung mittlerweile der Zweck der Veranstaltung.
Hungerburg (2024-03-11 12:00:23+00:00): Zweiter Anlauf im Forum - https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/wanderwegrelationen-grundsatzliches/110336 - Wie müsste man die Dokumentation anpassen, damit namen- start- und ziel-lose Wanderwege relationstauglich werden?
swinetown (2024-03-08 00:35:37+00:00): Hi, FYI I've reverted your changset since the latest Bing imagery (around Aug 2022) doesn't show the junction changes which were made here in mid-late 2023.
BR_pebble (2024-03-08 14:53:46+00:00): Thanks plonkers, for identifying this and reverting the changes
Frans S (2024-03-28 12:02:20+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project.

You map from ESRI World Imagery,
This caused quite an offset.
Default Bing imagery has to be used.
Be keen on that !
Best regards