piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Sammyhawkrad (2026-05-26 07:52:55+00:00): Hi Tema check check, welcome to OSM. If you only wanted to change a name, you didn't have to edit the geometries. Your changes have to be reverted due to errors created via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183192058. 

If you want to add your business to the map follow the introductory tutorials on learnosm.org. If it's already on the map, you can share a link to it and I will help fix it accordingly.
Glassman (2026-05-27 02:10:26+00:00): Couple of questions, is the road posted no trespassing? If it isn't it would be more appropriate to tag it as ownership=private. Otherwise someone will likely remove the access tag. 

Also, the county shows it as Northeast Flicker Hill Lane. What is the right name for the road?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183176912
eggie (2026-05-25 21:19:51+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2026-05-25 21:23:18+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback Netherlands heb ik weer verwijderd. Dat hoort niet in de format van een adres.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
kartler175 (2026-06-21 11:17:35+00:00): https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=8.95496&lat=51.84344&zoom=16&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.95&overlays=ring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways
Bitte inner-member von Multiopoygonen richtig zuordnen!
Galbinus (2026-06-21 15:06:39+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, da hatte ich was übersehen beim Umwandeln von Kahlschlagfläche in inzwischen dort wieder wachsenden Wald.
Fischkopp0815 (2026-05-26 03:34:12+00:00): Was ist denn das Problem mit den Navi-Ansagen.Vor deiner Änderung folgte der Radweg dem Verlauf der K54 (Dorfstraße) auf der Westseite,wie es auch in der Realität ist.Hier ein Blick von Süden auf die Ecke.
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=54.14545598444701&lng=8.91679918416935&z=19.24339938691478&pKey=969088414555445&focus=photo

Nach deiner Änderung wechselt der Radweg für die Abzweigung auf die Ostseite und wieder zurück auf die Westseite. Außerdem hat der Seitenweg einen Knick nach Norden und dann nach Süden

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42775895#map=19/54.145765/8.916510&layers=N

Das ist nicht die Realität.Erklär bitte was du erreichen wolltest.
Fischkopp0815 (2026-05-26 13:57:12+00:00): @fahrradfan9711
Deine Änderung wurde inzwischen rückgängig gemacht

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183208099

Beschreibe bitte trotzdem dein Problem mit einigen Routern an dieser Stelle
dcapillae (2026-05-26 08:15:06+00:00): Hola.

Podríamos usar «EMTSAM» en lugar de «EMT» en claves como «old_ref:EMT». Así, las claves de referencias coincidirían con el valor de la etiqueta «operator=EMTSAM» que usamos para identificar a la Empresa Malagueña de Transportes SAM como operador.

Si no hay inconveniente, cambiaré los sufijos "EMT" a "EMTSAM" donde corresponda.
MCAH (2026-06-03 18:56:33+00:00): Hallo Taktaal
Vielen Dank für das Eintragen der Barriere. 
Weisst Du warum die Routenplanung ein Auto noch immer über diese Route führt?
Taktaal (2026-06-03 20:15:25+00:00): Für mich sieht es korrekt aus: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_car&route=47.297277%2C8.696419%3B47.299438%2C8.700716

Benutzt du eventuell eine App? Die brauchen manchmal etwas länger bis die Karten geupdatet sind, es kann da durchaus ein paar Wochen gehen.
MCAH (2026-06-07 18:52:43+00:00): Nein, ich hatte die Online-Karte direkt hier verwendet.
Aber jetzt passt es auch bei mir.
Nochmals vielen Dank für Deine Unterstützung!
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-26 05:17:36+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
is the name real?
Xcm81 (2026-05-29 11:21:01+00:00): Hello.
it looks like the bollard is seen as an obstacle by some apps when planning a cycle route, even thought the object has the correct tags. Have you seen this before?
CurlingMan13 (2026-05-26 05:12:40+00:00): When adding it directly to the map, please also don't submit a note....
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-26 05:17:31+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
is the name real?
GOwin (2026-07-09 03:13:58+00:00): A very good first edit in OpenStreetMap(OSM)! Thanks for contributing, and welcome to OSM. How did you stumble into the project?

👋  I also see that you've been contributing regularly with Vespucci.  🤩 So, what are your favorite features of  this particular editor?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183180251
martiensch (2026-05-28 06:44:06+00:00): Topper! Mooi dat je de haltes ingetekend hebt!
mueschel (2026-05-27 18:24:39+00:00): Hi,
these tags are not typically used on golf courses:
"slope" (only used in the sense of "incline")
"rating" (only used for power ratings of e.g. transformers)

Could you check for common tags and use those?
Hogmite (2026-05-28 00:44:44+00:00): I will see what is standard. Thanks for the feedback.
mueschel (2026-05-28 09:11:32+00:00): "golf_slope" and "golf_rating" and in general "golf_*" are also not used. 
You can check current statistics on 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/
You'll see that these are already used, although only 6 times world-wide. 
golf:course:slope
golf:course:rating
Sammyhawkrad (2026-05-26 07:59:41+00:00): Hi Saykay 04, buildings are mapped as polygons with the tag building=*.  Adding historic=building nodes on already mapped buildings is not right. These changes have been reverted via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183192409.
mxxcon_nycbuildings (2026-05-26 11:35:29+00:00): Hello. Could you please elaborate why did you delete this landuse feature?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183181076
wcedmisten (2026-05-26 22:56:54+00:00): Hello! As far as I can tell, this is not actually a hospital, so I replaced this with a more accurate POI.
Sammyhawkrad (2026-05-26 08:03:49+00:00): My comment on your earlier changeset also applies here. Changes reverted via https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183192620
MxxCon (2026-05-26 11:51:06+00:00): While this might not be a "hospital", it's still a valid feature that should be corrected, not deleted!
Deleting osm features destroys their history which are useful in the future to reference. Please revert this deletion. See https://www.zocdoc.com/doctor/ephron-shohat-md-facc-216140 and many other places where this doctor is listed.
wcedmisten (2026-05-26 22:51:18+00:00): Nice find! Mapped as a doctor's office in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183231587
afgb1977 (2026-06-07 16:32:43+00:00): Hello. 
Why did you add the Japanese name to elements located in Colombia, where Spanish is spoken? Something? Naki? This word does not exist as a name in the elements you mapped.
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-26 05:17:08+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
are the names real?
mueschel (2026-05-28 09:03:22+00:00): Hi,
please don't try to add the full menu of some restaurant - OSM is not the right place for that. The food:* tags are meant to point out some categories of food specialities, but not for detailed lists of everything on the menu.
roamingsonaa (2026-06-01 04:55:15+00:00): Thanks for the feedback. 🤙🏽
diamondarmorsteve (2026-05-26 13:15:00+00:00): Good luck, I tried upgrading it to a city in the past and someone reverted it
Joseph R P (2026-05-26 16:12:37+00:00): In the event this change were to be reverted, I think Georgetown stands even more as a city now with its population surpassing 100k and its insanely rapid growth since the 2020 census.
ZincoYarvis (2026-06-02 09:13:47+00:00): Hey lephan, this changeset deleted some footpaths around the area. Was this intentional?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183182415
lephan (2026-06-02 11:03:07+00:00): yes
ZincoYarvis (2026-06-03 03:58:14+00:00): The paths are still visible from aerial imagery. What was your reason for deleting them? If you deleted them because they no longer exist, did you survey the area to confirm this?
lephan (2026-06-03 04:37:59+00:00): The image is often out of date when when have construction sites or blocks are sold to developers and have development applications on the site. Either way a site visit is the only way to determine the current status. The alterations reflect the current state of these blocks as of May 2026.
Baloo Uriza (2026-06-01 12:56:43+00:00): US 66 Hist should not be used, please spell Historic out completely.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183182540
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-06-01 15:41:58+00:00): I should mention that ref=* keys longer than eleven (11) characters don't get rendered. This is a known issue in OSM Carto. Until (and if) that gets fixed, this will have to do for now (since the renderer would also hide the "I 40" value, which is more important).
ftrebien (2026-06-30 21:16:44+00:00): Favor não representar o mesmo elemento mais de uma vez de formas diferentes (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Uma_caracter%C3%ADstica,_um_elemento_do_OSM). Basta mapear elementos como igrejas e praças uma vez só, não mapeie como área e depois como ponto individual ou vice-versa.
khag7 (2026-05-26 02:19:28+00:00): A large majority of the elements you deleted are on land owned by the state of Pennsylvania. I don't claim those to be public access (they might be, I don't honestly know) but they're not "private property" if they're owned by the state.
Lonen (2026-05-26 02:28:02+00:00): re-instate the state land but it's not legally accessible by motor vehicle.  there are arbitrary lines that follow tree lines that aren't anything as well, I'll continue to delete them as they don't exist.
woodpeck (2026-05-26 07:29:58+00:00): Hello there, I think there's no need for intervention here by the DWG because it seems that user Lonen is already clear about this, just stating it for the sake of completeness: There is almost nothing that is "not permitted to be mapped" - it is fully legal for us to map a private road/track/path on private land, of course adding the appropriate tags to mark it as such. Deleting such legal information from OSM constitutes vandalism, even if it is the land owner themselves that do it. 

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F for some background.

Of course, if a trail actually does not exist (not in the sense "nobody can access this" but "there is no trail visible here") then deleting it makes sense and actually improves the map.
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-26 05:16:05+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
are the names real?
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-26 05:15:50+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
is the name real?
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-26 05:15:32+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
is the name real?
felipeeugenio (2026-05-26 11:04:42+00:00): Hola. Gracias por sus ediciones.

Ese camino es el L-319 según el MOP. Por favor no cambiarlos.
Por favor preocuparse de la ortografía también.

Saludos y bienvenido.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183184462
felipeeugenio (2026-05-26 11:14:06+00:00): Ahora que vemos, la cartelería de la calle indica L-325. Lo que es incorrecto, pero nos causa un problema. vamos a ver
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183184462
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-26 05:15:23+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
is the name real?
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-26 05:15:28+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
is the name real?
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-05-29 11:44:30+00:00): Why you keep adding 000 as a housenumber everywhere?
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-26 04:11:31+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13879571182

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-26 04:21:10+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13879775125

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
eerib (2026-05-26 04:54:12+00:00): Revert CS 183186283, 183186245, 183185993, 183185865, 183185692 - Vandalism

Sockpuppet account of previously banned vandal.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20705

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183186603
Baloo Uriza (2026-06-01 12:57:38+00:00): Looks like this got mapped inside a house.  What's the correct location?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/183185929
DressyPear4 (2026-05-26 13:10:13+00:00): Olá, google não deve ser usado como fonte de dados, cuide para não deixar pontas soltas ao editar vias.
eerib (2026-05-26 04:54:13+00:00): Revert CS 183186283, 183186245, 183185993, 183185865, 183185692 - Vandalism

Sockpuppet account of previously banned vandal.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20705

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183186603
kaleidoscopica (2026-06-01 12:23:47+00:00): If you zoom way out to zoom level 11 or 12, most of Barrilla Draw is still visible on aerial imagery - it's a really sizeable, if dispersed waterway, which is why I'd tagged most of it as waterway=river. From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream streams are expected to be able to be jumped by the average able-bodied person, which doesn't seem like it fits for Barilla Draw, but I'm curious if you had another reason for changing it to waterway=stream?
AKLAB (2026-06-02 06:52:35+00:00): I changed it based on NHD data and the fact that it does not have a consistent natural bed.
kaleidoscopica (2026-06-02 12:21:54+00:00): Hm, I suppose there is no guidance about natural beds on the wiki. 

By the way, I noticed multiple members were missing from the waterway relation - I restored them; the waterway relation is used externally (for example on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barilla_Draw) and it was looking pretty strange with chunks missing. You might want to be more careful to leave the relation members intact when making changes.
arjunaraoc (2026-05-26 09:32:20+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/183187025
hahae (2026-07-04 01:12:47+00:00): 草地应用 landuse=grass 不是 grassland
hatul (2026-06-15 10:13:44+00:00): שלום אחאב
החאן כבר היה ממופה על כל השטח אז מיזגתי את הנקודה שלך לתוכו.
arjunaraoc (2026-05-26 09:33:58+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/183187582
Mose53 (2026-06-24 06:59:42+00:00): You made a syntax fix that removed the building from the map. This contradicts reality, because the building actually exists. I've therefore reverted to version 3.
Nordpfeil (2026-06-28 13:29:53+00:00): Thank you for restoring the correct version. It was not my intention to delete an existing building. Sorry for the inconvinience.
BCNorwich (2026-05-26 09:03:14+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

OSM is a live worldwide database from which countless maps are compiled. Thus, OSM shouldn't be edited merely for fun. Your edits here deleted a cycle way crossing, which would cause disruption to routing. Thus, I've reverted this changeset, all is OK now.

Regards Bernard.
LachlanTansey2009 (2026-05-26 06:38:50+00:00): West Footscray to Sunshine. Not West Footscray to Sunbury, my apologies.
woodpeck (2026-05-26 07:09:46+00:00): Dear masaya2, thank you for your contributions to OSM. In this changeset you have deleted and then re-created a number of buildings because they were in the wrong location. It is recommended to instead move the existing building to the right place in cases like this, so that the history is retained.
MappingMore (2026-05-28 01:58:11+00:00): Partially Revert of 183176584
Marek-M (2026-05-26 09:02:39+00:00): Cześć, z tego co pamiętam, to te ciągi pieszo-rowerowe były poprawnie zmapowane i jeżeli znaki nie zostały wymienione, to ta edycja jest błędna. Nie wszędzie jest tam 'Droga dla pieszych i rowerów' - wg znaków są tam też chodniki z dopuszczonym ruchem rowerowym.

Czy potwierdzasz zmianę znaków przy tych drogach?
Kookykooky (2026-05-27 09:32:03+00:00): Hi, according to our information, there is a widely used cycle path along the canal. We are not sure whether it is properly marked in the terrain. We found this arrangement suitable.
Marek-M (2026-05-27 10:01:25+00:00): Hi, thank you for the explanation. I confirm that these roads are frequently used by cyclists. According to Polish law, we have various signage options for such roads, and the rights of cyclists on these paths depend on this signage. OpenStreetMap in Poland uses appropriate tagging based on these signs, and this edit causes a loss of information regarding cyclists' rights on the roads. Here you can find information on which tags allow cyclists on roads in Poland:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Rowery#Drogi_dla_pieszych_z_dopuszczonym_ruchem_rowerowym_(deptaki)
Marek-M (2026-05-27 11:01:44+00:00): I rolled back this edit - the roads were tagged correctly.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183249879
Kookykooky (2026-05-28 08:08:10+00:00): Thanks, sorry for the inconvenience. I'll be more careful next time.
Have a nice day
Marek-M (2026-05-28 08:39:12+00:00): While reverting the changes, I verified the tagging and fixed some of it at the end. So this edit helped improve the map. Thanks! Have a nice day too!
0xb7767000 (2026-05-26 07:36:16+00:00): Danke für's erledigen meiner Hinweise!
t_ja (2026-05-26 08:22:17+00:00): Ahoj,
správny názov má byť "Obecný úrad <názov dediny>", tak si to obce píšu na budovách, viď. https://maps.app.goo.gl/fEGrFKWscruuZy968
V prípade miest tam síce môže byť len "Mestský úrad" (napr. Žilina: https://maps.app.goo.gl/SCrvPcx7XbgJ6ptz9), ale v záujme jednotného mapovania je vhodné v takýchto prípadoch doplniť aj názov mesta.

A keď už tak podrobne mapujeme, tak poprosím pridávať aj "townhall:type=village", nech v budúcnosti bude menej toho na opravovanie/doĺňanie 😉

T.
Tomas_J (2026-05-26 08:54:55+00:00): Dik, type pridam. Nazvy beriem z ofic. webov obci. Mam tam teda davat tvoj format bez ohladu na to, co pise obec?
t_ja (2026-05-26 11:54:42+00:00): Aby sme predisli nedorozumeniu, to nie je "moj" format, ale taky format zvycajne pozorujem pri napisoch na budovach danych uradov.
Dalsi priklad: https://maps.app.goo.gl/JgVfHibghYKyTync6
Kludne si mozes prejst na GMaps vsetkych 2500+ obecnych/mestskych uradov a spravit statistiku, ktory urad ma co napisane na budove 😉

Pouzivat len napis "obec" je podla mna nezmysel, lebo obcou je cele uzemie, ktore uz mapujeme cez relacie katastralnych uzemi. V tej jednej budove je prave obecny/mestsky URAD, ktory ma na starosti spravu danej obce.

Co sa tyka formatu obecneho/mestskeho uradu, ja som bol zvyknuty pisat len nazov obce, niekde to tak vydrzalo doteraz (napr. obce v Rajeckej kotline), ale inde to uz ini poprepisovali, napr. tu: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/459469875/history

Pripravil som aj Overpass query: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2qDm , kde na konci kazdeho riadku je uvedeny jej vysledok.
V skratke:
- celkovo mame zmapovanych 1648 obecnych/mestskych uradov (vid prvy riadok)
- z toho 812 uz ma v nazve "obecny urad" (ci uz aj s nazvom obce alebo bez nej, vid predposledny riadok)
- z toho 466 ma pravdepodobne aj nazov obce v nazve (vid posledny riadok s medzerou v nazve)
- pri mestach je ten rozdiel este vyraznejsi, 64 z 90 ma formu "Mestsky urad <mesto>"
Osobne s tym nemam problem a ked uz sa uvadza "obecny urad" do nazvu, tak nevidim dovod, preco tam nedat rovno aj nazov obce.
Tomas_J (2026-05-26 12:08:20+00:00): Tak teraz z toho nie som múdry.  Skús napísať pls. pre túto výzvu doporučenie jednou vetou, čo v praxi presne dávať do názvu obecného úradu na dedinách (samotný názov obce/"Obecný úrad"+názov obce/iba "Obecný úrad" bez názvu obce). Ak by som išiel podľa Wiki, name by som nevypĺňal, pretože neviem/nechce sa mi overovať každú tabuľu na každej budove.
joost schouppe (2026-05-26 07:53:12+00:00): fix osmose is a weird changeset description for deleting a police station :)
I assume you intended to delete it?
Jean-Louis Stanus (2026-05-26 09:04:12+00:00): géométrie dupliquée  | amenity=police level=1 (distance=54.7m)

yes, the osmose alert is correct. I know this place. the police station is behind the Night and Day at level 1.
joost schouppe (2026-05-26 11:21:46+00:00): Ah yes, a duplicate with https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11936678623
Thanks for clarifying!
Jean-Louis Stanus (2026-05-26 11:33:24+00:00): Your Welcome. Thank you for your vigilance :)
Dodko (2026-05-26 08:31:46+00:00): Ak je to budova, treba zakresliť budovu.
rskedgell (2026-05-27 11:56:52+00:00): Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Checking with a local is fine, however using OS Maps is not unless they are out of copyright or licensed under the Open Government Licence.

There's an OSM-compatible site which lets you check public rights of way, https://osm.mathmos.net/prow/progress/kent/ashford/west-ashford-rural/

I've changed track from access=no (no access to any transport mode) to access=private which should better reflect the situation.
grzegorz75jan (2026-05-26 10:28:16+00:00): Widzisz tu most https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1522301938

Po sąsiedzku bo dłubałeś przy tej drodze też widziałeś most https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/712105373 a teraz nawet nie zwróciłeś na to uwagi ??? Do tego węzeł na różnych wartościach layer https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13404753642 bo most z niczego ma 1 a ścieżka standardową wartość.

Ile razy mam Ci pisać o mostach i przepustach  oraz pytać czy wiesz co i jak edytujesz ?

Do dróg dodałeś maxspeed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:maxspeed a gdzie źródło https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:source:maxspeed.
Umownie patrząc jak jest na mapie ul. Spokojna jak i Na Lochy 
ma 50 km/h czy 30 i na podstawie jakich znaków czy innych uwarunkowań ?
Niw wycofam edycji w całości ale częściowo. 
Edytujesz albo bazgrasz.

Pobazgrasz ze dwa fragmenty na drodze a reszta geometrii leży. Drogi w Nowodworzu mają nazwy (prawda to nie ty je dodałeś).
grzegorz75jan (2026-05-26 12:48:50+00:00): Zadzwoniłem do gminy i możesz sobie pisać survey. Prędkości to z grubsza 30 km/h a niby most za cmentarzem to na 90% przepust.

Malujesz fikcje i jeszcze piszesz survey.
impact0r (2026-05-26 19:48:02+00:00): Twoje linki prowadzą do mapy całego wojewodztwa, zamiast do jakiegoś konkretnego punktu, więc nie wiadomo o czym piszesz. Zamiasat pisać bezużyteczne komentarze, weź się za dodawanie limitów prędkości na drogach w regionie.
impact0r (2026-05-26 19:54:44+00:00): To, czy coś jest mostem czy przepustem, ma śladowe znaczenie w porównaniu do faktu wyrzucania przez mapę błedu i sugerowania dodania mostu. "Bazgranie" jest lepsze od braku informacji i Twojego szkodliwego pedantyzmu. Dzwoń po gminach i poprawiaj, a nie usuwaj informacje i drogi dodane przez innych. 
Aha - i tak, ten punkt koło cmentarza to most, nie przepust.