piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Glassman (2024-12-06 22:48:07+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159934662
Glassman (2024-12-06 22:48:19+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159934662
Glassman (2024-12-06 22:51:31+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159934666
Glassman (2024-12-06 22:29:44+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159934670
SzymonH (2024-12-05 09:34:42+00:00): Ten odcinek drogi znajduje się poza Warszawą i nie posiada nazwy. Co do ruchu pieszego: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=481355673101822&lat=52.20669382&lng=20.86944399&z=17&focus=photo Myślę, że widoczny tu znak B-41 wszystko wyjaśnia...
Arno Schotmans (2024-12-05 09:41:08+00:00): @SzymonH Czy przypadkowo zmieniłem parametry na obu jezdniach? Przepraszam, jeśli tak. Moja zmiana (ruch pieszy) ma dotyczyć tylko jezdni w kierunku południowym. Co do nazwy: poza obszarem zabudowanym, owszem, ale też poza terenu miasta Warszawy?
Glassman (2024-12-06 22:52:42+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159935608
Glassman (2024-12-06 22:53:08+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159935663
Glassman (2024-12-06 22:54:06+00:00): Typically these instructions are added as a node to the road. Nothing wrong with this but it isn't all that useful.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159935714
Glassman (2024-12-06 22:54:35+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159935765
erickdeoliveiraleal (2024-12-17 14:15:51+00:00): Olá, você deu nomes genéricos aos elementos criados. Se não existe nome próprio deixe o nome em branco. Exemplo: Passarela em deck.
gurglypipe (2024-12-04 22:56:26+00:00): I still think these would be more accurately represented as crossing=traffic_signals (as there are *traffic* signals here), but Pete Owens will revert that change if I make it. At least adding button_operated= and crossing:signals=no makes things a bit clearer.

crossing:signals=shared from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Crossing_signalization would make things clearer still, but that tagging is still a proposal.
eggie (2024-12-05 08:12:41+00:00): Dag Jip,

Voor nummers gebruiken we geen name=, maar ref=   
Dit is al eerder opgemerkt, maar je hebt hier verder niet op gereageerd en/of geacteerd.

MVG
eggie
NorthCrab_upload (2024-12-04 23:11:09+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera nadmiarowe informacje. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Paczkomat nie powinien mieć nazwy. Nazwa nadawana jest automatycznie, na podstawie wartości brand. Opcjonalnie, numer identyfikacyjny może być przekazany w polu ref.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12396859557

Dokumentacja paczkomatów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:amenity%3Dparcel_locker

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Langlaeufer (2024-12-11 19:40:23+00:00): Hallo ruhmkorf,
Das access sieht noch etwas verworren aus.
Gibt es dort Schilder? wie ist der genaue Wortlaut?  
bicycle, foot, horse=permissive kling plausibel
access=permissive würde erstmal auch alles andere auch erlauben.
motor_vehilce = agricultural spricht gegen Privatweg - vermutlich eher motor_vehicle=private (Kfz), vehicle=private (Befahren) je nach Schärfe der Formulierung.  oneway=no auf einem Feldweg ist überflüssig, da wohl mehr als 99% aller Feldwege keine Einbahnstraße haben dürften.
Grüße Langläufer
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159936601
Langlaeufer (2024-12-12 08:49:17+00:00): Wurden die Verkehrsschilder tatsächlich ausgetauscht gegen andere Schilder https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=831772621028211&focus=photo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159936601
ruhmkorf (2024-12-20 17:38:10+00:00): Hallo, hat etwas gedauert, jetzt ein paar Antworten:

An den Einfahrten vom Straßennetz stehen wie erwähnt unverändert die Zeichen "Verbot für Kraftfahrzeuge" und "Landwirtschaftlicher Verkehr frei".

Eigentümer ist nicht mehr die Gemeinde, sondern ein privater Zusammenschluss der Anlieger. Man verbietet motorisierten Verkehr per Beschilderung. Motorisierter, landwirtschaftlicher Verkehr/Agricultural erlaubt die Eigentümergemeinschaft aber mittels Beschilderung.

Für nicht-motorisierten Verkehr gibt es keine Beschilderung. Laut Wiki soll man permissive verwenden, wenn ein Weg nicht für die Öffentlichkeit Gewidmet ist, der Eigentümer die Nutzung aber duldet. Genau das ist der Fall für alles ohne Motoren.
Langlaeufer (2024-12-20 19:20:44+00:00): permitted ist für Wald- und Feldwege aber nicht üblich.  der Eigentümer darf das beteten hier ja nicht grundlos verweigern.

ich würde dann wohl einfach operator:type=private und motor_vehicle=agricultural taggen.
JezCrow (2024-12-06 01:21:10+00:00): Hi Russlad, welcome to OpenStreetMap! Just because a path is on private property or impassable doesn't mean they shouldn't be mapped. These are both Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and are clearly signed as such (visible on Bing Streetside) so anything preventing access here should be reported to the Council.

As for all the other highways you have deleted in your other changesets, there are methods of indicating private access (e.g. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate )

What happened to Puzzle Woods?
JezCrow (2025-01-31 14:20:31+00:00): No response to comment, so I've reverted this

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161978946
eggie (2024-12-05 08:10:12+00:00): Dag Jip..

Wanneer Zwanenmeertje een officieel uitgegeven naam is is het oke. Wanneer het alleen gebruikt wordt door de buurt dan loc_name=  gebruiken. 

MVG
eggie
Fgjgdrou (2024-12-18 11:02:00+00:00): I've retagged this set of 2 ways as a planned road in changeset 160345086.
Nadjita (2024-12-12 11:45:12+00:00): Nur mal eine Anmerkung: Die Zufahrten von Parkplätzen sind nicht `service=parking_aisle`, sondern einfach nur `highway=service`, ohne einen entsprechenden `service`-Tag.
Siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:service%3Dparking_aisle

Wege zu Garagen hingegen sind `service=driveway`
gurglypipe (2024-12-05 00:39:16+00:00): Now you’ve put a kink in Water Street too.

If the LCN tagging is not continuous, split ways and add more lcn=yes tags. There’s no need to change geometry or change cycleway links to do that.

Those cycleway links were in place because the span of a cycleway as it crosses into a road carriageway is clearly different from the cycleway as it continues outside the carriageway. Hence the separate tagging and separate way.
CorruptComputer (2024-12-07 16:42:20+00:00): Hey this is awesome, thank you for taking care of a lot of these streams! I've been meaning to do something about these for awhile and am really happy to see these added.
kaleidoscopica (2024-12-07 18:26:21+00:00): Yeah, no problem! I've been trying to get everything joined up around Houston, lately... part of a larger goal for Texas as well. The WaterwayMap project has been really instrumental in that regard, allowing me to see the linkages via colors, so I'm really grateful to them for that.
mcliquid (2024-12-05 08:48:09+00:00): Danke, komplett vergessen!
Ich finde die Linie auch überhaupt nicht im GTFS-Feed, das wundert mich doch sehr:
https://ptna.openstreetmap.de/gtfs/DE/routes.php?feed=DE-BW-bodo&release_date=
derloris (2024-12-05 20:37:05+00:00): kP.
Ah, in diese Feed-Listen hab ich nicht so den Einblick. Aber wenn man sie stichprobenartig abgleicht, dürften in dieser auch noch andere Linien wie 16, 17, 21 etc fehlen.
woodpeck (2024-12-05 00:46:49+00:00): Hello Nestel Lumentah, welcome to OSM. There's no need to upload every single building! You can draw a few dozen buildings and then upload them in one go.
Tallguy (2024-12-06 18:58:13+00:00): Hi @mapeing & welcome to OSM.  

At the Western end of this changeset you've created a couple of tunnels, one on the B260, however the A2 above them is already tagged with bridge=yes - the roads under a bridge don't need to be tagged as a tunnel.  

Also, the new roads that you've created as tunnels didn't need to be created? If possible amend existing features so we don't lose the history.

It's a lot easier if you keep the changesets to a smaller geographical area. I haven't looked at the rest of the changeset.
Tallguy (2024-12-06 19:05:04+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge
partytax (2025-04-09 01:35:00+00:00): Hello. I'm an active local mapper in Lynchburg and noticed you deleted a bunch of low-level administrative boundaries in the city. Could you explain why you did this? They were imported from the city's open data portal.
OptikalCrow (2025-04-09 01:40:07+00:00): I'll admit this was something I did early on in my mapping career- so the topology of them was probably bad. I take responsibility for any mistakes there. 

I'd be happy to import them the right way as I think it's useful information, unless there are other objections than just the geometry.
ZeLonewolf (2025-04-09 08:23:32+00:00): The geometries were broken in various ways. Not in boundary relations, not connected to adjoining boundaries, and so forth. They are also not listed in Virginia's entry on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level which suggests no community discussion occurred to add an admin level above 8. For these reasons I deemed them too broken to fix and deleted them.
OptikalCrow (2025-04-09 14:57:29+00:00): Makes sense. If we were to re-add these with the proper geometry, could we still add them, using a non-administrative boundary tag and no admin_level? Or would you suggest leaving them as nodes with no established boundaries?
ZeLonewolf (2025-04-09 16:37:05+00:00): I think that needs a community discussion that's worth opening a thread. There's several folks I can think of off the top of my head that ought to weigh in. Sub-municipal boundaries can be a controversial topic and I don't think there's a strong community consensus. Therefore I don't feel qualified to state a recommendation unilaterally!
gscholz (2024-12-05 08:30:39+00:00): Hi elbmap,
this changeset has created errors in the OSM database regarding self intersecting ways and at least one displaced ferry terminal:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=9.60739&lat=40.98055&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=159938392

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
wildmaps (2024-12-05 10:09:28+00:00): Hi Guido,
thank you for the message. I have seen the problem and will solve it.
Michael
SomeoneElse_Revert (2024-12-05 01:54:38+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 159890866, 159896347.
Rngrk (2024-12-05 18:48:52+00:00): What kind of test is this?
413Xiaol (2024-12-06 01:33:34+00:00): a test for OSM process data logic, it aimed at how OSM works. I my plan, I will delete these ways after finish the test (maybe in 3 days). It seems you have already removed it.
pitscheplatsch (2024-12-05 11:29:41+00:00): Is this just a test? The mapped landuse do not align with the satellite imagery.
pitscheplatsch (2024-12-05 11:29:59+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159939448
pitscheplatsch (2024-12-05 11:30:09+00:00): Revert of https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159939400
mariotomo (2024-12-05 06:35:58+00:00): hi. thank you for the swift fix. looks indeed better. I only had to fix a boundary relation (relations are notoriously difficult to handle with iD).
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159943402
LateGuest (2024-12-10 19:22:37+00:00): Геометрия объектов исправлена ошибочно, так как использовался спутниковый снимок с сильными искажениями в данной местности (та же проблема, что и в пакете правок 159881917).

Откатил данные правки.
BCNorwich (2024-12-06 07:38:57+00:00): Many duplicated highways removed.
quoc_doananh (2024-12-06 07:51:09+00:00): Hi BCNorwich,
Thank you for your comment. I apologize for duplicated highways. While I was drawing and updating the map, I experienced network issues that caused the existing roads to disappear. When the network resumed, this resulted in the duplication of highways. I appreciate your understanding and will ensure it doesn't happen again

Best regards,
sovereign_quocda
mavl (2025-05-13 15:04:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-18 04:11:15+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165094994
mavl (2025-05-13 15:04:00+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
mavl (2025-05-13 15:04:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
akadouri (2024-12-19 00:17:47+00:00): Did I leave a duplicate node or self-crossing line? Still getting used to importing a feature via JOSM.
quincylvania (2024-12-19 00:21:48+00:00): Hmm I don't remember but it was one of those. I should have left a better changeset comment lol. I was using this inspector: https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-10 18:44:08+00:00): Hello!

You used
access=no-
on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/884945141/history

Have you maybe meant
access=no
?

I am pretty sure that it is a typo, but not sure enough to just replace it (I edited some objects where situation seemed more clear to me).

Or have you used this value deliberately? In such case, what was the intended meaning?
larz86 (2025-04-10 20:47:19+00:00): access= no 
was my intended tag
Public access to these trails is not allowed as part of the Tribal reservation regulations for this area.
Pardon my typo.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-11 09:34:53+00:00): edited!
mavl (2025-05-13 15:09:05+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
mavl (2025-05-13 15:08:28+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
einfachschnellzumziel (2024-12-05 15:10:10+00:00): deleted 3 fire hydrants (that I originally wanted to specify the diameter for via StreetComplete) as I couldn't find them. As I learned later there's also an underground man hole type and not just the typical pillar. The former are probably the ones present there. Could someone please reverse my deletion? Couldn't figure out how to do it yet. Thank you.
bdentremont (2024-12-07 15:37:01+00:00): FYI, that article is a little misleading.  Only the connection to university parkway was removed.  There are a couple houses on this road which still need access form the other end. I've restored it to where it actually is barricaded this morning.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/160030983
mavl (2025-05-13 15:04:03+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
Sammyhawkrad (2024-12-05 12:00:01+00:00): Hi nevw, you have deleted existing streams while fixing a loop. This has, in turn, created new isolated waterways. 
Please have a second look at this.
nevw (2024-12-06 02:58:58+00:00): Ok, thanks.
nevw (2024-12-06 03:20:34+00:00): I have reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159979159
I will redo the waterway loop soon
nevw (2024-12-06 03:32:23+00:00): I have re-edited the area to fix the waterways that overlapped and looped, deleted two building duplications, deleted duplicated rail sections.
See ...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159979263
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=159979263&zoom=8&lat=-26.81145&lon=151.6152&layers=B000000TTTFT
nevw (2024-12-06 03:48:17+00:00): I also fixed these https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159979502
https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=159979502&zoom=8&lat=-26.81145&lon=151.6152&layers=B000000TTTFT
I
nevw (2024-12-06 03:58:09+00:00): I also drew the waterway through the waterbody.
I noticed that Josm validator picked up 71 untagged ways.
They appear to be buildings but resolutions is not good.  These were in near Nana Ama Saa I Street north of the railway and south of about the waterways.
Are you able to tag those as I am doing this remotely and not familiar with the area.
Sammyhawkrad (2024-12-06 04:02:43+00:00): Thanks for reviewing the edits. 

The paths around the bridge are not visible in the imagery. I think it's better to delete them. Including https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/965684286
Sammyhawkrad (2024-12-06 04:07:01+00:00): I have created a Maproulette challenge (mpr.lt/c/48876) dealing with untagged ways in Ghana so they are going to get fixed soon.
nevw (2024-12-06 04:12:09+00:00): Good to fix them.
I have fixed a few more things including deleted the path/bridge referred to.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159979829
Sammyhawkrad (2024-12-06 04:18:36+00:00): Great! Thanks
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-09-01 12:35:50+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12397210659/history has shop = farmers_market that was added in this edit
shop=farmers_market ? What kind of shop, if any is here? Is it intentionally used instead of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=farm and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dmarketplace ? If yes, what is the difference? Should we document this shop value as distinct, valid and useful?
eggie (2024-12-05 08:04:09+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  No need for name:en=...  
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2024-12-05 08:08:05+00:00): Dag Willem,

Ik heb leisure=sport_centre verwijderd.
Verder source=BAG hersteld.
Tegen de tijd dat het gesloopt is kunnen het gebouw en de adresnode verwijderd worden.
MVG
eggie
4004 (2024-12-08 23:29:50+00:00): здравствуйте, спасибо за правку,
административное здание.. - выникает из тега здания, и его нахождения на территории завода. а вот офис энергосетей стоит отметить точкой отдельно
mariotomo (2024-12-05 06:59:46+00:00): source for phone number is https://panama.worldplaces.me/view-place/71948339-finca-richard-s-place.html
Taksine (2024-12-14 04:21:55+00:00): Are you sure the name of this gift shop is really Hainan gift? It's very suspicious. Do you have any photos to prove it? If so, please send one.
Taksine (2024-12-14 04:36:26+00:00): Oh, I found the picture now, it's really a bit incredible, it's okay.
BCNorwich (2024-12-06 07:43:06+00:00): Please take heed and correct the many warnings given above, I've already removed several duplicated highways.
quoc_doananh (2024-12-06 07:57:03+00:00): Hi BCNorwich, 
Thank you again, I had a cyber incident, I'm sincerely sorry for making this mistake, this is my fault and I'm trying not to let this happen again.

Best regards,
sovereign_quocda
BCNorwich (2024-12-06 08:52:04+00:00): Hi, Thanks for responding. I think everything is OK now. The 40 crossing highway warnings were corrected when the duplicates were removed.

I was a bit worried because your changeset was large, 104 features. That would have taken a long time to check through. But as I said I think it's all OK now.

Regards Bernard.
quoc_doananh (2024-12-09 01:34:24+00:00): Hi BCNorwich,
Thank you with the greatest respect.
Regards sovereign_quocda
dpolovinkin (2024-12-05 07:46:48+00:00): * buildings, actually
zuicz (2025-05-13 14:07:31+00:00): Autobusy od dziś jeżdżą Lokalną, czy na śladach widać może czy jest już otwarta dla wszystkich?
Tomek | Yanosik (2025-05-14 08:24:25+00:00): Widać, że przeniesiono ruch z Serdecznej na https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1386049406 . Zrobię edycję. Na Lokalnej widać jest ruch, ale nie wygląda to pełne otwarcie.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-12-10 02:05:45+00:00): Your edits from the last week have all been reverted. 
As conveyed by others please stop deleting features.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159947203
emersonveenstra (2024-12-06 12:42:55+00:00): Hi there,

On https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184849291 your lane counts don't match up (5+2=4) and on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1129908908 you have lanes:forward=2 but turn:lanes:forward has 5 lanes. Could you please fix these? Thanks!
GPS-GR (2024-12-07 21:56:38+00:00): Hi emersonveenstra....
THANKS for your eagle eyes spotting my lane count was off.  Initially lane count was pre-populated as 4.  I did manage to edit the other lane counts correctly.. But obviously over looked this segment. Now it's corrected to lanes = 7. In the future, I'll triple check my change sets before uploading. Thanks again for catching this.
GPS-GR (2024-12-07 22:15:35+00:00): RE: ChangeSet 1129908908...
I also corrected number of lanes Forward and backward as you noted were wrong. I'll certainly watch my forwards and backwards more closely. Thanks..
emersonveenstra (2024-12-08 14:09:44+00:00): Thanks! 

Also, it's not my eagle eyes looking through every changeset, I just get reports from Osmose (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Osmose) about things like this.
mavl (2025-05-13 15:05:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
morgen1 (2024-12-17 17:35:51+00:00): Hallo Herr Scholz, ich finde es unpassend, einen
 Datensatz ohne Diskussion zu löschen, dessen Inhalt sie offensichtlich niemals vor Ort gesehen haben. Die vermeintliche Überschneidung ist keine. Es sieht nur in der 2 D Ansicht so aus. Tatsächlich führt der Fußweg durch einen Tunnel unter dem Autobahnteilstück hindurch und windet sich dann als Serpentine nach oben zur neuen Brücke. Es ist übrigens die einzige Fußläufige Verbindung der beiden Stadtteile.