piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NorthCrab (2023-01-09 21:47:25+00:00): Usunąłem zbędne tagi dostępowe. Jeśli tam jest któryś ze znaków pokazanych na https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:segregated to trzeba zastosować się do tej dokumentacji. Na tą chwilę usunąłem foot=yes bicycle=yes.
datendelphin (2023-04-15 15:12:01+00:00): Cham: This wikidata tag was already on the municipality. the wikidata item is definitely *not* for the town, but the municipality. What a bad mechanical edit.
wipfli (2023-04-16 07:09:15+00:00): Thank you for the review. It is true that the municipalities often have a wikidata tag already, however, the town point label can be associated with multiple larger entities.

Let's consider Payerne for example.  The point label https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/35358360 is the admin_center of the relation Payerne https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1685094#map=13/46.8212/6.9357 and at the same time it is the admin_center of the relation District de la Broye-Vully https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/373332#map=10/46.7812/6.9017.

Is there a way of knowing from which relation the Wikidata tag for the town label should be taken?

Thanks for you help!
datendelphin (2023-04-16 12:54:23+00:00): Thank you for your response. I think it depends on what you want to use it for. Those relations do have an admin_level from which you can choose which level you want to regard. Maybe the largest, because you want the narrowest match. Or the lowest, because you want the highest in hierarchy? And maybe you only want to do it if the name matches.
Happy mapping
NorthCrab (2023-01-09 21:41:46+00:00): Z geoportalowego rozpisu dróg to kwiatowa znajduje się tutaj: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/122004873. Ten odcinek to service który nie powinien mieć nazwy co poprawiłem.
NorthCrab (2023-01-09 21:41:58+00:00): Witaj na OpenStreetMap! - zapomniałem przywitać :P
Przemo_75 (2023-01-09 21:53:05+00:00): Witam :-)
Ta droga, to droga prywatna, ale posesje 33-37 są przy ulicy Kwiatowej.
Analogicznie jest z tym kawałkiem drogi po prawej stronie. Posesje 12-12b mieszczą się przy ulicy Krokusowej.
Takie nazwy ulic i numery zostały przyporządkowane przez gminę.
NorthCrab (2023-01-09 21:55:25+00:00): Często zdarza się że adresy nie leżą bezpośrednio przy drodze publicznej i to jest w porządku. Jednakże nie jest to argumentem na nadawanie podjazdom/dróg niepublicznym nazw których w rzeczywistości nie mają.
NorthCrab (2023-01-09 21:56:02+00:00): Każdy adres zawiera informację na jakiej ulicy się znajduje (addr:street) i to z tego pola korzysta nawigacja więc nic się tutaj nie popsuje.
NorthCrab (2023-01-09 21:56:53+00:00): Z wyjątkiem do adresów bez nazw ulicy (często poza dużymi miastami, na wsiach): wtedy używany jest addr:place zamiast kombinacji addr:city+addr:street ale iD ma aktualnie słabe wsparcie na to i trzeba ręcznie edytować tagi.
Przemo_75 (2023-01-09 22:06:34+00:00): OK, rozumiem. Bardziej nie pasowało mi to, że widnieje nazwa Krokusowa, co nie było poprawne.
Pana argumentacja jak najbardziej do mnie przemawia.
NorthCrab (2023-01-09 22:09:15+00:00): Najprościej jest sprawdzić które drogi mają nazwy na warstwie z geoportalu: https://i.imgur.com/h2rGufD.png Oczywiście czasem mogą się wkraść błędy więc to nie jest odpowiedź na wszystkie pytania :D
Warin61 (2023-01-11 03:40:37+00:00): Hi,
Way 662758608 has been restored, this is part of the relation for Anglesea Heath Alcoa Agreement Area and is required to close the area. 

It looks like both the Anglesea Heath Alcoa Agreement Area and the new entry of way 1128451034 share this area... ???
NorthCrab (2023-01-09 21:52:11+00:00): Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Ten odcinek to podjazd/droga niepubliczna którą oznaczamy service i nie powinna mieć ona nazwy. Poprawiłem, Pozdrawiam!
yankkii (2023-01-10 08:19:31+00:00): Dzięki!
Julbus (2023-01-09 17:45:24+00:00): Bonjour, pourrais je avoir un peu plus d'informations sur Bet Ora s'il vous plaît, merci d'avance !
PanierAvide (2023-01-11 11:59:04+00:00): Bonjour,
Il s'agit d'un bureau d'études en aménagement. Je ne suis pas sûr de la façon dont on pourrait préciser plus en détail dans OSM leur activité.
Le point a été ajouté dans le cadre d'une présentation d'OSM et de la façon de contribuer aux données.
Cordialement.
eggie (2023-01-09 19:56:30+00:00): Adresnode weer hersteld
Aleksandar Matejevic (2023-01-09 13:42:53+00:00): Your edit broke the Beijing relation https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/912940

Can you please fix this?
user_12529349 (2023-01-10 14:50:12+00:00): I checked the relation and find no problem.

Can you tell me the broke? Thanks.
HellMap (2023-01-10 00:11:14+00:00): Sveiki!

Kas uz šī ceļa ir par ierobežojuma/ceļa zīmi/norādi?
NorthCrab (2023-01-09 21:54:07+00:00): To także wygląda jak podjazd/droga niepubliczna. Najszybciej taką informację sprawdzisz na warstwie nazw ulic: https://i.imgur.com/h2rGufD.png Pozdrawiam!
Austrianton (2023-01-10 18:56:35+00:00): Please keep individual edits local.
Thanks and happy mapping
DomenicoCacace (2023-01-10 10:07:14+00:00): Salve, volevo chiederle il motivo dell'eliminazione dei pali della luce nelle vicinanze di Piazza Santa Croce; riconosco che il mio ultimo sopralluogo in zona risalga a qualche mese fa, ma mi sembra strano che siano stati rimossi
Ficky IRM-RV (2023-02-24 00:33:50+00:00): Hello Russ McD

Thank you for mapping contribution OSM. I found a "relation without type" issue on this object (https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/relation/8892998). Can I add a "type:multipolygon" tag to the relation so that the issue can be resolved? or do you have any better suggestions to solve the issue?

Thank you
Happy mapping !
Russ McD (2023-02-24 03:24:33+00:00): Relationship now need to be deleted as hotel not there any more.
marczoutendijk (2023-01-09 19:53:15+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6742


Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
DD1GJ (2023-01-09 19:31:23+00:00): Die Löchungen wurden komplett zurückgesetzt, da die Begründungen nicht vertrauenswürdig sind. Solltest Du für eine Behörde oder Organisation arbeiten, dann melde Dich mit offiziellen Kontaktdaten bei naturschutz@openstreetmap.de

Erneute anonyme Löschungen werden umgehend wieder rückgängig gemacht und weitere Schritte eingeleitet.
marczoutendijk (2023-01-09 19:53:08+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6742


Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
RedEyedVireo (2023-01-10 14:28:25+00:00): Hi,

What is your source for Hygate Road? It is not visible on any aerial imagery that I am aware of.

Thanks,
RedEyedVireo
City Strider (2023-01-10 15:24:55+00:00): I first noticed it on Google maps and confirmed with City of Worcester GIS. Although, because it is branching off of a private road and clearly is not paved or even a gravel path you could delete it. I wonder if the owner of the property just needed an address and came up with that name.

Cheer,
City Strider
RedEyedVireo (2023-01-10 21:53:04+00:00): Hi.

Thanks For Clarifying.

I just took a look at this on MassGIS Level3 parcels which shows that there is a parcel that is listed as 1 Hygate Road in addition to a right of way where the road would be. I think that you are correct in thinking that when the lots were created someone decided to name the parcel as such.  However, the land was never developed and the road was never built.

Given that the road only seems to exist on a parcel map and not in the real world I will delete it.

Regards,
RedEyedVireo
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2023-01-11 01:05:45+00:00): Brug semikolen til at adskille dagene i opening_hours
ZeLonewolf (2023-01-24 03:51:23+00:00): Hi!  Thanks for fixing the boundary of Anderson Township.  Unfortunately two of the segments (Burney Lane) had a role of "inner" when they should have been "outer".  I see that you're using JOSM. If you hit the JOSM validator before uploading, it should give you a warning "multipolygon is not closed" - that's the indicator that there's something that need to be corrected.

I've fixed the problem on this boundary, so nothing to do on your part, just wanted to make you aware of the issue in case you were wondering why the JOSM validator was give you an warning!
Aleksandar Matejevic (2023-01-24 14:49:48+00:00): Thanks for notifying me, I did this one by accident, sorry, I will pay more attention in the future (I usually do, but will double check in the future)
skyper (2023-01-16 11:25:28+00:00): Hallo Sven,
danke für die Ergänzungen in Deinem Profil.
Bitte verwende Leerzeichen vor und nach dem "@" in den Werten von `*:conditional` (`access:conditional=no @ (Nov 15-Mar 15)`).
Bei `highway=track` (z.B. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/884342468) bin ich mir auch unsicher, ob Dein Tagging so hinhaut. Vorsicht, `access=*` (auch mit `:conditional`) wird durch konkretere Angaben wie `foot=*` überschrieben. Konkret ist an dem Weg der Zugang für "foot" und "bicycle" das ganze Jahr erlaubt, für "horse" das ganze Jahr verboten und für alle anderen Verkehrsmittel ist der Weg zwischen dem 15.11. und 15.03. verboten und sonst erlaubt. Hier fehlt wohl mindestens eine Einschränkung für `(motor-)vehicle=*` oder? Eventuell `forestry` als Wert ?
Viele Grüße,
skyper
Leo Slager (2023-01-10 11:20:03+00:00): De 10 beschadigde routerelaties van de stadsbussen zijn weer gerepareerd.
Het is overigens geen gewone weg. De verkeersborden bij het begin van de weg geven iets anders aan.
Ik heb dus access=destination toegevoegd.
jonrellim (2023-01-10 11:38:36+00:00): Access=destination is inderdaad prima. Routerelaties heb ik niks van gemerkt bij het uploaden, excuses.
NorthCrab (2023-01-09 21:44:19+00:00): Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Uważaj aby nie dodawać zbędnych tagów dostępowych, zapoznaj się z domyślnymi wartościami na https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Poland. Usunąłem także horse=no które prawdopodobnie jest błędem. horse=no oznacza stan prawny a nie fizyczną możliwość przejazdu. Stan prawny to np. znak zakazujący jazdy konno.

Pozdrawiam!
indigokrk (2023-01-09 22:26:01+00:00): Dziekuje za uwagi! To moja pierwsza kontrybucja do mapy, wiec nic dziwnego ze zrobilem troche bledow :) Wskazowki super pomocne. Bede sie stosowal. Dziekuje jeszcze raz!
NorthCrab (2023-01-09 23:51:08+00:00): Jakbyś był kiedyś czegoś niepewny to proś o sprawdzenie zmian przyciskiem tuż przed wysłaniem zmian na serwer. Jest on pod głównym przyciskiem do wysyłania zmian.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-01-11 06:41:55+00:00): a, jeszcze jedno pytanie - co miało być wyrażone przez width=0? Czy to jakoś niechący i niecelowo tam się znalazło?
indigokrk (2023-01-11 18:30:50+00:00): Niecelowo, poczatkowo chcialem ustawic na 1m ale ta sciezka ma nie wiecej niz 40 cm wiec przywrocilem do poczatkowego stanu.
cronoser (2023-03-03 14:42:18+00:00): Hello Patrick, if it is possible please add the track type at the same time when you add tracks. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype
With the track type is very easy to know if you can pass with a car or only with a 4 wheel drive car. Thank you and regards.
NorthCrab (2023-01-09 21:45:24+00:00): Jeśli klikniesz "Q" albo wybierzesz opcje z menu kontekstowego to będziesz mógł wyprostować kąty i rysować idealne prostokąty.
K12230LF (2026-05-20 16:27:51+00:00): Bonjour, il y a une note à propos de votre ajout dans ce changeset. Vous souvenez s'il y avait un signe distinctif sur le bâtiment à propos de cette entreprise ? 

La note est ici : https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5300666
Friendly_Ghost (2023-01-10 13:59:58+00:00): Hello MaksimTo,

The Ukrainian OSM community urges us not to edit the map of Ukraine during the war. Please refrain from mapping in this country until the war has passed.

Documentation can be found at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Russian-Ukrainian_war.

Best regards,

Casper
marc__marc (2023-04-10 20:17:05+00:00): Bonjour,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1128491769
au lieu de surface=yes, n'hésitez pas à renseigner la valeur de la surface du sentier
Cordialement,
Marc
Kalepom (2023-04-10 20:29:49+00:00): Bonjour Marc, 
J'ai cartographié ce golf avec les vues aériennes. Je n'ai pas le détail précis du type de revêtement. J'ai tout de même voulu distinguer les portions de chemins en herbe, de cette qui sont revêtues.
marc__marc (2023-04-10 20:46:34+00:00): survey=yes s'applique tant aux chemins en herbe que revétues.
le terme générique pour un revêtement est surface=paved
gscholz (2023-01-10 07:01:28+00:00): Hi elenalabzin2020,
your recent changesets have created errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping residential areas. Pleas zoom out to get a bigger picture and do not waste your time to add micro residential areas.
Guido
Pisto81 (2024-06-27 19:40:20+00:00): the shape of the building doesn't follow the geometry in imagery #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131059732
Pisto81 (2024-06-27 19:43:38+00:00): some building shapes are unnecessarily added and some buildings have remained unmapped#OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131059931
Pisto81 (2024-06-27 19:45:42+00:00): a few buildings have remained unmapped#OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131059947
Pisto81 (2024-06-27 19:51:49+00:00): two adjacent buildings are sharing nodes #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131060188
Tyler Brown Cifu Shuster (2023-01-09 15:34:13+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Shasta_County,_California
Tyler Brown Cifu Shuster (2023-01-09 15:34:32+00:00): Noted Linden Apartments have duplicate house numbers and need unit number survey
JessAk71 (2023-01-09 21:56:44+00:00): Hello OneC! Thanks for your edits. Wanted to check on your thoughts about the use of the general access tag here. On the wiki for the access tag here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access it says "Use the access=* key to describe a general access restriction that applies to all transport modes." and access=no would mean these roads in general for all modes have no public access except where specific modes have been designated, which looks like these roads have the correct mode designations set already e.g. foot=no. But it also says here: "If only specific transport modes are forbidden, for example, at a vehicle no-entry sign, use a more specific restriction like vehicle=no or motor_vehicle=no over the general key access." Since foot=no is properly labeled on these roads and restricts pedestrian usage of the roadways here, would it be best to follow the general schema here and remove the general "access=no" tag? the existing foot=no tag does the job of restricting pedestrians. It would also bring these roads in line with tagging of traditional limited access roadways like I787 here etc. Open to ideas on it.
OneC (2023-01-10 14:21:21+00:00): Hi JessAk71 - Thanks for the review, I understand your point. If you feel it is important to change to access=yes then provide the restrictive level of *mode=no then I will do that.
The interpretation that I have taken is that while access=no is restrictive of public access, placing the motor_vehicles=yes overrides the restriction. This is evident in this statement,
"access=no, bus=yes - means that only buses are allowed to enter (for example a road only for buses and forbidden also to pedestrians)"
also
"It is necessary to add additional access (like foot=yes or bicycle=permissive, etc.) to indicate who may use the element, if anyone is allowed. If only specific transport modes are forbidden,"
OneC (2023-01-10 14:41:22+00:00): JessAk71 - Just another question that I am curious about. How were you made aware of the updates that I had made? Was there an alert of some type that you received?
Thanks.
JessAk71 (2023-01-10 19:53:53+00:00): Hi OneC! Ok I agree with your assessment that based on the access tag schema it can go in either direction with: 1) access=no and then specify each mode access; or 2) access=yes and then specify each mode access; and then lastly: 3) remove the general access tag entirely and just keep each mode access tag. I would say I am partial to option 3 here since its in line with how most roads of this class and access type are tagged currently and this keeps things consistent - for example any normal piece of limited access highway that does not allow pedestrians in the US - I787 for example here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25286557. Would something like option 3 work for you?

On alerts, no I dont have any alerts set up for this area although there is a way to do so using a third party, I normally just use the history tab in the area to check out new things in the area from time to time since I am very familiar with this area.
OneC (2023-01-10 20:31:09+00:00): option 3 is in use now, after I had responded, I considered that option. Much cleaner to resemble the adjoining roads.
I use these roads regularly, and with the Empire Trail now crossing the Dunn Memorial Bridge the opportunity for folks to cross the road portion instead of the sidewalk was too great of an accident waiting to happen.
Thanks!!
JessAk71 (2023-01-10 20:49:37+00:00): Ok great sounds good!
gurglypipe (2023-01-09 15:54:03+00:00): Hiya, thanks for these changes!

There are a few ways in the changeset (e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/121597338) where designation=public_footpath has been changed to designation=public_path.

I don’t think designation=public_path is valid — it’s not listed on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/National_Trust_Paths.

Was that intentional, or an accident?

Cheers!
Roshmaps (2023-01-10 08:49:01+00:00): Hi! Complete accident Thanks so much for flagging this up! Will amend :)
gurglypipe (2023-01-10 11:44:27+00:00): Super, thanks for the fast response, and thanks to you and the National Trust for doing this initiative :)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:10:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
osmviborg (2023-01-09 16:29:49+00:00): Af hensyn til den cyklende trafik.
parsd51 (2023-01-09 17:21:57+00:00): @osmviborg

Dokumenter venligst påstanden, skiltning ell. - ikke den sædvanlige ‘research’, som er totalt ubrugelig.
Skærby (2023-01-10 15:34:33+00:00): Hvis man bruger Garmin er der ikke
nogen problemer med at svinge til venstre når man kommer fra Skærbygårdsvej og skal mod Rørvig,
det samme gælder når man kommer fra Nykøbing og skal til Skærbygårdsvej.
Fejlen medfører at trafik eks fra Nykøbing til skærbygårdsvej ledes forbi indkørslen til Skærbygårdsvej og ned ad Elvervangen og Skærbyholmsvej hvilket er en omvej på ca 500 m og som skaber en del unødvendig gennemkørende trafik på Elvervangen/Skærbygårdsvej

Jeg har et foto af Spærrefladen på Rørvigvej, men kan ikke lige se hvordan jeg kan lægge det op evt via mail ( ellers kan man se det på google street view)
osmviborg (2023-01-10 15:40:24+00:00): Vejen er ændret så der kan svinges, ses her: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/255823969
rose pearson (2023-01-13 01:57:40+00:00): Nice changes jepee. I'm a new member to OSM, but I have been using OSM data for a while as part of a process for creating DEMs for river flood modelling. Anyway my question is have you considered making a relational of the Waikane an Ngatiwa River? This would include way 132793862 & 1128615001 (both labelled the Waikanae river) and possibly also way 609119102 (the Ngatiwa river). I'm interested in your thoughts!
❤️‍🔥 (2023-01-16 06:17:20+00:00): Hi, it's best practice to create waterway relations for rivers & streams that have a name. Unfortunately there are still many minor streams that haven't been mapped in OSM, which makes it tricky to create these relations in an automated way. So you'll probably find that a lot of rivers in OSM don't have a `type=waterway` relation (yet)
limes11 (2023-01-09 18:53:43+00:00): Hi, 

wie sind denn diese Wege über die Brücke beschildert? Wenn das gemeinsame Fuß-/Radwege sind, dann  war das Tagging korrekt. Falls es Fußwege sind, dann höchstens bicycle=yes. So wie du es veränderst hast, kann das eigentlich nicht stimmen.

Schöne Grüße

Limes
Cebderby (2023-01-09 16:54:40+00:00): added a false primary way right across a mapped junction - vandalism reverted
Cebderby (2023-01-09 16:55:20+00:00): destroyed a mapped crossing and merged a bunch of nodes together - vandalism reverted
syntex (2023-01-11 17:27:12+00:00): Źle. Nie kasuj budynków, które nie zniknęły z ortofotmapy. Takie obiekty powinno się oznaczać np demolished:building albo was:building, a nie kasować
:-} (2023-01-11 17:28:24+00:00): Ok
NorthCrab (2023-01-11 22:09:49+00:00): @syntex nie do końca się z tobą zgadzam. zabieg o którym mówisz jest po to aby edytujący przypadkiem nie dodali obiektu z powrotem. uważam że oznaczenie pola brownfield jest równoważne ze zburzeniem budynku, w sensie że widać że coś się zmieniło i nie należy tutaj korzystać ze starych zdjęć. dokumentacja nie zmusza do oznaczeń demolished, was, więc jeśli został oznaczony brownfield to uważam że stwierdzenie "źle" jest błędne. ta zmiana została wykonana poprawnie.
syntex (2023-01-11 23:12:36+00:00): Nie mam uwag do brownfield a do kasowania budynku. Adres np nadal istnieje a został skasowany. I nie są to stare zdjęcia a najnowsze. Skąd ktoś ma wiedzieć czy np nowy obrys budynku będzie taki sam czy nie? Doda ten stary, bo myśli, że już się nowy pojawił.
Cebderby (2023-01-09 16:57:19+00:00): very badly re-added some (demolished) roads - vandalism reverted
emersonveenstra (2023-01-21 22:48:27+00:00): Hi,

Please fix this bridge, thanks! https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1128711388 it needs to not have a name and natural tag and needs to have a highway and bridge tag.
tux67 (2023-01-10 07:45:02+00:00): Hi,
wie schauts mit dem fixme hier aus: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4350819492 - kann der weg?

Gruß
tux67
user_18177484 (2023-01-11 09:57:14+00:00): Hey, fixme hat sich erledigt. Stadtverwaltungs Platform
Lancelotance (2023-01-10 05:40:50+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14472274#map=14/24.9802/110.9796燕子山风电场的装机容量只有48 MW，由24台2MW的风机组成，故南部的其余风机不应加进此关系。它们属于恭城的一个风电场。还有，我的地埋35kV呢？
Lepuse (2023-01-10 06:46:08+00:00): 江永与恭城两风电场均名燕子山，由于无法确定风机所属，暂未拆分。您所绘制110kV燕子山升压站及部分风机位置并不在真实位置，相连35kV线路亦然。若您有可靠来源请根据实际情况更正，若无不建议盲画。
Lancelotance (2023-01-10 08:40:51+00:00): 已根据http://htvcxdxny.com/ueditor/php/upload/file/20220620/1655711792795529.pdf
做出更改。其中有提到“（燕子山风电场）地理坐标介于东经 110°
57.3′～111°0.2′，北纬 24°59′～25°0.9′之间”，故我将此区域内的风机划定至湖南省的燕子山风电场。而广西恭城的风电场正式名称为“蜜源风电场”，共有54台风机，已绘制至关系#15256616。十分感谢您的贡献和建议。
Lepuse (2023-01-10 08:59:02+00:00): https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/sentinel-playground/ 影像可见110kV升压站位置，Google地图亦有更清晰卫星影像。
Lancelotance (2023-01-10 09:00:59+00:00): 好 我看看
Lancelotance (2023-01-10 09:27:01+00:00): 升压站已更改。
ivanbranco (2023-02-20 13:59:51+00:00): Ciao ross-map,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/861643952
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10314660528

hai inserito lo stesso ref:mise su due benzinai, ma questo i ref del mise identificano univocamente un solo benzinaio, sai quale dei due è quello corretto?
JeroenvanderGun (2023-01-09 16:49:05+00:00): N.B. Wijzigingsset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/42008748 noemt gemeentelijke informatie als argument voor primary, maar dat lijkt me niet doorslaggevend; weg kan voor lokaal belangrijk zijn en tegelijk secondary.