piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
rajdhani (2026-01-08 04:43:09+00:00): Hi rskedgell, 
Thank you for pointing out this changeset as well. Based on our recent interaction on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176612106, I am aware of the tagging issue, and I will not repeat it in my future edits. Thank you for your understanding. Changeset reverted.
Taya_S (2025-12-30 19:01:25+00:00): Reverted vandalism. Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19238

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176643535
nevw (2025-12-30 09:34:52+00:00): Hi, you have joined some paths to the powerline in many places. You should zoom in much further as paths should not connect to powerlines.
nevw (2025-12-30 11:01:22+00:00): I have fixed this now
Fizzie-DWG (2026-01-27 23:45:15+00:00): DWG revert - apparent sock-puppet

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177784168
rskedgell (2025-12-30 12:23:15+00:00): Are you sure that access=no (no access by *any* transport mode, including pedestrians) is correct here? What area the actual restrictions here?
rskedgell (2026-01-06 00:28:00+00:00): As you haven't had the courtesy to reply and I am reasonably sure that access=no on w1462752506 (implying a pedestrian prohibition) was incorrect, I've reverted this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176883372

There's at least one more of your changesets which requires a response.
rajdhani (2026-01-10 14:20:53+00:00): Hi rskedgell, 
it was not my intention to leave you hanging in this discussion. Since our community manager, Chris Pankhurst has reached out to you via email, we didn’t want to have parallel discussions on this. Thank you for your understanding. 

We are reviewing the TomTom edits in the region which have the same issues currently and we will take corrective action on them one by one. Thank you for reverting the changeset and for communicating your concerns on the map quality. Your comments, guidance, and patience on this matter are much appreciated.
rskedgell (2026-01-13 13:59:06+00:00): Hi @rajdhani

I visited Lindsell Street yesterday and made some initial edits with StreetComplete and SCEE. I also took some pictures which should be available on Mapillary soon.

On Lindsell Street to the SE of its junction with Plumbridge Street, there is a modal filter with two planters, removable bollard (locked) and "motor vehicles prohibited" signs (TSRGD diagram 619).

As I believe the council's own service vehicles are allowed to pass this point, I have tagged the bollard ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13344338810 ) with motor_vehicle=private rather than the motor_vehicle=no implied by the sign. It would help if the current traffic order were available in The Gazette, but I can only find the experimental orders which preceded it and which have now expired.

There is also something of an oddity on Lindsell Street to the E of the modal filter. There are old "weak bridge" signs with a 17 tonne (actual) weight limit. The bridge itself isn't obvious as the railway cutting for the former Greenwich Park branch line was filled in almost 100 years ago. This can be seen on old and out-of-copyright OS maps, e.g. https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/side-by-side/#zoom=19.7&lat=51.47332&lon=-0.01384&layers=168&right=osm
rajdhani (2026-01-16 08:20:58+00:00): Hi @rskedgell,

Thank you very much again for taking the time to visit the location in person for a detailed on-the-ground survey and keeping me in the loop. 

Your input and update are well received. Thanks a lot for communicating your concerns to ensure a higher quality on my edits.
BubbaJuice (2025-12-30 06:50:00+00:00): source=https://docs.tep.com/wp-content/uploads/2023-TEP-IRP.pdf
CelianGdfrd (2026-06-28 08:59:45+00:00): Bonjour Syl, pourquoi deux éléments différents pour le musée des beaux arts, s'il te plaît ? Un pour le musée, et une "attraction" ?
Syl (2026-06-28 09:36:34+00:00): Bonjour, dans ce groupe de modifications j'ai seulement enlevé les liens vers Panoramax qui ne marchaient plus.  Je n'ai rien corrigé d'autre et il y a effectivement un problème de lieux dupliqués sur Orléans. Je n'ai pas eu l'énergie de m'en occuper.
CelianGdfrd (2026-06-28 10:23:47+00:00): Merci !! Chaud pour t'aider si tu veux discuter du chantier
Syl (2026-06-29 09:20:38+00:00): Je n'aurais malheureusement pas le temps de m'en occuper avant longtemps. Déjà que je n'ai jamais fini le nettoyage des attributs image et panoramax dans les environs.
Il y a pas mal de mises à jour et de corrections à faire dans le coin suite au départ du principal contributeur d'Orléans il y a un peu plus d'un an.
TrickyFoxy (2025-12-31 19:53:09+00:00): 👋 В правом меню редактора есть кнопка «Настройки фонового изображения». Выберите там спутниковые снимки ESRI — они свежее
aixbrick (2025-12-30 10:15:50+00:00): Hallo,
"layer" wird nur verwendet, wenn zwei Objekte übereinander liegen, um deren Beziehung zueinander (was ist oberhalb/unterhalb) deutlich zu machen.
Gruß
FahrradstadtAachen (2026-01-03 17:56:05+00:00): Moin,
die benachbarten Brückenflächen sind beide höhengleich und auch mit layer=1 getaggt; da dachte ich, layer=1 passt auch für die dazwischenliegende Fläche? Ich finde das ohnehin merkwürdig erfasst. Warum sind z. B. die Brückenflächen nicht mit der Fläche dazwischen verbunden, obwohl eine höhengleiche Verbindung in der Realität besteht?
Grüße
aixbrick (2026-01-03 20:53:01+00:00): Die Brücken sind beide "layer=1", weil sich darunter Straßen befinden. Nur dadurch weiß z.B. ein Renderer, welcher Weg oben und welcher unten liegt. Für die Fläche dazwischen ist eine solche Angabe unnötig, da sich aus OSM-Sicht nichts darunter oder darüber befindet.
Die Fläche könnte man vermutlich mit den Brückenflächen verbinden, ist Geschmackssache.
aixbrick (2026-01-12 13:00:42+00:00): "layer" im Rahmen von https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177137200 wieder entfernt.
kubahahaha (2026-03-02 22:10:39+00:00): Cześć.
Ta relacja była dodana nieprawidłowo - całkowicie zabraniała skręcić Stawki -> Pokorna jadąc z zachodu na północ.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5184204
Taya_S (2025-12-30 19:01:26+00:00): Reverted vandalism. Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19238

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176643535
NeisBot (2025-12-30 09:14:07+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13417466744 v1

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Medical aesthetics and wellness center in Boca Raton"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisReview (2026-01-07 07:22:32+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/176618527
Thanks @user_5359
Yog Sot (2025-12-30 18:53:58+00:00): ale co  się z nią straszliwego stało?
JoeG (2025-12-30 23:09:40+00:00): Hi! This changeset has the tag footway=sidewalk deleted on three ways. Is there a reason for this? It looks like the tag does apply?
granitschädel (2026-02-23 10:37:16+00:00): Please do survey before you do edits. You changed tracks from "abandoned" back to "rail" while this tracks are abandoned since months because of the reconstruction of the station. Please be more careful.
HaPe-CZ (2026-02-23 11:26:32+00:00): This can also occur. It is a problem of delay between the actual state and imaging.
But where is the basis for the newly mapped road? The one that is being prepared?
HaPe-CZ (2026-02-25 08:10:52+00:00): Can't answer the question? It would be good if you also paid attention to what you're doing.
granitschädel (2026-02-25 16:15:11+00:00): It might surprise you, but there are people who have a life outside of the internet and openstreetmap. So you should give people at least one week to reply, that's common sense.
The road with the bridge is planned to replace the railway crossing there. This project was presented when they presented the modernization of the line to Solnice, but there wasn't an exact timetable for the implementation mentioned.
HaPe-CZ (2026-02-25 17:01:14+00:00): No surprise there :D But the project is significantly delayed. That's why I'm asking if the change is still valid. I don't live solely in the virtual world either.
Seyruun (2025-12-30 11:02:04+00:00): Ah yes, oops again. Thank you.
Seyruun (2025-12-30 11:09:05+00:00): Thanks! :)
eggie (2025-12-30 08:58:17+00:00): Hi.. Ik nerged your info with the present addressnode.
Gr eggie
mattsolarz (2025-12-30 09:02:13+00:00): Thank you, I will be sure to do this merging next time
Matt
eggie (2025-12-30 09:05:41+00:00): Top!
eggie (2025-12-30 09:26:25+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback Dit was juist goed getagd met charging_station. 
Nu rendert het niet meer op de kaart.
Je kunt ook een vlak maken met charging_station en daar de losse laadpaal inzetten. 

MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2025-12-30 09:29:20+00:00): De wiki kun je als leidraad gebruiken, maar is niet altijd 100% correct. 
Wanneer je alle tags met charging station gaat omzetten zie je niets meer op de kaart.

MVG
eggie
Borneo_Orangutan (2025-12-30 09:50:58+00:00): Ah, ik zie het nu. Dankjewel voor het advies en voor het bericht met de links. Ik zal mijn andere edit (op Jan v Nassaustraat) verbeteren. Ik heb de wiki over charging_stations en charging_points verder gelezen
eggie (2025-12-30 09:56:18+00:00): Ik heb een extra tag erbij gezet, maar eigenlijk zou het los gemapt kunnen worden.
Bv het parkeervak als chaging_station en de paal als charge_point.
Er duidelijk is de wiki niet.
Bij ons staan allemaal van die losse palen, terwijl je elders van die oplaadstations hebt zoals langs de grote weg.
Er loopt op het forum ook nog ergens een draadje over.

Veel plezier met mappen. 

eggie
eggie (2025-12-30 10:00:23+00:00): 'k Zie dat de wiki toch ook weer is aangepast.
Dat maakt het toch wel duidelijk..

If there is only one charge point at the site then it is usually not necessary to map man_made=charge_point separately. Just tag the socket information to amenity=charging_station

:)
chath_tsu (2025-12-30 09:47:52+00:00): Hi! Just so you know that the Seattle Processing & Distribution Center is already mapped: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53622367
Please do not add it as a separate node. Thanks!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176617218
chath_tsu (2025-12-30 09:49:16+00:00): Hi! Just so you know that the Seattle Processing & Distribution Center is already mapped: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53622367
Please do not add it as a separate node. Thanks!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176617218
Syl (2025-12-30 10:37:46+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai annulé la suppression de ce bout de route : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1217552194
Il est utile pour le tracé d'un itinéraire de marche.
schabanel (2025-12-30 11:03:50+00:00): Salut Syl,
Arf ces relations, je me fais encore avoir avec ces machins ! Merci !
Fizzie-DWG (2026-01-25 03:16:01+00:00): DWG revert - apparent undiscussed import

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177667698
tux67 (2025-12-30 10:58:31+00:00): Hallo Archibalt2,

das ist kein angemessener Grund Wege zu löschen.
Dafür gibt es access rights: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:access%3Dprivate

Bitte lies dich vor deinen ersten Edits ein wenig in die Grundsätze des Mappens ein. 
Eine gute Zusammenfassung findest du z.B. hier:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_changeset_comments

Gruß
tux67
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176618729
Archibalt2 (2025-12-30 13:00:28+00:00): Das kann ja wohl nicht richtig sein! Der von euch eingetragener Weg bzw die Straße sowohl am Schützenberg als auch vorderseitig an der Prämienstraße, führt über unseren Betriebshof wo LKWs und Gabelstapler fahren. Mit viel Mühe versuchen wir unbefugtes Betreten, welches durch Schilder und Sperrzäume angezeigt wird, zu vermeiden. Die Ausweisung in euren Karten als Wege oder Straßen hilft uns dabei nicht! Außerdem führt dies auch nicht dazu OpenStreetMaps als seriöses und verlässliches Werkzeug zu sehen. Ich bitte also darum, die von mir durchgeführte Änderung in das Kartenwerk zu übernehmen.
tux67 (2025-12-30 13:53:58+00:00): Hallo nochmal,
der jetzt gewählte Ansatz mit der Dokumentation der Straßensegmente als private Auffahrt ist durchaus in Ihrem o.g. Sinne. 
So wird auf Openstreetmap basierende Routing Software den Weg nicht nutzen und andere Mapper werden den Weg nicht in Unkenntnis der Lage vor Ort neu - und mit wieder den für Sie falschen Parametern eintragen.
Dieser Anwendungsfall ist nicht neu und die Lösung erfolgreich gelebte Praxis. 
Diejenigen, die Schilder und Sperrzäune vor Ort ignorieren, werden wir leider mit keiner noch so verläßlichen Karte aufhalten können.
Sollten Sie trotzdem das Risiko einer späteren - unbemerkten und falschen Neueintragung vorziehen - melden Sie sich hier einfach nochmal.
savsk (2026-01-02 19:32:51+00:00): dwa sąsiednie bloki także miały numery odwrotnie. poprawiłem resztę https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176758071
kubahahaha (2026-01-02 19:48:25+00:00): Dzięki!
eggie (2025-12-30 10:26:17+00:00): Nog een tip. Bij een parking_space hoort altijd een amenity=parking
Die teken je dan over alle parkeervakken heen
In dit geval met
amenity=parking
parking=street_side
orientation = perpendicular

Als voorbeeld van die parkeerstroken toegevoegd. Evt kun je daarin dan weer parkeervakken toevoegen met parking_space en evt speciale tags.
Paar keer ctrl-f5 voor het effect.

MVG
eggie
yelisey90 (2025-12-30 22:11:23+00:00): rv wrt https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65069849 - unexplained removal of name (repeatedly)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176649663
nevw (2025-12-30 11:17:47+00:00): Hi, I have reverted this. You need to map your business to the physical address you operate from instead of the edge of a park.
NeisBot (2025-12-31 07:25:26+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/12049999342 v3

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "IT consulting firm"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisReview (2026-01-07 17:42:25+00:00): ❌ Text fixed by https://osm.org/changeset/176632407
Thanks @user_5359
limes11 (2025-12-30 15:44:13+00:00): Hi,

there are already hw=construction. You added new highways instead of updating existing features creating duplicates. 

Could you please rework this ?

Thank you
Prasanna Msamy (2025-12-30 16:04:28+00:00): Thank you for the valuable feedback. Please feel free to point out similar suggestions in future as well. 
Regards, 
Prasanna Devi Madasamy
dreua (2026-04-10 15:42:13+00:00): Did you actually fix the issue pointed out here? There was a note created about this road in the meantime: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?note=516250
dreua (2026-04-10 15:47:22+00:00): It looks like you deleted the previous road with the correct construction tags and left your new road with the wrong tags. That is not cool.
You must make sure that you understand the stuff you delete before you delete it and in this case deleting your own new way and leaving the existing "under construction" way in place would be the correct solution.
dreua (2026-04-10 18:00:03+00:00): The link I previously posted is broken, sorry. Correct link: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5162508
dreua (2026-04-10 19:19:10+00:00): Found the deletion changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176635398

It looks like I misunderstood something here and mixed some things up, sorry. You did in fact delete the correct way and those with the tags in question were just added by you, not duplicated, also in this changeset.

Still you added some ways without construction or access limiting tags which got later reported as not accessible at all. From the sources cited in your changeset you used the Bing images, where I can clearly see the construction fence surrounding the area, construction equipment and the lack of parked cars. It is very clearly not a regular road viable for the general public, therefore either access tags or the construction scheme must be used in this case.

(For other readers: I was just made aware that this user is currently blocked. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20122)
Prasanna Msamy (2026-04-13 11:59:54+00:00): Apologies for the mistake and Thank you for your valuable feedback. I will make sure to be more cautious in future. Thank you. Prasanna Devi
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2026-01-07 15:11:36+00:00): Hvilket valideringssystem er det du bruger?
Jacob Rosendal Kristensen (2026-01-29 14:33:47+00:00): Hej hr. Larsen
Jeg bruger det som allerede forefindes, her i og på adressen også kaldet url’en (engelsk: uniform resource locator) https://openstreetmap.org i værktøjet også kaldet redskabet til at redigere i kortet med for iD.
Mvh JRK
Jacob Rosendal Kristensen (2026-01-29 14:36:30+00:00): Men openstreetmap punktum blev forkortet til https://osm.org af en for mig ikke kendt automatisk rutine også kaldet funktion og jeg skrevet før men uden https:// . Adressen openstreetmap.org
Mvh /J K
NeisBot (2025-12-31 07:25:30+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/relation/20022967 v1

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "CyberCore empresa de cybersécurité y infraestructura IT"
---
Par exemple, une version plus neutre et factuelle de ta description pourrait être : "CyberCore entreprise de cybersécurité et d'infrastructure informatique"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisRevert (2026-01-07 17:42:26+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/176954366
Udarian (2025-12-30 17:44:01+00:00): question, can you please check this again as there seem to be multiple commercial and retail businesses along this street so there is a good chance that hgv vehicles would be allowed on it.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
MarkoŠatrak (2025-12-30 17:54:51+00:00): Hi @Udar, I’m replying as the lead for our organised editing activity: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/OptimoRoute

This changeset looks valid.
A “no trucks” sign is visible in the Bing Streetside imagery in the iD editor on Palm Avenue at the intersection with 21st Street, for the southbound direction: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=176621206#map=21/25.8406860/-80.2820280

Same sign is also visible in the northbound direction at the intersection with 15th Street:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?changeset=176621206#map=21/25.8356945/-80.2817625
MarkoŠatrak (2025-12-30 17:59:22+00:00): @udarian, FYI, please see my earlier comment in the changeset. Apologies for the incorrect tagging.
MarkoŠatrak (2025-12-30 18:00:05+00:00): @Udarian, FYI, please see my earlier comment in the changeset. Apologies for the incorrect tagging.
NeisBot (2025-12-31 07:25:32+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/435857062 v2

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Tent manufacturer in UAE and Saudi Arabia"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisRevert (2026-01-07 17:42:26+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/176954367
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-31 05:40:29+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1462802568/history - you are adding building in a field, where nothing is there according to aerial

why?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-31 05:40:59+00:00): (and you add photo depicting some foundation in a forest - this is clearly a different object)
ThSchell (2025-12-31 09:40:59+00:00): Hello, I added the original Positions of the two Pieske camps from 1944. This is my first time on openstreetmap. I don´t now where the fotos is from. where can i find it? it has to be deleted.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-01-02 13:28:56+00:00): this photo was added in your edit

> I added the original Positions of the two Pieske camps from 1944

note that OSM is for mapping what exists nowadays - though parts still exist as ruins so thanks for adding them
ThSchell (2026-01-03 16:04:07+00:00): I`m sorry Mateusz, i can´t find the picture. Thomas
Taya_S (2025-12-30 19:01:27+00:00): Reverted vandalism. Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19238

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176643535
Rainero (2026-03-30 09:49:56+00:00): Revert changeset/180620283
wegen nicht zulässiger Quelle (Bayernatlas).
woodpeck (2026-04-07 12:38:09+00:00): You have added the metro area on admin_level 7 but Kolkata itself is already admin_level 7 - this does not look right. Either the metro area is not really an administrative boundary, or it needs a smaller admin level than Kolkata itself!
Amany_Ahmed (2025-12-31 09:13:28+00:00): السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
الأستاذ عمار العكاد،
شكرًا جزيلًا على مساهماتك القيّمة في OpenStreetMap.
لاحظت أنه تم حذف وسم الاتجاه من عدة طرق على الخريطة، مع العلم أن هذه الطرق باتجاه واحد بالفعل. علمًا بأن إضافة أو حذف الاتجاهات القانونية للطرق يجب أن يكون طبقًا لاتجاه الطريق الفعلي، بالاعتماد على صور الأقمار الصناعية أو المسح الميداني.
أرجو من حضرتك مراجعة هذه التعديلات، ومراعاة الاتجاه الفعلي للطريق عند حذف او اضافة وسم الاتجاه. على سبيل المثال:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/677518542
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1459610534
شكرًا مرة أخرى على مجهودك ومساهمتك المستمرة في تحسين الخريطة.
مع خالص التحية،
أماني أحمد
Ammar Okad - عمار العكاد (2025-12-31 09:20:29+00:00): شكرا على حرصك، نعم انا متأكد من ان هذه الاجزاء بالفعل لا تتبع قاعدة oneway لأن الحافلات تتبع هذا المسار، وتم التأكد من هذا عن طريق النزول الميداني
Amany_Ahmed (2026-01-04 14:18:24+00:00): شكرًا على ردك.
أود التوضيح أن بنسبة كبيرة هذا الوضع غير قانوني حيث قد يكون سائق المركبة يسير عكس الاتجاة في تلك الاجزاء
 "way 677518542, way 1459610534"
ولا ينبغي علينا اتباع ما يفعله و يجب اتباع قواعد المرور المتبعة في اليمن حيث ان الحافلة يجب ان تسلك هذا المسار القانوني
  "way 46262265, way 1462771722, way 1458196403, way 1022795560, way 46262266, way 1462771721, way 1460253272,
 way 46262262, way 677518545, way 1458199840, way 1458448578, way 1458448577, way 1459610533, way 1459610532
وليس المسار السابق.
لذا أرجو مراعاة ذلك عند تعديل أو حذف وسم الاتجاه، بما يعكس الوضع القانوني الصحيح للطريق على أرض الواقع.
مع خالص التحية،
Amany Ahmed