piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
that_dude (2024-11-19 10:54:50+00:00): Ciao.
Rapid segnala che le way fanno parte di una o più relazioni, ma chiaramente non segnala che a causa di un bug potrebbe rimescolarne i membri, se è quello che intendi, altrimenti avrebbero usato quell'informazione per correggere il bug.

In ogni caso eviterei di riferirsi al lavoro degli altri mappatori come "manomissioni", non è molto cortese verso chi sta dedicando il proprio tempo libero ad aggiungere case, chiese, strade, negozi, civici, parcheggi, panchine e altri oggetti con la massima cura e attenzione a una zona dove non è stato mappato praticamente nulla e dove ciò che è stato mappato spesso non è stato aggiornato per 10 anni.
Jrachi (2024-11-19 11:05:08+00:00): La relazione è stata rimescolata. preferisci questo termine a moanomesso?
Immaginavo che Rapid avesse la stessa capacità di manomettere le relazioni causando diatribe tra volonterosi contributori.
È il motivo principale per cui consiglio di usare Josm. Id e fratello Rapid vanno a braccetto con le app tipo StreetComplete.

Ivo
that_dude (2024-11-19 11:28:11+00:00): Consiglia pure JOSM, ma io lo trovo caotico e con un'interfaccia incomprensibile al limite dell'inutilizzabile, quindi non lo utilizzerò, mi dispiace. È assurdo che soltanto un editor tra tutti quelli esistenti (e che permettono di spezzare una way di una relazione) non abbia questo problema, ma mi sembra eccessivamente limitante dire "o JOSM, o i tuoi contributi per me sono manomissioni e basta".

Preferisco invece utilizzare, come numerosi altri mappatori, degli editor dall'interfaccia più dignitosa, quali iD, Rapid e anche StreetComplete che però è significativamente più limitato e pensato per un uso diverso dove non è minimamente comparabile a JOSM quindi non capisco il tuo commento sul "vanno a braccetto".

Puoi invece esporre il tuo sconforto sul rimescolamento dei membri delle relazioni qui, se vuoi:
https://github.com/facebook/Rapid/issues
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/8578
Jrachi (2024-11-19 12:33:14+00:00): Ognuno è libero di scegliere l'editor che preferisce.
Io voglio solo sottolineare che l'uso di un editor comporta sapere quali sono i suoi limiti e agire di conseguenza per mantenere la mappa entro limiti di tollerabilità.
Quando trovo una modifica che stravolge una relazione cerco sempre far capire le problematiche all'user che "non sa" di avere causato un problema.
Un amico mi ha detto che ultimamente anche iD permette di controllare la sequenza dei membri di una relazione. Per RapidId non so.
Se continui ad usarlo, scusa la franchezza, cerca di controllare cosa hai effettivamente modificato.
O, se preferisci, segnalami che non sei in grado ed io la prossima volta rimetto la sequenza in ordine senza disturbarti.
Ivo
Joseph R P (2024-11-27 21:29:34+00:00): Hello, the expressway spur of US 52/WV 75 should not be classified as trunk as it only links to another primary route at its terminus. Expressway characteristics on non-Motorway roads of any type can be identified with the tag 'expressway=yes'.
citrula (2024-11-21 23:14:27+00:00): Please use the expanded form of the suffix ("Lane instead of Ln"). I have fixed this for you
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159300834
TristandC (2024-11-18 21:28:21+00:00): en fait j'ai que fais le changement de sens sur l'allée Maréchal Leclerc. Par contre, cette allée débute dans le bon sens à partir de la Rue de Sprimont et termine à la Rue de la Jonction, l'allée ne va pas  jusqu'à l'Avenue du Général de Gaulle. Un obstacle en pierre gène la liaison. (je ne fais pas la modification ca je n'ai pas le compétences)
TristandC (2024-11-18 21:30:28+00:00): désolé, c'est ma premiere fois, le groupe de changement inclus aussi la bande sur Rue Gambetta.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-11-18 21:41:16+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Szkolna":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/374829639
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/920163166
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1335185288

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Piotr Strębski (2024-11-19 16:37:47+00:00): No i klops, bo nie ma tu miejsca fizycznie na ulicę Szkolną, a dane GUGiK takową przewidują. Mamy tu mrówki wynikające z niekoherencji danych urzędowych, trudno mi rozstrzygnąc stan faktyczny w terenie :-(
syntex (2024-11-19 21:01:02+00:00): Dane GUGIK już nic takiego nie przewidują, nie wiem skąd takie info. Nazwę Szkolna zmieniono na 21 Pułku Piechoty w 2023 roku (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/133486233). W geoportalu te adresy są przypisane do ulicy 21 Pułku Piechoty oraz do wsi Nowe Czernice (bez ulic). Poprawiłem
Piotr Strębski (2024-11-19 21:19:00+00:00): @syntex Dzięki.
BAGgeraar (2024-12-03 15:35:16+00:00): Zie https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253600139, hier lijkt iets niet goed te zijn gegaan met building=/layer= ?
Sander H (2024-12-03 16:49:05+00:00): Dank voor het meesturen van de link naar het probleem. Was iid niet goed, is nu gefixed.
NeisBot (2024-11-18 22:02:38+00:00): Hi ModernDayPtolemy, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 88% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 5 highway(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

PS: I have also sent this message through the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=159302450
ModernDayPtolemy (2024-11-19 01:32:47+00:00): Thanks for reaching out. I was very careful with my edits. In the process of cleaning up old railways that were overlapped with foot/bicycle trails, I may have deleted portions of path sections but I did re-draw them to prevent the overlap or connections with other unrelated lines that were connected to paths in places they shouldn't have been.  If you find any specific errors, please let me know and I will restore those edits immediately.
Thanks!
pitscheplatsch (2024-11-20 05:17:01+00:00): Thanks for your reply.

The railways you deleted were mapped or tagged as railway=abandoned. In my opinion this is correct and should not have been deleted. In the OSM project some users also map these abandoned railroad lines.

You can find some information here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned

I think your changeset or at least the two big railroad lines should be restored.

What do you think? 

Thanks.
CaHein (2024-11-20 10:13:54+00:00): Hallo!
Ich hatte die Relationen gelöscht, weil sie mir unpassend scheinen.
Die Stempelstellen gehören sicherlich zu den Geodaten. Die Begleithefte sind jedoch nur Werbemaßnahmen, die meiner Ansicht nach nicht hierher gehören.
Es scheint aber Leuten wichtig zu sein. Da war ich wohl voreilig.
Wo können wir solche Fragen zukünftig am besten klären?
tvbrene (2024-11-20 12:46:57+00:00): Der richtige Ort für Diskussionen ist sicher das Forum. Allerdings wird es kaum jemand mitbekommen, wenn dort Fragen gestellt werden. Vielleicht wäre eine Möglichkeit die Autoren der entsprechenden Relationen zu kontaktieren.

Die Zusammenfassung der Stempel in Relationen erleichtert das Auffinden der entsprechenden Stempel und da viele Stempel zu mehreren Begleitheften gehören ist auch die Aufnahme in eigenständige Relationen zur Abgrenzung sinnvoll (analog zu z.B. Haltestellen in verschiedenen Buslinien). Man könnte sicher auch argumentieren, dass es sich dabei um Kategorien handelt, aber Stempel in Relationen zusammenzufassen ist in der Region üblich und sollte daher als Quasi-Standard akzeptiert werden.

Wie du schon richtig erkannt hast, sollten Relationen, die aus eigener Sicht fragwürdig erscheinen, nicht einfach ohne Rücksprache gelöscht werden.
CaHein (2024-11-20 16:23:57+00:00): Der Auslöser meiner Aktion waren 'Große Relation' Hinweise bei Osmose. Die Löschung war falsch von mir. Danke für die Wiederherstellung.
MapperMichael32 (2024-11-18 22:05:55+00:00): Is het goed om deze node samen te voegen met de adresnode of met het gebouw. of liever zoals het nu is?
eggie (2024-11-19 06:09:50+00:00): In principe op de node.

Eigenlijk is de tagging
club=sport
sport= ice_skating

Helaas renderen die sporttags nog niet op de standaardkaart. 
Wanneer er meer geklaverjast wordt dan geschaatst kun je amenity=community_centre toevoegen.
Dan rendert het wel.
Zet je de tagging op het gebouw dan zie je altijd een naam.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:club%3Dsport
en
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dice_skating

Gr eggie
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-11-21 04:31:40+00:00): This changeset removed the highway tag from the motorway. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17475169
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159302593
zzptichka (2024-11-21 03:50:47+00:00): "bicycle_parking=bike_rack" tag does not exist. Refer to this page for details on how to map bicycle parking: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking
JayTurnr (2024-11-18 22:21:10+00:00): Possibly the wrong tagging here. Would appreciate some advice. Figured it should be tagged as the railway bridge extends further than the extents of the railway
rskedgell (2024-11-20 12:56:24+00:00): Fictitious dual carriageways partially deleted by @yasslay in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159316865
silversurfer83 (2024-11-19 20:12:19+00:00): Hi :)

why would you delete that cafe? OSM doesn't map public objects only

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159303596
silversurfer83 (2024-12-01 08:29:30+00:00): Cafe erstmal wieder hergestellt. Bitte besser begründen, warum es nicht kartiert werden sollte
woodpeck (2025-01-17 23:18:09+00:00): Hallo Derkoenig, bitte erfasse keine historischen Eisenbahnen in OpenStreetMap, wenn vor Ort keine Gleise mehr sichtbar sind. Ich habe stichprobenartig die von Dir neu hinzugefügten railway=razed-Objekte angeschaut und konnte auf dem Luftbild nirgends mehr etwas erkennen, teilweise waren die Strecken sogar überbaut. Solche Informationen kannst Du bei OpenHistoricalMap erfassen, wenn Du Dich dafür interessierst, aber in OSM möchten wir die *heutige* Realität abbilden! Ich habe deswegen Deine railway=razed-Objekte entfernt.
ohmanger (2025-01-07 12:50:59+00:00): Hi, this looks interesting but I'm struggling to actually see any evidence that the locks are still there? If they're not then they should be removed or have more appropriate tags (natural=water should be removed)
ms_disstro (2024-11-19 01:12:53+00:00): My mistake. Thanks for rectifying it.
Tablenine (2024-11-19 01:43:43+00:00): Thank you for providing these edits! I've just made a few small changes to ensure that points are connected to each other for routing. Otherwise, it looks all good.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159303871
NorthCrab_upload (2024-11-18 23:00:52+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/912117444
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/912117512
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/912117812
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/912117889
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/912118039
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1189008352

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Barroszt (2025-08-04 22:54:08+00:00): poprawione
CurlingMan13 (2024-11-19 03:23:34+00:00): Changeset reverted.  We use access tags to denote private property. 
 You can read more here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159307408
CurlingMan13 (2024-11-19 03:23:35+00:00): Changeset reverted.  We use access tags to denote private property. 
 You can read more here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159307408
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-04-23 16:33:30+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12352473716/history has amenity = fixme that was added in this edit
What kind of object is here? Is it a shop? What kind of a shop? (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop )
Fasha4 (2024-11-19 19:05:07+00:00): Dzień dobry,
ta droga jest planowana: https://zdw.opole.pl/1540/plany-na-2024-rok.html (3 slajd od końca, nr.7), aczkolwiek nie będzie budowana razem z obwodnicą Nysy.
Busaiolis (2025-03-04 23:18:45+00:00): Secondo me sarebbe più corretto mappare la strada in sé come trunk, essendo extraurbana principale, e come _link solo il tratto di svincolo (ad esempio, da quando le carreggiate si restringono in poi).
Busaiolis (2025-04-10 20:09:20+00:00): Se non hai nulla in contrario io mapperei la strada come era prima.
felipeeugenio (2024-11-19 11:19:26+00:00): Hola. Los cambios que hizo son muy distintos a lo que se ve en las fotos satelitales. Y las imágenes son de marzo. Renovaron la zona? saludos
felipeeugenio (2024-11-19 11:19:36+00:00): Hola. Los cambios que hizo son muy distintos a lo que se ve en las fotos satelitales. Y las imágenes son de marzo. Renovaron la zona? saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159305686
felipeeugenio (2024-11-19 11:19:37+00:00): Hola. Los cambios que hizo son muy distintos a lo que se ve en las fotos satelitales. Y las imágenes son de marzo. Renovaron la zona? saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159305686
❤️‍🔥 (2024-11-19 20:45:57+00:00): Hi, why is oneway=alternating "incorrect"? This seems like a perfect example of oneway=alternating according to the documentation: https://osm.wiki/Tag:oneway=alternating
tschoerbi (2024-11-19 23:10:00+00:00): I was mostly looking at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:priority: 

> oneway=alternating - When the narrow section is controlled by traffic signals instead of priority signs

This strongly suggests it should not be used when there is no traffic light.

Looking at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:oneway=alternating I'm uncertain. Some of the wording seems more geared towards a controlled traffic flow like a traffic light. For example, "This tag is only used for roads that change direction often (usually several times per hour) and regularly." With signs there is usually not much regularity to the traffic flow and mentioning some sort of time interval seems odd. Also, "Routing engines are encouraged to route over this type of oneway independent of direction but use a heavy penalty when calculating the travel time to allow for possible waiting times" seems not fully appropriate for a simple sign.  Perhaps, this is something that should be discussed with the community. The wording certainly could be clearer.
tschoerbi (2024-11-19 23:55:12+00:00): Having thought about it for a while, declaring the road oneway seems wrong. Not based on the wiki necessary but simply based on the meaning of the word oneway. The priority sign simply means one, particular side has to yield if passing isn't possible. The street may be used in both ways if passing is possible. At least this is my understanding. Two bicycles could certainly pass on this bridge.

Still, seems worth a broader discussion.
❤️‍🔥 (2024-11-20 17:02:14+00:00): I think the wording on https://osm.wiki/Key:priority just needs to be fixed to match the other wiki pages. oneway=alternating is a well established tag and it's used on over 2000 one-lane-bridges

you're right that the literal meaning of the word 'oneway' seems wrong, but this is a common problem in OSM, see here for more info: https://osm.wiki/Counterintuitive_keys_and_values
tschoerbi (2024-11-21 08:49:21+00:00): I looked a bit closer at the global usage and I think the truth is that usage varies greatly. Here are some stats for all the ways with bridge=yes set:

Global usage:

oneway=alternating + priority=(unset) -> 1944
oneway=alternating + priority=backward/forward -> 380
oneway=(unset) + priority=backward/forward -> 1037

New Zealand usage:

oneway=alternating + priority=(unset) -> 1176
oneway=alternating + priority=backward/forward -> 347
oneway=(unset) + priority=backward/forward -> 26

Given that at least two variations appear in wide-spread use and usage varies regionally, I think now would be a good time think about how we want these tags to be used. I tend to favor priority= without oneway= simply because it is easier to understand (for an English speaker) and would hopefully lead to less mistagging in the future.

I also wonder how a one-lane bridge with a traffic light would be tagged (oneway=alternating + priority=(unset)?).

If you don't mind, I'll try to see if this ambiguity was already discussed anywhere and if not ask the community. Given that I'm traveling, it'll likely take me another two weeks to find time for this. For the time being I'll refrain from changing any existing oneway=alternating tags.
Aenet (2024-11-19 01:19:35+00:00): Just trying to get a feel for indoor mapping. I'll probably come back to this later and get images of the emergency maps of the other floors so I can add them too.
UNGSC-DTLM-Ale_Zena (2024-11-19 07:38:28+00:00): Hello, and welcome to OSM.

a dam is this https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Awaterway%3Ddam
Probably you wanted map a man_made=water_well https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aman_made%3Dwater_well or, for animals, a amenity=watering_place ? iD editor sometimes doesn't suggest the right tag. I would suggest to familiarize with the OSM tags looking at the wiki section.

Cheers,
   Alessandro
Lostmonkey (2024-11-20 23:23:29+00:00): Bemærk: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Da:Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property
b-holdet (2024-11-21 16:24:17+00:00): Hej Lostmonkey,

Jeg har haft en god snak med brugeren og det bør være som det er, alstå uden stier i vedkommendes område.

Det er helt fornuftigt at stierne ikke bør benyttes fra stranden og op over privat grund. Og er de med på OSM-kortet, så replikeres de ud alle steder.

Tilemapperne er ikke enige med at "Ikke-tegne" private stier, så det bliver noget bøvl på sigt.

Jeg ved ikke hvordan vi kan angive at stien er der, men ikke skal tegnes.
Måske skal der tegnes et segment og et note-tag om, at stien findes, men ikke skal tagges.
Eller tagge det som highway=donttag:path note=path is visible but only for internal use
Lostmonkey (2024-11-22 07:45:54+00:00): Som beskrevet i forum er jeg ikke enig i, at det er den rette fremgangsmåde at fravige fra OSM's normale retningslinjer for kortlægning af private stier.
Lostmonkey (2024-11-22 17:25:59+00:00): Jeg kan som nævnt i mit tidligere svar hverken selv forstå eller forklare, hvordan misvisende matrikulære forhold på en ejendomsmæglers kort skulle kunne være opstået ud fra brug af OSM. Som sagt er matrikelafgrænsninger efter min bedste vidende ikke information, som findes på OSM. Den del kan jeg dog heller ikke rigtig se relevansen af i diskussionen om visning af jeres sti. 

Hvad angår OSM er det jo blot, hvorvidt stien eksisterer og er med privat adgang eller ej, der kortlægges. Ikke hvem der ejer den. 

Som jeg også har skrevet i OSM-forum, forstår jeg godt, at der er et vist dilemma omkring visning af private stier på kort, hvis en lodsejer ønsker at håndhæve et adgangsforbud på den. Og ja, vises en sti på et kort, vil nogle nok fejlagtigt tro at dens blotte eksistens på kortet betyder, at det er en offentlig sti - uanset at den i OSM faktisk allerede er korrekt markeret som privat. Men udover at folk selv har et ansvar for at respektere de faktiske adgangsforhold de møder - hvilket også gælder ved mange andre ting, der er kortlagt i OSM - og at dem, som bruger OSM-dataene til deres kort bør medtage oplysningerne om adgangsforhold, vil visning af stien på kort også være en hjælp for "lovlydige" kortbrugere. 

I jeres tilfælde, hvor I nu altså har slettet stien fra kortet, kan dette jo i sig selv give anledning til misforstået brug af jeres sti. Kommer man fx gående ned ad kysten og (på baggrund af et kort uden visning af den private sti) forventer, at man kun vil møde én sti op fra stranden, kan jeg nemt forestille mig, at man vil gå op ad jeres sti i troen på, at det er denne sti (som i virkeligheden er aftegnet på kortet lidt længere mod syd).

Jeg har som sagt ikke selv tænkt mig at kortlægge jeres sti igen, men det betyder dog ikke at jeg mener sletningen er den rette eller bedste løsning, hverken for jer eller brugere af OSM.
Unarmored5156 (2024-11-19 04:51:23+00:00): Ditto for duplicate stops (8048)
Unarmored5156 (2024-11-19 04:46:13+00:00): Ditto with duplicate stops. They're right next to each other and should be pretty easy to fix if you're pulling in existing map data first. (5029, 7487, 7479, 6638)
andriu44 (2024-11-23 05:23:07+00:00): There is no cycle track between School Street and Bow Street.
cubbe8 (2024-11-23 07:39:13+00:00): It is under construction, I have now tagged it as such. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/42.381927/-71.097857

https://voice.somervillema.gov/springhillsewer

https://ehq-production-us-california.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/8553424deb84852d731e021f4005348b7681e5ca/original/1647868315/1c5b3215c4b3e18d893af864cd2def46_SHSS_Drawings_Volume2.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4KKNQAKICO37GBEP%2F20241123%2Fus-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20241123T073314Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=f8a09cd0e980fcf87e00dd2dd216f7ebc7300b5f4d29aaf59dbde05367b9148e
cubbe8 (2024-11-23 07:40:09+00:00): https://voice.somervillema.gov/5035/widgets/46735/documents/29158
❤️‍🔥 (2025-01-09 08:09:30+00:00): Does this circlular feature exist in reality? It seems to duplicate https://osm.org/node/12346604162
AlwynWellington (2025-01-10 01:56:31+00:00): The need for a feature like this comes from the Greater Wellington Regional Council and the description used on way markers of "Farm Hub" in Belmont Regional Park, especially on the Porirua side.

In this form it becomes a searchable destination.

I tried circles with varying diameters.  

On reflection, I think (in this usage, at least) the circle could be a tad bigger.  The size of the rectangle looks good.

In my experience, using just a locality marker does not give the visibility needed in the range of zoom levels.

I would appreciate any positive 

I am more than content to continue to experiment with the objective of achieving clarity at all zoom levels.
mtmail (2024-11-22 23:04:01+00:00): What is the data source for way 1335283074 ? The tags don't look like OpenStreetMap tags.
Dimacn (2024-11-19 14:13:01+00:00): Пожалуйста не заставляйте других участников проекта переделывать за вами. Изучите классификацию дорог принятую в OSM - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Highway_classification Вы из улиц сделали проезды service, что неверно. В основе классификации лежит важность дороги, а не её качество. Именованные улицы в данном случае должны быть отмечены как highway=residential Качество дороги отмечается другими тегами. 2. Не удаляйте существующие стихийно накатанные дороги, отмечайте их highway=track или highway=service плюс теги качества.
Dimacn (2024-11-19 13:43:49+00:00): Пожалуйста изучите классификацию дорог принятую в OSM - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Highway_classification  Вы из улицы сделали проезд service, что неверно. В основе классификации лежит важность дороги, а не её качество. Именованная улица в данном случае была правильно отмечена highway=residential Качество дороги отмечается другими тегами. 2. Не удаляйте существующие стихийно накатанные дороги, отмечайте их highway=track или highway=service плюс теги качества. 3. Вашу эту правку я отменю, как полностью неправильную.
Tatfahren (2024-11-19 05:08:59+00:00): I think you accidentally uploaded you test changes, please stop doing that, there are already 3 test changesets you made.
fahrimwald (2025-02-04 19:34:23+00:00): Bist du dir sicher, dass deine Änderung am Wohngebiet 865187002 eine Verbesserung ist?
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-11-20 00:53:04+00:00): reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159347609