piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
lubosb (2025-06-07 09:09:43+00:00): Ahoj, máš pravdu. Neoznačil som to správne. Je tam dodatková tabuľa "okrem správy lesoparku a vozidiel s povolením hotela Veverica".

zmenil som
motor_vehicle=no
motor_vehicle=private
a doplnil som to na všetky asfaltky k hotelu, plus vymazal parkovisko pri ihrisku - popri ceste sú tam drevené koly a kamene.
moonraver (2025-06-08 05:26:45+00:00): dik, este je tam otazny ten trojuholnik ciest, kedze ty vies, kde je znacka,netreba to dat na cely ten trojuholnik motor_vehicle=private (v strede je picnic_table) alebo len bez toho trojuholnika? lebo jedna cesta v nom je private a druha nie
moonraver (2025-06-08 05:29:49+00:00): ozaj a este nevsimol si si tam niekde hore pri tom trojuholniku ci tam nie je znacka "Koniec zony 30 km/h"?
moonraver (2025-06-08 05:30:58+00:00): alebo koniec "Zony zakazu statia"?
lubosb (2025-06-08 18:15:56+00:00): Ahoj,

ten zákaz je až za križovatkou/trojuholníkom. Opravil som to podľa toho.

Čo sa týka zóny 30 a zákazu státia, nevšimol. Keď pôjdem okolo, pozriem sa na to. Netuším však, kedy sa tam dostanem, možno už v utorok, možno až koncom mesiaca...
moonraver (2025-06-09 18:16:33+00:00): To je vpoho, ja tam tiez chodievam niekedy casto a inokedy vobec.To nie je dolezite,netreba kvoli tomu tam bezat.Zatial dik.
lubosb (2025-06-11 18:07:05+00:00): Pozrel som sa na to.

Zóna 30 aj zákaz státia nie sú ukončené. Takže maxspeed=30 som dal na všetky "asfaltové" cesty na Brezine. Smerom na hrad pokračuje maxspeed=15

Zákaz státia pridávať nebudem. Niečo si tam začal, tak to nechám na teba :)
moonraver (2025-06-12 13:55:51+00:00): myslim, ze ta zona 30 staci takto a do zakazov vjazdu nema zmysel davat zakaz statia (v ramci zony zakazu statia). Ak sa tam dostanem chcem este parkoviska porobit presnejsie co su po ceste hore.Dik za spolupracu.
Langlaeufer (2024-11-19 16:02:48+00:00): Hallo Stahlmann, wie ist denn die genaue Beschilderung? Gebt es Freigabe für Anlieger oder Kfz oder ist es eine pure Fahrradstraße?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159285950
Stahlmann (2024-11-20 11:08:43+00:00): Die Beschilderung zur Einbahnstraßenregelung wurde von der Straße "Neuer Markt" kommend entfernt. Das Verkehrszeichen 267 (Einfahrt Verboten) ist im Kreuzungsbereich Wolperstraße/Petersilienwasser ebenfalls abgebaut.

Auf die Fahrradstraße wird per Markierung auf dem Boden hingewiesen. Im Kreuzungsbereich Wolperstraße/Petersilienwasser müsste ich jedoch nochmal nach der Beschilderung schauen. Ich habe leider keine Fotos erstellt.
Langlaeufer (2024-11-20 11:29:51+00:00): Die Schilder wären wichtig, die Bodenmarkierung alleine zählt vermutlich nicht.
gurglypipe (2024-11-20 10:38:41+00:00): Hiya, thanks for this edit. In future can you please split edits by geographical area? This edit covers most of the north of England, but actually only touches four cities. It should have been four changesets instead. This allows local editors to more easily check edits in their area.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets for more information

Thanks!
gurglypipe (2024-11-20 11:02:37+00:00): After looking at this edit in a bit more detail, I have a few questions:

 1. Why change https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1028435029 from residential to construction? Someone else edited it only a month ago and it looks like the estate is now mostly constructed and occupied (look at Mapbox imagery). I’ve changed it back in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159360711.

 2. You added building=yes to various buildings in Blackpool which were already correctly tagged with building:part=yes. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part for how building parts are tagged. I’ve removed the new building=yes tags in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159360491.

 3. Why did you delete several houses (like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1304243429) in Middlesbrough? They appear under construction on Esri imagery. I’ve re-added them in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159360654.

Thanks
habi (2024-11-19 19:48:01+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159339910
Jordi MF (2024-11-18 17:33:04+00:00): Se han revertido todos los changesets de este usuario porque es un usuario bloqueado decenas de veces con cuentas múltiples (https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/usuarios-editando-en-espana-bajo-sospecha-vandalismo-malas-practicas-y-otros/2510/), por lo que sistemáticamente incumple los Términos de Uso de OSM (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap_account#Account_Names_and_Multi_Account_Policies y https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#VI._Account_cancellation_or_suspension).
El usuario realiza múltiples y pequeñas ediciones para dificultar que sus cambios puedan ser revisados. Los mayores errores son que modifica la toponimia oficial para que no aparezca en valenciano aunque así lo dictamine la Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua en la cartografía oficial de la Comunitat Valenciana. Tenemos permiso explícito de esta entidad que, según las leyes autonómicas, es la entidad encargada de la toponimia oficial. Tampoco no tiene en cuenta la cartelería local que aparece en calles, carreteras y sendas.
Por otra parte, este usuario (y todas sus cuentas) está mapeando según las ortofotos y sin tener en cuenta el conocimiento local para delimitar si los elementos se tratan de edificios en ruinas, muros u otros elementos e, incluso, elimina PDIs con todo el historial de forma injustificada.
Ante todo lo expuesto y por las diversas anomalías, revierto todos los changesets porque, de revisar cada uno de ellos, únicamente nos dedicaríamos a ello, como si fuésemos administradores. En caso de revisar todas las ediciones de este usuario que ya ha sido bloqueado por 10 años con otras cuentas, nunca podríamos seguir mejorando la base de datos debido a revisar durante horas cada uno de los conjuntos de cambios y, por lo tanto, dejaríamos de lado seguir mapeando para añadir nueva información.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159293004
ManuelB701 (2024-11-18 21:59:32+00:00): Ähm, nein, die Busse fahren an der Stelle tatsächlich so und biegen nicht so spät wie möglich ab.
SimonSaysCode418 (2024-11-19 06:45:12+00:00): Doch, da es bauartbedingt nicht eher möglich ist oder fahren Busse durch Geländer der Gehwege?
SimonSaysCode418 (2024-11-19 06:47:04+00:00): Oder hat sich das durch die Baustelle grundlegend verändert?
ManuelB701 (2024-11-22 17:53:15+00:00): Ich habe mich vor Ort erkundigt: Die Busse fahren fast so ab, wie ich sie vorhin gezeichnet habe d.h. tatsächlich am Endstück des Gehwegs. Das einzige, wo ich an der Position etwas verschätzte, ist dass die Busse eigentlich weiter hinten, wo die eigentlich Brücke anfängt, und nicht direkt hinter der Ampel.
Jedenfalls ist es so wie ich es vorhin meinte: Der Übergang an der Stelle ist nicht so spät, wie du es dachtest.

Ansonsten hattest du die Gleisgeometrie kaputt gemacht, sodass ein Teil der Gleise im Zigzag und über der Brücke verlief, was deinen Änderung auch nicht wirklich half...
eggie (2024-11-18 16:17:21+00:00): Welkom bij OSM,

De tags zullen niets doen in OSM
Gebruik name=Metesco Nederland B.V.  ipv company=

en verder is de tag office=company nodig.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-11-18 16:28:12+00:00): name en company toegevoegd. 
De naam zal straks renderen (CTRL-F5 een paar keer) 
Al die Alt_... tags werken niet in OSM.
Die beter verwijderen. 

MVG
eggie
rskedgell (2026-06-26 12:30:53+00:00): Separate sidewalks on Brooke Road and Evering Road connected to Darville Road crossings in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184642886
eggie (2024-11-18 16:32:09+00:00): Dag Rene.. Het vlak construction heb ik verwijderd. Zeker weten dat de straatnaam De Waag klopt. Niet volgens de BGT.
https://www.verbeterdekaart.nl/#?geometry.x=171326.35&geometry.y=383904.15&zoomlevel=13.6

Je zou een terugmelding kunnen doen naar het Kadaster/BGT als je gelijk hebt.
MVG
eggie
canfe (2025-07-26 17:55:44+00:00): Hai raddoppiato con un nodo il lago.
KarlaIbrahić (2024-11-19 11:14:53+00:00): Reverting because of created node #OptimoRoute
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159319526
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159287287
treestryder (2024-11-24 04:18:53+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMapping. 
Not sure what Go Map!! is showing, but adding bicycle=yes to roadways is redundant, as it is implied.
As far as I know, every _legal_ bicycle lane in the area has already been accurately mapped. For instance East Kalamazoo Street already had the tag cycleway=lane, meaning it has a legal (wide enough and painted and/or signed as such) lane on both sides.
Have a look at the Michigan Wiki for more information.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Michigan
treestryder (2024-11-24 04:46:11+00:00): Yes bicycling is legal on most Michigan "sidewalks". Ours might be better tagged as highway=path + surface=concrete + width=1. Most Michigan mappers only add bicycle=yes where it is needed to route someone where the road network will not. Like, a cut through between two neighborhoods. Another reason I do not do add bicycle=yet to sidewalks, besides limiting routing confusion when it would appear to the router as bicycling paths on either side of the road, plus the road itself, then some roads will also have bicycle lanes on that road; I hear that high speed cycling on sidewalks is statistically more dangerous.
treestryder (2024-11-27 00:37:02+00:00): Regarding implied access see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions
Aenet (2024-11-30 00:33:36+00:00): Hi, is it bad to add redundant tags? Although they may be redundant to people editing in Michigan, is it not better to be explicit so the router will know it is legal to bike on sidewalks? 
I can start adding smoothness and ensuring width is present as well to improve routing (as sidewalks usually have inferior smoothness to roads, but not always, as streets can sometimes have more debris present than sidewalks [side note: is there a way to tag the smoothness of a bike lane separate from the road, for example when the road is smooth but the bike lane accumulates debris from the road?]). 

I was trying to primarily focus on adding bicycle=yes on sidewalks adjacent to one-way and especially busy/fast roads like Saginaw and Oakland to fix routing where an unnecessary (and oftentimes dangerous, as it usually means riding with traffic on a de facto 45 mph road) detour would be suggested simply to avoid using the sidewalk. 

I can understand the concerns about the dangers of high speed biking on sidewalks, but I would think that should be something that the router should account for when seeing the width and the combination foot/bicycle=yes. Although I think sidewalks should ideally have separate bike areas added whenever possible to make traffic safer for all road users, but obviously that's not an OSM issue.

As for bicycle=yes on roads, should it just be left up to the router whether that road can be biked? Should I only add a bicycle tag when it is bicycle=no, such as on segregated freeways? 

I've also been tagging roads explicitly with their foot tag, whether yes or no, because that depends on factors not related to tags on the roadway itself, but instead to whether there is an adjacent sidewalk or not. Is that okay? Should I just leave the tag blank on roads with sidewalks and only explicitly add foot=yes on roads without sidewalks?

I've also wondered about places where access is legal but hardly practical, such as on roads where there is no gutter area separate from traffic lanes (see the North Larch St Bridge from Lake Lansing Road to East Cesar E. Chavez Avenue and vice versa [I do now see that you marked this as cycleway:right=no. Is this sufficient to tell a router that this is not a good way to route?]).

Thank you,
Aenet
Aenet (2024-11-30 21:50:28+00:00): I'll come back to this when I have more time, but for now:
> It is my understanding, by default in Michigan, as long as they are moving, people are allowed to walk on any roadway not designated as a freeway.

MCL 257.655 states " Where sidewalks are provided, a pedestrian shall not walk upon the main traveled portion of the highway. Where sidewalks are not provided, pedestrians shall, when practicable, walk on the left side of the highway facing traffic which passes nearest." with highway meaning any roadway
treestryder (2024-11-30 21:59:16+00:00): Huh.

How best to map in light of that law would make for another great discussion topic. The results to be captured on the Wiki.
Aenet (2024-12-01 13:57:48+00:00): I posted a discussion about the topic on the Michigan discussion page 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michigan&oldid=2783251#Tagging_key:foot_for_roads
treestryder (2024-12-20 20:43:42+00:00): Will the entire state be blue eventually? 🤔
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/42.74553/-84.54482&layers=C
Aenet (2024-12-20 22:35:37+00:00): Hmm. Maybe an issue should be made to consider a less saturated or lighter blue for regions where cycling legality is yes in general instead of no so that it doesn’t appear as if all roads and sidewalks are cycle lanes. I should also maybe look at changing those tags I’ve added to sidewalks to something that just refers to the legal description instead of being explicit cycle yes. I’ll have to look around to see what tags would be appropriate for that. Maybe I’ll ask around in the lists.
TrickyFoxy (2024-11-19 00:08:29+00:00): 👋 Пожалуйста, не рисуйте дороги поверх существующих. Вы можете разрезать и менять уже существующие
TrickyFoxy (2024-11-19 00:14:35+00:00): Я исправил и разрезал для удобства дороги,. Посмотрите, пожалуйста, что всё что вы хотели обозначить обозначено
KarlaIbrahić (2024-11-19 11:23:46+00:00): Reverting because node was created. #OptimoRoute
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159319984
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159287626
Jordi MF (2024-11-18 17:28:17+00:00): Se han revertido todos los changesets de este usuario porque es un usuario bloqueado decenas de veces con cuentas múltiples (https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/usuarios-editando-en-espana-bajo-sospecha-vandalismo-malas-practicas-y-otros/2510/), por lo que sistemáticamente incumple los Términos de Uso de OSM (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap_account#Account_Names_and_Multi_Account_Policies y https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#VI._Account_cancellation_or_suspension).
El usuario realiza múltiples y pequeñas ediciones para dificultar que sus cambios puedan ser revisados. Los mayores errores son que modifica la toponimia oficial para que no aparezca en valenciano aunque así lo dictamine la Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua en la cartografía oficial de la Comunitat Valenciana. Tenemos permiso explícito de esta entidad que, según las leyes autonómicas, es la entidad encargada de la toponimia oficial. Tampoco no tiene en cuenta la cartelería local que aparece en calles, carreteras y sendas.
Por otra parte, este usuario (y todas sus cuentas) está mapeando según las ortofotos y sin tener en cuenta el conocimiento local para delimitar si los elementos se tratan de edificios en ruinas, muros u otros elementos e, incluso, elimina PDIs con todo el historial de forma injustificada.
Ante todo lo expuesto y por las diversas anomalías, revierto todos los changesets porque, de revisar cada uno de ellos, únicamente nos dedicaríamos a ello, como si fuésemos administradores. En caso de revisar todas las ediciones de este usuario que ya ha sido bloqueado por 10 años con otras cuentas, nunca podríamos seguir mejorando la base de datos debido a revisar durante horas cada uno de los conjuntos de cambios y, por lo tanto, dejaríamos de lado seguir mapeando para añadir nueva información.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159292826
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-07 23:47:29+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164656046
Andiw12 (2024-11-18 15:44:49+00:00): mantap bang hady, salam kenal andi dari bali
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159288549
Hady Prast PMI (2024-11-18 15:54:41+00:00): Salam Kenal kembali Andiw12
Andiw12 (2024-11-18 16:00:56+00:00): kalau boleh tau udah dapet berapa changeset bang ?
Hady Prast PMI (2024-11-18 16:04:25+00:00): Masih sedikit 😂
Andiw12 (2024-11-18 16:08:01+00:00): wkwk waduh..  ada salam dari pak winata bang
Data 7 (2024-11-18 17:06:17+00:00): Grazie della modifica
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-11-18 18:25:02+00:00): Hi and welcome. disused:shop=* should be used instead of the shop tag.

like this
disused:shop=bakery
name=Blondi Bakery

leaving shop=bakery will make most data consumers (apps) think that the shop still operates.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-11-18 18:26:46+00:00): Oh, sorry. Didn't notice the second changeset. All is correct! Thank you.
kubahahaha_bot (2024-11-20 09:43:58+00:00): Tylko na tym krótkim odcinku odwrócono kierunek?
igorjurkowski (2024-11-20 10:09:46+00:00): Na odcinku między Solną/Placem i Krakusa - teraz kierunek jazdy jest od Krakusa do Solnej/Placu Bohaterów Getta
kubahahaha (2024-11-20 10:12:58+00:00): Dzięki za potwierdzenie, nie byłem pewien na jak długim odcinku od placu wprowadzono te zmiany.
No i dzięki za szybką edycję :D
pzdr
Fizzie-DWG (2025-02-16 23:43:52+00:00): DWG revert of international border change

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162591054
habi (2024-11-19 19:34:26+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159339569
ChrissW-R1 (2025-01-05 12:33:54+00:00): Hi @EttoreV_littoria,

what is the source of this change? According to my investigations there is still an open border dispute between France and Italy? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Blanc#Ownership_of_the_summit.

Best regards,
Chriss
ChrissW-R1 (2025-01-05 12:34:45+00:00): See also "Mont Blanc summit dispute" at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Disputed_territories
Olyon (2025-02-10 13:48:26+00:00): reverted by changeset 162333597
EttoreV_littoria (2025-02-10 16:54:47+00:00): Hi CrissW-R1
The only document that is currently valid is the Treaty of Turin of 1861 signed bilaterally by France and Italy, if you (plural) still continue to boycott the Italian border in this way giving only room for French nationalism it would be a real affront, thank you for the report and I hope it will all be resolved soon. thanks again, Ettore
Jrachi (2025-02-10 17:26:20+00:00): Dal 1861 ci sono stati molti trattati internazionali a seguito di almeno due guerre ed altrettanti armistizi.
Openstreetmap ha lo scopo di mappare lo stato attuale non quello del Regno d'Italia!

Ivo
ChrissW-R1 (2025-02-12 09:07:26+00:00): Thanks @Olyon for https://osm.org/changeset/162333597

@EttoreV_littoria as @Jrachi already wrote, OSM has the scope to show the real world. In this case you can see both borders, which displays both views. So it is less influenced by nationalism than your change, which only shows one view.

This is not the only "border dispute" you could found on OpenStreetMap. E.g. the dispute between the Netherlands and Germany: https://osm.org/?mlat=53.330053&mlon=6.996918&zoom=12
Olyon (2025-02-10 13:48:01+00:00): reverted by changeset 162333597
Olyon (2025-02-10 13:47:31+00:00): reverted by changeset 162351386
delineatorix (2024-11-19 19:40:24+00:00): Hi lollipop,
da scheint etwas schief gelaufen zu sein. Bitte prüfe mal deinen Edit. Falls Du Hilfe benötigst, melde dich gerne.
Schöne Grüße
delineatorix
Supaplex030 (2024-11-18 23:27:30+00:00): Hallo, herzlich Willkommen bei OSM und vielen Dank für diese Änderung direkt aus "erster Hand"!

Eine Nachfrage zu den neuen Einbahnstraßen in der Modersohn- bzw. Gärtnerstraße: Ist der Radverkehr von den Einbahnstraßenregelungen ausgenommen, also die Einbahnstraßen für den Radverkehr in beide Richtungen freigegeben? Falls ja, sollten wir "oneway:bicycle=yes" (vgl. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway:bicycle) an den Straßen ergänzen, damit bspw. Routinganwendungen für Radfahrende hier weiterhin in beide Richtungen funktionieren.

Beste Grüße
Alex
Unarmored5156 (2024-11-18 23:03:21+00:00): Hi there again, I'm noticing a lot of duplicate stop refs in your changesets again. This one has 6197 (EB Berkshire BV @ Beddington BV NW) duplicated. Can you please be sure to take care when you're adding new stops that you don't duplicate them?
eggie (2024-11-18 16:24:10+00:00): Dag Mister Fryslan..

Nee...  historic=monument is bv de Taj Mahal in India. 
Meestal een mausoleum.

Wat wij een monument noemen is in het Engels een 

historic= memorial.
memorial=bust 


(memorial=statue als het een standbeeld is) Ik dacht een buste hier.  
De titel is wanneer het een standbeeld is denk ik gewoon Titus Brandsma.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-11-18 16:38:37+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic=memorial

Dus wat wij monument noemen is een gedenkteken... in Duits Denkmal 

en 

niet gebruiken hier =monument.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic=monument

Die vertalingen vanuit het Engels gaan vaak verkeerd

monument dus heel vaak, maar ook arts_centre (Niets met dokters vandoen),  bank in een park ipv bench.
eggie (2024-11-18 18:59:00+00:00): Ik heb het even als voorbeeld aangepast naar memorial
Groet
eggie
Mister_Fryslan (2024-11-18 19:07:32+00:00): Dit betreft inderdaad een buste. 

Dank je wel voor het aangeven (en wijzigen) wat het verschil is. Kan ik dit ook gebruiken voor andere standbeelden en buste in de wijk.

mvg Mr. Fryslan
eggie (2024-11-18 19:20:49+00:00): Tuurlijk....   Zie wiki. Genoeg te doen daar.
rskedgell (2024-11-18 23:12:55+00:00): I'm fairly sure that Guildhall House hasn't suddenly ceased to be a building. Reverted.
eggie (2024-11-18 16:33:58+00:00): Oke Michael...

Overigens kan foot=designated er ook af.. Dat is default op een wandelpad.
MVG
eggie
MapperMichael32 (2024-11-18 17:51:36+00:00): Hoi eggie,
Bij alle ingangen van het voetpad staat een gebodsbord (G7) voor voetgangers. Dus dan is het toch juist goed om de tag foot=designated te behouden?
Groet, MapperMichael32
eggie (2024-11-18 17:59:00+00:00): Hoi... 

Nee... G7 highway=footway impliceert foot=yes (designated) 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=NL:Overzicht_Nederlandse_Verkeersborden&direction=next&oldid=984258#C:_Geslotenverklaring

en
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Tag:highway%3Dfootway

Groet,
eggie
eggie (2024-11-18 18:02:03+00:00): Staat wel een typ fout in die NL  wiki zie ik nu
C7>>G7
MapperMichael32 (2024-11-18 18:08:46+00:00): Oke, dan zal ik de foot=designated verwijderen.
En zal ik dan maar de tag traffic_sign=NL:G7 aan het pad toevoegen?
eggie (2024-11-18 18:11:24+00:00): Goed idee.. 👍
eggie (2024-11-18 18:13:06+00:00): Die wiki van al die verkeersborden tagging heb ik opgeslagen bij mn favorieten.
Daar kijk ik regelmatig op bij twijfel.
MapperMichael32 (2024-11-18 21:28:10+00:00): Goeie, 
Ik heb nu ook meteen een wiki account gemaakt. zo kan ik sneller relevante pagina's terugvinden.
Thanks
Mar4s (2024-11-19 08:44:12+00:00): Ahoj, bylo by super přidávat k trailům informaci, že se jedná primárně o stezky pro kola, tj:
bicycle=designated
foot=yes/no dle situace.
oneway=yes (pokud je to jednosměrný trail)
Ať tam zbytečně neposílají navigace chodce, může to být nebezpečné. 

Díky,
Michal
ufoncz (2024-11-19 10:09:31+00:00): Ahoj,

to je takový sporný. Tam je většinou dobře vidět a docela malej provoz, jak pěšáků, tak bajkerů. A přesná polovina z těch trailů dobře posloužila a může ještě posloužit i pěšákům nebo pejskařům. Ty tři zhruba uprostřed mají tak prudký závěry, že to nikdo pěšky nepoužívá. I přes tyto skutečnosti mám zohlednit hlavně ty navigace a přidat tam ty tagy?

Díky,
--Mirek
Mar4s (2024-11-19 11:31:55+00:00): Chápu. Pokud tedy je to stezka primárně založená na kola, tak bych tam bicycle=designated (určeno primárně pro kola) rozhodně dal. Pokud je tam něco, co chodcům zamezuje trasu používat, tak bych daný kus navíc označil i foot=no. Pokud je to jen hůře schůdný úsek, tak bych to neřešil.

Měj se,
Michal