piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
signina (2025-05-05 13:54:48+00:00): Hi Makeena, I am wondering why you changed the tags for the ways 979690186, 979690187, 979690188 from "abandoned:highway" to "highway"?

As these paths are blocked off at both ends and are overgrown in reality, I don't think it makes sense to have them appear as paths just with access=no on the map. 

However, I would keep them in OSM to prevent terrain model users from re-mapping them.

Curious to hear your perspective, happy mapping.
Makeena (2025-05-05 18:05:52+00:00): I don't remember the paths down there explicitly by now anymore. Are they really seriously overgrown to a mostly unusable state? For the legal state, the access tag is used, otherwise OSM documents what's on the ground. Abandoned is used for "features that have fallen into serious disrepair and which could only be put back into operation with expensive effort".
Generally, the same argumentation applies as I made in Sihlwald, the difference is that I couldn't verify the state of many paths there (except those i tagged with foot=yes) and therefore didn't change the tag.

I think the barriers should also be rendered explicitly but at least Carto fails to for the bar barrier. Gate would be be rendered but wouldn't be appropriate here as it's not meant to be passed by anyone.
However, having the paths on the map can also be meaningful, for example: It can help for navigation. And it can serve as information and help in route planning for people who have walked there before when they were still accessible and know they exist.
signina (2025-05-05 19:08:27+00:00): Hi Makeena, thanks for your detailed response. 

Given that these paths have been blocked at both ends for a few years now and are significantly overgrown (these forests change incredibly quickly, same happens in Sihlwald), I think they have indeed "fallen into serious disrepair". Otherwise, I think the "disused" lifecycle prefix would still apply. 

I believe "mapping what's on the ground" should also mean that unusable or formerly accessible paths should be marked with a lifecycle prefix. I last surveyed the area last summer, so will have a look again when I'm going up to Höhrohnen the next time. I would then take the liberty to revert the prefixes, if appropriate.

Happy mapping!
Makeena (2025-05-05 21:31:59+00:00): The disused prefix is for keys "which are no longer true as a result of the disuse". Here, if even, rather disused=yes would be applicable which is used "in case when being "unused" does not negate a feature's primary function", like a disused building.  A path is still a path even if it's illegal, and it still could fulfill this function. (The question would then be what the difference between no access and disused is.)
If it really is completely overgrown, visible while standing at the barrier, then yes, it can be marked as abandoned.
But I wouldn't make a conclusion just from time passed too quickly. I have passed many former paths (mostly unmapped) in Sihlwald that still looked well. And I recently accessed a path at Uetliberg blocked for safety for two years now and I couldn't really see any overgrowth taking place at all.
josmougn (2024-12-20 23:08:32+00:00): Bonjour, en général on se base sur le cadastre pour le tracé des bâtiments car le plus souvent c'est difficile de bien voir les contours d'un bâtiment avec l'imagerie aérienne, plus le problème des ombres et de l'angle de prise de vue.
Tes modifications sont décalées du cadastre.
Tu as laissé le tag source=cadastre or ce n'est plus le cas
"source=cadastre-dgi-fr source : Direction Générale des Finances Publiques - Cadastre. Mise à jour : 2015"
Bonne continuation.
Waaax (2024-12-21 09:00:56+00:00): Bonjour,
Merci pour le retour :)
Oui j'ai remarqué que dans le quartier les maisons étaient particulièrement décalées entre l'image (qui est encore d'actualité) et les données OSM. Parfois il y avait dans les données OSM des erreurs assez grossières du coup je me suis dit que j'allais caller la carte sur les images (elles ont une très bonnes précision non ?) du quartier. Est-ce une bonne chose ? Est-ce qu'il faut juste enlever la source ? Les mises à jour cadastre se font comment quand il y a un bâtiment qui a été ajouté hors cadastre là il y en a un sur le cadastre ?
Vinber (2024-12-28 11:16:15+00:00): Bonjour, 
la discussion s'est ouverte sur le forum et du coup cela m'a donné envie de venir voir et voici un exemple https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4566394

absent de la bdortho, du cadastre et présent sur l'express 2024.

je corrige ma note mais c'est pour pointer dessus.

la discussion https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/comment-modifier-les-impots-cadastrales/29942
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-04-30 18:05:33+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5761710240/history has elevation = 58 that was added in this edit
why not use regular ele= tag?

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ele
Hufkratzer (2024-12-20 15:39:27+00:00): Hi,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1343556005 ist keine Reitanlage ( Reitstall im Sinne von https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:leisure=horse_riding sondern ein Reitplatz und sollte daher auch als Reitplatz getaggt werden, so wie z.B. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1171085323
eggie (2024-12-18 19:03:02+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback Realiseer je het voor bezorgdiensten ook niet meer routeert. Kan dit niet beter als access=permissive worden getagd. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
AfroAnton (2024-12-18 20:10:59+00:00): Bedankt voor je bericht. Ik ben hier laatst geweest en heb een foto gemaakt van de situatie en ook het kadaster gecheckt. Er staan meerdere bordjes waarop staat toegang verboden en dat het eigen terrein betreft. Als ik de Wiki dan goed begrijp is acces=private dan eerder van toepassing dan acces=permissive.  Maar als ik het verkeerd doe hoor ik het graag!
eggie (2024-12-18 20:22:16+00:00): Yep... access=private is correct.
Toch zijn we wat voorzichtiger geworden met dat private.
Iemand die er iets te zoeken heeft ..postbode.. bezorgdienst.. de huisarts..is niet een onbevoegde. De weg heeft geen vervolg. Routeren heeft geen functie voor doorgaand verkeer.
Vandaar dat vaak op opritten ..Eigen Weg.. Terrein access=permissive wordt getagd.
De eigenaar mag je te allen tijde de toegang ontzeggen. Bv aanroepen. .. of het hondje even laten blaffen.
Op een afgesloten bospad met art 461 is het natuurlijk wel access=private.
Up to you.
eggie (2024-12-18 21:33:31+00:00): Je kunt er ook nog evt highway=service van maken. Dan is het duidelijker een toegangsweg.
AfroAnton (2024-12-19 20:27:16+00:00): Ze hebben er een stuk of vier bordjes hangen. Op één daarvan staat VERBODEN TOEGANG Art. 461 Wetb. v. Strafr. Dus dan laat hem op private staan. Maar bedankt voor de feedback. Weet ik de volgende keer waar ik op moet letten.
eggie (2024-12-19 20:30:33+00:00): Tja... vier dat lijkt me wel genoeg voor private :)
BCNorwich (2024-12-21 09:56:23+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Please be aware that the imagery you used here is probably way out of date. The buildings you deleted were added recently, 18/10/2024, so it's very likey that they do exist. Thus I've reinstated them. Please don't delete anything unless you are personally sure of your facts.

Regards Bernard.
SD Mapman (2024-12-18 19:35:36+00:00): Should I not add "boundary=administrative, admin_level=whatever" to boundary ways when I'm updating them? The iD validator gets upset with me if the way isn't tagged
watmildon (2024-12-18 19:39:42+00:00): Let me check and see what iD is trying to warn about but from a practical standpoint, all admin boundaries are supposed to go on relations and the tagging should go there. I think the previous practice from older imports was to also include the tags on the imported ways, presumably because the tooling made it annoying/difficult to figure out what the way was for if it was untagged and only part of a relation.

I definitely don't want to cause every iD mapper a headache!
SD Mapman (2024-12-18 19:44:16+00:00): I think it was just warning about completely untagged ways that weren't part of a multipolygon relation, I went back and added the source tag to the way and that solved the problem
SD Mapman (2024-12-18 19:46:16+00:00): Once I have some free time (ha ha ha) I'll go back to the counties I've done boundary cleanup in and make that the standard way for tagging ways in boundary relations (at least in SD)
watmildon (2024-12-18 19:48:04+00:00): Hmmm. Can you post an example? Playing around with the boundaries near me I am not able to reproduce a validator error. Both of the below work without triggering the validator for me.

ex: remove boundary tags from a way (admin_level=, boundary=, boundary_type)

ex: change the geometry of a boundary that only has untagged ways as members
watmildon (2024-12-18 19:50:01+00:00): If you want a decent list of "homework" zelonewolf has been work on a bunch of boundary checking. It includes "simple" stuff like these tag issues as well as warning about things missing or misnamed (when compared to wikidata or census lists) etc
watmildon (2024-12-18 19:50:24+00:00): https://zelonewolf.github.io/wikidata-qa/

Obviously I forgot to add the site. Sorry about that.
SD Mapman (2024-12-18 19:52:56+00:00): I've had that pulled up as I've been going through the state, need to add some of the relations I've added to Wikidata

Basically the issue was I was seeing iD not let me save anything unless my ways in the boundary relation had a tag, I've been using boundary=administrative for that but moving forward I'll use the source tag
SD Mapman (2024-12-18 19:55:48+00:00): The issue was creating a boundary relation with untagged ways
watmildon (2024-12-18 20:31:39+00:00): Gotcha. Odd that iD complains about the way in that case but that’s a simple enough workaround. 

Let me know if I can help with anything. I am almost done refreshing all of the 2008 imported census boundaries for WA and wouldn’t mind lending a hand elsewhere.
SD Mapman (2024-12-18 21:10:43+00:00): If you could add the "X is missing from OSM but is listed on the Census Bureau list of CDPs" ones that would be great... there's a couple out there that have name conflicts/SD-specific issues (Dakota Dunes is a CDP with an administrative boundary!).

Feel free to message me if things come up (it'll be easier to see than a changeset comment), there's a number of relations on the list that I either created or was the last editor on (some a long time ago when I didn't know what I was doing)
SD Mapman (2024-12-18 21:11:48+00:00): I've tried to document the SD oddities in the US boundary (or admin level, can't remember which one) page on the wiki
SD Mapman (2024-12-18 21:38:20+00:00): Update, iD didn't like me just using source either

"Line must have descriptive tags"

so I added a descriptive tag and then deleted it and it was okay with that
watmildon (2024-12-19 02:31:12+00:00): lmao. Oh iD. Bless.

I am happy to work on getting those added. Will reach out if I hit anything super weird but I'll try to rip through the straight forward stuff.
AndreaDp271 (2025-12-17 16:42:07+00:00): errato rimosso attraversamento
tux67 (2024-12-19 07:29:22+00:00): Hi Kelso - sorry, aber ich denke das Konzept mit den Tree Rows für die Allee wird dem wirklichen Bewuchs vor Ort (z.B. entlang des Flutgrabens) nicht gerecht. 

Kannst du dir das noch mal ansehen?
Gruß
tux67
tux67 (2024-12-19 07:35:59+00:00): Die "Halbinsel" wäre auch so eine Stelle.
user_3716049 (2024-12-19 18:53:05+00:00): Na ja, diese natürlich gewachsen Baumreihe entspricht sicherlich nicht dem, was im Wiki steht, aber was siehst du als alternative? 
Landcover trees ? Wird in DE nicht gerendert, weil ungebräuchlich.

natural tree group ? Könnte ich mir für die Baumgruppen zwischen den Baumreihen nördlich des Flutgrabens vorstellen ( am nördliche Ufer des Flutgrabens sieht es auf dem ESRI Bild nach Wiki Baumreihen aus ) 

natural wood ? Also ich seh da eigentlich keinen Wald, aber man könnte wohl argumentieren, dass das an der Stell die Reste des Waldes sind, der vor dem Schlosspark mal da gewesen sein dürfte und südlich und im Westen noch vorhanden ist. 

Such dir was aus, ich wüsste jetzt nicht, wofür ich mich da entscheiden sollte.
tux67 (2024-12-20 10:44:42+00:00): Naja -- ein pragmatischer Ansatz wäre auch gewesen die vorhandenen Flächen zu lassen wie sie waren .. ggf. zu ändern auf natural=wood (Wiki: bezeichnet allgemein Flächen, die von Bäumen bestanden sind). 
Wenn alle Optionen Kompromisse sind, finde ich das jetzt zumindest aus optischer Perspektive nicht besser .. aber sei's drum ..  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Wald#Verbreitete_Methoden
user_3716049 (2024-12-21 11:43:40+00:00): Na gut, dann halt natural wood, weil es schöner aussieht und um den künstlich angelegten Teil des Schlossparkes vom Rest zu unterscheiden.
Werds nach Weihnachten ändern.
tux67 (2024-12-21 12:11:25+00:00): Prima, schöne Feiertage 👍
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-13 01:08:36+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164876590
eggie (2024-12-18 19:07:01+00:00): Dag Anton

Je hebt Cornelis Trooststraat 52 ergens anders heen gesleept.
Je edits
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=160364467

Ik heb het adres weer hersteld. 
MVG
eggie

MVG
eggie
AfroAnton (2024-12-18 19:25:08+00:00): Bedankt voor herstellen, dat heb ik helemaal niet door gehad.
eggie (2024-12-18 19:28:55+00:00): Hoi   Het komt omdat je in editor iD met de linker muisknip selecteert, maar ook met diezelfde knop schuift.
Wanneer je iets per zonder het te merken selecteert schuift niet de kaart maar de node. Het is dus oppassen geblazen met iD,
Editor JOSM gebruikt de rechtermuis om te schuiven.
Dan kan het niet gebeuren. 
Mapse,
eggie
iandees (2024-12-19 00:10:52+00:00): Thanks for adding the new place!
papakpmartin (2025-01-19 02:23:59+00:00): Ian! :)  You're welcome, and nice to hear from you! Funnily enough, the gym is about to move down the street, so update coming soon.
iandees (2025-01-19 02:25:31+00:00): :) Hi!
papakpmartin (2025-01-19 03:09:34+00:00): Ha I just realized that just because i recognize your name doesn't mean you do mine... we worked at the same place in the SW metro some years ago haahaha :)
iandees (2025-01-19 03:13:36+00:00): Yep I recognized your name too. That was a good time!
papakpmartin (2025-01-19 03:38:24+00:00): Ha good... I just realized that could have seemed weird lol
YomanNH (2024-12-18 22:54:44+00:00): Cześć!

railway=abandoned - używany do oznaczania przebiegu dawnych linii kolejowych, gdzie tory zostały usunięte, ale przebieg trasy jest w dalszym ciągu widoczny (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:railway=abandoned?uselang=pl)

Gdzie niby przebieg jest widoczny?
MC436 (2024-12-21 19:01:02+00:00): Cześć,
Użyłam złego znacznika, który pojawia się przy większości takich miejsc. Poprawiam i dziękuję.
carfog81 (2024-12-20 14:35:29+00:00): Por favor intente no duplicar las líneas de las vías.
Lostmonkey (2024-12-19 10:31:20+00:00): Er der vitterligt adgang forbudt (også til fods eller på cykel)  på alle de veje og stier, du har markeret med access=private? Er der (lovlig) skiltning med dette? Nogle af de stræk, du har givet adgangsforbud, er angivet som officielle vandreruter. Begge dele kan ikke være korrekt.
RugårdGods (2024-12-19 16:18:33+00:00): Gå og pedalcykler, ingen mountainbikes, er kun tilladt, hvor det er angivet med (lovlig) skiltning. Alle andre veje og stier er private og lukkede undtagen kun Rugårdboere. Tusind tak.
kortgodt (2024-12-20 06:26:32+00:00): Hvis det er tilfældet har du tagget forkert. Det at en vej er privat eget gør ikke i sig selv at det er access=private. En mark/skovvej tagges som sådan og ikke som adgangsvej. Vejnavn kan du finde i SDFI database Du har flere stedet angivet forkerte navne.
kortgodt (2024-12-20 08:57:34+00:00): en mountainbike er en cykel. I lovens forstand skelnes der ikke mellem cykeltyper på sammen måde som man ikke skelner mellem hudfarve eller religion. Jeg vil gerne se eksempel på skiltning ved access=no eller access=private som du flittigt bruger i dette changeset. Vejen du angiver som Rugård Campingvej hedder Rugårdsvej iht. SDFI.
kortgodt (2024-12-20 09:04:29+00:00): tænker du kan bruge loc_name=Rugård Campingvej hvis du meget gerne vil have det til at fremgå af OSM
osmviborg (2024-12-20 13:09:46+00:00): Hvorfor? På pladsen hjemmeside er adressen:
Rugaard Camping
Rugaardsvej 4
8400 Ebeltoft
kortgodt (2024-12-20 13:47:50+00:00): Den officielle adresse er Rugaardsvej som du jo også angiver. Jeg prøver blot at komme brugeren semi-retired i møde, have en dialog om du vil, måske kan vi blive enige om hvad der er op og ned. Indtil da er det lidt op af bakke.
Sona S (2024-12-18 20:02:53+00:00): How do I add this to Facebook and Insta maps
CurlingMan13 (2024-12-18 21:27:47+00:00): Changeset reviewed as requested. Good edit.  

It should appear there automatically after a few days or weeks.  We don't manage Facebook or Instagram directly so I can't provide a precise answer unfortunately.
StC (2024-12-22 08:55:22+00:00): Hi!

This changeset has disrupted the continuity of one of the hiking routes that passes there. I'll take care of the fix.
archpdx (2024-12-23 09:08:03+00:00): Hi,

I noticed that you've recently been doing a large number of highway classification changes in Gresham/Troutdale. These edits have unfortunately undone a good deal of work made by the community to form a cohesive network of roads in the United States (https://osm.wiki/United_States/Highway_classification). For example, `highway=primary` should be reserved for major throughfares such as Powell rather than minor streets like Kelly. I ask that you please stop these mass changes and consult with the local community before continuing.
8329 (2025-01-01 23:14:27+00:00): Hi,

According to what you are saying kelly avenue is a Urban Minor Collector? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Oregon/Highway_Classification
archpdx (2025-01-02 00:57:14+00:00): I'm not sure I'm following? According to ODOT, Kelly is classified as an urban collector, which according to the table roughly translates to `highway=tertiary` or `highway=secondary`. Given that it doesn't have a light at Powell and has a 4 way stop at 8th, it can be reasonably concluded that `highway=tertiary` would be more appropriate in this case.

Regardless, functional classifications from ODOT were used as just a starting point for determining highway classifications on OSM. While the goals of each roughly align (funding and regional importance respectively), there are places in which these differ.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-13 01:08:37+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164876590
MaliMrav (2024-12-21 08:21:02+00:00): (Ponavljam svoju molbu koju sam prethodno poslao u privatnoj poruci)

Razumem frustraciju i mene su iznervirali mnogo puta, ali protest vandalizovanjem OpenStreetMap-a je “lajanje na pogrešno drvo”. Nanosiš štetu ugledu OSM-a, nasiš štetu svom ličnom ugledu kao mapera, a ponajmanje štete nanosiš onome koji te je iznervirao.

Molim te da revertuješ svoje promene.
magnumns (2024-12-21 11:20:29+00:00): Odgovorio sam ti 19 December 2024 at 13:46
"You are mixing grandmas and frogs"
Predmet se vodi kod SLUZBE UNUTRASNJE KONTROLE MINISTARSTVA UNUTRASNJIH POSLOVA.
Zakazivanje preko euprave na ovoj lokaciji sprovodi se samo za subotu. Radnim danima zakazivanje je isto tako OBAVEZNO, i sprovodi se protivzakonito, licnim dolaskom u 19 casova za sledeci dan. O tome ne postoji ni jedan pisani dokument niti obavestenje. Ta informacija dobija se iskljucivo usmeno od zaposlenih ako klijent dodje bez zakazanog termina. Nacin ophodjenja zaposlenih prema klijentima je takodje deo postupka pred SUKP MUP.
Papir na kom pise "Zakazivanje u 19 za naredni dan" ne postoji iz gore pomenutog razloga, tako da tacniju informaciju od ove mozes da imas jedino ako si ti jedan od zaposlenih.
Svi podaci uneti ovim changesetom su tacni, jasni, precizni, provereni na terenu u razgovoru sa ovlascenim naoruzanim sluzbenim licima.
Ako mislis da nesto moze bolje da se oznaci, da sam promasio namenu nekog taga, slobodno argumentuj.
MaliMrav (2024-12-22 18:25:37+00:00): Mislim da si promašio namenu "name" taga:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Name_is_the_name_only

Dakle ako se radi o nekom posebnom šalteru koji treba označiti na mapi, onda ga treba nazvati odgovarajućim imenom (tipa "Šalter za zakazivanje termina").

Da li je zakazivanje "protivzakonito", "dvostruko" ili "van sistema eUprave", to ne treba da bude navedeno u "name" tagu, a iskreno mislim ni u jednom drugom tagu. Eventualno neka korisna informacija ("Zakazivanje u 19:00 za naredni dan") bi teorijski mogla da stoji u "description" tagu.

Ovako kako si uneo deluje da si ljut na MUP i da želiš da ih ocrniš preko OSM-a.
NieWnen (2024-12-18 20:28:43+00:00): Ponownie takie same zmiany...

Czy tym razem dostanę odpowiedź, czy pojawiło się oznakowanie wskazujące na DDR, czy nadal nie ma żadnych znaków i zmiana jest niezasadna?
vicente lopez 2021 (2024-12-24 22:43:13+00:00): https://www.duraznodigital.uy/2024/11/dos-nuevos-tramos-de-la-doble-via-de.html
marczoutendijk (2024-12-19 09:47:09+00:00): Hallo jack,
Geldt het eenrichtingsverkeer niet voor de gehele Zalbommelstraat? Het eerste stukje heb je aangepast, maar het deel na de Warmellaan staat nog op tweerichtingsverkeer.
Groet,
Marc
jack1968 (2024-12-19 10:21:57+00:00): Hoi Marc, dat klopt. Alleen dit deel is eenrichtingsverkeer. Het is een tijdelijke situatie totdat de bouwactiviteiten verder op klaar zijn. 
Daarna zal ook dat deel eenrichtingsverkeer worden. De doorsteek van de laan van Bovenduist is ook tijdelijk.
Groetjes, Jack
marczoutendijk (2024-12-19 15:38:56+00:00): Prima, ik woon er vlakbij, maar dan hoef ik het niet in de gaten te houden.
Marc.
GeWaLu (2024-12-25 21:04:21+00:00): Hi Kugelbaum,
Thanks for enhancing the trail network but I think you may have with this change  accidentally deleted and recreated with a wrong itinerary CFL 15A  (Maybe due to confusion with CFL15). You deleted relation 2251561 and recreated it as 18438053. It does not pass Dommeldange despite its name.
Did you find signs in the field that 15A starts in Mersch and goes to Mamer ?
 I noticed this today as I was in the process to re-map the CFL route  in the field around Dommeldange as it was clearly broken (on  intersection node  2344401844 in Eecherfeld it went in a wrong direction  not following anymore the clear signposts and not heading to the railway station).
Both routes are by the way as gpx on the CFL web but I did not want to use those due to the restrictive copyright.

Can you please check this and clarify both routes (I can by the way still try to fix it in Dommeldange after I followed all signs to the station provided that the route is undeleted)
Kugelbaum (2024-12-26 20:44:14+00:00): Hi,

I got indeed confused by CFL's new naming. The tracks are under CC0 on data.public.lu.

In changeset 160652757, I fixed the CFL15 ref and removed Dommeldange from the name. Keeping the antenna to Dommeldange separate as CFL15a.
AndyB_66 (2024-12-20 19:07:07+00:00): Naprawdę edytowałeś tak wielki obszar?
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2024-12-30 14:17:35+00:00): أستاذ حزاء سبق وذكرنا لك أن التحرير السيء والغير واقعي غير مقبول وهذه الخريطة عامة ويستخدمها الجميع وليست خاصة بك، نرجوا منكم عدم التعديل بتعديلات غير واقعية وهذا يعتبر تخريب ويعرضك للحظر ويتسبب في عكس تغييراتك وإلغائها!
eggie (2024-12-18 21:11:07+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback   smoothness=impassable zal niet routeren...  De tag zegt het al. Wellicht smoothness=bad of very_bad?
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
silversurfer83 (2024-12-19 20:41:12+00:00): Moin :)

die Wikipedia ist leider keine für unsere Arbeit zulässige Quelle, da deren Lizenz nicht mit unserer Kompatibel ist.

Bitte keine Informationen mehr von dort nach hier kopieren. Ein Link auf passende Artikel ist in Ordnung, aber bitte keine Daten übernehmen. Danke.

cheers