piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
nevw (2025-04-26 20:30:11+00:00): Hi Ewen, this area is alerted by osmi as a multipolygon in need of repair.
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=141.23612&lat=-34.50229&zoom=17
NorthCrab_upload (2025-04-26 12:20:55+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12787988801
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/198924175

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Axelos (2025-10-20 09:46:19+00:00): Bonjour,

Je cherche à comprendre pourquoi vous avez ajouté les tags 

cycleway:right=shared_lane
cycleway:right:lane=pictogram

sur le chemin https://osm.org/way/15258681 ?
KFCmenomonie (2025-04-28 15:40:14+00:00): Hi! Are all of these tracks signed as private?
Also it looks like you mistakenly dragged a point on a stream by I94, but I'm happy to fix that.
FajrAl (2025-05-02 04:02:38+00:00): tidak ada jaringan energi tegangan tinggi yang melalui -6.384715, 106.702244

there's no existing high voltage powerline running through -6.384715, 106.702244
蕉饼电脑 (2025-04-27 00:34:22+00:00): 对于阁下的编辑，我有以下疑点：
行政级别（admin_level）为6的平潭县关系仍作为行政级别由5降至7的平潭综合实验区的subarea？
福州市关系的范围重新包括平潭，但平潭不作为福州的subarea？
平潭应当独立绘制于福州市。平潭自2013年7月起事实上的不在福州市的管辖范围内。现阶段仅为名义上的福州市平潭县。福建省直辖（直接管辖）平潭综合实验区，平潭县人民政府为福建省平潭综合实验区的下辖机构。平潭综合实验区与平潭县的范围重合。平潭的行政关系理应以实际管辖情况绘制，例如西藏自治区与青海省界线，保定市与雄安新区，珠海市与横琴粤澳深度合作区。
期待同阁下讨论相关事宜，谢谢！
Aleksandar Matejevic (2025-12-24 11:52:46+00:00): Hi Rukkhadevata, can you answer to the  蕉饼电脑 comment since I have very similar question?
Rukkhadevata (2025-12-24 12:05:39+00:00): Hello. 
Simply put, "平潭综合实验区" is an exception: it does not belong to China’s legally defined administrative division system, even though it has a management body independent of Fuzhou City. There are many such special cases in China, and most of them we label as admin_level=7/9 (such as #9515041, #18322559 etc.) in order to minimize the number of exceptions as much as possible. The Xiong’an New Area (#7157395) being independent of Baoding is one such exception, but I believe Pingtan’s situation does not yet justify being treated as an exception; otherwise, China would see a large number of similar non-statutory administrative divisions occupying the place of statutory ones.
蕉饼电脑 (2025-12-24 18:02:28+00:00): Functional areas with independent administration (e.g. Pingtan) -> still as a part of the original upper administrative region, and the only exception gives to Xiong'an because it's the "most important";
functional areas whose administration has been transferred to another administrative region (.e.g r/9223823 ) -> map it as a part of the upper administrative region to which they have been transferred.

If my understanding of this content is correct, what is the basis for creating such an exception? What defined balance or threshold allows the functional area to be an exception? 

Back to the original issue of admin_level, how can one be tagged as admin_level=7 when its administrative status that is higher than admin_level=6? How can admin_level=6 be a subarea of admin_level=7?
Josef73 (2026-04-26 07:24:42+00:00): Steht das Mahnmal nicht in der Burgruhine?
SomeoneElse (2025-04-27 13:05:09+00:00): Hello,

It looks like this edit might have created a gap in the outer way of 8815682, the High Weald National Landscape relation.  I've joined it up in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165504890#map=20/51.1964417/0.1558513 .

You can check relations by using the "validate" button in JOSM.

Best Regards,
Andy
rempshaener (2025-04-26 18:48:32+00:00): Hallo,

du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Bis jetzt ist es nur ein „benamter Eingang“. Es fehlt eine Beschreibung des Objekttyps. Das wäre in diesem Fall office=architect

Bei Fragen bitte melden.
Viele Grüße
IvanBabić (2025-04-27 20:07:21+00:00): I revert it because an unnecessary node was created #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165522011
theDM (2025-06-07 00:01:52+00:00): Te linki nie powinny być secondary_link zamiast primary_link?
pavvv (2025-06-07 08:26:25+00:00): zobacz którędy prowadzi DK5
Yunkers (2025-06-07 22:35:11+00:00): Primary_link są te łączniki które pozwalają na przejazd między ekspresówkami.
theDM (2025-06-09 21:10:22+00:00): już mogły zostać motorway_link
pavvv (2025-06-10 05:28:53+00:00): Chodziło o to, żeby zaznaczyć, na których odcinkach nie ma znaku D-7. A imo highway=motorway_link + motorroad=no to kiepska kombinacja.
Yunkers (2025-06-10 06:56:27+00:00): Nie mogły być motorway_link bo te odcinki nie są w terenie oznakowane jako ekspresówka ani nie pełnią one funkcji tylko wjazdu na ekspresówkę. Trasę Szubińska-Szubińska da się pokonać nie mijając znaku ani razu.
theDM (2025-06-11 09:54:10+00:00): w sumie mogłyby być trunk_link, patrząc na standard i też znaczenie
Yunkers (2025-07-03 08:36:28+00:00): Teraz kiedy zmieniły się zasady trunka, można by przeciągnąć trunk na cały węzeł i ujednolicić kategorie. Myślicie, ze to dobry pomysł?
pavvv (2025-07-03 08:54:03+00:00): Myślę, że może być po prostu zamiast primary_link
theDM (2025-07-03 09:50:57+00:00): Yunkers, mi pasuje.
M-Thingo (2025-04-27 08:43:58+00:00): Hanwell Island is not an offical name for the landmass in the Brent river at this locale.  There is no official name for it.  I have also noted that GoParks have incorrectly named (as does OSM) FitzHerbert Walk (without the capital H).  Please see Google Maps photos for offical signage of this locale and nameingof the Walk.
M-Thingo (2025-04-30 12:27:07+00:00): Also of note is that GoParks, the referenced source of the data, is itself in error (I have contacted them and they have agreed they have incorrect naming).
Milhouse (2025-04-30 21:34:32+00:00): "Hanwell Island" returns results from across the Internet including Council publications, which makes it at least a colloquial name even if it is unofficial. I looked up the tagging scheme and there is a "loc_name" tag for names that might be used other than an official name - feel free to update to that. I don't know if will display loc_name on the map though.
M-Thingo (2025-04-30 21:55:42+00:00): Sorry. My main point was regarding FitzHerbert Walk. OSM has wrong capitalisation as Fitzherbert. When it is FitzHerbert. 
Regarding Hanwell Island. I have not seen any reliable references to a Hanwell Island name at this locale.  Please provide links.
eggie (2025-04-26 19:39:44+00:00): Hoi Martin,  Per abuis het vakje Review Request aangevinkt?
Ik heb van een zijstraatje van de Pruimendijk noexit =yes verwijderd en informal=yes toegevoegd op het olifantenpaadje naar het Nespad.

Groet
eggie
emvee (2025-04-26 20:20:48+00:00): > Per abuis het vakje Review Request aangevinkt? 

Ja, dat moet wel want ik was me er niet bewust van.

Vreemd dat Josm geen warning gaf over die noexit maar bedankt en ook informal=yes is prima!
eggie (2025-04-26 14:46:30+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback... Lijkt me oke als de naam is veranderd. Ik heb wel de info samengevoegd met de officiële adresnode.

MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
ObscureAngel (2025-04-29 09:52:06+00:00): Bonjour,
Merci pour votre contribution.
Le commissariat a été modifié, pourquoi avoir retiré building=civic ? Si il s'agit toujours d'un commissariat, il est possible de le marquer avec building=public et amenity=police :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165469024
rezemika (2025-04-29 20:45:48+00:00): Bonjour, merci pour votre retour !

Et bien à vrai dire, j'ai pensé qu'il s'agissait d'une erreur (même si je n'en avais pas la certitude, je n'ai pas vu beaucoup de détails sur le wiki sur ce point), car il s'agissait d'un tag d'adresse, et non de celui décrivant le commissariat lui-même. Est-ce que les informations sur le commissariat doivent aussi se trouver dans le point d'adresse lui-même ? (Réciproquement j'ai cru voir qu'il n'y avait apparemment pas de consensus sur s'il fallait dupliquer les informations de rue et de numéro sur les POI.)
Est-ce que je dois revert du coup ?

Par ailleurs, je constate que le site du Service Public (https://lannuaire.service-public.fr/pays-de-la-loire/loire-atlantique/bc08b22d-d822-4f17-9bd4-8d80f7a422a8) et Wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q61954136) indiquent que le commissariat se trouve au numéro 6, et il est taggé au numéro 15 sans source pour une raison que j'ignore...

Merci ! :)
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2025-04-30 01:17:07+00:00): Please attach speed cameras to the road.

Or create a maxspeed enforcement relation.

See:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dspeed_camera
ednzxt (2026-03-05 08:02:32+00:00): Can you tell me why there is no access to this toilet?
50,5767058, 2,9784320
Romainhk (2026-03-05 21:05:35+00:00): Toilets are available but there is no associated fees. There is a global fee in order to access the parc, but nothing special for toilets
Layft Greater (2025-04-29 10:13:34+00:00): test **formatting** (bold)
SafwatHalaby (2025-04-26 18:59:56+00:00): Thank you :)
Since the notes you added are also suitable for actual map users, I think they're a better fit for "description".

"note" is for other mappers.

"description" is for anyone.
Compositor (2025-04-27 10:01:32+00:00): בוצע
Xvtn (2025-04-28 16:51:13+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, (and because I review most changesets in my area), I looked over your changes. There are a few issues, but looks great overall! Here are some tips:
- Especially since these features aren't visible on the commonly-used satellite imagery, you should specify a source for your edits. Survey (seeing it in person) or local knowledge (from memory) are excellent sources!
- You have changed a sidewalk to a residential road along Factory Street. In this case, the existing (footway) sidewalk seems like the correct classification.
- In OSM, we generally avoid using abbreviations. So, this new street should be named "North 900 West" instead of "N 900 W".

I went ahead and fixed those issues. Let me know if you have any questions. And thanks for your contributions!
5m4u9 (2025-04-27 23:52:31+00:00): Hola, actualicé la clasificación de vías de potosí según el Plan Territorial del Municipio 2021-2025, y quería conocer tu opinión si refleja la realidad?

es decir, si las calle anaranjadas (primarias) y amarillas (secundarias), blancas gruesas (terciarias) son las más importantes... 

En los pocos días que estuve la última vez, más o menos veo que cumple, pero siempre es mejor conocer la opinión de alguien que vive ahí.... gracias!
Boris_YKS (2025-04-28 00:09:42+00:00): De lo que he observado hasta ahora una de las calles Secundarias amarillas es la Avenida che Guevara por qué es por donde los micros cruzan de la ciudad satélite hacia la Nueva terminal. La calle Luis espinal no es muy transitada.
5m4u9 (2025-04-28 13:08:29+00:00): Verdad, Esa luis espinal parecía "la más directa", pero se ve que la che guevara tiene más tráfico en la foto.

Dale, revisa con tiempo y me comentas. Por lo general, en Bolivia vi que las vias principales (rojas) suelen ser avenidas de dos carriles y las secundarias (amarillas) las que conectan las primarias entre barrios (por fuera del barrio). Pero en Potosí es algo especial por la ciudad histórica. 

En Bolivia, también vi que las vías rojas y amarillas son las que usan el transporte público por obvias razones, son más "directas", más carriles y asfaltadas, pero siempre hay excepciones por la topografía de las ciudades.

Por otro lado, con la empresa tomtom estamos completando los nombres de calles/avenidas que les faltan, en Potosí no pude completa 31 vías alrededor de la estación de tren, sería genial si puedes ayudarnos a completar... o si sabes si hay un mapa de la ciudad para consultar! 

las calles sin nombre están en este mapa. Ingresas con tu contraseña de OSM y es relativamente sencillo tomar cada trabajo para completar. Gracias! 

https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/51025
Boris_YKS (2025-05-04 21:20:01+00:00): He entrado a maproulette pero me muestra calles de otras ciudades y no de mi ciudad.
5m4u9 (2025-05-04 23:51:36+00:00): Oh, me olvidé comentar. Puedes hacer clic sobre el número 31 al suroeste, no hay forma de hacer un enlace directo :(.
Djam (2025-08-23 22:37:50+00:00): Hello C-sinensis,
the "derelict_canal" ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1308683336#map=17/44.883984/6.013842 ) is actually empty, because I mapped the ruins of the canal.
I remove the tag "fixme". Let me know if I am wrong with understanding your concern.
Best regards, Djam
Djam (2025-08-23 22:46:02+00:00): You also tagged some path with "fixme = to resurvey". Can you tell me more about what you expect ? 
Best regards, Djam.
C-sinensis (2025-10-24 07:40:18+00:00): Hi, sorry i didn't realize that you had sent a comment ; i understood now the derelict canal. Also, about your second comment, when visiting the place, i tried to follow the path above the road D117A, but i could not find it anymore after 50m. But i guess i was not patient enough with dealing with the vegetation. I checked on the LIDAR MNT layer that indeed there is a path on the ground as you indicated. I resurveyed it using LIDAR MNT and removed the "fixme" tag. Is that fine for you ? Sorry for the delay in my answer.
C-sinensis (2025-10-24 07:43:23+00:00): Also, in case, from the 1950's map, it seems that one of the path you surveyed continued at that time even further along Ruisseau de la Gorge ; maybe it's worth exploring it
https://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/carte?c=6.0095561857303075,44.888440057736545&z=16&l0=ORTHOIMAGERY.ORTHOPHOTOS::GEOPORTAIL:OGC:WMTS(1;h)&l1=GEOGRAPHICALGRIDSYSTEMS.MAPS.SCAN25TOUR.CV::GEOPORTAIL:OGC:WMTS(1;h)&l2=GEOGRAPHICALGRIDSYSTEMS.MAPS.SCAN50.1950::GEOPORTAIL:OGC:WMTS(1)&l3=GEOGRAPHICALGRIDSYSTEMS.SLOPES.MOUNTAIN::GEOPORTAIL:OGC:WMTS(0;h)&l4=IGNF_LIDAR-HD_MNT_ELEVATION.ELEVATIONGRIDCOVERAGE.SHADOW(0;h)&l5=OPEN_STREET_MAP::GEOPORTAIL:OGC:WMTS(0;h)&permalink=yes
Bierphysik (2025-04-26 16:04:18+00:00): Sorry, hier hätte ich echt nen zwischenupload machen sollen; das CS wurde ungeplant so groß, my bad
Brummelwuff (2025-04-28 10:07:51+00:00): Es ist falsch crossing:barrier=full von den mittleren Nods zu entfernen, ach die Gehören zum gleichen Bü der Schranken hat.
Brofi (2025-04-30 12:02:16+00:00): alles klar, war mir in streetComplete nicht ganz klar geworden. danke!
Brummelwuff (2025-04-30 12:04:24+00:00): Kein Problem! Viel Spaß beim mappen.
maro21 (2025-04-29 19:58:31+00:00): Czy mógłbyś robić mniejsze zestawy zmian? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Zestaw_zmian#Geograficzny_rozmiar_zestaw%C3%B3w_zmian
SomeoneElse (2025-04-27 13:23:07+00:00): Hello,
I wonder if you might be able to fill in some of the gaps that there are in https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=6490318 ?
(you can use https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=6490318 to "re-analyse" after fixing some to see what is left)
Best Regards,
Andy
hexplore (2025-04-27 17:11:16+00:00): Hi Andy, thanks a lot for catching that, it's fixed now.
SomeoneElse (2025-04-27 21:49:52+00:00): Thanks!
hexplore (2025-04-28 10:10:01+00:00): Oh actually I meant to ask, how did you notice? Sounds like there may be something useful for me to bookmark.
SomeoneElse (2025-04-28 11:51:22+00:00): Here's the diary entry:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/397310

when one changes a cron job on the server that has the database for https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html sends me an email if relations might have a new gap, like

Change in relation components for Capital_Ring_Section_10 6473820
3c3
<      1
---
>      2
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6473820
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=6473820
http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=6473820

Hope this helps!
Udarian (2025-04-26 22:47:51+00:00): why did you add turn:lanes tagging to vertex https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7085335815 as it is a crossing vertex and I don't think turn:lanes is supposed to be on crossing vertexes, if I'm missing something here feel free to correct me. 

Happy mapping,
Udar.
snake21 (2025-04-28 17:41:29+00:00): Meant to add on the opposite direction, will adjust now - thanks for catching
snake21 (2025-04-28 17:41:48+00:00): not opposite direction, but the segment of road traveling northbound
Hufkratzer (2025-04-26 19:30:32+00:00): Hi,
if https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1381433438 shall represent the "horse riding pitch" which you mentioned in your changeset comment, you should better tag it with leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian. The tag leisure=horse_riding is for complete  horse riding centres. Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1212039763/history#map=17/49.577892/-1.567478&layers=P

In JOSM you can use the preset for sport=equestrian.
KorraSato (2025-04-26 23:26:37+00:00): Indeed ! My bad for the mistake (I added the tag too fast). I just corrected it. Thanks for the comment !
silversurfer83 (2025-04-27 10:03:03+00:00): sieht schick aus. gut, dass du vor vollständiger Balaubung unterwegs warst :)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165474045
user_5359 (2025-04-29 13:40:38+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/node/2122830881. What is the mean of the tag "Dollinger" = "Die Wegverlauf ist nötig um eine Routenführung aus der Gewürzmühlstraße nach Süden an der Isar entlang zu gewährleisten." ?
LaLinea (2025-04-30 20:44:31+00:00): Hallo user_5359,
danke für den Hinweis, da hat das Fehlerteufelchen mitgewirkt.  Hab den Unfug beseitigt :-)
Viele Grüße
LaLinia
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-10-26 08:46:57+00:00): reverted edits that added suspect data, it is from a suspect account, as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166617410  and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164649036 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163053969  remain not answered

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/173783833
lmagreault (2025-05-05 14:41:18+00:00): Cas particulier à La Barde (17) : il y a bien écrit "Mairie - École Pierre Lavigne" sur l'actuelle mairie (l'école est fermée). La transformation automatique du nom en "Mairie d'École Pierre Lavigne" n'est donc pas bonne. On passe le nom du POI en "Mairie de La Barde" et le nom du bâtiment en "Mairie - École Pierre Lavigne" ?
nlehuby (2025-05-05 16:28:54+00:00): Hello,
bien vu ! ce n'est pas une transformation automatique, mais bien une erreur de ma part (j'ai dû en faire un peu trop d'un coup, la fatigue !).
J'ai appliqué la correction que tu proposes. Merci.
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2025-04-30 01:25:58+00:00): Please attach speed cameras to the road.

Or create a maxspeed enforcement relation.

See:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dspeed_camera
Danysan95 (2025-04-30 13:19:09+00:00): Added the relations in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165623273
whb (2025-04-26 22:58:57+00:00): Guten Tag,

genau so sehen die Spielfelder eben nicht mehr aus. Deswegen mein Hinweis:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4387035

Viele Grüße
whb
tyr_asd (2025-04-27 06:10:47+00:00): Ooh, ok. Sorry, hatte den Note falsch verstanden. Es würde evtl. helfen etwas mehr Kontext in den Hinweis zu schreiben, damit andere das besser nachvollziehen können. z.B. was konkret jetzt anders ist bei den Spielfeldern, bzw. was du schon nach Augenmaß angepasst hast. :)
Aya Samir (2025-04-27 10:03:09+00:00): Hello, Sal73x;
Thank you for your contribution to OpenStreetMap. Could you please share your sources regarding the updates in the area "36.7375511, 10.2172134"? My latest image is from 04/23/2025, and I notice that some roads are still under construction in this area.
Regards,
Aya Samir
Sal73x (2025-04-27 16:26:18+00:00): Hi Aya, have a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3ExCkoiaAI

Greetings
Sal73x
Aya Samir (2025-04-28 07:51:22+00:00): Hi Sal73x,
I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your prompt response and for sharing your source with me.
Best regards,
Aya Samir
Andrea Musuruane (2025-04-27 10:38:20+00:00): Ciao. Faccio fatica a credere che un ponte possa essere lungo 35cm. Poi il tagging è errato sia sul sentiero che sull'abbozzo di torrente. level si usa per indicare il piano di un punto di interesse all'interno di un edificio. Il tag corretto da usare qui è layer, ed è necessario solo sul ponte per indicare che il ponte passa sopra al torrente. Ciao, Andrea
Andrea Musuruane (2025-04-27 10:55:37+00:00): Inoltre il tag man_made=bridge non va sul sentiero ma serve per definire il perimetro della struttura del ponte. E' assolutamente inutile per questi ponti di piccole dimensione. Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/165474736
eagle314 (2025-04-27 13:43:31+00:00): Grazie delle correzzioni.

Dovrei averle risolte.
DerSeegurke (2025-04-26 21:46:54+00:00): Hi Teddy,
ich denke, die ganzen Adressänderungen von "Tholey" zu "Tholay" sollten rückgängig gemacht werden. Habe diese Schreibweise noch nie gesehen und finde auch nichts dazu. Oder hast du eine Quelle dazu?
Viele Grüße
DerSeegurke (2025-05-05 18:40:51+00:00): Wie sieht's aus hiermit? :-)
Teddy73 (2025-05-05 19:52:46+00:00): Hi! Oh Mann das war natürlich totaler Mist. Danke für den Hinweis, werde das nun korrigieren. 
VG Teddy
Vinber-Pro (2025-04-26 17:08:24+00:00): corrigé ici, désolé j'ai fait une fausse manip et perdu l'historique, donc revert et mise à jour faite https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165475122
Lokai (2025-04-27 05:19:13+00:00): Hallo,

gestern waren wir beide zu unterschiedlichen Zeite am gleichen Ort. Ich war auf dem Wanderparkplatz am Röther Weg. Sie haben dort den Wanderparkpatz per Konten gezeichnet. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12789082176#map=19/49.576863/7.604113

Nun, der Parkplatz als Ganzes war bereits kartiert. Durch den gesetzten Knoten gab es ein amenity innerhalb eines amenity und somit eine Fehlermeldung. Das Verkehrsschild Wanderparkplatz steht recht weit im Südwesten, so dass ich den Parkplatz in zwei Teile getrennt habe.

Ich habe auf Schilder geachtet, ab dem Parkplatz östlich vor dem Freizeitgelände Laufhausen haben Sie auf ein kurzes Stück service motor_vehicle=destination gestetzt. Ein entsprechendes Schild habe ich dort nicht gesehen. Am Wanderparkplatz steht ein Schild mit VK 250 und 1020-38 und kein VK 260.

Gruß

L.
Wanderer_und_Radfahrer_Anton (2025-04-27 08:52:03+00:00): Hallo Lokai,
finde deine Lösung mit dem Wanderparkplatz gut, da das Schild eben so weit weg steht hatte ich den anderen Parkplatz so gelassen.

Der Parkplatz vor dem Freizeitgebiet befindet sich direkt am Zufahrtsweg, welcher nur für Anlieger und landwirtschaftlicher Verkehr frei gegeben ist, somit habe ich es auf den Parkplatz übertragen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen 
 Anton
Wanderer_und_Radfahrer_Anton (2025-04-27 08:56:24+00:00): Habe den Zufahrtsweg nun auch mit: agricultural vervollständigt.
eggie (2025-04-26 17:22:41+00:00): Hoi,
Je vraagt feedback.
Kort door de bocht
Een bord fietspad G11,G12a G13 dan highway=cycleway
bicycle=designated en foot=designated niet toevoegen. Niet nodig. 
Een G7 bord dan footway. Daar mag je niet fietsen. Dus valt alf.

Geen bord dan highway=path met voor de duidelijkheid bvicycle= yes of no en foot=yes.

Op die borden (vaak groen)  staat 'houd rekening met elkaar' en vaak staat daar heel klein een G11 bordje fietspad en een hondje en een wandelaar. 
Tja geen officieel bord, 
Meestal staat er ook nog een bord fietspad.
https://www.alphens.nl/nieuws/borden-met-de-tekst-houd-rekening-met-elkaar-langs-zegerpad-wat-houdt-het-in.html

Kom je er niet uit is highway=path met foot=yes en bicycle=yes oke.

Mapse
eggie
eggie (2025-04-26 17:27:12+00:00): Maar ja welk bord?
Er bestaat ook nog een bord rond blauw met een fietser en een voetganger. G11a
https://www.informatiebord.nl/p/8646/verkeersborden-rvv/verkeersregels/verkeersbord-rvv-g11a-gescheiden-fiets-en-voetpad/
Dan maak ik er een G11 fietspad van met foot=yes segregated yes