piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2026-01-03 20:27:46+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-22 12:32:28+00:00): Hi Luis, thanks for adding this place.

Unfortunately, opening_hours=9am is not valid opening_hours=* syntax https://osm.wiki/Key:opening_hours , and it does not contain the necessary information (closing time, days of the week) for me to correct it. Could you clarify what time this place closes, what days of the week this place is open, and whether the hours change on any of these days?

Additionally, the addr:street=* is incorrect, it does not match the name of the street it is next to and should be corrected to do so.

I can fix both of these for you, but I will need more information for the former. Thanks!
stosh77 (2026-01-04 11:58:38+00:00): revised.
YomanNH (2026-01-09 07:33:19+00:00): Hej, po co stworzyłeś mnóstwo duplikatów płotów i słupów trakcyjnych?
TranslatorPS (2026-01-09 10:06:54+00:00): No to coś ewidentnie było nie tak, że w trakcie edycji ich nie widziałem (autentycznie, była pustka), a dodane przeze mnie nie znikały, jak to iD lubi robić przy wyłączonych warstwach.
Cóż, zaraz to posprzątam.
NeisBot (2026-01-04 07:15:16+00:00): 🌍 Welcome to OSM, nsnbrndnrb.
Thanks for contributing!

To make collaboration easier and help others understand your edits, it’s best to add a short description of the changes you made. Clear comments help the community follow your work and provide better feedback. You can find tips on writing good comments here[1].

✅ Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Updated surveillance details, including public and parking zones"
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment #Gibberish
joost schouppe (2026-01-05 16:22:53+00:00): Ook hier: waarom twee keer 150kV?
Waaslander (2026-01-05 16:26:44+00:00): Er zouden twee kabels naast elkaar liggen.
joost schouppe (2026-01-12 09:48:55+00:00): Ha, kijk eens naar cables=* en circuits=* om dat volledig mee te geven
ALs je dat hebt, dan vermoed ik dat je geen voltagelijst meer moet maken als het voltage gelijk is
Waaslander (2026-01-12 10:43:33+00:00): Ik kan zoals je zegt cables=2 toevoegen en een waarde verwijderen bij voltage. Ik heb geen informatie over de circuits dus die laat ik zo (noch heb ik kennis van zake XD). Ik wil wel meegeven dat ik meermaals voltage=x;x of x;y (en zo meer) ben tegen gekomen in België. Is dat dan fout?
joost schouppe (2026-01-12 19:01:00+00:00): Nee, dat lijkt me wel juist, als er meerdere circuits zijn, maar met een verschillend voltage
Waaslander (2026-01-13 09:29:21+00:00): Awel het ging dan effectief dikwijls ook om een waarde die tweemaal of zelfs driemaal terugkwam 
bv: voltage:150000; 150000

Maar opvallend genoeg zie ik die gevallen niet meer terugkomen in dus dat moet recent zijn aangepast.
NeisBot (2026-01-03 19:55:22+00:00): Hi Martin Haarmann, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 31 amenity(s)
- 24 highway(s)
- 2 landuse(s)
- 2 man_made(s)
- 1 name(s)
- 5 natural(s)
- 4 surface(s)

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

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176795780
woodpeck (2026-01-03 20:16:00+00:00): Hallo, ich habe die Löschungen zunächst einmal rückgängig gemacht. Das heisst nicht, dass sie falsch sind, allerdings ist das mit den Wildruhezonen und Schonungen eine häufige Schutzbehauptung in der Forstwirtschaft, um das allgemeine Waldbetretungsrecht auszuhebeln. Daher schauen wir in diesen Fällen gern selbst vor Ort genauer hin und erkundigen uns bei Bedarf bei der zuständigen Unteren Naturschutzbehörde, ob in den betr. Gebieten tatsächlich Sperrungen genehmigt sind, und löschen die Wege erst dann (oder markieren sie als gesperrt). Ich habe die Sache unserer Community zur Beurteilung vorgelegt: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/ruckegassen-bei-warstein-kr-soest-nrw/140028
Map_HeRo (2026-01-03 20:28:26+00:00): Hallo Martin Haarmann, 

bis sich ein Kollege vor Ort dieser Objekte angenommen hat, hier schon einmal eine ausführliche Beschreibung, warum real existente Objekt nicht einfach gelöscht werden dürfen, zum Einlesen in die Materie: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
Gruß Mikke
silversurfer83 (2026-01-04 13:45:12+00:00): Hallo Martin,

nicht vorhandene Wege könnte ich noch nachvollziehen. Was ist mit den Jagdständen? Wenn diese vor Ort erkennbar sind gibt es keinen Grund diese bei OSM zu entfernen.

Zu den Wegen bitte die Diskussion im Forum abwarten.

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176795780
Konkon153 (2026-01-03 20:04:33+00:00): [ und damit alle 171 aktuell vorhandenen Adressen in der Gemeinde Pätow-Steegen vollständig angepasst ]
5m4u9 (2026-01-05 04:12:48+00:00): Hola, en tu edición hay varios cambios que no tienen sentido o que parecen estar incompletos:

1. avenida esteban ribera y david shiriqui y juan barturen no son primarias... las primarias son las más importantes de la población y unen lugares... las revertí.

2. quitaste la nicolás suarez como secundaria, entonces la 18 de noviembre es de doble sentido?

3. quitaste las vías primarias que unen la lázaro de ribera-puente compeya con la cochabamba, cuál es la alternativa? la 18 de noviembre? no puede quedar discontinua una primaria....
5m4u9 (2026-01-05 04:14:38+00:00): 4. también quitaste la avenida del mar como retorno de la profesor josé chávez... eso tiene sentido si la av. josé chávez es de doble sentido, pero ahora esta de un solo sentido...
eggie (2026-01-03 20:34:12+00:00): Hoi,

Scholen kunnen op meer manieren. Zie wiki.
Hier ontbreekt de amenity=school
We taggen vaak op het vlak en soms ook op de adresnodes als er meer instellingen in een gebouw zitten. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dschool

MVG
eggie
Stephsoft (2026-01-04 13:13:46+00:00): Bedankt voor de tips! En ik zie dat je het al had aangepast ook. :)
eggie (2026-01-04 13:28:41+00:00): Yep... net.. nu staat de amenity op het vlak.
Gr eggie
eggie (2026-01-04 13:32:02+00:00): Moet nog even renderen... Paar keer ctrl-f5 .. of geduld :)
eggie (2026-01-03 20:30:09+00:00): Dag Wouter. Zou het geen amenity=post_box zijn met operator PostNL ?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpost_box
MVG
eggie
Wouter_Ham (2026-01-03 20:35:58+00:00): Dag,
Dat klopt had ik even over het oog gezien. Hij is inmiddels aangepast.
eggie (2026-01-03 20:39:30+00:00): Oke, maar je hebt nu amenity=PostNL
en dat moet dus amenity=post_box zijn en de operator=PostNL
De rest van de regels kun je verwijderen.
Gr eggie
Syl (2026-01-04 08:08:02+00:00): Bonjour, le conteneur Chrysalide était déjà présent à côté : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11195335413
Ici c'était le conteneur du verre, il n'y est plus ou c'est une erreur ?
raspbeguy (2026-01-05 21:19:40+00:00): Oui c'est une erreur
eggie (2026-01-03 21:13:22+00:00): Top... Evt CTRL -F5 en dan zie je 'm op de kaart
Wouter_Ham (2026-01-03 21:15:39+00:00): Yes ik zie hem staan top!
Taya_S (2026-01-05 07:46:33+00:00): Reverted questionable edits by sockpuppet account

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176848798
NeisBot (2026-01-04 07:09:12+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

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

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/way/101742070 v7

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Operator logistyczny RTAL"
---
Na przykład, bardziej neutralna i obiektywna wersja Twojego tekstu mogłaby brzmieć: "Operator logistyczny RTL"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
bartgron (2026-01-04 16:09:17+00:00): Opis został usunięty, pozdrawiam serdecznie
5th element (2026-01-07 11:10:01+00:00): Zatem Popraw na Operator Logistyczny 5th Element Logistyka
AgusQui (2026-01-08 14:35:20+00:00): El ramal no se identifica como R27 sino simplemente Bajo
i2004 (2026-01-08 14:37:01+00:00): lo puse porque la mayoria va a maschwitz
i2004 (2026-01-08 14:38:01+00:00): y para diferenciar del allto que algunos terminan en maschwitz
AgusQui (2026-01-08 14:44:32+00:00): Ya hay un ramal llamado R27, agregarle esa referencia también genera confusión 
Para indicar el fraccionamiento a Rincón usamos description y ya está anotado.
AgusQui (2026-01-08 14:47:27+00:00): El R27 tampoco indica Alto en su cartelera, por lo que agregarlo como identificación de ramal es inútil. Ya ponerlo como que pasa por Alto San Isidro alcanza.
i2004 (2026-01-08 14:47:57+00:00): ya lo se que existe el ramal ruta 27 pero ahora la diferencia con los cambios que se implementaron en diciembre es que ahora la gran mayoria va a maschwitz para diferenciar del que va por centenario peron derecho
i2004 (2026-01-08 14:48:28+00:00): *gran mayoria del ramal bajo
Kamil Kalata (2026-01-03 20:50:20+00:00): Ortofotomapy czasowe użyte w tym zestawie zmian składały się ze zdjęć wykonanych w dniach 13 września 2023 roku oraz 21 czerwca 2024 roku.
habi (2026-03-14 13:02:02+00:00): https://www.bluewin.ch/en/news/switzerland/switzerlands-oldest-avec-store-closes-for-good-after-26-years-2939717.html (Ich bin hier wegen https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5203898)

Gruss,
habi
yelisey90 (2026-01-04 21:43:14+00:00): reverted wrt https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1263096014 & https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1261354298 : even though they are not "official", these ground paths do exist

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176837569
Taya_S (2026-01-05 07:47:30+00:00): Reverted questionable edits by sockpuppet account

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176848832
Frans S (2026-01-06 12:54:01+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks have been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers high-quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to the next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quality prevails above quantity!!

Issues found on your mappings
A: Inaccurate mapping. 

B: Overlapping buildings.
D: Connecting nodes to other features.
E: Buildings not squared or rounded.

G: Included the shadow of the building.


Explanation can be found in this document, which  might be helpful to strengthen your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit


Best regards and keep mapping!
Frans S
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176798246
Frans S (2026-01-06 12:55:03+00:00): This comment is also valid for your other changesets.
Again: Quality prevails above quantity.
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176798246
Rainero (2026-03-29 12:49:18+00:00): Revert changeset/180581296
wegen nicht zulässiger Quelle (Bayernatlas).
Apirnus (2026-01-03 21:25:15+00:00): Changes affect only AS Elenger CNG gas stations, formely known as Eesti Gaas AS.
coatix (2026-01-04 16:46:35+00:00): Du hättest hier auch https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:amenity verwenden können.

Nachdem das hier ein Gebäude ist, ist löschen auch okay imho. Bei Node POIs is der disused: prefix imho aber immer vorzuziehen und nicht die Node oder alle Details zu löschen.
Pekachu (2026-01-04 13:39:22+00:00): お疲れ様です。is_inタグ一掃が目的だとと推測しますが、このエリアではタグに意図がありますのでご一読ください。

佐賀市、小城市、神埼市では、"住所表記に必須ではない"小字、行政区、地区、旧地名などに、私がis_inタグを付与しました。位置する町丁字を示すためです。

この3市は町丁字の境界が未作成のため、このタグがなければ小字等がどの町丁字にあるのか不明瞭になってしまいます。

所属町丁字を示すタグとして、町丁字境界が未作成の場合、ほかに適当なものがあればご教示ください。また、所属町丁字を示すタグが不要だというコミュニティの意見があればご教示下さい。

そうでなければ、戻して頂くのが穏当かなぁと現時点で考えています。それでも除去する意義が大きいというご意見なら再考しますけども。
市川ゆり子 (2026-01-30 14:33:57+00:00): コメントありがとうございます。返信大変遅くなってしまってすみません。なるほど！is_inに意義がある地域だったのですね。申し訳ない。一旦この編集は取消したいと思います。
Pekachu (2026-01-31 09:48:45+00:00): お手数ですが、そうして頂けると助かります。
市川ゆり子 (2026-02-01 03:04:33+00:00): chengeset 177949905 で取消しました！今後は、この辺に気を付けて編集していきたいと思いますっ
yelisey90 (2026-01-05 10:23:48+00:00): reverted, vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176854139
Yog Sot (2026-01-04 20:19:14+00:00): dziękować ;)
Taya_S (2026-01-05 07:50:43+00:00): Reverted questionable edits by sockpuppet account

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176848912
joel56dt (2026-01-03 22:23:50+00:00): I have reverted this changeset due to the large number of errors.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176800211
Taya_S (2026-01-05 07:49:30+00:00): Reverted questionable edits by sockpuppet account

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176848886
vasony (2026-01-04 14:03:09+00:00): Szia!

Az utca neve openstreetmap-en az ami a táblán van, nem ami a földhivatalban, márpedig ott Hegyalja utca volt legutóbb. A többi térkép nem releváns.
Táblahibákat az önkormányzatnál lehet jelenteni.

A változásodat visszavontam.

Tamás
mueschel (2026-01-04 09:36:31+00:00): Hi,
could you check this node, it got no proper tags:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13429412538
pitfire (2026-01-04 10:07:00+00:00): Hallo rescuefighter,
bitte keine doppelte Adressvergabe. Die Gebäude Am Burgweiher 26 & 28 haben bereits seit 12 Jahren einen Adressknoten! 
VG pitfire
pyram (2026-02-24 06:52:54+00:00): Hi, das Hotel ist seit 16 Jahren erfasst:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/40808806/history/1
Würdest Du das Duplikat https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13429413243 bitte wieder entfernen?
Udarian (2026-01-03 22:49:22+00:00): this is incorrect as definitionally footways do not exist within the area of a road as a road is a different mode of transportation then footways and thus the only footway that should exist within a road area is a crossing or a link, these are clearly not crossings and thus they are links, please do not remove them.

Happy mapping,
Udar.
Mxdanger (2026-01-04 14:17:04+00:00): The idea of a footway changing within the area of a way is a flawed concept. For the same reason as driveways connecting to a main road aren’t connected via “link”.

Not only that but you are hijacking the original intention of what link is used for. It has nothing to do with crossings. Usage of link should be limited to only very special edge cases of which this doesn’t fall under any examples on the wiki. Please refer the wiki and do not add them back unless you understand.
Udarian (2026-01-04 16:08:52+00:00): Road way areas can be seen from aerial imagery. For vehicle transportation ways it doesn't matter as vehicles are large enough for it not to matter, for pedestrians on the other hand having to walk onto the road and exactly where that happens is extremely important and as such footways should never touch road way centerlines unless they are a crossing or a link. The whole point of a link is to connect a footway from where it ends to the road centerline so this is a correct usage. Once the road area starts the footway ends and thus the plain footway must also end, but since this needs to be navigable a footway=link must be added to ensure the nav graph is complete. Two different types of road are still road (the same type of transit), so the ways can intersect in ways that different modes of transit cannot, footways and vehicle ways are different modes of transit, they thus should be treated as different modes of transit.
While certain ways are zero width footways and vehicle transport ways definitionally are not as if they where zero width they wouldn't be able to be used for transportation, even if a width is not specified. Transportation ways are an approximation of the 2D area they represent which is an approximation of the 3D volume that OSM cannot directly represent, so considering the area of various transport ways matters as the ways are an approximations of those areas. by splitting a router can tell you roughly when you are entering the road, this is useful to know. 
I have also read the wiki multiple times over, I do allot of pedestrian mapping in Miami Dade county so I am very aware of the relevant wiki pages, the links exist and thus they would get tagged as either a footway=link or an unmarked crossing, which do you prefer.

Happy Mapping,
Udar
marc__marc (2026-03-31 10:46:27+00:00): Bonjour,
merci pour ces améliorations.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13429414095
cet endroit a une imprécision : l'un des 2 ways est décrit comme étant au niveau du sol, l'autre comme était au dessus
il manque probablement un attribut de niveau et/ou des tag bridge si ce sont des paserelles
phodgkin (2026-06-02 20:57:26+00:00): Has Bishopton Grove House been converted to apartments from a B7B? I was adding a B&B based on an FHRS ID, but this may be out-of-date.
matty817 (2026-06-02 21:34:12+00:00): Pretty certain it's not a B&B anymore; the sign saying that was removed. Inferred apartments instead of house as there are multiple UPRNs here. (That also suggests it's no longer a B&B).
phodgkin (2026-06-03 08:03:13+00:00): Thanks! I've retagged as was:tourism etc. so make this clear.
matty817 (2026-06-03 10:05:58+00:00): Cheers!
kamilbogacki (2026-01-03 22:39:33+00:00): *skweru :)
Mxdanger (2026-01-04 14:26:57+00:00): I see you have gone ahead with your personal interpretation of footway link without waiting for comment. Definitionally ways are zero width and adjacent ways should connect directly to the centerline. Road “areas” are determined by width, lanes, etc. Splitting the adjacent way when it reaches the visual area of a road is not necessary and does nothing but break network hierarchy and hurt navigation hints.
Udarian (2026-01-04 16:08:38+00:00): Road way areas can be seen from aerial imagery. For vehicle transportation ways it doesn't matter as vehicles are large enough for it not to matter, for pedestrians on the other hand having to walk onto the road and exactly where that happens is extremely important and as such footways should never touch road way centerlines unless they are a crossing or a link. The whole point of a link is to connect a footway from where it ends to the road centerline so this is a correct usage. Once the road area starts the footway ends and thus the plain footway must also end, but since this needs to be navigable a footway=link must be added to ensure the nav graph is complete. Two different types of road are still road (the same type of transit), so the ways can intersect in ways that different modes of transit cannot, footways and vehicle ways are different modes of transit, they thus should be treated as different modes of transit.
While certain ways are zero width footways and vehicle transport ways definitionally are not as if they where zero width they wouldn't be able to be used for transportation, even if a width is not specified. Transportation ways are an approximation of the 2D area they represent which is an approximation of the 3D volume that OSM cannot directly represent, so considering the area of various transport ways matters as the ways are an approximations of those areas. by splitting a router can tell you roughly when you are entering the road, this is useful to know. 
I have also read the wiki multiple times over, I do allot of pedestrian mapping in Miami Dade county so I am very aware of the relevant wiki pages, the links exist and thus they would get tagged as either a footway=link or an unmarked crossing, which do you prefer.

Happy Mapping,
Udar
Taya_S (2026-01-05 07:46:49+00:00): Reverted questionable edits by sockpuppet account

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176848807
Frans S (2026-01-06 12:51:58+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please solve the issues before you upload your mappings. (crossings of waterways/highways)
Please do not cluster buildings and tag them as 1 building.
And. Square each building with the Q key.
HashFerret (2026-01-07 18:48:22+00:00): Hi, looks like this might be a duplicate  of the Motorola node just north of it. However, I don't want to rule out another agency placing a flock camera here. Do you recall having seen two cameras? Thanks for keeping an eye out and mapping these!
eggie (2026-01-04 08:31:27+00:00): Dag maraderi,

Je combineert een aantal adressen. Dat lijkt me niet correct. Kijk je nog even?
60-H;62-H;64-H

Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=176801207

MVG
eggie
maraderi (2026-01-04 14:06:38+00:00): Dag eggie,

Het gegeven adres op hun site is 60H-64H https://432socialwellbeing.com/studio-page/

De ramen van deze drie panden hebben allemaal hun branding. Wat de uiteindelijke (hoofd)ingang wordt is nog niet bekend.

Vriendelijke groet
eggie (2026-01-04 14:09:55+00:00): Oke.. duidelijk.. Kon overigens die combinatieadressen meer vinden. Up to you.
Mapse
Langlaeufer (2026-01-08 11:26:40+00:00): hi fmc_10. Vorsicht mit dem historisch gewachsenen crossing-Key
crossing=uncontrolled ist gleichbedeutend mit crossing=marked. Eine Kreuzung ohne Markierung ist crossing=unmarked (markierter Übergang ohne Ampelreglung). Dieses Tagging ist historisch gewachsen. crossing=no heißt hingegen, dass ein Überqueren an der Stellen nicht möglich/oder erlaubt ist! Grüße Langläufer
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176801293
fmc_10 (2026-01-12 11:57:39+00:00): Hallo Langläufer,
danke für den Hinweis! Ich kümmere mich darum und passe das Tagging entsprechend an.
Vielen Dank!
Langlaeufer (2026-01-12 12:10:30+00:00): 👍
mueschel (2026-01-04 09:16:55+00:00): Hallo,
du hast hier neue "railway:name:xxxxxxxx" mit sehr langen Namen inklusive Leerzeichen und Sonderzeichen verwendet. Diese sollten in Keys generell nicht auftauchen. Könntest du das bitte ändern?

Andere "railway:name:XXX" keys verwenden kurze Akronyme, siehe hier: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/railway%3Aname#similar
Patrick1977Bln (2026-01-04 12:12:57+00:00): Hallo mueschel,

danke für den Hinweis. Du meinst bestimmt die Knoten mit dem tag owner-change, richitg? Welchen Vorschlag hättest du denn als Kurzform für die DB-Regionnetze? Als Betreiber (operator) der Bahnstrecken ist das Wortungetüm DB Regionetz Infrastruktur GmbH auch enthalten.
mueschel (2026-01-04 12:39:37+00:00): In einem Value ist das auch weniger ein Problem, aber für Keys nicht geeignet. 

Meiner persönlichen Meinung nach gehört das ohnehin gar nicht in den Key. Lieber in einer sauberen, nummerierten, maschinenlesbaren Form inklusive eindeutigem Link zu wikidata:

railway:name:1
railway:ref:1
railway:operator:1
railway:operator:1:wikidata

Wenn aber ein Name im Key erwünscht ist, dann so kurz wie (eindeutig) möglich, aber mit Leerzeichen durch Unterstriche ersetzt und ohne Semikolons.

Und als letztes Argument möchte ich erwähnen, dass diese Tags am Knoten eigentlich gar nicht nötig sind: Ich brauche nur auf die beiden anschließenden ways zu sehen um diese Information zu bekommen.
Patrick1977Bln (2026-01-04 17:01:51+00:00): Hab nun ein Kürzel bei den Betriebergrenzen genommen, so wird es auch bei den Grenztarifpunkten (railway=border) gemacht.
mueschel (2026-01-05 10:14:49+00:00): Hier ist noch einer übrig geblieben:
https://osm.org/node/1976962915