piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
evgenykatyshev (2025-07-15 13:06:51+00:00): Hello! Thanks you for your edit.

Only one little note: please add Georgian name to the main name field, and English one to specific field for English name. I've fixed that for these streets
LevanGo (2025-07-16 06:49:01+00:00): Ok. I'll take it in account
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-14 13:31:25+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/244227221

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
YuliyaSurta (2025-07-14 13:21:57+00:00): Also fixed road geometry.
Supaplex (2025-07-16 00:25:10+00:00): 清潔隊->養護隊
Leo Slager (2025-07-14 21:53:06+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
syzuub (2025-07-31 22:10:14+00:00): Hi,
Sie haben hier einen Blitzer hinzugefügt. Falls dieser tatsächlich existiert, braucht dieser noch eine enforcement relation  (siehe: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=speed%20camera?uselang=en)
Ich habe mir den Abschnitt gerade mal in den Google Street View Bildern von 09.2023 angesehen. Dort sind zwar absurd viele Überwachungskameras zu erkennen, aber kein Blitzer. Der Blitzer könnte aber natürlich neuer sein. Handelt es sich tatsächlich um einen Blitzer dort?
FMC-Henri (2025-07-22 15:38:04+00:00): Auf den Fahrradwege, wie bspw.  https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1215862196 scheint etwas nicht zu stimmen. Dort steht: width:buffer:left

Das müsste doch buffer:left sein, oder?
FMC-Henri (2025-07-29 10:11:33+00:00): Auf https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1197740323 finde ich kein einziges traffic_sign=DE:240 

Ein source:traffic_sign:mapillary konnte ich auch nicht finden und es dadurch validieren.

Kannst du mir zeigen, wo das Schild zu sehen ist?
fmc_7 (2025-07-29 12:19:56+00:00): das ist dann wohl falsch; auf der Strecke gibt es lediglich das ausgestrichene 240er am Anfang (nördlich).
Ich ändere das rasch.
berndw (2025-07-14 15:39:09+00:00): Hi CaptainCarte

ich entsinne, dass dieser Weg ziemlich schmal ist, ich würde fast behaupten, weniger als einen Meter breit.

Kannst Du einen Wert eintragen, damit da nicht mit Fahrrädern durchgeroutet wird?

Nur so als Vorschlag, ich war zuletzt im März dort und hatte gedacht, das ist ein Hauszugang ;-)
CaptainCarte (2025-07-14 15:52:52+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis. Kann ich die Tage machen.
Thierry1030 (2025-07-16 21:41:37+00:00): Dag Mizuna, uitnodiging voor OSM BE event in augustus 2025 goed ontvangen? Dank om even te antwoorden. Gegroet, Thierry (OSM.be)
Mizuna (2025-07-17 13:53:02+00:00): Thierry,
Bedankt voor de uitnodiging.
Ik zal er niet bij zijn.
Amusement.
Groeten aan iedereen.
Raf
Leo Slager (2025-07-14 21:57:13+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
Leo Slager (2025-07-14 22:01:04+00:00): Hello Gijs,

Het verwijderen van bestaande wegen van de kaart is absoluut niet de bedoeling. Sommige adressen zijn nu onbereikbaar, bijv voor bezorgers of brandweer/ambulance.

Ik zal deze changeset reverten.

TIP:
Beter is het om die wegen correct te taggen met access=private.
osmviborg (2025-07-14 14:23:37+00:00): Keramikruten er stadig fyldt med huller
Leo Slager (2025-07-14 22:08:04+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
Leo Slager (2025-07-14 22:10:26+00:00): Hallo Jelluh04

Alle behin is moeilijk:
Het telefoonnummer is in het internationaal gebruikelijke format, dus zonder de 0 van het netnummer.

Verander je dat zelf ?
Jelluh04 (2025-07-15 17:11:06+00:00): Hoi Leo,

Ik heb het aangepast, bedankt voor je feedback en de manier waarop je deze geeft.
Leo Slager (2025-07-14 22:11:03+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
Leo Slager (2025-07-14 22:14:10+00:00): Als de zaak is overgenomen kunnen ook alle andere tags van de Boni verwijderd worden.

ik pas het even aan.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-07-15 10:12:08+00:00): Hi! Can you give a source for this change? Where did you find that it was better to use as a secondary road?
diamondarmorsteve (2025-07-15 12:26:04+00:00): On the wiki page for Canadian road classification, it specifies that secondary roads should be multilane/divided and have higher speed limits than surrounding roads. Since this road is multilane and has a speed limit of 50 kph (10 kph higher than other nearby tertiary roads), I chose to upgrade the road to secondary. Also, there are a slew of businesses along the road, indicating that it has a higher traffic volume than surrounding roads.

Wiki page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada/Tagging_guidelines/Road_classification#Secondary
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-07-15 13:00:52+00:00): OK, that's fine. Next time, just add this source and explanation in the changeset message. Thanks!
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-22 13:41:28+00:00): Please, can you upgrade Every Door to a new version?

In this version you left bogus tagging for disused pharmacy  - 6.0 has this bug fixed
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-07-22 13:41:47+00:00): (tagging for https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/681949203/history is now fixed)
kuhni74 (2025-12-24 09:35:43+00:00): the central peak is further east indeed, this is not displayed accurately by the terrain model
kuhni74 (2025-12-24 09:41:25+00:00): the SRTM is better here
kuhni74 (2025-12-24 11:10:59+00:00): here are instructive images with annotations (not visible on mobile devices): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_rising_morning_kanchenjung_at_lolegaon.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mt_Kangchenjunga_at_dawn_(8131412826).jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kangchenjunga_Sikkim_India.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_view_seen_from_Pathibhara_Temple_of_Taplejung_District_Nepal_01.jpg
kuhni74 (2025-12-24 11:31:07+00:00): see also https://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=35669
kuhni74 (2026-01-11 22:14:17+00:00): see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ISS022-E-24382_-_View_of_Earth.jpg
map_improver_xyz (2026-01-12 09:31:38+00:00): Hello Kuhni74, please feel free to adjust the location of the peak.
kuhni74 (2026-01-12 09:44:42+00:00): thank you, done
DressyPear4 (2025-08-01 23:10:49+00:00): Não é área de lazer para incluir a tag "park"
Marcelo Chaves (2025-08-01 23:17:49+00:00): Você está falando sobre o Parque Estadual da Serra do Rola-Moça?
DressyPear4 (2025-08-01 23:21:35+00:00): Não é porque tem Parque no nome que recebe a tag park.
Há diferença
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dpark
de 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dnature_reserve
PeeWee32 (2025-07-15 05:39:47+00:00): Het restaurant is inderdaad gesloten en daarom heb ik een tijdje geleden amenity=restaurant verwijderd. Maar het heet nog steeds volgens mij nog steeds "de Bavoort" dus waarom verwijder je de name tag?
Captain Chaos (2025-07-15 07:30:55+00:00): Het wordt op de kaart nog steeds getoond als restaurant. Er staat ook nog steeds een URL bij, die het niet meer doet. Het was een poging om het niet meer op de kaart te tonen.

Wat mij betreft kan de naam blijven staan als het pand zelf nog steeds zo heet en dat niet alleen de naam van het restaurant was, als het maar niet op de kaart getoond wordt.
Captain Chaos (2025-07-15 07:36:30+00:00): Ik zie nu dat hij op openstreetmap.org al niet meer getoond wordt. Dat was heel lang nog wel zo terwijl het al een tijd dicht is, dus toen ik het in de maps.me app nog steeds zag staan nam ik aan dat hij nog op de kaart stond. Kwestie van slechte timing. Ik zal de naam weer terug zetten.
PeeWee32 (2025-07-15 18:20:49+00:00): Okidoki. Bedankt. Groet Peter.
4004 (2025-07-20 22:30:41+00:00): здравствуйте,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5764623103#map=19/53.639317/23.866084&layers=N access=permit это больше про погранзону например. думаю, если я запрошу разрешение на вьезд в этот двор, мне его не выдадут.

ну и еще не согласен с вашим включением целых дворовых проездов в полигон парковки, даже если вдоль них можно поставить машину
aakkkaa (2025-07-20 22:57:38+00:00): здравствуйте. понял, благодарю. с целыми дворовыми проездами хотел как лучше, чтобы не создавать много разных парковок в месте, где по факту одна большая парковка, ведь запрета на стоянку вдоль поребриков нет.
4004 (2025-07-20 23:19:08+00:00): запрета нет, но визуально это создает иллюзию большого парковочного пространства, как по мне.
парковочные места вдоль дороги издревле тегировали через parking:lane  (теперь немного другая схема) на линии дороги, но их никто почти не отображает визуально https://zlant.github.io/parking-lanes/#16/53.7113/23.8579
salgo60 (2025-07-22 04:11:26+00:00): No cars you can take bikes

See my Wikipedia documentation and pictures https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nord/Sydlinjen

If you are good on OSM there is new ferry stop Nåttarö 2025 https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4864203#map=15/58.87232/18.10133&layers=N
StreetSurveyor (2025-08-02 19:00:13+00:00): Hi! Thanks for your work on the map. Just curious — what’s the source for Pheasant Trail? I surveyed the entire island in person and don’t recall seeing any signage for that road. Also, when I was editing this town previously, I don’t believe it appeared on the local GIS map either.

If you’ve got a source I might’ve missed, I’d love to take a look. Always good to double-check with fresh info.

Thanks again!
diamondarmorsteve (2025-08-05 00:09:01+00:00): I added the name "Pheasant Trail" based on the address data. Specifically, there is a cluster of houses that had the street name "Pheasant Trail." The E-911 dataset from the Rhode Island GIS (from which the NAD derives) also has this street name.

However, these sources sometimes make mistakes!
FMC-Henri (2025-08-06 14:20:31+00:00): Der Buffer stimmt aus meiner Sicht hier nicht. Ohne Markierung messe ich über 60 cm, inklusive Markierung noch mehr.
fmc_6 (2025-08-07 17:19:23+00:00): Was hälst du denn für den korrekten Wert bzw. die korrekte Messung?
Laut Proposal von 2012 waren damals gar keine Werte definiert, sondern nur ein yes/no. (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Buffered_bike_lane)
Auf dieser Wiki-Seite ebenfalls nur yes/no: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway:buffer
Respektive, wo wird definiert was alles mitgemessen wird?

Ich hatte damals von 0.51m abgerundet: https://ibb.co/S74bfS0r

Ich kann aber auch 9cm aufrunden - was meinst du?
Tewuzij (2025-07-15 03:56:00+00:00): What's wrong with Lạng Sơn & Cao Bằng? I've already fixed them
user_5359 (2025-07-14 17:38:14+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please be careful! You move the node https://www.osm.org/node/7051413319 more than 100 meters. I move the node back to the original position.
citrula (2025-07-14 20:08:25+00:00): Please also place the flock camera at the physical location of the camera, not on the street intersection. I have moved it to the location that I think it is based on imagery, but don't know for sure. Please check my work!
dvdhoven (2025-07-14 15:13:15+00:00): Bron: https://www.deventer.nl/verkeer-en-vervoer/werkzaamheden-aan-wegen-en-wijken/bouw-kop-handelskade
user_5359 (2025-07-14 17:34:29+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/way/1414670580 . What is the mean of the tag religion=* ?Did you mean religion=none?See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:religion
BCNorwich (2025-07-15 06:08:44+00:00): Hi, Sorry to inform you that the footpaths placed on top of existing highways is duplication of a highway, which could cause disruption of routing. Please, if a way needs correcting/amending it's OSM best practice to correct the existing way, thus the way's history is maintained and routing preserved.

I've removed ten footpath sections that duplicated existing highways and tagged the existing highway sections to reflect the public footpath status.

Regards Bernard.
Nia20 (2025-07-15 08:53:44+00:00): Thanks Bernard! That's good to know. I'll do so in future, and thanks for correcting the duplication :)

all the best,

Nia
Britzz (2025-10-30 22:02:49+00:00): sur https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6437112085, la station présente maintenant des emplacements supplémentaires le long du trottoir opposé (Nord), voulez-vous les représentez explicitement ?
Gingko (2025-10-31 09:33:06+00:00): Je pourrais tendre à vouloir le faire, surtout s'ils sont suffisamment distants.
Il faudra que j'aille voir, mais ce ne sont aussi que mes principes à moi.
Britzz (2025-10-31 12:36:56+00:00): juste de l'autre côté de la rue, 3 m maximum (https://panoramax.openstreetmap.fr/?background=streets&focus=pic&map=17/48.843437/2.337716&pic=a800ceb8-c4bf-4072-b51d-7a7a2531ca7f&speed=250&xyz=77.00/0.00/30) donc perso je ne ferais rien de plus. Par curiosité, si vous le faisiez, ce serait avec une relation ? Avez-vous des exemples de stations en plusieurs parties modélisées dans OSM ?
Gingko (2025-11-01 00:01:44+00:00): Même pas, généralement je me contente de créer une autre "station" identique à l'autre emplacement, en y ajoutant la mention "2ème partie de la station" en note. Et puis ensuite d'aller ajouter la référence dans Wikidata, avec le rang "normal", tout en donnant le rang "préféré" à l'emplacement principal.
Exemple ici, avec la station 10026 (mais là, la distance est considérable) :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6932803054
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13003388643
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q86253028
Généralement, l'emplacement principal est celui qui a le totem complet, mais pour certaines stations, les deux parties ayant le totem complet, c'est moins évident (ex: stations 10114 ou 13044).
Gingko (2025-11-01 00:06:00+00:00): Dans ce cas-là, je me réfère à l'emplacement indiqué sur la carte de Smovengo.
Autre exemple assez extrême : la station 13118 à la Porte de Vitry.
Gingko (2025-11-01 00:09:19+00:00): Si vous voulez chercher les stations par numéro, vous pouvez utiliser mon site web :
https://velib.gingko.ovh
Comino (2025-07-15 07:30:57+00:00): Hi Bitcoin Amantikir,

In your edit you use the deprecated tag "payment:bitcoin=yes".

Please DELETE the payment:bitcoin=yes tag !
Use the "currency:XBT=yes" instead.

For more information please read: https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki/Tagging-Merchants#legacy-tags
and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Happy mapping,

Edwin
maro21 (2025-07-14 20:53:18+00:00): Czy to https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12999458375 inny niż ten co dodałem https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12957081675?
maraf24 (2025-07-16 19:19:42+00:00): To ten sam. Widziałem ten drugi przy edytowaniu, ale jakoś wydawało mi się, że przy tym kościele są dwa różne krasnale, do tego odległość między nimi była znaczna.
aharvey (2025-07-18 03:44:09+00:00): hi what is this "cycleway" you've added in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1414673606 ?

Is there an unsanctioned mountain bike track there?
aharvey (2025-07-18 04:07:35+00:00): Since https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1414673606 is a re-creation of the original way at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/171488451 I've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1414673606 and restored the original one.

To try and make it easier for us mappers I suggest we don't delete the way but rather work on the appropriate tags.

Further discussion is prefer over edit warring.
RomanMark (2025-07-18 06:14:46+00:00): Hello AHarvey
 
Thanks for restoring the original cycling trail called Roman Trail. It is certainly not "unsunctione trail". According to old and current Royal National Park maps, this trail is published by Royal NP as management trail, marked on its official maps with black dashed diagramatic line. Furthermore, the map legend describes it as allowed for cycling and hiking.
Should you require scanned, photographic copies of such maps, I'd be happy to forward them. Best regards,  Roman Mark Juskey, Sydney Australia
aharvey (2025-07-18 07:04:09+00:00): On the DCS NSW Topographic map the dashed line only goes on the short section from Heathcote until it meets https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1377326848 where it then stops.

The DCS NSW Base Map doesn't show any track/trail here, only much closer to the railway line it shows a railway maintenance track.

The park Plan of Management document at https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/royal-heathcote-national-parks-garawarra-plan-of-management-220657.pdf does include a black dashed line for management trail near here, but it follows the railway line and I believe this represents the railway maintenance track we have mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/96051429 and not this "Roman Trail" way which aligns with the Strava heatmap.

I checked back against the 1955, 1972, 1975, 1980, 1983, 1984, 2004, 2005 historical imagery and none show a visible management trail along this alignment at any point, so it's not like this used to be a management trail which over time has converted into a path.

Based on all this I find it highly unlikely this is a sanctioned walking track at all, and certainly unlikely to be a sanctioned mountain biking track.

That said, I do advocate mapping based on what's on the ground and I don't have any on the ground knowledge here, but it seems more likely to be an informal/unsanctioned mountain biking track.

Using highway=cycleway for a technical mountain biking track is controversial, and usually reserved for non-technical cycling paths. Personally I prefer highway=path + path=mtb.
Anders L (2025-07-14 15:42:56+00:00): I was there, so source: Survey
KarlaIbrahić (2025-07-14 22:12:58+00:00): Reverted because node was created. #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168937934
Rom1 (2025-07-24 08:44:54+00:00): Bonjour, cela n'a pas de sens de mettre une adresse sur un tel objet. Une adresse a une définition bien précise et doit être unique. Merci.
evgenykatyshev (2025-07-15 12:42:03+00:00): Hello! You've done everything correctly to reflect such characteristics.

But are you sure that these roads weren't paved? I'm also not sure, but as I remember there were bad asphalt or compacted gravel.
evgenykatyshev (2025-07-15 12:43:58+00:00): I mean you can use more specific properties like surface=compacted, surface=ground, surface=asphalt etc. There are the full list on wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface
Homer3018 (2025-07-15 17:25:12+00:00): So coming from the main road, the asphalt is pretty good up to the end of road #147. After that the small one that’s going around the small village is unpaved. It’s like compacted gravel. And it will be like that up to juta. 3km before juta though there is a stop sign because of a land slide. 500m roughly of the road is damaged, and only locals are allonwed through. I did not try to edit this part.
Homer3018 (2025-07-15 17:25:37+00:00): Oh and thanks for your help and feedback :)
IpswichEdits (2025-07-14 19:32:52+00:00): Hi! Nice work. Just a little note. The wiki regarding the definition (in OSM terms) and use of service=driveway ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway ) defines it as "a minor service road leading to a specific property". I'm not familiar with this little road in Needham Market, but it looks like it might lead to multiple properties. Would you happen to know? I totally understand your reasons for adding this tag, and I know the term driveway gets used a lot in England and has various meanings, but in OSM terms it seems this tag is for driveways leading to a single property. Just wondering if it might be better to just leave it as 'highway=service' and remove the driveway tag. What do you think?
A-Rth-Urp-Hil-Ipdenu (2025-07-15 17:01:29+00:00): Hi! My rationale for tagging this road as a driveway were the signs at the entrance, which use the phrase 'private drive'. I'm not sure how many properties it leads to, so I'll remove the tag. I'm still relatively new to OSM, so thanks for the correction.

The signs also state 'no parking'. I see from the wiki that parking=no is discouraged as a tag. Would access=private be appropriate here? I'm always hesitant to tag things as such unless there's a physical barrier to entry - this road may be open to emergency services for instance.
IpswichEdits (2025-07-16 08:09:50+00:00): Thanks for your reply and for taking my suggestion onboard. I only discovered it myself a little while ago but thought it worth mentioning. That's a good question about the parking. I'm really not sure what to suggest. I haven't come across this exact situation before and I don't often map parking restrictions. This page might help, but it's mostly talking about more complex cases. I haven't had a chance to look through the entire page. Feel free to take a look and see what you think. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Street_parking#Parking_restrictions:_common_signs But either way, thanks and keep up the great work!
jmarchon (2025-07-15 04:32:37+00:00): Welcome to OSM and thanks for getting this updated!
rskedgell (2025-07-15 13:56:17+00:00): Thanks for adding these, but please note that the access tags should be:
vehicle=private + bus=yes

The psv=yes tag is unnecessary abd almost certainly incorrect, as PSV is not an exact synonym for bus/bus+taxi in the UK. While signs and traffic orders restricting or prohibiting PSV access exist, tis is not the case for explicit permission.

The motor_vehicle=designated tag is wrong. The value "designated" does not mean "for designated vehicles only", but "designated for use by ALL motor vehicles as a legal right". The former situation is described by the "private" access value.

Where there is a bus bay which is not physically separated from the main carriageway, the carriageway can be split and the tag bus_bay=left|right added to the appropriate section.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Busmiles.uk

Updated in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168966946
Central Beds Passenger Transport (2025-07-29 11:18:36+00:00): Thanks for this.  Almost every bus station I've found on OSM has a different set of tags / access restrictions, some of which work (in terms of the regional Traveline and real time systems) and some don't.   But it works with the tags as they now are.

I'm not sure about horse access but will pass on changing that...
rskedgell (2025-07-29 11:39:34+00:00): I'm afraid that you will come across a lot of inconsistencies around bus infrastructure. A lot of it was mapped a long time ago and some access tags and tags expressing other traffic restrictions in OSM have evolved since then.

As an example of that, if bus routing software trusted the maxweight=* tag, you'd have added headaches - there are over 15,000 of them in the UK, almost all of which should be maxweightrating=* (bridges and weak roads) or maxweightraing:hgv=* (mostly residential streets).
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-14 16:41:17+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Klucz addr:place oznacza brak nazwy ulicy. Kombinacja z addr:street (który definiuje nazwę ulicy) jest błędna.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230314889

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
4004 (2025-07-20 22:37:09+00:00): не сказал бы, что соглашусь с вики (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%8C#%D0%9E%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4_(%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B8)), но на фармлэнд будто тоже не тянет
fmc_Mlvln (2025-07-14 16:55:09+00:00): I had a confict in a Flixbus-relation. I hope I did the resolving how it is supposed. Sorry for the big changeset boundary box. The intended changes where all done in Berlin-Charlottenburg.
noahdoersing (2025-07-29 08:37:36+00:00): Hi und willkommen bei OSM! Eine Frage: Was willst du mit dem in diesem Changeset eingetragenen Punktegitter aussagen? Außerdem ist eine Rückgasse kein highway=trunk, sondern kann – wenn überhaupt – z.B. als highway=track eingetragen werden (und dann auch ohne Namen, solange vor Ort kein Name erkennbar ist), vgl. diese Diskussion in der Community: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/forstweg-maschinenweg-ruckegasse/76217/24