piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Baloo Uriza (2025-07-01 13:07:09+00:00): Should be left|through|through;right.  none is only valid when access:lanes=no is true.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168350888
rkothiyal_lyft (2025-07-23 04:19:23+00:00): Hi Baloo Uriza,
My name is Rohit, and I'm a mapper on the OSM team at Lyft. Thank you for your comment.
In this case, and in the case of changeset 168128145, we rely on the OSM wiki, which states that the 'none' value should be applied if there are no lane markings or signs determining the allowed maneuvers on the lane. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Identifying_a_turn_indication:~:text=or%20%3Cempty%3E-,There%20are%20no%20turn,-indications%20on%20this
Could you specify what you reference to when mentioning the possibility of turn lanes “none” value usage based on access:lanes tagging?
Regarding turn lanes, according to our internal policy https://github.com/Test-DCT/OSM-LYFT-DCT/blob/61f7554424aefbada1fde6d22fd71523c5f99d94/osmtrainingmaterialsfeatures/Turn%20Lanes.pdf, we add turn lane tags based on markings and signs. We do not include potential maneuvers, as in this case where you added the value "through|through;right."
Please let us know if you have any concerns about this. Happy mapping!
t_ja (2025-07-03 18:53:17+00:00): Ahoj,
nakoľko ešte len začínaš s mapovaním do OSM, považuj pripomienky nižšie ako námet na zlepšenie a nie odstrašenie 😉

1) adresa patrí na budovu, ktorá býva na 99% zakreslená v OSM. V tomto prípade sa nielen zduplikovala adresa, navyše zle: správne má byť číslo 24 a nie ako je zaznačené 26. Stačí zmazať tagy pre adresu z POI, a oba problémy budú vyriešené.
2) názvy ulíc sa zadávajú v tvare, v akom sú evidované v Registri adries, t.j správne je "P. Mudroňa". Rovnako to platí aj pre "addr:street", ktoré musí byť rovnaké, ako hodnota tagu "name" na príslušnej ulici. Overiť sa to dá napr. cez Zbgis stránku: https://zbgis.skgeodesy.sk/mapka/sk/kataster/detail/ra_adresne_body/0/12781129?pos=49.066048,18.919484,21
3) pre POI by bolo vhodné pridať aspoň webovú stránku do tagu "website". Tam si môže prípadný záujemca dohľadať ďalšie informácie ako telefónny kontakt, otváracie hodiny, a pod. Alebo sa môžu pridať aj tie, viď https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:phone a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours
4) pre objekty reprezentujúce (nielen) hromadnú dopravu (ako napríklad zastávky a autobusové linky) je vhodné pridať hodnoty pre tagy "network*" a "operator*". Pre Martin sa môžeš inšpirovať tu: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1729414897

Mapovaniu zdar 👍
b_98 (2025-07-04 08:57:55+00:00): Ďakujem za feedback :)
Spomenuté veci som opravil.

Čo sa týka bodu č. 4, takmer žiadna zo zmapovaných zastávok (okrem Polikliniky Škultétyho) nemá vyplnený "operátor" tag a preto som ho novovytvoreným objektom pre MHD (zastávka, miesto zastavenia autobusu) nepridával, aby bola zachovaná konzistentnosť. Určite to ale v prípade potreby nebude problém doplniť.
NeisBot (2025-07-01 12:46:43+00:00): Hi Communauté de communes sud estuaire, welcome and thank you for your contribution to the OSM project!

To help improve collaboration and make your edits easier for others to understand, please consider providing brief descriptions of your changes in the comment field. This will make it easier for the community to follow your adjustments. You can find some helpful tips on good comments here: https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Furthermore, based on your map edits in this changeset, I’ve drafted a suggestion for what a comment could look like: "Added a node and modified a way to include a named location, Mairie de Saint-Viaud."

PS: I’ve also sent this message via the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#HelpfulComment #Gibberish #AIgenerated
Illio (2026-03-30 20:36:36+00:00): Zdravím, odkiaľ ste prišli na tieto názvy ulíc ako "Paletová", "Motorkárska", "U dobrých susedov"? Pôsobí to ako nejaké ľudové názvy. V takom prípade to treba presunúť do loc_name.
Wrastood (2026-03-30 20:57:39+00:00): Tieto názvy sú vyvesené na tabuliach pri začiatkoch ulíc, ale nie sú asi oficiálne zaregistrované, lebo ich nevlastní štát
Illio (2026-04-01 17:27:53+00:00): Ulice pomenúva mesto vo VZN a tieto ulice podľa všetkého nemajú oficiálne názvy, takže tieto presúvam do loc_name.
whb (2026-02-18 11:24:44+00:00): Guten Tag,

hier gibt es einen Hinweis, die Straßennamen seien vertauscht:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5169545

Viele Grüße
whb
NeisBot (2025-07-01 13:09:41+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains 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.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-07-05 19:42:30+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted due to lack of response from the original contributor by https://osm.org/changeset/168536851
小智智 (2025-10-23 23:58:32+00:00): Please make sure that the platforms at different layers aren't joined together.
Dee Kaart (2025-10-24 14:17:55+00:00): Hello. As you have seen, this station is a complex area, with numerous underground footways, which, of course, connect the platforms at different layers. I don't see any platforms at different layers directly joined, however, nor a warning of it from OSM, but we may have missed something. Can you be more specific please. This station does need more surveying and attention, especially for the Baker and Jubilee Lines.
小智智 (2025-10-24 14:19:56+00:00): I fixed the problem yesterday.
Dee Kaart (2025-10-26 15:49:37+00:00): Oh. May I suggest two things, to help everyone?
1/  It would help enormously to say that you had made the correction in your initial comment. In this case, I spent a while hunting for a mistake which no longer exists. ("joined" platforms at different layers here seems strange, and had OSM seen it in my update - surely it would? - I am certain I would have corrected it.)
2/  Please state exactly what you do in your comment - e.g. (I make it up) "Disconnected northern end of platforms 7 and 13; they are on different levels". That way, the other mapper can check the work, and learn from it - and perhaps you will have made a mistake too!
eggie (2025-07-01 20:55:12+00:00): Dag Erwin,

Je vraagt feedback .. Ik heb de weg voorlopig op construction gezet, maar wellicht kan deze helemaal verwijderd worden?
Huidige situatie
https://oud.satellietdataportaal.nl/?base=brtachtergrondkaart&res=0.3%2C0.5&datemin=16-04-2024&loc=53.33304%2C6.750473%2C19z&overlay=mos-0&marker=loc&acqdate=2025-06-21&acqid=20250621_105134_SVNEO-01&sensor=SuperView-NEO

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-07-01 20:56:00+00:00): foto is van 21 juni jl
Erwin (VRG) (2025-07-02 06:44:48+00:00): Hoi Eggie, 

In principe is het een sloop/nieuwbouw project en zal deze weg in de toekomst wel weer toegankelijk zijn voor verkeer en hulpdiensten. Nu afgezet met bouwhek.
رایان آئین پرست (2025-07-01 13:16:15+00:00): Added two streets(Shaghayegh Gharbi & Shaghayegh Sharghi), a medical office, a mosque, a government office(aka: دهیاری تقی آباد) and a real-estate.
kartler175 (2025-07-04 16:15:12+00:00): Please fix broken relations:
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-58.85429&lat=48.64224&zoom=13&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.95&overlays=duplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways
رایان آئین پرست (2025-07-01 13:35:22+00:00): Removal of some point to prevent additional points cuz I added areas previously
Yog Sot (2025-07-01 14:22:21+00:00): znów wprowadzasz zmiany gdzie większośc zdaje się okej, ale zostawiasz buble jak np way581679633

Nie rób bubli prosim
nanzop (2025-07-16 18:36:41+00:00): dobrze
eggie (2025-07-01 20:47:10+00:00): Dag a_tyrin..
Je vraagt feedback  .. Lijkt me oke zo.

MVG
eggie
evgenykatyshev (2025-07-02 05:38:53+00:00): Привет! Спасибо, что добавили новые объекты.

Хотел бы заметить, что не стоить писать в названии тип объекта. Если у смотровой площадки нет какого-то специального назавния, доблавлять название «смотровя площадка» не нужно.

Также не нужно в название добавлять тип, как «аттракцион» или «супермаркет».

Я всё поправил, просто на будущее совет.
evgenykatyshev (2025-07-02 05:39:28+00:00): Также зиплайн (если это действующий аттракцион) можно нарисовать линией и обозначить как https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aerialway%3Dzip_line
yelisey90 (2026-01-13 18:05:12+00:00): reverted: mass changes using not on-the-ground checking, but some undetermined sources, possibly simply aerial imagery; including incorrect surface tagging (asphalt instead of unpaved or sett), incorrect addresses to buildings etc.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177190653
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-01 14:01:12+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12966247114
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/859415986

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
eggie (2025-07-01 15:07:57+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
eggie (2025-07-01 15:38:23+00:00): Zeker weten? Naaldbos?
Dan_Fi (2025-07-07 11:23:43+00:00): Hey Hb-,

warum wurde die B65 an dieser Stelle geändert?

Ja, es gibt dort derzeit eine Baustelle – aber der Verkehr fließt weiterhin. Den Straßentyp deshalb von „primary“ auf „path“ zu ändern, ist aus meiner Sicht nicht korrekt.

OSM ist kein Werkzeug zur Abbildung kurzfristiger Baustellen. Solche Änderungen führen dazu, dass nachgelagerte Systeme (z. B. Routingdienste oder Verkehrsanalyse-Tools) fehlerhafte oder unbrauchbare Informationen erhalten.

Ich werde die Straße daher auf den korrekten Typ („primary“) zurücksetzen.

Bitte achte in Zukunft darauf – gerade bei übergeordneten Straßen wie Bundesstraßen ist eine konsistente Datenlage besonders wichtig.

Danke dir!
Hb- (2025-07-07 12:51:39+00:00): Hwy=path war natürlich völlig falsch, daher danke für die Korrektur.

Es sollte hwy=unclassified werden. Damit wäre die Durchgängigkeit für mehrspurige Fahrzeuge bei reduzierter Leistungsfähigkeit dargestellt worden. 

Eine Baustelle bis September sehe ich als nicht kurzfristig an. ~OsmAnd aktualisiert täglich.

Warum hast Du bridge=yes gesetzt?
Dan_Fi (2025-07-07 13:15:30+00:00): Danke für deine Rückmeldung.

Dass highway=path nicht korrekt war, sehen wir ja gleich – danke dafür.
Auch highway=unclassified halte ich in diesem Fall nicht für passend: Die B65 ist weiterhin als Bundesstraße gewidmet und wird – trotz Baustelle – von mehrspurigen Fahrzeugen durchgehend genutzt. Eine temporär reduzierte Leistungsfähigkeit rechtfertigt aus meiner Sicht keine dauerhafte Herabstufung der Straßenklassifikation in OSM.

Wir aktualisieren unsere Daten etwa alle 14 Tage – damit gehören wir schon zu den Schnelleren. Viele Anwendungen greifen aber deutlich seltener auf aktualisierte OSM-Daten zu. Solche Änderungen wirken sich also oft über Wochen oder Monate aus – auch wenn sie nur temporär gemeint waren.

Eine Baustelle gehört mMn – solange man dort noch fahren kann – nicht in die grundsätzliche Straßenstruktur von OSM, sondern in andere Systeme, die temporäre Verkehrslagen abbilden (z. B. Verkehrs- oder Baustellen-Feeds).

bridge=yes habe ich entfernt – das war versehentlich gesetzt.
Langlaeufer (2025-07-08 15:41:09+00:00): Ist das betreffende Straßenstück ist auch keine Brücke!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168355509
Langlaeufer (2025-07-08 15:42:53+00:00): ah, hat Dan_Fi  ja auch schon korrigiert,
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168355509
philipgriggs (2025-07-10 08:19:14+00:00): There is some guidance in the OSM wiki on how to map constructions work: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:construction

> Zusätzlich kann construction=minor für Baustellen (z.B. Fahrbahnverbreiterung oder -erneuerung) auf existierenden Straßen verwendet werden, wenn diese nicht gesperrt werden. In diesem Fall wird der Wert des Schlüssels highway beibehalten und NICHT auf highway=construction gesetzt.

also

> Zur Verwendung bei bereits existierenden Merkmalen, die wegen Bauarbeiten gesperrt werden: Viele Datennutzer (insbesondere Tileserver Dritter, gedruckte Karten und Smartphones/Navis, die Daten offline vorhalten) aktualisieren nur alle paar Wochen oder Monate ihre Daten. Daher sollten Sperrungen insbesondere von Straßen und Schienen unter sechs (manche Mapper meinen neun) Monate nicht mit *=construction gekennzeichnet werden. Stattdessen sollte das Taggingschema Conditional Restrictions oder ein spezielles Schema für das Taggen temporärer Veränderungen verwendet werden, auch wenn es nicht von allen Routern unterstützt wird. Ein Beispiel für eine etwa zweimonatige Straßensperrung, bei der das Wiedereröffnungsdatum bekannt ist, würde so aussehen: vehicle:conditional=no @ (2025 Aug 04-2025 Oct 12).
Yunkers (2025-07-19 12:28:11+00:00): Tam nie ma trójzakazu więc chyba nie powinno być trunka. Część jest jednojezdniowa, jednopasowa.
szalona_entropia (2025-07-20 11:32:18+00:00): Jest zakaz wjazdu rowerów i traktorów.
tux67 (2025-10-24 07:01:52+00:00): Hi,
der renaturierte Teil ist jetzt "in Betrieb" .. wenn du in der Nähe bist das updaten möchest ..
https://www1.wdr.de/nachrichten/rheinland/renaturierung-erft-106.html

Gruß
tux67
redrace (2025-10-24 07:29:56+00:00): Erledigt. Bekommst Du mit wenn der alte Teil trockengelegt ist?
Gruß Meik
tux67 (2025-10-24 07:33:52+00:00): Nee - nicht live .. das ist nicht so ganz meine Ecke ... ich frag mal einen OSM Kollegen der ggf. näher dran ist ..
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-01 14:11:06+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/295965386
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27333295

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
eggie (2025-07-01 15:10:46+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
Syl (2025-07-05 07:45:40+00:00): Bonjour, le téléphone à l'intérieur de la cabine fonctionne toujours ?
FrenchBoots (2025-07-05 16:52:14+00:00): Bonjour,

Effectivement je ne l'avais pas utilisé depuis un moment, et il ne fonctionne plus, je retire sa présence !
Syl (2025-07-05 22:55:24+00:00): Merci d'avoir corrigé.
balint36 (2025-08-05 20:24:36+00:00): Egy forrást tudnál biztosítani ehhez? Az OTrT-ben nem látok megváltozatott nyomvonalat berajzolva. Ha az helyett nincs már felvázolt nyomvonal, ezt a módosítást visszavonom.
gmarc (2025-08-06 09:01:17+00:00): Szia!
Én vagyok az egyik felelőse az ÉKM-ben. Ezen kívül: https://kormany.hu/hirek/megkezdodik-a-budapestet-elkerulo-teherforgalmi-vasutvonal-elokeszitese

https://hungrail.hu/2023/08/02/folytatodik-a-hazai-vasuti-arufuvarozas-versenykepessegenek-javitasat-celzo-v0-projekt-elokeszitese/

A környezetvédelmi engedélyezés most van folyamatban, az új V0 nyomvonal a Cegléd-Kecskemét-Dunaújváros -Székesfehérvár-Komárom/Győr irányt követi, alapvetően a meglévő vasútvonalak felhasználásával.
balint36 (2025-08-06 18:33:02+00:00): Oké, köszi, rendben!

Maradt egy szakaszt, akkor azt majd azt a forrásod szerint törlöm.
gmarc (2025-08-07 07:55:46+00:00): Igen, köszi! Az nem tudtam a szerkesztőben törölni mert túl hosszú volt, és nem engedte, mert nem fért bele a képbe, eldarabolni meg nem tudtam. Annyi friss van még, hogy az új nyomvonal még nem mindenhol fix, mert vannak még folyamatban tárgyalások, itt-ott Kecskemét és Fehérvár körül módosulhat a nyomvonal. Ha lesz végleges, akkor jelzem. Üdv: Marcell
Joseph R P (2025-07-07 16:21:26+00:00): Hello, unless these names are official and signed (by the BLM or another overarching government entity or landowner), it is more likely than not that these names should be removed or at least moved to another tag. If these are names used exclusively by the mountain bikers of these trails, the tag 'mtb:name=*' could be used instead of the regular 'name=*' tag, which implies a more formal on-the-ground case.
Trail_Caretaker (2025-07-07 20:14:13+00:00): Hi Joseph, I disagree with you on this.  OSM clearly says "The primary name should be the one prominently displayed on signs, guideposts, or widely recognized and used locally."  

The latter of those options apply to this situation.  Trail/path names do not need to come from or be blessed by government, such as the BLM.  A large percentage of these trails are unofficial trails and are not made by the BLM.  I have ridden these trails with the locals and have done trail maintenance on them.  These are the names that the local users commonly call the trails.    Having trail names also aids in rescue during an accident.  I hope that you are not the one that has been removing the trail names that the volunteer trail builders have been naming the trails around the Vegas/Henderson area.  They build the trails, name them, and then put the trails and trail names on multiple websites.  This is well within standard OSM practices.  If the trail names start disappearing again we will send this to a higher level to look into and have a talk with that person.  Please do not remove these trail names if you are the one doing so.
Joseph R P (2025-07-08 16:14:54+00:00): Trail names generally do have to come from a government entity such as a park service, be it a city park service or the NPS. i.e. the ones who would put the trails on official maps and signpost/mark them. If we let any one individual or group informally invent the names for objects, then we blur the lines between fantasy mapping/vandalism and the on-the-ground rule and create loopholes for people to call anything what they chose to. The "widely recognized and used locally" rule (which is already subjective and contentious amongst mappers enough) would apply better if these weren't informal unsigned pathways on open public BLM lands, created, used by, and referred to by an already niche subset of individuals like local hobbyist groups such as a mountain bikers and hikers. The other issue with this logic is that, since no one entity controls the trails themselves because they are within BLM lands, any other group could theoretically come in and rename them under the basis "this is what we call them" just as well.

I hate to be the outsider to come in and mess with something you yourself are familiar with, but nobody owns anything they map or has personal control over it, especially if it's something based off a personal knowledge or a conflict of interest with a project rather than something that can be proven by anybody else with permanent signs, park maps, GIS programs, etc. You also cannot report people for simply following OSM rules that they are accustomed to following because you disagree with them. 

I created a thread in the tagging channel of the OSM US Slack server (https://openstreetmap.us/get-involved/slack/) regarding these trail names, asking whether the names should be removed or moved to a different name-related key as they are unofficial. While there doesn't seem to be a single clear answer, I'm more inclined to believe that from the responses from other editors, moving the names to a key like 'mtb:name', 'loc_name', 'nickname', 'alt_name', or removing the names wholly is more applicable than leaving them under the standard 'name' key.
Trail_Caretaker (2025-07-08 16:53:28+00:00): A lot of the trails, that are not made by BLM, have physical signs that show the trail name that was given to the trail by the trail builder or builders.  Is there a way to add a photo to this text?  I have examples but don't see a way to add them to this text.  I think that this is well within the rules of OSM.  OSM also says "Common name" in the name field.
Joseph R P (2025-07-08 17:17:17+00:00): I'd have to ask again on in the server if third-party signage is enough verification for a trail name. I don't see why it wouldn't count, in this case, if they are more permanent installations rather chalk writing on rocks or the like. 

If you were to use an image hosting site like https://imgbb.com/ you should be able to upload example images and link them here. You are also welcome to contribute to the discussion in the OSM US Slack server where you would be able to upload images directly rather than linking them through an image hosting site.
rempshaener (2025-07-02 17:17:11+00:00): Hallo,

du hast um eine Prüfung deiner Bearbeitungen gebeten.
Das sieht gut aus – viel Spaß beim Rest der Siedlung.

Viele Grüße
NeisBot (2025-07-01 14:56:39+00:00): Hi jean-michael_42, welcome and thank you for your contribution to the OSM project!

To help improve collaboration and make your edits easier for others to understand, please consider providing brief descriptions of your changes in the comment field. This will make it easier for the community to follow your adjustments. You can find some helpful tips on good comments here: https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Furthermore, based on your map edits in this changeset, I’ve drafted a suggestion for what a comment could look like: "Added surface information to an existing way, specifying asphalt material."

PS: I’ve also sent this message via the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#HelpfulComment #NoComment #AIgenerated
TrickyFoxy (2025-07-02 23:02:25+00:00): Не добавляйте utm-метки

https://osm.wiki/Key:website#Privacy_and_security
ZeLonewolf (2025-08-18 12:07:49+00:00): Hi Steve - unfortunately this edit broke the boundary of Louisville.  I was able to fix it, so no action required.  The iD (web-based) editor will not warn when a boundary relation is malformed, and so you shouldn't use it for boundary work.
Дмитрий Битюкеев (2025-07-01 15:03:04+00:00): Добавлена информация о новостройке #новостройкирф #vk_maps
Glassman (2025-07-02 23:11:31+00:00): The best practice for adding an address is to add it to the building outline. The exception is where there are multiple addresses in the same building, like a commercial building, then individual nodes.

Is there a building at this site? I can't find any recorded of it. Imagery show that there may have been one some time ago, but not now.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168358721
sharkeyx (2025-07-03 01:23:46+00:00): The prior was burnt down, I bought the land and am starting a build end of this year/beginning of next. But there was lack of any addressing there, so wanted to get it staged so that people would hopefully be able to get gps to it as it wasn't working for me last i had to use it.
ToniE (2025-07-01 16:35:24+00:00): Hallo,

der BayernAtlas ist leider keine zulässige Quelle. Wir haben keine Erlaubnis irgendwelche Daten vom BayernAtlas (nicht einmal mehr die Luftbilder) zu nutzen. Bayern ist, was Open Data angeht, das rückständigste aller 16 Bundesländer.

Diese Änderung/der Edit hier muss daher rückgängig gemacht werden.

Sorry und viele Grüße
Toni
ToniE (2025-07-04 10:53:57+00:00): Ich habe mir die Lage mal vor Ort angeschaut, einen GPX-Trace erstellt und Fehler korrigiert.