piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
nilodo (2025-12-24 10:52:46+00:00): Ja, mooi, maar dat is alleen een plaatje. Heb je daar ook een bovenliggende link naar een webpagina bij?
ZldYe (2026-01-09 19:22:46+00:00): Hoi, excuses voor de late reactie. Deze kaart komt vanuit het programma ruimte voor defensie. Het terrein wordt niet actief gebruikt door defensie maar is wel aangeuid als zijnde, en daarmee juist gemapped. Als men zich in het gebied bevindt dient men rekening te houden met oefeningen, net als veel andere publiek toegankelijke gebieden waar wel daadwerkelijk getraind wordt. Bijvoorbeeld: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1454653977
user_5359 (2025-11-26 09:54:35+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please notice this is a production database.
Please only draw in existing objects and facts. I have now reverted your changes.
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:34:43+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
There are at least 2 camera nodes on top of each other.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175124424
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:34:24+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175124426
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:33:50+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175124441
user_5359 (2025-11-26 09:57:15+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Did you see https://www.osm.org/way/29908874 ? Your entry contradicts this nature reserve.
Anna Marvin (2025-11-26 14:00:07+00:00): Oh thank you I wasn't sure what I was doing wrong. I will make this one a point instead of park, I'm assuming that was the problem. Any other advice is appreciated thank you!
TausifJutt (2025-11-25 20:47:07+00:00): You have changed this road for emergency vehicles because it is not a link to the M2 motorway and is outside the M2 motorway. It has no connection to the motorway and is a service road. You must prove that it is not a link to the M2 motorway.
MapMagics (2025-11-26 17:24:13+00:00): Hi TausifJutt,
Thanks for reaching out. Since this road has an emergency=yes tag and there is an escape ramp for emergency situations, what are your thoughts on changing this to highway=escape?(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Descape)
joost schouppe (2026-07-03 19:18:48+00:00): Hi there,
You added some "permissive" gates here, but when I was at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13332218886 a few months back, I made a u-turn because it was (I thought) clearly marked as no entry, at least for vehicles. Did I see it wrong?
an_OSM (2026-07-06 05:45:19+00:00): Hi there,
you are right. Access should rather be labelled 'private', which I have done now.
I was told that one could enter the reserve from the southern side and drive through, but given the fact that it is a 'Private Nature Reserve' it should be  correctly labelled. 
Thanks for commenting!
joost schouppe (2026-07-06 08:01:12+00:00): Great, thanks for the follow-up. Given that I saw that this one is private too https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/50466210 I don't think there's any easy way to get there without prior arrangements
an_OSM (2026-07-06 08:22:51+00:00): agree Joost,
but will check, when I back in the area the next time!
have a lovely day
user_5359 (2025-11-26 09:54:27+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please notice this is a production database.
Please only draw in existing objects and facts. I have now reverted your changes.
damianeue (2025-11-26 07:49:26+00:00): *offset is -2.92; -2.02
joost schouppe (2026-01-05 13:36:51+00:00): Hi,
Thanks for all your edits for this topic, very useful for me!
Minor correction: the correct value for social_facility:for is "disabled", not "people_with_disabilities". See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility:for for the officially defined values. Lists are always separated by ; not , . I fixed both small issues.
Other minor comments/questions:
-The provides_feature relation is really (almost) only used by a single mapper in Brussels; in this case you could just add the address on the outer polygon. A data user can then just use the properties of tho polygon the object is on to get an address. 
-Is the SRJ for young people without disabilities? Because that's how I would read the data now.
-Based on the website it is not clear to me, but I wouldn't be surprised this is more a group_home than an assisted living facility.
tansu_bla (2026-01-05 16:08:55+00:00): hello,
I'm not super comfortable adding facilities I've never seen myself (the website and official lists might be outdated or just wrong), but I plan on adding more group homes or assisted living facilities in the future.
Thank you for the corrections!
The ID editor doesn't show "disabled", but only "people with disabilities" for the "social_facility:for" tag. I'll try to remember the correct value, and the fact that I can add a second one.
- The SRJ is for young people with disabilities. I've added the "disabled" value to reflect that.
- It's difficult to judge wether a facility is more of a group home or an assisted living facility. Personally, if it provides medical supervision I usually pick assisted_living. Anyway, feel free to change it if you want.
Comino (2025-11-25 20:21:29+00:00): CAPITAL letters are not allowed. Please revert your edit. The Bitcoin Cash tag is incorrect. Please adjust.
ejderuby (2025-11-25 23:16:24+00:00): https://www.amctheatres.com/movie-theatres/bloomington-in/amc-classic-columbus-12 Are they not allowed if that's the name of the location?
AndyB_66 (2025-12-21 19:29:38+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
Comino (2025-11-25 20:22:04+00:00): CAPITAL letters are not allowed. Please revert your edit.
marc__marc (2026-01-22 22:24:19+00:00): Bonjour,
merci pour cette amélioration.
n'hésites pas à mettre motorcar=no pour que cela soie limpide que c'est pas pour voiture
Cordialement,
Marc
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:33:32+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
There are at least 2 camera nodes on top of each other.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175125426
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:33:07+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175125430
Comino (2025-11-25 20:22:30+00:00): CAPITAL letters are not allowed. Please revert your edit.
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:32:36+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175125573
nullroute (2025-11-26 21:55:49+00:00): Hi wx4caster,

Thanks for your first edit!

I'm not sure an operator is really necessary as I believe Flock Safety technically operates the cameras and provides the data to law enforcement. So just setting it as the manufacturer should be sufficient.

Take at look at this Flock Safety camera which was added by another user using the DeFlock website:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13323202101

It should give you an idea on the correct values for the tags for these cameras.

Thanks,
nullroute
NieWnen (2025-11-25 19:56:08+00:00): Jaki jest powód usuwania footway=sidewalk z takich fragmentów? 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1081388334
bartgron (2025-11-25 20:54:35+00:00): Ponieważ to nie powinno być sidewalk bo nie leży przy drodze
NieWnen (2025-11-25 20:55:44+00:00): Jak to nie? To przy czym leży? :D
bartgron (2025-11-25 21:02:15+00:00): Ale leży prostopadle do drogi a nie biegnie wzdłuż
NieWnen (2025-11-25 21:09:48+00:00): Jak spojrzysz względem drugiej jezdni (bo w końcu to skrzyżowanie), to jest wzdłuż :)

Ja nie widzę powodu, by tego tak nie tagować, a tym bardziej usuwać, bo to wciąż ciągłość chodnika przy/wzdłuż drogi. 

Czy jeśli nie byłoby chodnika w kierunku Braci Leśnej, albo jeśli to ten odcinek od Braci Leśnej byłby połączony  z tym chodnikiem wzdłuż AK jako nowa linia (nie wydzielając skrawka), to byś taki fragment wydzielił i też wtedy usunął `footway=sidewalk`?
bartgron (2025-11-25 21:14:07+00:00): Za trudne pytanie zadałeś :D. Ale faktycznie względem drugiej jezdni jest wzdłuż, nie pomyślałem o tym
AgusQui (2025-12-04 03:40:37+00:00): Por favor puede ser más preciso con el dibujo de las áreas, le recomiendo usar imágenes aéreas de CABA que tienen más calidad para este tipo de mapeo.
Comino (2025-11-25 20:22:42+00:00): CAPITAL letters are not allowed. Please revert your edit.
Langlaeufer (2025-11-26 11:46:45+00:00): Sind die ganzen möglichen Wege wirklich eine Verbesserung der Karte?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175126002
db-ak (2025-11-30 17:01:21+00:00): Dokończyłem ta inwestycję, dodałem przejazd na końcu, dziś przejeżdżałem
Yog Sot (2025-11-30 22:51:58+00:00): czyli jednak jest przejazd? to gites, bo ja coś nie kojażyłem, ale było -4C i trochę mi mózg marzł ;d
Yog Sot (2025-11-30 23:16:17+00:00): https://www.facebook.com/groups/1530442777794293/permalink/2074471003391465/ xD
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:32:02+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
There are at least 2 camera nodes on top of each other.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175126569
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:31:29+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175126578
Ryccardo (2025-12-30 20:43:20+00:00): Ha, just read the news about this lane, which I found by searching "Dirt Alley" due to your contribution - thanks for it!

For everyone else: http://sfstandard.com/2025/11/21/san-francisco-sunset-dirt-alley-sale/
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:31:11+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
There are at least 2 camera nodes on top of each other.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175126640
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:30:45+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175126652
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:26:29+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
There are at least 3 camera nodes overlapping each other.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175126788
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:25:59+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175126799
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:25:08+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175126801
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:24:42+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
There are at least 2 camera nodes overlapping each other.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175126980
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:23:05+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175126986
gscscnd (2025-11-26 13:25:58+00:00): Jaką stosujesz definicję unclassified? Moim zdaniem lepiej byłoby podnieść drogi w miejscowościach z residential do unclassified, dałoby to spójną sieć przy założeniu, że unclassified traktujemy jako poziom pomiędzy residential/service a tertiary.
Dawid2849 (2025-11-26 13:35:59+00:00): Zgadzam się z przedmówcą. Unclassified to drogi między residential a tertiary, czyli takie, które łączą miejscowości lub osiedla w mieście, ale nie są na tyle ważne, aby być tertiary. Niestety wiele osób używa kategorii dróg do zaznaczania obszarów zabudowanych lub tworzy jeszcze inne definicje.
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:22:41+00:00): "overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
There are 3 camera nodes overlapping each other.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175127066
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:21:05+00:00): "overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175127068
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:20:31+00:00): "overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175127086
NorthCrab_upload (2025-11-25 21:42:46+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13332417607

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
bartgron (2025-11-25 21:44:08+00:00): Opis zestawu zmian nie służy do reklamowania swoich usług - OpenStreetMap nie jest do reklamowania (osm.wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian)
bartgron (2025-11-25 21:44:25+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
eggie (2025-11-25 22:44:36+00:00): review_requested 	yes
Lijkt me allemaal oke. 
Gt eggie
eggie (2025-11-25 21:38:56+00:00): Je hebt hebt het gebouw verwijderd.. net als de adresnode..
Gebruik de adresnode om op bij te taggen. 
Ik draai de changeset even terug.
De consensus is om de adresnode te gebuiken. 
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-11-25 21:40:20+00:00): reverted by changeset Wijzigingenset #175129613
eggie (2025-11-25 21:55:48+00:00): De naam zal straks op de adresnode renderen.
CTRL-f5 om effect te zien.
Gr eggie
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:19:23+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175127594
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:18:52+00:00): "Overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175127605
StephaneP (2025-11-25 22:07:22+00:00): Hi !
Why did you change the capacity ? Did you survey it? We clearly see on the imagery that there are only 12 parking spaces.

Best,
Stéphane
Bzzz (2025-11-25 22:38:14+00:00): Check https://www.tesla.com/fr_LU/findus/location/supercharger/portesdangerssupercharger.
Google Maps also has a photo of a new row of 6 V4 stalls in addition to 6 V3 - from a layout perspective, that doesn't make sense, this is likely 8xV4 plus the existing 12xV3
StephaneP (2025-11-27 10:53:06+00:00): I don't see the new V4 on the authorized sources.
We can't use google maps or google street view to contribute to OpenStreetMap. Please don't do that, it could be a big problem for the project.
Bzzz (2025-11-29 20:25:22+00:00): Come again? No free map service provider has current photos of this location yet, but there's a) Tesla stating that there are additional Tesla Supercharger stalls since about June, and b) there's this https://maps.app.goo.gl/e71ao1h9bvDR2w4v7 photo (and a couple more) that verifies the second row of parking space has indeed been converted to fit a partial row of V4 stalls. I don't see *ANY* problem with adding this information before new satellite imagery goes live, especially since the current rectangle doesn't fit sat data of the actual size of the supercharger location. Do I have to travel there myself and get an additional photo of the location, is that an "authorized" source for an edit?
NieWnen (2025-11-27 20:49:38+00:00): To trochę nie tak, crossing=informal nie dajemy z highway=crossing

Jeśli jest nieoznakowane przejście ale np. obniżony krawężnik i wskazuje to na połączenie, to lepiej dać unmarked

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dinformal
driedfish (2025-11-27 22:34:37+00:00): okej dzięki, zmienię
scrambling_panda (2025-11-26 14:31:03+00:00): Hey Brian,

Just so you know, there were two tags I had set previously that were still on this node, ‘construction:amenity=cafe’ and ‘construction:name=_’ (following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix). Unfortunately I don’t think iD does a good job of showing those (https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6168) so it’s easy to miss.

The idea with those prefixes is that it keeps data consumers from showing whatever’s under construction, until construction is done and the prefix is removed, making the node a ‘real thing’.

Anyway, I removed the extra tags in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175156696, though they weren’t really hurting anything.

Thanks for the improvement to the map!
TheSwavu (2025-11-26 21:21:04+00:00): Hi,

You put a `parking:left=no` on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/952229220, which means you can't park there. The `parking:left:restriction:conditional` was also in the wrong format. 

I have fixed this and the other one in the same street that was still in the old format.

Happy mapping.
wielandb (2025-11-26 22:09:50+00:00): But now there is no parking:left tag which is not good i think. 
Some value should exist for parking:left if there is a value for parking:left:restriction:conditional.
TheSwavu (2025-11-27 02:13:53+00:00): Parking on a residential street is allowed by default. Are you planning to tag them all?
wielandb (2025-12-03 10:14:53+00:00): I will try to make some clarifying statements to avoid confusion.

- This challenge only converts existing data into the new scheme.
- parking:<side> does not state anything about if parking is allowed
- The challenge uses the generic yes only if there is incomplete data to begin with
- The generic yes should be avoided and a more specific tag should be used if the mapper has the knowledge
- Tagging that parking is not forbidden (parking:<side>:restriction=none) is indeed not needed if there is parking 
- e.g. StreetComplete marks the physical availability of parking as something that indeed all residential roads should have

If you think this challenge does something systematically wrong, I would encourage you to join the discussion in the forum [1] or open an issue on the GitHub [2]

If you think StreetComplete should not be marking every residential road as missing physical parking data, I would encourage you to open an issue in the GitHub [3] so that e.g. Australia could be excluded. 

[1] https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/organized-mapping-maproulette-challenge-convert-old-street-parking-tags-to-new-scheme/129253/8
[2] https://github.com/wielandb/maproulette-tagfixes/tree/main/challenges/parking_converter
[3] https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues
TheSwavu (2025-12-03 21:46:29+00:00): parking:left=no indicates that there is physically nowhere to park on the left side of the street https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Street_parking#Physical_properties_2. The quick guide literally says 'no, if there is no parking' https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Street_parking#Quick_guide

In this part of the street you can park so it should be 'lane' or 'shoulder' (or if you don't want to bike shed this forever 'yes'). But my point was that every residential street in AU would be parking:both=yes and I cannot be bother tagging that. If you want to then feel free.
TheSwavu (2025-12-04 05:37:30+00:00): That first link should have been https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Street_parking#Physical_properties
wielandb (2025-12-08 11:42:19+00:00): Thanks for the input.
As stated previously, I am not actively tagging anything new. With this challenge, I am just converting data that is already there. I am not adding parking:*=yes to anything where data implicating that fact wasn't available previously
eggie (2025-11-25 21:35:00+00:00): Dag resitive.. Graag instellingen op de adresnode taggen.
Niet op de gebouwomtrek.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-11-25 21:36:44+00:00): Info verplaatst naar bestaande adresnode.
MVG
eggie
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:17:31+00:00): "overhead" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175128030
eggie (2025-11-25 22:35:44+00:00): Dag Jelv Hier ligt landuse op landuse en dat bijt elkaar.
Je geeft aan garden:type
Ik maak nu van de buiteste polygoon leisure=garden.
area =yes hoort niet op landuse.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-11-25 22:39:46+00:00): Die picnic geeft nog een foutmelding.
rock...? 
Even de rendering afwachten of de naam verschijn.
eggie (2025-11-25 22:42:30+00:00): De naam verschijnt nu. 
Denk dat het zo weer klopt of de picnic na. Up to you.
gr eggie
Jelv (2025-11-26 06:42:32+00:00): Het bankje is een stoeptegelsbankje in de vorm van het voedselbos. Foto's toevoegen zou soms wel handig zijn als ze ergens gebruikt worden. Dankjewel voor je de hulp en kennis!
eggie (2025-11-26 06:48:40+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:material

.. stone?


Mapse. 
eggie
eggie (2025-11-26 06:56:02+00:00): .. en anders een vraagje voor het forum..
Draadje korte vragen korte antwoorden.
Dodko (2025-12-05 09:47:28+00:00): adrese chýba vyplnená časť obce addr:place
môže byť 
Melčice
Zemianske Lieskové
MxxCon (2025-11-25 21:16:12+00:00): "City pole" is not a valid value for camera:mount= tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175128365
AwFi (2025-11-26 14:01:13+00:00): Ciao, ho visto che hai cambiato lo scartamento della sassi-superga, hai qualche fonte a riguardo? Da quel che so è lo stesso di tutta la rete tranviaria torinese e quindi 1445
Valerio Cardone (2025-11-26 14:14:18+00:00): Ciao, sì. C'è abbastanza confusione a riguardo. Se cerchi online, ci sono svariati articoli del 2/3 dicembre 2024 sulla celebrazione dei 140 anni della tranvia in cui c'è esplicitamente scritto che lo scartamento è di 1435 mm. Tuttavia, altre fonti dicono che è di 1445 mm, come la rete tranviaria normale. Ho avuto modo di chiedere ai soci dell'ATTS (Associazione Torinese Tram Storici) e mi hanno confermato che è di 1435 mm e che non si sa il perché sia diversa dalla rete ordinaria.
AwFi (2025-11-26 14:22:03+00:00): Ah ok, strano però, ma se lo dicono in ATTS mi fido. Dalla pagina di tramditorino scrivono 1445 però, su wikipedia non c'è mezza fonte e in base alla lingua lo scartamento cambia. Grazie del chiarimento.
AwFi (2025-11-26 20:49:10+00:00): Il fatto che sia interconnessa con il resto della rete tranviaria ma lo scartamento diverso mi faceva comunque strano, quindi ho chiesto a chi ne sa più di me, e mi confermano che è tutta a 1445. 
A quanto pare ci sono anche parecchi libri a riguardo che confermano i 1445:
- Accattatis: Torino Tram Filobus Metro - Le reti torinesi di trasporto urbano a impianto fisso - ETR 2010
- Cambursano, Cerrato, Giannitti - Rotaie tra Sassi e Superga - ATTS 2024
Questi sono i più recenti ma ce ne sono anche altri. Purtroppo non ho accesso ad essi in questo momento. 
Secondo me confermanoi 1445 anche il fatto che è interconnessa e i mezzi vanno anche al Tortona a fare manutenzione, sia perché per operare con mezzi costruiti per il 1445 su una rete a 1435 (https://www.tramditorino.it/superga_tram.htm) sarebbe abbastanza da pazzi e non penso sarebbe mai autorizzato al giorno d'oggi.
Cosa ne pensi?
AwFi (2025-11-26 20:50:30+00:00): Probabilmente tutta quella campagna stampa, in cui tutti gli articoli sono molto simili, è originata da una nota sbagliata poi passata a diverse testate