piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
HellMap (2023-09-09 13:57:54+00:00): Čau (vēlreiz),

Es skatos, ka tu pa laiku es sadalījis mežus no dzīvojamām teritorijām ap Ādažu Baltezeru. Piemēram https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15104238

Tas nav gluži pareizi, jo tie nav "overlapping landuse". residential ir land use (kā teritoriju izmanto), bet wood/forest ir landcover (kāds ir fizisks pārklājums). Un tie var noteikti pārklāties. Piemēram, šeit visi šitie dzīvojamie rajoni pārklājas ar mežu.

Kā piemēru - tad jau arī viss Ādažu poligons ir landuse=military un ir overlapping ar visiem mežiem un pļavām un purviem. :)
artuuurs (2023-09-09 14:14:07+00:00): Mjā, es nezināju, kā šo vislabāk risināt. Iemesls izmaiņām bija tas, ka OSM un OSMAnd zīmē mežus pa virsu dzīvojamām teritorijām, bet man gribētos otrādi, jo citādi izskatās, ka ir māja meža vidū, lai gan reāli tur ir liela privāta teritorija apkārt mājai. Cik sapratu, zīmēšanas secību ar kaut ko līdzīgu layer=-1 ietekmēt nevar. Ja viss ir pareizi un neko nevajadzēja mainīt, tad droši vien šo izmaiņu vajadzēs pilnībā revertēt, vai ne?
HellMap (2023-09-09 14:42:14+00:00): Jā, gan OSM default karte gan OsmAnd zīmē ne visai perfekti. Bet nu tā tas pagaidām ir. Zīmēšanas secība ir 
karšu/rendereru pārziņā, jo šiem elementiem teorētiski nav "secības". Tā pat kā kaut kāds parks vai kapsēta mežā - kā tas vizuāli izskatīsies atkarīgs, kā to uztaisījuši. Cik zinu, OSM maina izskatu atkarībā no tā, ko uzskata par "lielāko elementu" via kaut kā tā. Salīdzināšanai piemēram - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/57.07268/24.45969 un https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/57.07895/24.35497 Te ir tā, ka viens ir "iekšā otram". Bet, kas notiek, kad pārklājas visādi, es sīkāk nepateikšu. Bet jebkurā gadījumā - citādi precīzus kartes datus nevajadzētu mainīt, lai dabūtu labāku izskatu. Citādi tas būs https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer .

Es precīzi neesmu skatījies sīkāk, cik un kur tu esi nomainījis un cik tādu izmaiņu. Man liekas tev parasti ir vēl daudz citu izmaiņu. Un tu laikam šito mežu esi daudz reižu mainījis. Atcelt te laikam būs grūtāk nekā pa jaunu sazīmēt. Tur jau arī nebija īpaši precīzi līdz tam. Gan jau kaut kad kaut kā...
eggie (2023-09-09 20:26:11+00:00): Wesley  Dit zijn geen parkeerterreinen, maar parkeervakken.
Dan toevoegen
parking=street_side orientation=parallel (of diagonal of perpendicular)  Je krijgt anders allemaal van die enorme P's in de wijk.
Bij street_side wordt de P minder prominent weergegeven.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-09-09 20:28:56+00:00): Bij de Ticheldreef heb ik juist weer streetside verwijderd. Dat is meer een parkeerterrein. Het langsdeweg parkeren heb ik aangepast als voorbeeld.
Wesley_Link (2023-09-09 21:37:24+00:00): Dankjewel zal het mee nemen 👍🏻 en is alles nog goed in het gebied kwa inners en outers
eggie (2023-09-10 04:52:30+00:00): Vast wel... want ik zie geen vreemde rendering.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-17 05:52:49+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141366616
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-17 05:49:45+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141366534
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-17 05:48:49+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141366510
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-17 05:48:43+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141366507
HellMap (2023-09-09 13:45:46+00:00): Čau!

Ar https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/553534541/history barrier direction gan nebūs pareizi. Labā puse barjerām ar pušu nozīmi ir "galvenā" puse, kas guard rail gadījumā ir "plakanā" puse - pret sadursmēm. iD trīsstūrīši "skatās" uz brauktuvi/mašīnām.
artuuurs (2023-09-09 14:08:48+00:00): Čau! Tu laikam mani novēro 24/7, knapi paspēju izdarīt to izmaiņu :) Nomainīju abām barjerām uz pretējo, cerams, ka tagad pareizi. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141025780
HellMap (2023-09-09 14:16:51+00:00): Protams, ka sekoju visu laiku! >.<

Haha, nē, bet tu jau visu laiku kaut ko labo. Es vienkārši OsmCha attaisīju un visas izmaiņas pēc kārtas sākot ar jaunāko. Tev šoreiz trāpījās viena no pēdējām.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-17 05:47:47+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141366479
felipeeugenio (2023-09-10 12:14:32+00:00): Hola.
Por favor no borrar elementos para luego subirlos corregidos. Se perdió todo el historial del Hotel.
Y además subió otro nodo casí idéntico.
saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141024328
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-17 05:46:44+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141366448
osmviborg (2023-09-09 14:28:06+00:00): DM sendt til Kenneth, brug af Google.
Dodko (2023-09-10 07:18:01+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9817923819/history
Na otváracie hodiny použi pomôcku
https://projets.pavie.info/yohours/
hodina má byť dvojmiestne číslo
user_18267930 (2023-09-12 17:56:59+00:00): The admins want us to discuss. Tell me, what is the use of tiny "cliffs"? Have you seen this kind of micromapping "cliffs" somewhere else? What is your motivation? 

Have you been on the ground everywhere to ensure they are all visible(!) cliffs? Or not rather just black lines on cadaster 2019's lidar? Again, tell our Serbian contributor why his and my moderate smoothing are worth reverting?
SomeoneElse (2023-09-12 20:29:16+00:00): Hello,
Andy from the DWG here.  Surely some of these "cliffs" or "not-cliffs" must be visible from below, and someone can provide a photograph?
Best Regards,
Andy
Stereo (2023-09-13 15:12:44+00:00): I see three questions here.

1. Are there cliffs?

Yes. The area is known for its cliffs which sometimes roll down to the houses.

https://lequotidien.lu/tag/tawioun/

https://www.virgule.lu/luxembourg/eboulements-a-luxembourg-certains-quartiers-plus-menaces-que-d-autres/135717.html

I have no idea whether the black lines shown on the lidar are really cliffs, or how big they are individually, but they certainly look like cliffs, and there certainly are cliffs there.

2. What are the standards to map a cliff?

That's the kind of thing where the admins say that people should talk: what constitutes a cliff, a way? What are the minimal standards we have consensus on to map them? There has been no good faith attempt at discussing them. https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/luxembourg is barren, and the Luxembourg chat is very very quiet these days.

3. Is this kind of changeset comment good?

No. It makes the recipient feel attacked. It makes no attempt at being constructive or at building consensus. It's part of the problem, not the solution, and reflects badly on the commenter. The fact that the recipient has left comments in a similar tone in the past doesn't justify the tone. This kind of discussion culture is toxic for a community.

I urge all participants to read up on non-violent communication, and to be disciplined in keeping their comments constructive.

In the age of chatgpt, it is trivial to get over your anger and have a robot redraft your messages in a way that doesn't make the other feel attacked: https://chat.openai.com/share/2dc1c774-1808-4cb2-9b48-edd53a9fa3a6
SHARCRASH (2023-09-16 12:07:22+00:00): Most were answered, thanks!

I had wondered how to express complex 3D cliffs on 2D. Sometimes certain portions are not vertical but are certainly steep and we could slip down, therefore dangerous, other cliffs are stepped with various heights.  There is a discussion in the Wiki trying to classify this complexity without finding a clear guideline. I just want to express a dangerous drop or impossible to walk on terrain for people making sports in nature, afraid of heights or simply interested in a mountainous landscape. My method:
- any natural drop roughly higher than a human
- if complex, I try to make a pseudo 3D, a cliff at the top to express where it drops and at the bottom to express how far it extends.
- on large aretes I'd rather use also cliffs with opposite parallels (top of mountains) or stepped down depending of shape (going down valleys)
- i would skip the bottom one if I feel that it's not really useful, to not overwhelm the map.
Note: I used to draw when I was younger, so I do know how to interpret/express 3D on 2D, some of my sketches:
https://scontent.flux3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.18172-8/1957713_10151981907588317_91383256_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=174925&_nc_ohc=zkpdnGZcY2AAX-uYU8f&_nc_ht=scontent.flux3-1.fna&oh=00_AfAuBQhDqQxfMhFgbZlqggTvhVMZqbm_YRU67C6pVrNFhA&oe=652CD74D
https://scontent.flux3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/377572904_10159715819623317_7605222635013496900_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=1b51e3&_nc_ohc=2RGa6hWSvgkAX8Z0EqZ&_nc_ht=scontent.flux3-1.fna&oh=00_AfD-jBgaZAwqopa8KJCT5giuGKChgYPuPHQLY0BMGKpLlg&oe=650B48E0

This CS I reverted was beyond "smoothening". Some were deleted, others rather shaped to an almost straight curved line. That's not how the cliffs are shaped. Would you straighten a street or delete it because it is too curvy? Certainly not! I suggested dpolovinkin to change of Garmin map or edit the TYP if he is overwhelmed by the cliffs during his rides. What I would call "smoothening" is like I experienced with Stereo some years ago (yes there are others who create cliffs like I do). I saw that he got carried by his great LIDAR resource (thanks again, great rendering). We discussed because he had gone around every corner of each rock on CS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/83742481 and found out it is overkill. After discussion I had lowered the number of nodes via CS https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/97227996 The overall shape was respected and none was deleted.

As for communication, I agree that it is important to cooperate and being respectful. But I cannot trust anymore someone with lied about his observations or ignores an issue. That's when I'm no more inclined to talk with that person. Being fooled once or twice is enough, I'm no masochist.
user_18267930 (2023-09-18 15:09:22+00:00): In short, we get it. You think you are special.

Show me where a non-newby regularly adds cliffs that are that tiny. I don't see any point adding every single stone that is under 10m long. If they have a significant shape in a touristic place or are close to viewpoints to indicate a danger then it's a different thing. 

All we have now is swamps full of black lines that are pretty useless and often hide paths at normal hiking scales. Which btw isn't 1:1,000.

You shouldn't and often mustn't walk straight through forests, especially in the northern half of Luxembourg, if you know some history.
Minh Nguyen (2023-09-15 17:13:59+00:00): Please be careful remodeling intersections to include dual carriageways. This changeset appears to have broken a number of route relations. Additionally, the “tuning fork” or “pencil tip” modeling that led to this breakage is controversial globally and not preferred among mappers local to California. https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/pencil-tip-intersections/1512
xephos1one (2023-09-16 10:25:24+00:00): Thanks for notifying me about the missing relation, I can't find any other broken ones besides the one you told me about on Discord that you fixed already.
I always check on any relations that might be impacted by my edits, this one seems to have slipped through. I'll double check them from now on.

Regarding the intersection mapping I just did what is recommended, also by the Mapbox Guideline.
The pencil tip style you prefer isn't great either, as it creates sharp turns when in reality there aren't any.
I won't change such existing intersections in California to the other style in future.
How do professional Maps/routers like TomTom handle such intersections?
Minh Nguyen (2023-09-16 23:19:01+00:00): The terminology is a bit confusing; I think “pencil tip” actually refers to the style you applied. TomTom and Mapbox have historically been the main proponents of this style, though Mapbox is no longer active in mapping intersections.

As mentioned in that forum thread, routers have long accounted for the sharp turns you’re concerned about. The OSRM and Valhalla routers (used by Mapbox) average out the turn angle by looking at points further away from the intersection. Ironically, the pencil tip style sometimes foils this heuristic, as well as the heuristic for consolidating a complex intersection so you can hear “make a U-turn” instead of “turn left then turn left”.

On another level, the disagreement is over whether we should model how self-driving cars would travel through the intersection, or hew more closely to the physical separation principle. One reason mappers in California have complained about the pencil tip style is that it makes it difficult to distinguish the small traffic islands that are commonplace at an intersection. This is not so interesting to self-driving cars perhaps, but mappers are trying to think of a broader range of possible uses for the map.

I appreciate your openness to feedback. I would suggest continuing this discussion in the forum thread, because a changeset comment thread is unlikely to result in any broader changes anyways.
thopf (2023-09-09 16:48:59+00:00): I deleted the none existeted motorway.
Woazboat (2023-09-10 09:33:09+00:00): It's better to use revert tools instead of manually deleting/undoing changes. Otherwise some small changes like e.g. this nonexistent crossing that was added remain unnoticed

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11178768463/history

@Magoto care to explain yourself why you added this obviously incorrect motorway?
habi (2023-09-18 07:19:24+00:00): Magoto seems to add "weird" things to OpenStreetMap: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140941091 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140940194
I've reported them to the DWG
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-17 05:44:44+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141366405
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-17 05:44:38+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141366401
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-17 05:41:50+00:00): DWG revert

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141366327
augil (2023-09-09 21:59:14+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian
wiki'de, genelde halka açık olan geniş yüzeyli yollardır diyor.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway
burada, geniş yollar için highway=pedestrian
kullanmamız gerektiği yazmış.
FroschForscher (2026-04-04 09:07:43+00:00): Hello jyg1093,
is building="container ㅂ" intentional or should it be just "container"?

FroschForscher
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-04-05 05:53:54+00:00): PMed them ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/messages/1340463 )
jyg1093 (2026-04-05 12:51:47+00:00): sorry, building="container ㅂ" is an incorrectly entered sentence.
CurlingMan13 (2023-09-18 01:50:56+00:00): Please use better changeset comments.  What did you change and why?  Good changeset comments are important.  You can read more here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments#:~:text=A%20good%20changeset%20comment%20should,have%20edited%20on%20the%20map.
InsertUser (2023-09-09 15:04:52+00:00): Ongoing discussion here:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mini-roundabout/72751/57
Frans S (2023-09-09 15:10:11+00:00): Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator. 
I am sorry to say, but your mappings need to be improved to meet the quality standards of HOTOSM.
Please pay attention to next summarized issues. (see attached document for more info)
A: E: Inaccurate mapped and / or not squared.

: Incorporated the yard or a clearing into the mapping.
* Please be sure that the object you want to map is a building. When there is no shadow next to it, or traces of human activity, it is mostly not a building.  Buildings have mostly a gray or brown roof. Green means trees or scrub. Don't map the courtyards as well.
* Quality prevails over quantity!!

Explanation can be found on this document what  might be helpful to improve 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/141027809
scai (2024-03-16 11:32:53+00:00): Hallo,

du hast leider ein Duplikat erstellt
Die Vegane Fleischerei gab es bereits: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4381343294

Ich lösche daher dein POI.

Grüße
Alex
Frans S (2023-09-19 14:16:53+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please check this document to get your knowledge of how to map and tag highways up to date.
https://learnosm.org/en/coordination/remote-tracing/

For Marocco
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Morocco#How_tagging_the_routes/ways?

Tips 
Connect nodes of highways to each other to achieve a road network which can be used by satellite navigation systems. (these cannot deal with a gap between 2 pieces of roads)

Please focus on highways which connects isolated dwellings, hamlets, villages and bigger.
Tjuro (2023-09-09 18:02:53+00:00): Hallo Wesley,

Waarom heb jij https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1072683267
verwijderd?

MVG Tjuro
Wesley_Link (2023-09-09 18:08:34+00:00): Is er veel verwijderd
Tjuro (2023-09-09 18:14:17+00:00):  Reverted due to vandalism
Wesley_Link (2023-09-09 18:15:26+00:00): Gaat het om die parkeerplaats? 
Die heb ik gekopieerd en ik denk dat ik perongeluk iets heb verwijderd. Mijn excuses
Wesley_Link (2023-09-09 18:17:09+00:00): Ik ben namelijk nog nieuw hier in
eggie (2023-09-09 20:23:06+00:00): Je edits  https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141028272
Denk dat je knippen hebt gedaan ipv 'tags kopieren' en/of kopieren.
gr eggie
Wesley_Link (2023-09-09 21:35:40+00:00): Ja dat moet wel😞 maar was benieuwd hoe diegene dat had gemaakt
BCNorwich (2023-09-12 07:06:41+00:00): Hi, I don't think the footpath is missing, it's still on the County definitive map as a Public Footpath and signed from the road. 
It is crossfield so it is liable to be periodically ploughed up as per legislation. It should be reinstated within 28 days, though this doesn't usually happen. 

I've removed a duplicated section of highway.

Regards Bernard
PAL3001 (2023-09-12 16:46:47+00:00): Thanks for taking a look - once the maize has been harvested I will take another look to see if I can follow the path of the footpath as shown on the OS.
mcliquid (2023-09-11 14:25:30+00:00): Hi, are you sure the surface of the helipad is cobblestone?
See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface%3Dcobblestone
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141028291
psaltz (2023-09-13 18:34:15+00:00): I'm not sure what else to call it. I uploaded my photo to https://pasteboard.co/O7iKcGvhVmvL.jpg which unfortunately does not show the surface as such very clearly because that was snowy at the time.
CurlingMan13 (2023-09-18 01:51:03+00:00): Please use better changeset comments.  What did you change and why?  Good changeset comments are important.  You can read more here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments#:~:text=A%20good%20changeset%20comment%20should,have%20edited%20on%20the%20map.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2023-09-09 15:44:38+00:00): Sería aún mejor si incluyeras el tipo de superficie de las carreteras ;)
HungarianVoyager (2023-09-09 15:23:32+00:00): Valószínűtlennek tartom azt az egy szakaszt aszfaltos borításúnak, ha a rész amihez kapcsolódik földút. (Az fel lett mérve)
Fizzie-DWG (2023-09-10 01:44:17+00:00): DWG revert:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141044781
csomerville (2023-09-10 10:11:38+00:00): There appears to be a few problems in this changeset:

1. Way #15116037 for Amanda Circle was deleted, looks like middle segment of this road was deleted recreating two end segments with no change in geometry. Imagery suggests road still exists in entirety though it possibly should be classified as a land access road.

2. There are a number of other driveways and land access roads that were deleted entirely that didn't quite have the geometry accurate but based on imagery likely still exists at least in part: 15094711, 15094951, 15095309, 15096147, 15097295,  15101351, and 15102108.
InfosReseaux (2023-09-09 20:57:12+00:00): Bonjour

OpenStreetMap est un projet collaboratif qui vise à rassembler des données de terrain, sourcées par des faits.
Les dénominations ajoutées aux tronçons routiers de la A69 ne correspondent pas à cette description.

Par cela, vous manquez de respect aux contributions précédentes de personnes bénévoles. Je souhaiterais que vous annuliez ces modifications pour restaurer les objets dans l'état dans lequel vous les avez trouvé s'il vous plaît.
Sinon, cela sera fait par d'autres contributeurs.

A l'avenir, il faudra s'abstenir. Les opinions des uns et des autres sur une multitude de projets n'interesse pas la communauté.
Andrea Musuruane (2023-09-26 17:19:50+00:00): Tutti questi bicycle=yes, foot=yes sono inutili perché sono già permessi sulle highway=track. Inoltre, il tag tracktype non ha alcuna attinenza alla mtb, ma è una caratteristica dell'highway=track: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141030386
aceman444 (2025-03-17 21:45:51+00:00): Zdravim, aky je zdroj?
Lepsi ako co som videl na mieste?
eggie (2023-09-09 18:48:30+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
elsy1 (2023-09-09 16:57:08+00:00): درود، فست فودی چه رلیشنی به خط اتوبوس رانی میتواند داشته باشد؟ ویرایش اشتباه شما برگشت داده شد لطفا در ثبت ویرایش دقت بفرمایید
SPalferro (2023-09-10 02:51:43+00:00): Hola, quería consultarte por unas vías que agregaste en este changeset y en https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/140874568.
- Por qué agregaste ciclovías como vías separadas a los costados de la RP1? Siendo que ya estaban mapeadas como un agregado al highway principal (porque no son vías separadas, son carriles juntos solamente divididos por una línea de pintura) y en algunas partes (como en la rotonda de acceso a Banda de Varela, cruce con la RP106) no existen porque el carril bici se corta abruptamente.
- Y también por qué agregaste una ciclovía que no existe: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1206414151 (en la realidad es una vereda que podría ir como highway=footway).
Saludos!
mcliquid (2023-09-11 14:27:46+00:00): Hi, bezüglich der Änderung der SAC-Skala hier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/129023299

Sind dort Stellen mit Seilen oder Ketten gesichert, braucht man die Hände für das Gleichgewicht und existieren dort Geröllflächen oder Stellen mit Absturzgefahr?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141032844
SomeoneElse (2023-09-10 10:26:47+00:00): Hello,
Andy from the DWG here.  Generally speaking, whenever it's been discussed, most people have preferred using multipolygons only when necessary (because an inner and and outer is needed, or because of way node limits).
If I am mapping in an area and adding new features I definitely would replace "unnecessary" multipolygons in this way.  
However, it makes sense to discuss the pros and cons of different sorts of mapping over at the forum https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/se/49 .  It's a shame that you didn't seem to make any attempt to do that, or even comment on a changeset, before this revert .
It'd be good to know what the benefits of the "multiple outer" approach is, and the forum is surely the best place to talk about that.
Best Regards,
Andy
cmbarba (2023-09-09 17:21:38+00:00): Source:
https://www.yorkgatemall.com/directory
AR_Mapper (2023-09-10 08:48:51+00:00): Reverted to avoid any potential copyright issue. Will be remapping without use of copyright material.
Langlaeufer (2023-09-10 20:24:52+00:00): Hallo Stefan,

du kannst ruhig oneway=yes auf Rad+Gehwegen setzen. Dann ist es auch in OSM-carto und im ID-Editor zu erkennen. Oneway wirkt nur auf Fahrzeuge und die einzigen Fahrzeuge auf einem Rad+Gehweg sind die Fahrräder.