piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Bvonter23 (2024-01-17 19:13:51+00:00): And also we need to fully complete the Central Florida Beltway around Orlando and form a loop sure.
Bvonter23 (2024-01-18 22:31:00+00:00): Okay anyone please reply sure, WE NEED TO FULLY COMPLETE THIS F***KING BELTWAY AROUND ORLANDO!!!!! So i have the link above to that Reddit post and ANYONE WILL KNOW THAT!!!!!
Joseph R P (2024-01-19 17:22:45+00:00): A Reddit post isn't a sufficient enough source for verifying something like this. Do you know of an FDOT document or news article confirming the construction in this section? I was in this location back in October - after you made these edits - and do not recall noticing any sign of construction here.
Udarian (2024-01-19 18:10:33+00:00): I agree with Joseph R P here, I went through that Reddit post, it has no links to official FDOT pages, news articles or anything, I google what I think is every possible combination of terms to find this from the post and found nothing, I spent hours on that. It could be possible I missed it, but I highly doubt that. Bvonter23 since you obviously want this project to happen, contact your local and state officials and ask them to make this happen, until construction actually starts on something highway=construction is not appropriate. As I said in the post above OSM is a map of the real world and what we want doesn’t really matter unless it is being built in the real world. Again highway=construction is only for features actually being built, so until something is actually being built it doesn’t belong on OSM. 
Hope you have a good day.
Weathering (2023-09-25 02:06:33+00:00): 11:00 -> 17:00 정정
Kai Johnson (2023-09-25 03:00:58+00:00): Hi! Thanks for contributing information about your business to OSM. It looks like you got the node in the wrong place. It should probably be a few blocks north. Also, you might use the rest of the addr: schema to correctly tag the address. But, more importantly, the description value is not verifiable and looks like spam. If that can't be fixed, it should be removed. Let me know if you're able to correct it or if you need help!
Kai Johnson (2023-09-25 03:38:12+00:00): Also, it looks like this node is missing a primary tag. The address, description, and name aren't enough to map something on OSM. You also need to have a tag identifying the type of business.
TrickyFoxy (2024-09-26 21:17:55+00:00): Не вносите личные заметки в OSM. Для этого в приложении есть раздел Метки
Loop120 (2023-09-25 09:44:23+00:00): It looks like you removed some important tags here, like the German name of the memorial. Are you sure you meant to do that?
Necessarycoot72 (2023-09-25 18:40:08+00:00): Whoops. Fixed it. Seems like I copied my translation on accident. I still moved the name to the description though.
Warin61 (2023-11-03 00:04:08+00:00): Hi,
Ritches IGA relation is wrong. Multipolygon outer ways cannot share segments. 
See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=144.96378&lat=-35.52714&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

I would simply map the outside of the whole thing .. no need to divide it up into two bits. 

The same error has been made in two other relations - See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=144.95456&lat=-35.53222&zoom=16&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways
❤️‍🔥 (2023-09-26 18:21:00+00:00): Hey, in OSM a "bicycle route" is meant to be for long distance signposted routes, rather than a single path or road. check out https://osm.wiki/Tag:route=bicycle for more info. 

Maybe what you're looking for is `bicycle=yes`, which tells software that bikes are allowed on this path?
Sean_Linton_NZ (2023-10-04 20:52:31+00:00): Hey, thanks so much for your comment. We're trying to create routable network that can be used to add cycle functionality to the Metlink Journey Planner.
The guidance I've had at my end is perhaps it would be a more appropriate use of route=bicycle if we created named routes, and to create a new relation for each route. The issue being some parts of the route might be signposted and some parts not. For instance if I made a route "Velodrome to city Safe Cycle Route"
This is an example from Auckland of what we're trying to create in Wellington that I've been shown: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5547747
❤️‍🔥 (2023-10-05 02:55:40+00:00): Hey, thanks for the reply, what you've done so far with route=bicycle looks good, one thing to note is that there should be a single route-relation for the whole route, rather than many route-relations which each have one member.

If these routes have a name that's even better, but I don't think that's a strict requirement.

Another thing to keep in mind is that some navigation software doesn't allow bicycle along "footways" or "footpaths" because cycling on the footpath is illegal. The solution would be to add `bicycle=yes` or tag the path as a "Shared Path" if there is an explicit sign (e.g. https://osm.wiki/File:New_Zealand_road_sign_R4-11.svg ). 

In this case, the footbridge would ideally have `bicycle=yes` or be changed to a "Shared Path" if cycling is officially allowed. Otherwise some validation tools will flag this as an error, since a bicycle route can't include a path where bikes are banned
Frans S (2023-09-25 10:31:10+00:00): Thank you for mapping. You have correctly identified the location of most objects and mapped. 

Reminder: Please be sure to square all rectangular buildings with the Q key

Where clearly visible, add courtyards please.
This is how to map a building with courtyards.

 1   Draw the outer outline of the building as an area. Tag as a building
 2  Draw each of the inner courtyards/plazas as areas. Tag as needed, or not at all
 3  Hold 'SHIFT' and select all the areas
 4  Press 'C' to create a multipolygon with all the areas
 Best regards
Reviewed by a validator at random or as requested. 
FYI. Please view this video about common new mappers mistakes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs5wX592E1o&amp;t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltn1VOiq5_0
On this document you will find some hints and tricks which might help to improve your mapping skills
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Swwz-ZwM3_YOstqstsmCg1-lNAPbnMLpi1Al-h-2UOQ/edit
Best regards and keep mapping.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141710049
Ashok Thakulla (2023-12-06 18:43:58+00:00): Thank you for your kind suggestions I will apply these during the mapping.
Marek-M (2023-09-25 09:56:33+00:00): Hi, your edit looks wrong. New buildings not exists on newest ortophotomap. What is your source?
Vonter (2023-09-25 05:08:50+00:00): Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

Congrats on your first contribution to OpenStreetMap! If you’re interested in connecting with other mappers, do consider joining the regional OSM groups:

OSM Bengaluru

Telegram: https://telegram.me/OSM_BLR

Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/#OSM_BLR:matrix.org

OSM India

Telegram: https://telegram.me/OSMIndia

Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/#osm-in-general:matrix.org

Happy Mapping!
woodpeck (2023-09-28 09:44:35+00:00): Hallo lberges, immer wieder gibt es Rückfragen zu Deinen Edits, weil Deine Quellen unklar sind. In den Fällen, wo Du Quellen genannt hast, stellt sich oft heraus, dass ihre Verwendung für OSM unzulässig ist. Daher es es unabdingbar, dass Du bei Deinen Beiträgen die tatsächliche Quelle mit angibst, und man Dir das nicht erst alles aus der Nase ziehen muss. Hier zum Beispiel hast Du eine Stadtteilgrenze korrigiert - woher nimmst Du die Information dazu? Wohnst Du in Osnabrück? Hast Du auf irgendeiner Webseite nachgeschaut, wenn ja auf welcher? Sowas gehört in den "source" beim Hochladen und nicht erst in die Diskussion, wenn Dich jemand fragt.
troglobiont (2023-09-25 07:28:55+00:00): Hallo Blubegg,
für die Sichtbarkeit von Wegen wird trail_visibility anstelle von visibility verwendet. Dieser Tag wird auch schon von vielen Wanderkarten ausgewertet und angezeigt.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:trail_visibility

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:visibility
Blubegg (2023-09-25 08:37:26+00:00): Danke. Ich wusste es gibt was, aber habe keinen passenden Key gefunden.
olo81 (2023-10-18 18:37:19+00:00): nazwa opisowa, stare nazwy dajemy z tagiem old_name , zmieniłem
user_5359 (2023-09-27 06:23:39+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I remove your SEO SPAM entry (mostly foreign keys). Please have a look on https://wiki.osm.org
(Inactive) hayduke1275 (2023-10-02 21:15:49+00:00): Why did you remove the permissive tag on this lift gate. It accesses a shopping area making it permissive. According to the wiki permissive means the public can access it until the owner closes it (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access). I would also like to point out that the wiki states: "removal of correct tags, which were put by someone else, is a mistake (and is close to vandalism)."
(Inactive) hayduke1275 (2023-09-26 22:36:50+00:00): Why did you remove permissive from this barrier? This accesses a shopping area open to the public. The wiki states permissive means you can go through it until the owner closes it (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access).
GrabID_UmiZumroh (2023-09-27 05:22:47+00:00): Hi hayduke1275

For the access tag on the barrier that I removed, I have updated it (add access=permissive tag) according to your feedback.

Thank You.
(Inactive) hayduke1275 (2023-09-27 13:56:59+00:00): I am very curious as to why you have been consistently removing access tags from barriers that have been input correctly. What is the reason for this?
emersonveenstra (2023-10-07 13:48:22+00:00): Hi there,

Where are you seeing that the US:Urban maxspeed is 20mph? I don't see anywhere that is documented
mueschel (2023-09-26 08:59:38+00:00): Hi,
something went wrong here. You added more than 100 buildings with strange tags like "Building21 =Residetial21" . These should not be in OSM. Could you take a look and remove these strange tags?
(Inactive) hayduke1275 (2023-09-26 22:37:06+00:00): The ground imagery shows cars driving through so why would motorcycles not be allowed through? 
 https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-6.3822888999722&lng=106.93053949997&z=17&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=336161318640084&x=0.8686778653273659&y=0.48254772750201724&zoom=1.6946081637110377
GrabID_UmiZumroh (2023-09-27 05:10:32+00:00): Hi hayduke1275

I found a signboard with the information "Parkir Motor Masuk Pintu Berikutnya (the entrance for motorcycle is at the next entrance)". So I added the tag motorcycle=no on this node 7904334209.

Thank you.
Langlaeufer (2023-09-25 10:45:34+00:00): siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141714455
Langlaeufer (2023-09-25 12:24:22+00:00): mittlerweile ist hier gar kein Radweg mehr sondern Fußweg, mit Radverkehr frei
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141714455
Langlaeufer (2023-09-25 10:45:16+00:00): highway=path für gemeinsame Rad-und Fußwege war vollkommen o.k siehe: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141714498
ali-14 (2023-09-26 13:14:38+00:00): سلام، روز بخیر
طبق گزارشات کاربران مسیریاب نشان، این لاین مسدود و لاین مقابل آن مسیر جایگزین می باشد. 
درصورتی که شما این لاین رو access=no زدید و لاین مقابل که دوطرفه شده بود را یک طرفه کرده اید. همچنین highway این مسیر را پاک کرده اید که باعث می شود مسیریابی بطورکلی از این لاین انجام نشود.
grouper (2023-10-13 03:47:42+00:00): One edit and you rename a prominent road after a realtor? Nice. Obvious spam. Fixed.
ratrun (2023-09-25 15:13:09+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM,

can you please explain and improve your changes around https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1210497303? This tunnel and the connectivity to the existing ways do not make much sense. It seems that the newly created way should be oneways, but I doubt that it is possible to have a tunnel below of the roundabout, this does not make any sense to me.
Jesse-N22 (2023-09-26 06:35:03+00:00): There is a modification of the roundabout adding a tunnel under the roundabout. the satellite photo is not up to date. This is a change that came into force in July.
It doesn't make sense to us either. But the work was done like this.
ratrun (2023-09-27 17:39:47+00:00): Thanks! 
I now fixed the connectivity issues and added the (logical) oneway=yes tag, please re-check.
s777n (2024-05-03 10:09:51+00:00): Здравствуйте. А вы не подскажите откуда вы взяли название перевала?
s777n (2024-05-10 12:21:00+00:00): Ответа нет. Откатил.
solarisz (2023-10-09 14:56:53+00:00): Hi Almawiki,
das umfangreiche Löschen von Wegen und Knoten steht nicht im Einklang mit dem mapping-Konsenz der community, den ich hier von von verschiedene Seiten kennengelernt habe. Es gibt das Lebenszyklus-Prinzip: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Ist ein Weg kaum/nicht mehr zu erkennen, wird er als disused bzw. abandoned gekennzeichnet. Nun kann auf normalen Wege deine Änderung nicht mehr nachvollzogen werden. Auch falls ein Weg mal wieder erkennbar oder gar restauriert wird, kann er nicht einfach umgetaggt, sondern muss neu gemappt werden. Das ist m.E. ein Fall für einen revert.
Vg, Stefan
MKnight (2023-11-03 17:01:48+00:00): reverted
user_16178067 (2023-09-26 06:38:18+00:00): Ale w budowie jest tylko obwodnica Sztabina, te pozostałe fragmenty DK8 i obwodnica Białobrzegów są dopiero projektowane.
Strubbl (2023-09-26 21:53:11+00:00): Hi Re Ne, 
emergency=water_tank ist korrekt für eine Zisterne. An dem Objekt den Namen "Löschwasserbehälter 150 m³" zu setzen ist hingegen nicht korrekt. Damit werden nur Eigennamen kartiert. Dieser Text gehört in das Feld Beschreibung (description) oder ganz weggelassen, weil du durch emergency=water_tank und water_tank:volume=150 m³ genau dies schon zum Ausdruck bringst.

Viele Grüße
Re Ne (2023-09-27 06:31:34+00:00): Vielen dank habe ich jetzt bei allen Zisternen so umgesetzt.
JuanjoMC (2023-09-25 09:39:38+00:00): Hi,

the aerial imagery you used in this changeset is more than one year old and some works have been done here since then.
Here you can see the new situation as of September 2023: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?panos=true&lat=50.879971299999994&lng=4.3219329999999445&z=17.66803903824338&focus=photo&x=0.520094409639346&y=0.6153928906141957&zoom=0.9902912621359223&pKey=268722602701690&dateFrom=2023-07-01

Basically, a new pedrestrian bridge has been built, paralel to the railbridge. As a consequence, the stairs that you modified here has been rebuilt as well and are now paralel to the new bridge (as they were before you modified them), also, the hedge is not there anymore.

I've reverted this changeset as it does not reflect the current on the ground situation.

Cheers
user_2973170 (2023-10-24 10:17:47+00:00): the construction site is more like an unfinished building ruin. no construction was going on.

You also removed hedges and access ways. I didn't understand why. Now i see these reverrs were just collateral damage
JuanjoMC (2023-10-24 10:49:56+00:00): Hi,

'the construction site is more like an unfinished building ruin. no construction was going on.'

You are right, it looks like the construction stopped and the building was left in a semi finished state, but still, the site is there and it is fenced.

'You also removed hedges and access ways. I didn't understand why'

I removed the service way you added, entering the Atelier 34zero Muzeum small park because, if you look at Mapillary images, this way is now forbidden to motor vehicles (even if there are two cars parked there)

About the hedges, the one you had added next to the stairs is now gone. You are right that I removed one at the border of the park, along the sidewalk that is still there. I putted it back now.

https://osmcha.org/changesets/141717858/

Cheers
user_2973170 (2023-10-24 12:23:05+00:00): > I removed the service way you added, entering the Atelier 34zero Muzeum small park because, if you look at Mapillary images, this way is now forbidden to motor vehicles

possible, but it undoubtably exists. so it should be on the map. you can restrict access
JuanjoMC (2023-10-24 15:27:22+00:00): OK, added it as a footway with access=private

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143070851
user_2973170 (2023-10-24 15:28:54+00:00): thanks 🙏
bxl-forever (2023-09-25 07:58:31+00:00): Hello,

The construction site was added by a trusted user after a survey (and his survey is more recent than 2022 imagery provided by CIRB/CIBG).

Did you survey it yourself?  In that case, I presume there must be more changes: Is the new building finished?
JuanjoMC (2023-09-25 09:43:38+00:00): Hi,

the construction site is still there, it can be seen on mapillary images from this month, behind the blue fence.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?panos=true&lat=50.8802165&lng=4.3219003&z=17&focus=photo&x=0.8199674996668099&y=0.40358843397018057&zoom=0.9902912621359223&pKey=304704535542179&dateFrom=2023-07-01

I putted it back.

See also my comments on your other changeset here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141717858#map=19/50.88001/4.32195

Cheers
Warin61 (2023-10-16 02:05:23+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for adding these addressed .. but abbreviations should be expanded, in particular the addr:street should match the road name used in OSM including any capitalization. So Letitia st should be Letitia Street. That way the data matches when someone searches for it.
eggie (2023-09-25 08:55:57+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback In dat geval de uitzonderingen voor tweewielers ook verwijderen.

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2023-09-25 08:58:40+00:00): Alle verwijzingen naar oneway heb ik verwijderd.
Mapse
eggie
Michael Heemskerk (2023-09-25 12:24:59+00:00): Top, die had ik inderdaad over het hoofd gezien. Thanks voor de change!
Enock4seth (2023-09-25 11:05:13+00:00): Use stop along main route and remove https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5116037041 from relation
Henry572 (2023-09-25 17:59:36+00:00): Hallo pg@de,
Erstmal Willkommen bei OSM und Danke für Deine Bearbeitung.
Kann ich nachvollziehen und es sieht alles gut aus :-)
Ich hab noch am Gewerbegebiet https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/320091380 die Infos zum LANUV entfernt.
Gruß, Hendrik
user_5359 (2023-09-27 06:47:06+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on my correction of http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/289018615/history
Tomas_J (2023-09-27 19:47:31+00:00): Ahoj,
pozadoval si kontrolu tejto sady zmien - za mna: vyborna praca, bez pripomienok.
Tomas_J
eggie (2023-09-25 09:02:07+00:00): Oke... De BGT geeft dat ook aan. Probeer wel de adresnodes uniek te houden. Nu komt 1b 2x voor met verschillende postcodes?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-09-25 09:04:13+00:00): .. en verschillende straatnamen. Denk dus niet dat het hier klopt.
Alle adressen zijn import vanuit het Kadster.
De straatnaam Harmenjansweg staat nu op de De Koepel.
Владимир К (2023-10-05 19:47:23+00:00): Добрый день.
вы расставляете много лишних тегов на тропинках. теги доступа ставят, если есть соответствующие знаки. name=Лыжная трасса тоже не нужно, есть теги лыжни
eggie (2023-09-25 09:06:25+00:00): Het is essentieel dat de BAG adressen intact blijven.
De extra info kun je natuurlijk wel aanpassen.
De adresinfo bios klopt nu niet denk ik.
eggie (2023-09-25 09:11:11+00:00): Merkwaardig dat de homepage Harmenjansweg aangeeft?
Up to you 
https://filmkoepel.nl/?faf=today
lukask99 (2023-09-25 09:22:12+00:00): Homepage geeft zelfs Harmensjansweg 4! Maar op https://filmkoepel.nl/informatie/route/ staat Koepelplein 1b
Ik heb nu het adres aangepast naar Koepelplein 1b. Ik denk dat Koepelplein vrij recent is, en dat voorheen een algemeen adres Harmenjansweg werd gebruikt, tijdens de verbouwing
lukask99 (2023-09-25 09:31:28+00:00): Een goede les om alles goed te controleren :-)
Ik heb de Filmkoepel een bericht gestuurd
eggie (2023-09-25 11:37:52+00:00): 👍
dadavid (2024-05-15 11:56:04+00:00): Hi :) Danke fürs Hinzufügen der Adressen. Was war denn da deine Quelle? :)

Grüße

David
kapazao (2023-09-25 13:47:38+00:00): Hola, cuidado porque los criterios que se apliquen en otras comunidades pueden ser distintos. Las parroquias nada tienen que ver con lo que aquí estás haciendo.
Deberías revisar en la wiki de OSM el tema sobre relaciones administrativas, núcleos de población y zonas residenciales. No veo que lo estés tratando bien y estás complicándolo.
Un saludo
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141719860
dieghernan (2023-09-25 14:02:01+00:00): Hola kapazao, te he contactado en tu perfil de openstreetmap sobre esto
keepright! ler (2025-04-05 08:17:18+00:00): Bist du sicher, der Parkplatz https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/10339047 ist öffentlich (access=yes)?

Falls ja: Ändere bitte das Multipolygon und auch alle Parkplatzwege auf access=yes.

Falls nein, brauchst du nichts zu tun. Ich habe den Parkplatz auf access=customers (nur für Kunden) geändert.

Du kannst auch meinen Changeset diskutieren: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164539869
bxl-forever (2023-09-25 10:45:45+00:00): Hello, Bear-in-a-box,

I don’t want to have discouraging words and I know you’ve been doing efforts recently but I really had to tell you.  Please apply more care when drawing buildings.  Those 3 houses are contiguous, they should be properly joined.  Also, address nodes 108 and 110 were already on the map: do not add housenumbers to the house if the address already exists because that just creates unnecessary duplicates.

I fixed this one.
Kees 59 (2026-02-26 11:57:34+00:00): Het is lang geleden. Maar de muur (Way: 1030605185) om de storage tanks (Node: 11217401634, 11217401635, 11217401636) heeft in de note dat deze LN2 tanks beschermt. Echter de tanks hebben als content LNG, dat komt zo te zien niet overeen?
silversurfer83 (2023-11-28 21:41:52+00:00): Gude :)

deine Bitte um Rückmeldung ist zwar schon 2 Monate alt, ich will trotzdem noch was sagen, vielleicht wirst du ja wieder aktiver :)

Den Bürgersteig hier separat zu erfassen ist eine gute Idee, da im Bereich der Kurve eine Mauer zw. Bürgersteig und Straße vorhanden ist.
Der footway könnte dann noch "footway=sidewalk" vertragen und der Anschluss an die Straße im Westen dürfte gerne an der Stelle gesehen, wo auch die Hilfspflaster für Sehbehinderte ist. 

Details im Wiki unter
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Gehsteig

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/141720129
Portagoras (2023-11-28 22:30:30+00:00): Wie würde man das dann im Osten regeln, wenn der Fußweg nahtlos in den der Straße übergeht?
silversurfer83 (2023-11-29 07:57:25+00:00): Moin :)

im Osten passt das meiner Meinung nach so, wie du es gemacht hast.
Portagoras (2023-11-29 09:30:02+00:00): Alles klar, danke!
eggie (2023-09-25 12:16:40+00:00): Dag Kire.. Je vraagt feedback.. Lijkt me oke zo. 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-09-25 12:15:20+00:00): Dag Kire..
Je vraagt feedback  Volgens mij heb je de bosschages verwijderd.
Wellicht dat gras wat opschuiven naar links?
Ik gebruik als achtergrond PDOK actueel en PDOK latest 2023.
MVG
eggie