piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
silversurfer83 (2026-04-19 19:10:41+00:00): Moin

auch wenn ich politisch mit dir sympathisiere ist diese Änderung trotzdem schon quasi Vandalismus und ich fänd es schade, wenn dein account plötzlich als unseriös dastehen würde.

Ich mach das mal wieder rückgängig.

Grüße und lass das bitte in Zukunft. Auch in anderen Regionen der Welt, wo es grad knallt, tolerieren wir dies nicht.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181476870
silversurfer83 (2026-04-19 19:13:49+00:00): revert in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181552197
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/181476870
JakovBušić (2026-04-20 20:04:54+00:00): Wrong hgv restriction that was made in this changeset was set right in 181599359. #OptimoRoute
iandees (2026-04-17 22:01:47+00:00): Hi! It looks like the website URL on way/1416925712 may have been copied from Google Maps (it contained Google tracking parameters). Please be careful not to copy information from Google into OpenStreetMap, as Google's data is copyrighted.
Валентин Ян (2026-04-19 10:32:20+00:00): Займайся вандалізмом у себе на болотах
Tomas09 (2026-04-17 21:50:58+00:00): Only 2-T974-7
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-04-22 21:52:15+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181692585 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some questionable and licence-incompatible changes; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20170
5m4u9 (2026-04-19 02:01:44+00:00): Hola, bienvenid@ al mapa y gracias por querer mejorar el mapa en Bolivia.

Lo que entiendo de lo que escribiste es, esta calle es de doble sentido norte-> sur y sur-> norte.... y justamente eso estaba marcado en el mapa.... oneway=no o es decir "no es un solo sentido".

En OSM no tenemos la opción específica de "doble sentido" si no asumimos que oneway=no es "doble sentido"... y oneway=yes sería de un sentido, pero dependiendo de cómo dibujaste la línea.

En fin, ya lo arreglé.
iandees (2026-04-17 22:02:01+00:00): Hi! It looks like the website URL on way/451281661 may have been copied from Google Maps (it contained Google tracking parameters). Please be careful not to copy information from Google into OpenStreetMap, as Google's data is copyrighted.
NeisBot (2026-04-17 22:09:43+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13738636574 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Negocio digital"
---
Por ejemplo, una versión más neutral y objetiva de tu texto podría ser: "Negocio digital"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisBot (2026-04-17 22:30:39+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 10 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1500399769 v1 | 8 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=181478758
NeisBot (2026-04-17 22:33:40+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 9 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1500463247 v1 | 9 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=181478822
iandees (2026-04-17 22:50:12+00:00): Hello! I noticed that node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1980158372 was moved a long distance in this changeset. This is a common mistake that happens when you click on a point and drag to move the map. The point moves with your mouse instead of the map.

I moved things back to where they were before in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181479266, so no harm done!

To avoid this in the future:
- Try to click on an empty part of the map when you want to move around
- If you see a point move by mistake, press Ctrl+Z (or Cmd+Z on Mac) to undo it

Happy mapping!
muralito (2026-04-18 03:51:13+00:00): Hi, Please do not blindly follow ID suggestions doing armchair mapping when you lack precise knowledge about the features you try to "fix", just do not try to fix what is not broken.
NeisBot (2026-04-17 22:51:44+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13738636574 v2

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Internet cafe"
---
Por ejemplo, una versión más neutral y objetiva de tu texto podría ser: "Café internet"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisBot (2026-04-17 23:03:40+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 7 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/638254202 v4 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/638254208 v5 | 3 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/6015574916 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=181479487
iandees (2026-04-17 23:11:16+00:00): Hello! I noticed that node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6015574916 was moved a long distance in this changeset. This is a common mistake that happens when you click on a point and drag to move the map. The point moves with your mouse instead of the map.

I moved things back to where they were before in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181479625, so no harm done!

To avoid this in the future:
- Try to click on an empty part of the map when you want to move around
- If you see a point move by mistake, press Ctrl+Z (or Cmd+Z on Mac) to undo it

Happy mapping!
Hypsometric (2026-04-17 23:26:40+00:00): Thanks for updating airports. Don't forget the leading zero (e.g. 01/19) when adding runway numbers. I added them for you on this runway. Have a good one!
Mxdanger (2026-05-14 06:09:06+00:00): The way (1500619936) you created with "How can drivers in the SR 57 Express Lanes access the rest of SR 57 (to the north of the SR 60–SR 57 interchange)?"

To answer that: CA 57 EXPR ends where it connects with CA 60 EXPR. It never joins back up with CA 57.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-05-14 13:19:35+00:00): Oh, okay...
HellMap (2026-04-18 10:22:58+00:00): Please fix all the incorrect fords you created.

Why is this ditch layer=1 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/155730973 ?
Herwescheluc (2026-04-19 14:33:02+00:00): Hallo, DrmedWurst,

bei diesem Änderungssatz ist wohl etwas schiefgelaufen, schau doch bitte mal hier: https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/de/map/#zoom=14&lat=50.67854&lon=8.30476&item=1230&level=1%2C2%2C3&loc=13/50.82092/8.18256

Kannst Du das bitte richten?

Grüße aus Herborn

Andreas
Herwescheluc (2026-04-20 06:38:04+00:00): Guten Morgen!

Wie ich erst jetzt sehe, hast Du Deine vorhergehenden Änderungen (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=181276839) offensichtlich einfach wiederholt (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=181479928). Dadurch sind praktisch alle Einträge doppelt vorhanden. Du solltest diese wieder entfernen und an der Ersteintragung den "Tunnell"-Fehler korrigieren.

Grüße
Andreas
DrmedWurst24513 (2026-04-20 10:59:08+00:00): Moin,

Danke für den Hinweis, das war unbeabsichtigt.
Habe das CS revertiert (hat das geklappt?) und korrigere den Rechtschreibfehler später noch mal.

LG
Herwescheluc (2026-04-20 15:54:17+00:00): Hallo nochmal,

scheint zu passen! Morgen zeigt OSMOSE dann, ob noch was zu tun ist.

Schönen Abend!

Andreas
HellMap (2026-04-18 10:21:27+00:00): Please fix all the incorrect fords you created. Several remain like https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13738824009.
NeisBot (2026-04-18 00:25:22+00:00): Hi Generalchaos, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 96% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 4 barrier(s)
- 51 highway(s)
- 1 man_made(s)
- 23 name(s)
- 23 surface(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=181480487
Generalchaos (2026-04-18 00:29:36+00:00): Good evening. This is an active military training and no public access is allowed, especially to the range areas. I have removed them as they are popping up in public use map. If I'm wrong in doing so, please correct me and reset it ( if possible). Thank you
woodpeck_repair (2026-04-18 08:36:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 181488300 where the changeset comment is: revert deletion of roads on military base - please use access tags instead
woodpeck (2026-04-18 08:40:50+00:00): Hello there, I have reverted this edit because we want even those roads in our data that have limited or no public access (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F). I notice that you have placed some "access=no" tags which was a good start, though if these are accessible to authorized personnel then "access=private" would have been a better choice.
Generalchaos (2026-04-18 18:05:14+00:00): Ok no problem, thank you. So if the road is marked access private the nodes won't show up on other public websites?
NeisBot (2026-04-18 00:36:24+00:00): 🌍 Bienvenida a OSM, Abigail Gómez Arcive.
Gracias por contribuir.

Para hacer que la colaboración sea más fácil y ayudar a los demás a entender tus ediciones, es mejor agregar una breve descripción de los cambios que hiciste. Los comentarios claros ayudan a la comunidad a seguir tu trabajo y a proporcionar mejores comentarios. Puedes encontrar consejos para escribir buenos comentarios aquí[1].

✅ Aquí hay un comentario de ejemplo basado en tus ediciones del mapa: "Agregué parque, detalles de dirección, incluyendo el nombre de la calle y la ubicación"
(Auto-translation)
---
🌍 Welcome to OSM, Abigail Gómez Arcive.
Thanks for contributing!

To make collaboration easier and help others understand your edits, it’s best to add a short description of the changes you made. Clear comments help the community follow your work and provide better feedback. You can find tips on writing good comments here[1].

✅ Here is a sample comment based on your map edits: "Added park, address details, including street name and location"
---
[1] https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

#HelpfulComment
NeisBot (2026-04-18 02:15:22+00:00): Hi Gabi malu, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 27 addr(s)
- 2 aeroway(s)
- 44 amenity(s)
- 3 barrier(s)
- 59 building(s)
- 2 craft(s)
- 14 highway(s)
- 5 landuse(s)
- 13 leisure(s)
- 3 man_made(s)
- 67 name(s)
- 2 natural(s)
- 2 power(s)
- 3 public_transport(s)
- 3 railway(s)
- 35 shop(s)
- 3 sport(s)
- 2 surface(s)
- 1 tourism(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=181481637
woodpeck (2026-04-18 08:43:14+00:00): This looks like an accident to me, reverting.
TrickyFoxy (2026-06-06 11:43:30+00:00): 👋 В правом меню редактора есть кнопка «Настройки фонового изображения». Выберите там спутниковые снимки ESRI — они свежее
get_ked (2026-06-07 05:24:36+00:00): Спасибо!
woodpeck (2026-04-18 12:04:05+00:00): Dear EverydayKnight, many of the "beaches" you added here look nothing like a beach on aerial imagery. Therefore I believe you are trying to game OSM to get an advantage at Pokemon Go. Don't add fake beaches; it won't help as the makers of Pokemon Go have anticipated this and are working off an older version of OSM data.
EverydayKnight (2026-05-05 16:40:58+00:00): A beach area is different than a swim beach. There are many areas in Southwest Denver that are beaches with sand that are not recommended for swimming. I live in the area, and the satellite imagery varies dramatically based on the rainy seasons.
ZeLonewolf (2026-05-06 22:02:29+00:00): Discussion link:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/beaches-in-denver-johnson-reservoir-chatfield-reservoir/143585
Pink Duck (2026-04-18 15:52:09+00:00): "addr:street"="Rawley Road. old people’s home" does not look valid Royal Mail line.
habi (2026-04-21 08:41:54+00:00): Tönt von der Webseite her eher wie eine Galerie oder ein Kunst-Laden, nicht?
kingkingHK (2026-04-18 04:55:01+00:00): > note=managed forest? scrub?

Iirc should be tree should on shrubbery, cf. the rest of Route 3 Country Park Section. I would change the area to `natural=scrub` or `natural=shrubbery` and draw a `natural=tree_row` line.

P.S. Castle Peak Road is 50+ km long. It would be very nice if you would specify at least which section you are editing, so that e.g. changesets at Lai Chi Kok wouldn't get the same comment as one at Yuen Long. (And you didn't do anything to CPR in this changeset?)
vectorial8192 (2026-04-18 10:38:41+00:00): It's thematically CPR.

I believe the changeset boundaries should give a good hint towards which area is affected. I do limit my changeset sizes. (Compare to e.g. China mega edits which has bounding box entering HK; imo just bad practice.)

It's basically "look at the road and see if anything can be improved, e.g. alignment, features, etc.". Way too generic, not even sure what to say.
vectorial8192 (2026-04-18 10:40:15+00:00): A quick look at the wiki suggests it's more "=scrub" than "=shrubbery".
kingkingHK (2026-04-18 11:10:35+00:00): Afaik there's no consensus whether to use `=scrub` or `=shrubbery` when it comes to managed scrubs. Remember the wiki can be edited by anyone.
ibanez (2026-04-19 08:14:08+00:00): Hallo,
die Tags deiner Änderung passen nicht zusammen. "fee" und "operator" weist auf einen Parkplatz und "leisure=park" auf eine Grünfläche. Schau dir bitte die entsprechenden Wikiartikel an: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:leisure%3Dpark
dieterdreist (2026-04-20 15:20:55+00:00): Ciao Gian Mario, ho notato che hai cancellato il Monte Valminiera e poi ricreato vicino, sarebbe stato meglio spostare il nodo esistente, perché altrimenti si perde lo storico.

Buona mappatura,
Martin
Gian Marco T (2026-04-21 13:12:49+00:00): Ciao, il Valminiera è stato aggiunto da me qualche giorno prima, non si è perso nulla :) grazie mille per la precisazione e buona mappatura anche a te!
dieterdreist (2026-04-21 13:28:06+00:00): Ciao, hai ragione, mi sono perso questo dettaglio, chiedo scusa :)
Ciao Martin
Gian Marco T (2026-04-21 17:10:36+00:00): Ma figurati, hai fatto bene comunque a farlo presente. Buona serata!
NeisBot (2026-04-18 05:42:48+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description, note or slogan contain 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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13739200296 v1

Could you please revise your text accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your text could be: "Office building"

#MapWithoutSpam
NeisBot (2026-04-18 06:06:40+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 9 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1204910280 v3 | 9 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/11166970802 v3

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=181484423
user_5359 (2026-04-29 10:16:45+00:00): Repair the mention problems from @NeisBot
pitscheplatsch (2026-04-29 10:20:19+00:00): Thanks for the correction @user_5359

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181980559
IvaKraljić (2026-04-18 06:31:42+00:00): The wrong split and tage have since been fixed in the changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/181485014. #OptimoRoute
user_5359 (2026-04-29 10:12:23+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please have a look on https://www.osm.org/node/1611083757, https://www.osm.org/node/1611083760. What is the mean of the tags
GIS code=P-110408 (did you mean ref?)
Jumper=No
?
woodpeck (2026-04-20 08:22:34+00:00): Dear Bibi Maryam,  this undiscussed and buggy import has been reverted. You must discuss any data imports with the community in advance. Had you done this, the community would have alerted you to many problems with your plan, such as duplicating existing roads, or that we don't want a "Street_ID" attribute in OSM, or a source attribute on every object. Please follow our rules on imports osm.wiki/Import if you want to import data into OSM.
superstition railway (2026-06-20 16:11:55+00:00): Please, don't change those Tsangpos into 'waterway=stream'. In Tibetan Tsangpo means river and I have been to many of them and I known that they can't be jumped across, so they should be 'waterway=river' according to the definition here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream. (Lungpa means stream or valley)
katpatuka (2026-06-22 07:52:54+00:00): Thanks for commenting...

I know that tsangpo (གཙང་པོ) means river but if the river is not very wide or has many small windings when looking at the imagery and possibly  allows me to even 'walk' through the waterway I tend to call it stream.

When looking on the map of Tibet I see some streams wrongly tagged as river - for example way 701096996 near 民玖玛社区.

But feel free to change the tag to river if you have the opinion that I've done wrong ;)

See alsö https://waterwaymap.org/#map=6.34/30.427/87.566
superstition railway (2026-06-23 02:09:07+00:00): Thank you for your reply.

However, I think it's easy to underestimate Tibetan rivers when looking at the imagery. I know many of these rivers are 5-10 meters wide and are impossible to walk through without risking one's life.

Please check the scale before making so many changes.
limes11 (2026-07-21 18:14:31+00:00): Hallo, 

woher stammt die Information, dass die Teilflächen ehemalige Naturschutzgebiete seien ?

Die Verordnung von 1935 spricht von zwei Naturschutzgebieten, nicht von einem mit zwei Teilflächen. Daher hatte ich diese nie vereinigt, sondern getrennt gelassen. 

Gibt es eine neue Verordnung für beide Fläche ?

Viele Grüße

Limes
surveyor54 (2026-07-22 07:23:24+00:00): Hallo,
wenn ich mir diese Links anschaue, komme ich zu dem Schluss, dass es ein NSG mit zwei Teilflächen ist.

https://berichte.naturschutz.rlp.de/oneo/nsg/NSG-7100-007

https://naturschutz.rlp.de/Dokumente/rvo/nsg/NSG-7100-007.pdf

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saukopf_und_Fichtekopf?uselang=de

Gruß
surveyor54
limes11 (2026-07-22 12:39:44+00:00): Hallo surveyor,

der erste Link ist tot. 

Die Verordnung ist der Hauptgrund, weshalb es zwei Naturschutzgebiete sind. Dort ist nicht - wie sonst üblich bei Naturschutzgebieten mit mehreren Teilflächen - von Teilflächen die Rede, in der Überschrift und im weiteren Verlauf wird explizit von zwei Naturschutzgebieten gesprochen. Diese Verordnung stammt von 1925, es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass die Gebiete zuvor einzeln als Naturschutzgebiete ausgezeichnet waren. Daher wird es eine Vereinigung nicht gegeben haben. 

Wikipedia ist kein offizielles Dokument. Natürlich liegt der Schluss 1x Verordnung - 1x NSG nah, aber die Verordnung gibt es in diesem Fall meines Erachtens nicht her. 

Viele Grüße
surveyor54 (2026-07-23 05:22:07+00:00): Hi,
gestern ging der Link noch, vielleicht ist der Server down.

Die beiden Flächen laufen  bei Ministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Energie und Mobilität Rheinland-Pfalz sowie in der WDPA-Datenbank unter einer Nummer, deshalb habe ich eine Relation angelegt. Wurde vielleicht intern zusammengelegt.

https://www.geoportal.rlp.de/spatial-objects/535/collections/ms:naturschutzgebiet/items/naturschutzgebiet.NSG-7100-007?f=html

https://www.protectedplanet.net/165334?site_pid=165334

Man könnte an die Flächen noch old_name taggen.

Viele Grüße
limes11 (2026-07-23 16:45:24+00:00): Ja, ich denke, dass für jede Verordnung eine ID erstellt wurde, daher wurden die Gebiete gemeinsam erfasst und finden sich in der Form in verwandten Datenbanken.
Ausschlaggebend ist der Verordnungstext, der von zwei getrennten Naturschutzgebieten spricht, nicht von einem mit zwei Teilflächen. Vermutlich wird man sich bei Formulierung der Verordnung, die weiter gültig ist, keine Gedanken über solche Probleme, die hundert Jahre später auftreten können, gemacht haben. 
Es ist streng genommen falsch, allerdings hat es auch nur einen beschränkten Mehrwert, von sämtlichen Digitalisierungswerken abzuweichen. Im Endeffekt liegt die Ursache primär darin, dass in RLP Verordnungen hoffnungslos veraltet sind. 

Lassen wir es so.

Viele Grüße, Limes
surveyor54 (2026-07-24 06:14:35+00:00): Ich werde vielleicht noch eine Erklärung ergänzen.

Viele Grüße
Syl (2026-04-18 20:17:24+00:00): Hello, I've reverted the deletion of the one-way road.
Abdullah Abdulrhman (2026-04-26 21:28:24+00:00): شكرا لك تمت إضافتها بالشكل الصحيح
NeisBot (2026-04-18 07:57:41+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

I noticed a few unintended crossings between roads and/or between roads and buildings in this changeset. This usually happens when geometry snaps incorrectly. Additionally, changes to tagging (e.g. modifying highway types or adding tags) can lead to unexpected crossings being detected afterwards.

In total, I detected 19 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1500654613 v1 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1500654612 v1 | 3 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1500654629 v1 | 3 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=181487133
pitscheplatsch (2026-04-18 10:35:29+00:00): In this case, it seems the reported issues are false positives. The geometries were not changed in a way that would introduce crossings, and the tagging adjustments did not create any new conflicts.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks again for your map edits.

Best regards,
Pascal
suzunote (2026-06-20 15:59:20+00:00): こんばんは、他の人に英語で指摘されてますが、これは誤検出ではなく途中の道路に対して歩道がうまく接続されていないようです
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1500654613
など
mappinglander (2026-04-18 12:38:46+00:00): Hocam merhaba, bunlari OpenHistoricalMap'e yukleseniz daha iyi olur cunku o tramvay hatlarinin yerinde yeller esiyor, buca veya seydikoy gibi degil. Iyi calismalar,