piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eggie (2024-11-21 19:07:58+00:00): Hier heb ik de speeltuin losgemaakt van de wegdelen. 
In principe geen wegdelen aan vlakken plakken. 
Groet
eggie
eggie (2024-11-21 19:12:55+00:00): Het fietspad Grote Kalverweide (voorgaande mapper) heb ik omgetagd naar residential. Er staan daar wel paaltjes, maar het is geen fietspad. 
.... en zo zit OSM vol met addertjes.
spaanse (2024-11-20 14:53:04+00:00): Your changeset broke walking and bicycle network relations. It looks like your intention was to move the nodes of the junction. In JOSM you can just do this by dragging them. Instead you deleted the nodes and added new ones. This caused a network node to be removed and made several route relations invalid: https://knooppuntnet.nl/en/analysis/changeset/159364537/6355575
dvdhoven (2024-11-20 15:26:50+00:00): Ik heb de changeset reverted. 
Iets teveel routes stuk om nog te gaan repareren.
En bovendien alles ligt hier goed, geen enkele reden om hier te gaan wijzigen of nog iets met kruispunten te gaan doen.
dvdhoven (2024-11-20 15:29:09+00:00): Nog een: If it ain't broken, don't fix it!
dvdhoven (2024-11-20 15:51:24+00:00): Bij nader inzien, toch gezien wat er mogelijk wel mis is, bij de Woerdsestraat is de oversteek geheel fietspad, dus van/naar de Woerdsestraat kun je niet met motorvoertuigen.
Dat omgebouwd naar unclassified+cycleway
SatishKhamkar (2024-11-21 17:32:58+00:00): Hi spaanse & dvdhoven,
Thank for the feedback and thank you for reverting the changeset.  I have learnt from my mistake and will pay closer attention when in similar situations going forward.
optimistic9 (2024-11-21 17:49:15+00:00): Hi spaanse & dvdhoven,
Thank for the feedback and thank you for reverting the changeset.  I have learnt from my mistake and will pay closer attention when in similar situations going forward.
quincylvania (2025-10-03 20:03:07+00:00): Hey there! I'm pretty sure all these `unclassified` streets in Ithaca should be `residential` based on OSM standards. What was your thinking here?
dypa (2024-12-05 14:08:25+00:00): какие ваши аргументы, что велодорожка прекратила свое существование?
Константин Гам (2024-12-05 15:32:30+00:00): А она там откуда? Есть фото? Я не нашел ни одного доказательства ее существования. Но на местности ещё не успел проверить
dypa (2024-12-05 16:34:44+00:00): Этот вопрос стоит адресовать представителям ЖК, а так же вопрос "где тротуар для пешеходов". Фото нет. Дорожка обозначена разметкой.
Константин Гам (2024-12-07 14:02:02+00:00): Разметка это не показатель, нарисовать на асфальте и я могу что угодно.
ВД здесь нет, документов не нашлось
dypa (2024-12-07 14:25:24+00:00): дорожный знак 4.4.1 нарисованный на асфальте уже не является показателем наличия велодорожки?

>ВД здесь нет, документов не нашлось
может быть стоит проверить на местности?
Константин Гам (2024-12-19 22:08:44+00:00): Вот именно, что на асфальте не рисуют "знаки", там разметка)
Знак должен быть на столбе и сам по себе он не обозначает велодорожку, а гласит "движение на велосипеде разрешено", если вы не знали. Велодорожка - сущность посложнее.

Сделайте запрос в местное ГИБДД и вы узнаете, что никакой ВД тут нет, не было и не будет. Ибо такие вещи требуют согласования. 
А на асфальте в рекламных целях многие ЖК рисуют всякое, стирается через пару лет и ладно, главное квартиру продать "с велодорожкой"... практики за годы, накопилось)
dypa (2024-12-22 11:20:38+00:00): >Сделайте запрос в местное ГИБДД и вы узнаете, что никакой ВД тут нет,
я могу увидеть копию ответа на ваш запрос?

а у вас есть доказательства существования в этом месте пешеходной дорожки? где вы увидели поребрик на местности разделяющий дорогу?
Константин Гам (2024-12-24 05:54:30+00:00): Можете перемапить в path, ему доказательств не надо
literan (2024-12-24 07:10:12+00:00): если дорожка обозначена разметкой на проезжей части, то это не велодорожка, а велополоса. Тегируется через теги на основной дороге. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:cycleway
Константин Гам (2024-12-24 12:10:18+00:00): Нет, не так. 
Знаком и разметкой из ГОСТа, а не просто Вася забулдыга нарисовал, который, а то у нас велополос весь Питер тогда...
Константин Гам (2024-12-24 12:11:53+00:00): Я первый отмечаю большинство велополос и дорожек в Питере, вы думаете мне жалко что ли? Я только рад, если бы она там была, но информация пока не нашла доказательств.
dypa (2024-12-24 19:58:46+00:00): >Можете перемапить в path
@Константин Гам там нет тропы на местности, лежит отличный асфальт. давайте уже сразу сочиним что там bridleway. я не понимаю логики вашего исправления cycleway → footway когда footway на местности отсутствует и пешеходы двигаются по всей дороге
Константин Гам (2025-01-03 09:04:44+00:00): На местности нет ничего из перечисленного выше, внезапно.
Футка из тартана, фото в архив положил, заодно и дальше прорисовал путь) успел до снега за сутки))))))
dypa (2025-01-11 11:37:11+00:00): Спасибо что все же побывали на местности.

>Футка из тартана
пешеходная дорожка не отделена поребриком от проезжей части мощенной плиткой, верно?
полосы размечены краской, верно?
дорожный знак 4.4.1 нарисованный на асфальте есть?
дорожный знак 4.4.1 на столбе нашли?
blef (2024-11-22 11:38:36+00:00): Bonjour,
je pense qu'il y a une erreur de localisation et/ou un mauvais choix d'attribut: il n'y a rien qui ressemble de près ou de loin à une aire de repos (rest_area) ici ou dans les environs immédiats. Je l'ai supprimée.
AurélienQ (2025-10-30 13:20:21+00:00): Bonjour,

Je ne vois aucun chantier sur les imageries Sentinelle les récentes. Es-tu sur que le chantier a démarré et que ce n'est pas au stade de projet ?

Aurélien
DomenicoCacace (2024-11-30 12:41:27+00:00): Ciao
Ho notato che ha cancellato dei dati perché, a detta sua, sono "insignificanti ai fini di mappatura e impeditivi ai fini della lettura".
Volevo ricordarle che OpenSteetMap è principalmente un database geografico, e che rimuovere dati corretti affiché un renderer crei una visualizzazione migliore è contrario alle best practices (come indicato qui: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_for_the_renderer), oltre che uno spreco del tempo altrui.
In caso ci siano elementi di disturbo nella visualizzazione della mappa, le consiglio di contattare l'autore del renderer da lei utilizzato, piuttosto che cancellare il lavoro altrui.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159366329
ivanbranco (2024-11-30 12:56:37+00:00): Ciao Fiero Brigante,

grazie per le modifiche. Mi trovo però d'accordo con Domenico: se una cosa esiste, può essere mappata. Per questo motivo procederò a ripristinare gli elementi cancellati. Bisogna sempre utilizzare estrema cautela prima di cancellare elementi dal database, é pur sempre il lavoro di altri utenti che hanno utilizzato prezioso tempo libero per contribuire.

grazie ancora e buon mapping
eggie (2024-11-20 15:57:44+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  In principe gebruiken we één adresnode om op bij te taggen.
Ook voor de vindbaarheid.
Ik heb wel de spatie uit de postcode gehaald conform osm format. 

MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Scout Jens (2025-11-25 15:36:52+00:00): Knotenverlauf: Flora incognita (12358139588) - ist das wirklich der Name? Es gibt eine App, die nennt sich so. Wäre ja lustig.
Günter-CW (2025-11-25 20:32:04+00:00): Auf der Tafel wird in der Tat auf die App "Flora Incognita" hingewiesen, sozusagen als Anregung, sie beim Wandern auf diesem Weg zu benutzen.
Kovoschiz (2024-11-20 14:42:40+00:00): 1. As mentioned before, please only edit names. Not delete directly. 
2. `highway=` and `natural=` or `waterway=` are separate features
Kovoschiz (2024-11-20 14:43:47+00:00): Please don't attach unrelated features to `highway=` roads. This doesn;t reflect reality, and make editing more difficult.
Kovoschiz (2024-11-20 14:48:41+00:00): 2. As mentioned before, please only edit names, not delete the features
martianfreeloader (2024-11-26 21:24:49+00:00): Hello and a belated welcome to openstreetmap!

It's nice towards other mappers if you comment your changesets in a way that others can understand what you are doing.
https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Happy mapping!
dgmapping (2024-11-20 17:34:21+00:00): Hi! It appears that official address for this building doesn't contain street name: https://xgis.maaamet.ee/adsavalik/ads?ads_oid=EE03782478

I run a monthly script that updates Estonian building addresses and it will probably move "Nihu tee" to tag old_addr:street as before: https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/249641518

I hope that's ok.
BCNorwich (2024-11-21 08:24:53+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.
Unfortunately, the highways you added are all duplicating existing highways, this could disrupt routing. I've removed all the duplicates.

If a mapped feature in OSM needs amending/correcting it's OSM best practice to amend/correct any existing feature. Not delete the existing feature  and remap and not simply duplicate the existing feature by mapping on top of it.

Regards Bernard.
pnorman (2024-12-20 05:07:45+00:00): This changeset created a town-sized building. I've gone ahead and reverted it, but did you create any other giant buildings in the area?
stfnjzfwcz (2024-12-20 09:55:01+00:00): If so it was accidental, so hopefully not. Apologies!
JassKurn (2024-11-20 19:06:35+00:00): Hi Nathan_A_RF,

You've removed the maxspeed:type=sign tag from a section of road.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23116304

The road has a 30 mph speed limit provided by signs (it's not lit). So according to UK mapping conventions it should have the maxspeed:type=sign tag.

It is missing the lit= tag.

I know the road and am happy to update some tagging along it. But want to hear you views first.
Nathan_A_RF (2024-11-20 19:21:40+00:00): If there are no street lights then yes please do include the tag lit=no. From my experience it can't be assumed that the road is lit or not depending on the maxspeed:type=sign or maxspeed:type=GB:nsl_restricted tags, as there are so many erroneous applications of these tags out there.
JassKurn (2024-11-20 19:51:40+00:00): Thanks,

Can you tell me what where your reasons for removing the maxspeed:type= sign ?

And onto a different subject. It is possible for a road to be OSM lit=yes, and not meet the legislative requirements for a UK NSL restricted speed limit. This really complicates things for mapping UK speed limits.
Nathan_A_RF (2024-11-20 19:58:42+00:00): Well, without the lit tag it cannot be determined if the maxspeed:type=sign designation is correct, so it makes sense to remove this tag pending the addition of a lit tag before a maxspeed:type tag. From my experience it's more likely a lit tag is correct than a maxspeed:type tag on a 30mph road.

And yes, technically the road can be lit, with the streetlights further than 183m apart, and not be under a 30mph speed limit, however it is impossible to tell without measuring the gaps between street lights. Large distances are unlikely to also warrant a lit=yes tag anyway. There is a village near me that has a few street lights on a 30mph road, and yet there are repeater signs so it does not qualify as a restricted road, so that's one way of telling.
JassKurn (2024-11-21 16:47:41+00:00): Hi, I've updated my tagging for this road. I have some knowledge of this road because of the issues it's having with drivers (or SatNavs) using it an alternative to the A3. There is a section that is NSL Restricted but I have not mapped as lit=no, because there is a very large gap between Street Lamps. The Highways Authority do consider NSL Restricted despite large gap in Street Lights, and can not make it a signed 30mph section.
JassKurn (2024-11-21 16:49:12+00:00): Sorry, error in response, and you can't edit. I should have said 
"There is a section that is NSL Restricted but I mapped as lit=no"
JassKurn (2024-11-21 16:52:38+00:00): And... I've also looked at some other edits you've made where you've removed maxpseed:type=sign. I strongly disagree with removing the maxspeed:type=sign, if the road is 30 mph and does not have a lit= tag.

This is a subject where OSM, or OSM UK community has provided a clear view on. I suggest bringing it up on the OSM UK Community Discussion webpage?
Nathan_A_RF (2024-11-21 20:00:17+00:00): Do you think it would be better to tag "lit=no" in such cases?
eggie (2024-11-20 15:59:34+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback   bicycle en foot=yes zijn default en hoef je niet op niet op fietspaden bij te taggen.
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
Steve5463 (2024-11-21 08:36:16+00:00): MB WhatsApp APK allows customization of themes, fonts, and chat backgrounds for a unique interface.  https://mbwatsapk.com/
tastrax (2024-11-21 05:51:10+00:00): Hi Rowan - I have removed the 1800 phone number from the payphone as that is not the number to call that phone. 1800 numbers for business etc are usually tagged using the phone:AU tag. There may be a special tag for the operator of a service (in this case the payphone) but its not one I readily know  (maybe phone:operator:AU??). For ease of reading its also OK to add spaces in the numbers but I know this can be difficult in some apps. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Phone_Numbers

Cheers
edvac (2024-11-23 21:07:28+00:00): Estimado/a Paulina_ch:

El comentario de todas tus ediciones es el mismo: "#hotosm-project-18099 #2024_COL_MapatónNacional"

Un comentario así no da información de qué exactamente estás haciendo. Si lo que haces es añadir unas casas o edificios, como es el caso de este conjunto de cambios, podrías añadir esa información y dejar el comentario así: "Añadidas varias casas en zona de El Carmen de Atrato #hotosm-project-18099 #2024_COL_MapatónNacional"

Puedes ver porqué esto es importante aquí: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Buenos_comentarios_en_conjuntos_de_cambios

Saludos cordiales,

Rafael Ávila Coya, en nombre del Data Working Group, Fundación OpenStreetMap.

Ticket#2024112010000333
mcliquid (2024-11-20 18:37:10+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
mcliquid (2024-11-20 18:37:17+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
highflyer74 (2024-11-20 16:36:58+00:00): Hallo nochmal!

Gern. Dann kannst du gleich Google von deiner Website werfen und OSM einbinden ;-)

Schönen Abend!
mcliquid (2024-11-20 18:37:27+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please note for the future: changesets should be local.

To avoid conflicts and as a courtesy to reviewers, it is recommended to:
• combine changes in a small geographical area (within a city, district or province)
• keep changes within the same country
• upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area

Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping!
silversurfer83 (2024-11-20 20:34:22+00:00): Another question:

according to your profile you've been blocked before for doing exactly what you are doing now.

Could you kindly link to the place where you discussed this?
Metzor (2024-11-21 19:58:49+00:00): Hi LLAQWA

What is the reason to nice "multiple" from the jey trees to the key description?

Best regards
Metzor
marczoutendijk (2024-11-22 14:04:51+00:00): Hello LLAQWA,
Recently, but also in the past, other mappers  have asked you questions on your changesets, but you almost never answer those questions!
Could you start doing so now?
Here is an overview:
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=77114

Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
Filip009 (2024-11-21 14:34:46+00:00): Zdravím, aký je zdroj cyklotrás?
Fifco1 (2024-11-21 14:53:48+00:00): Dobrý deň, čerpal som zo zdroja https://nr.cykloportal.sk/cyklotrasy-na-mape/
Filip009 (2024-11-21 15:01:56+00:00): SCK je dosť proti tomu aby sme čerpali cyklotrasy z ich stránky. Čiže do budúcnosti odporúčam trasu reálne prejsť a až na základe dát z terénu cyklotrasy pridávať. Takto sú porušené autorské práva na stránke cykloklubu a zmeny môžu byť vrátené.
Fifco1 (2024-11-21 17:21:39+00:00): V poriadku, ďakujem za upozornenie.
eggie (2024-11-26 07:46:31+00:00): Dag spughetti... Wanneer je bankjes verwijdert en vervangt door lijnelementen zal het allemaal niet meer renderen.
Ik heb 'm'n' bankjes teruggeplaatst.
MVG
eggie
spughetti (2024-11-26 18:13:24+00:00): Isgoed, ik zal ze binnenkort even opmeten om het detail te behouden.
eggie (2024-11-26 18:17:10+00:00): ..Hoi... ik had overigens jouw tags weer overgenomen naar de nodes.
Groet..
eggie
Roydon Olive (2024-11-21 04:23:36+00:00): Hi, I reverted the deletion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1319575731 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1319575732 because those do indeed exist. They were created this summer so they don't appear on any satellite images yet.
mf8s003j (2024-11-21 16:58:58+00:00): Hey, thank you so much for catching that!
skyper (2024-11-22 15:54:40+00:00): Hallo kaesepuzzler,
willkommen bei OSM. Super, dass Du mit hilfst die Daten zu verbessern.
Das Löschen von Wegen in OSM wird häufig diskutiert und insbesondere, da es Deine erste Änderungen ist, frage ich hier noch mal nach.
Du schreibst, dass der Weg nicht existiert und dass es sich um eine betriebsinterne Verbindung handelt. Diese Aussage beinhaltet für mich einen Widerspruch.
Falls der Weg existiert, jedoch nur eingeschränkt benutzt werden darf haben wir dafür Möglichkeiten dies darzustellen, siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:access. Grundsätzlich tragen wir auch private Weg ein (selbst in Sperrgebieten).
Falls der Weg wirklich nicht mehr existiert, ist es meist sinnvoller, anstatt zu löschen, dies mit Lebenszykluspräfixen darzustellen (z.B. `abandoned:highway=service`), siehe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Lifecycle_prefix. Dies verhindert u.a., dass der Weg von einer anderen Person anhand Luftbildern erneut eingezeichnet wird.

Ich war mal so frei und habe den Weg (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/204711724) in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159464525 wieder hergestellt.

Weiter Fragen, kannst Du gerne hier als Kommentar, per OSM-Mail oder auch im Forum (https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/de/56) stellen.

Viele Grüße und weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen,
skyper
kaesepuzzler (2024-11-23 12:46:02+00:00): Hallo skyper,
vielen Dank für die Infos. Als blutiger Anfänger wusste ich von den detaillierten Regeln bislang nichts. Der Weg existiert nach wie vor, das Firmengelände ist aber eingezäunt bzw. durch ein Tor gesichert. Demnach müsste nun ein "access=no" gesetzt werden. Mal schauen, ob ich das hinbekomme. Mir ging es vor allem darum, dass Routenplaner diese Option ausschliessen. 
Gruss, Kaesepuzzler
skyper (2024-11-24 14:04:06+00:00): Hi Kaesepuzzler,
den Zaun (`barrier=fence`) als Linie und das Tor (`barrier=gate`) als Punkt auf dem Weg kannst Du eintragen. Bei Tor kommt dann ein `access=*` hinzu. Für mich klingt das nach `access=private` für das Tor und auch für den Weg, wobei schon das Tor ausreichen sollte, um den Weg als Durchgang beim Routen auszuschließen. Allerdings brauchen die Router meist einige Zeit (je nach Router Stunden, Tage oder auch Monate), bis sie die aktualisierten Daten auch berücksichtigen.
Wenn Du das so selbst hinbekommst ist es toll.

LG, skyper
MarinoBM (2024-11-21 20:21:29+00:00): Hola nig82: no es correcto poner una manzana completa como un solo edificio.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61598551
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61672220#map=18/41.649042/-4.727195
Primero hay que mapear los edificios de las distintas propiedades  para luego, a estos, añadirles los building:parts.
Revisa tus ediciones y si tienes dudas puedes consultarlas

https://t.me/osmcyl

Un saludo.
Marek-M (2024-11-22 19:05:27+00:00): Cześć, taka droga, którą dodałeś w OSM określamy drogą dojazdową i nie powinna mieć nazwy. Dodatkowo ograniczenie prędkości raczej na takiej drodze nie jest ustalone.

Poprawiłem tagowanie na poniższe:
```
highway=service
service=driveway
```
Syl (2024-11-20 17:16:20+00:00): Bonjour, vous avez enlevé que ce nœud est un parking vélo mais en laissant le reste des informations : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1747406108
Il n'existe plus ?
flohoff (2024-11-29 12:15:16+00:00): Hi,
so als hint - Nur weil irgendjemand möchte entfernen wir nichts bei OSM.

Wir entfernen dinge die defakto vor Ort nicht mehr existieren.

D.h. Wanderwege werden dann entfernt wenn die Markierungen vor Ort weg sind. Nicht vorher.

Und häufig ist es besser dinge nicht zu löschen sondern als  disused/abandones/razed zu markieren.

Es kommt sonst vor das der nächste Mapper eine markierung findet und das direkt wieder einträgt weil es ja bei OSM Fehlt.

Hier die seite für die sog. Lifecycle tags:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

Flo
Rumburak57 (2024-11-29 18:22:32+00:00): Hi Flo, danke für die Info. In diesem Fall wurde der Weg von der Stadt nie markiert. Ebenso wie der Wanderweg A2.
VG, Wolfgang
Dimitar155 (2024-11-24 20:02:29+00:00): Ако действително магазина е вакантен, бих премахнал останалите тагове. Иначе става малко объркващо.
Fraxi (2024-11-25 09:55:37+00:00): Готово
Dimitar155 (2024-11-25 19:38:15+00:00): check_date-а можеше да остане. Имах предвид таговете, които се отнасят до стария обект, но както и да е.
Fraxi (2024-11-26 10:50:26+00:00): Върнах check_date. Необмислено съм го изтрил с останалите тагове.
KarlaIbrahić (2024-11-20 18:42:42+00:00): Reverted because node was created. #OptimoRoute
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159380159
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159375152
SomeoneElse (2024-11-25 10:51:39+00:00): Hello,
I wonder if you can help.  The relations https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9242266#map=16/51.23216/-2.32587 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/192467#map=15/51.22876/-2.32977 seem to be used for different parts of the same cycleway link in Frome - I'm guessing that it's not supposed to be link that?
Best Regards,
Andy
Andy James 93 (2024-11-25 21:14:28+00:00): Hi Andy, are you referring to the very small length of this at Nunney Road and Selwood Road? If so, then no, you are correct. Andy
SomeoneElse (2024-11-25 21:58:59+00:00): OK - now done - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/192467#map=14/51.23258/-2.33116 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9242266#map=15/51.23172/-2.32174 .  Does that look OK now?
Andy James 93 (2024-11-25 22:02:52+00:00): That does yes, thanks!
RedAuburn (2024-11-20 16:59:35+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4522512
KarlaIbrahić (2024-11-20 18:49:28+00:00): Reverted because node was created. #OptimoRoute
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159380452
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159375368
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-06 04:20:39+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164574226
RedAuburn (2024-11-20 17:12:21+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4521506