piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Tomas_J (2023-10-05 21:37:42+00:00): Ahoj,

pozadoval si skontrolovat tvoju sadu zmien. 

Zial, v tvojej uprave je viac problemov na ktore ta upozornoval editor pred ulozenim. Su to napriklad zeleznicna trat vedena cez domy, porusena geometria, zeleznicna trat vedena cez inu trat bez napojenia na nu... Zoznam varovani je nizsie. 

Dalsie chyby su namatkovo napriklad u tejto zeleznicnej trate ktoru si upravoval: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/380360641. Vedenie trate sa nezhoduje s ortofotomapou SR a trat si spojil s hranicou rezidencneho uzemia (landuse=residential). Su to rozne typy objektov, ktore by logicky spojene byt nemali.  

Zoznam chyb z editora:
resolved:outdated_tags:noncanonical_brand	1
review_requested	yes
warnings:crossing_ways:building-building	2
warnings:crossing_ways:building-railway	1
warnings:crossing_ways:railway-railway	1
warnings:mismatched_geometry:area_as_vertex	1
warnings:mismatched_geometry:unclosed_multipolygon_part	1

Skus, prosim, nabuduce upravovat mensi pocet objektov v jednej sade zmien a ak mas pochybnosti, napis o pomoc do skupiny https://groups.google.com/g/osm_sk.

Tomas
streckenkundler (2023-10-02 19:10:03+00:00): Hei,

wie ich sehe, sind das neue Straßennamen, richtig? Ansonsten müssten wir mit bereits eventuell erfassten Andressen aufpassen.

Danke,

Sven
Kompass1 (2023-10-02 20:43:14+00:00): Jau, die Straßennamen sind neu von der Stadtverordnetenversammlung in Cottbus festgelegt. Wurde veröffentlicht im Amtsblatt 17/2023 auf S. 2 und entsprechend dem Bebauungsplan eingetragen. Mal schauen, wann die dann wirklich gebaut werden.
silversurfer83 (2023-10-02 19:06:56+00:00): Hallo und willkommen bei OpenStreetMap :)

du hast darum gebeten, dass sich jemand diese Änderung ansieht, ich mach das mal:

Sieht gut aus 👍
Wenn ich eine Sache verbessern würde, dann folgendes: Dein Kommentar ist quasi die Quellenangabe (selbst gesehen heißt hier bei OSM einfach kurz auf englisch "survey") und in den Kommentar könnte dann sowas wie "Rettungspunkt erfasst". Aber das ist nur ne Kleinigkeit. Wie gesagt: Der Punkt selbst sieht ziemlich gut aus.

Bei Fragen immer raus damit

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142051390
harahu (2023-10-02 19:40:43+00:00): Hei oarn,

Grunneier har i utgangspunktet ikke noe rett til å kreve at en parkeringsplass ikke skal vises i OSM. Så lenge det er en parkeringsplass skal den også få lov å vises i kartet, uavhengig av grunneiers ønske.

At det er en privat parkering kan tydeliggjøres med tagging, som det var gjort i dette tilfellet. Jeg må derfor revertere denne endringen.
NorthCrab_upload (2023-10-02 18:20:28+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10967558536
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/953187876

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
erickdeoliveiraleal (2023-10-20 23:21:26+00:00): revertido. usuário excluiu a forma da rotatoria.
BCNorwich (2023-10-04 08:07:20+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Lots of inadvertent mistakes in your mapping here, I've made many amendments as this is easier than trying to explain them all.

Please look at the "Tips for new mappers coming from Pokémon Go" here:- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tips_for_new_(Pokemon_Go)_mappers     Also please take a look at the many pages of mapping help, if in doubt ask or look at how similar objects are mapped.

Regards Bernard.
Colin Smale (2023-10-02 18:51:14+00:00): Please revert this. The underlying admin_level=6 areas should not be boundary=administrative - they were recently changed in error. Once again you have made an "error message" go away without actually fixing the problem correctly.... Please be more careful. This lowers the data quality, not improves.
user_177389 (2023-10-02 19:46:56+00:00): done
bxl-forever (2023-10-02 18:48:55+00:00): J'ai changé votre édition en ceci :

description=Chestnuts
description:fr=Châtaigner

Trees do not have *names*.
Famlam (2023-10-28 14:50:59+00:00): Deels gerevert, dit is niet anders dan het stukje serviceweg tussen een doorgaande weg en een fietspad: het doel van die weg is hoofdzakelijk toegang verschaffen.
Iemand anders heeft dat op de wiki al verduidelijkt, en de door jou verkeerd geïnterpreteerde tekst daarbij verwijderd.

Zie ook het eerste voorbeeld op de door jou aangehaalde wikipagina van service. Het kleine stukje tussen fietspad en weg is geen doorgaande weg.
bxl-forever (2023-10-02 20:36:26+00:00): Hello,

Names and tags of ICR/GFR cycle relations should not be changed without prior discussion, as several third-party services depend on them.  For a first, Brussels is a bilingual Region and names must honour this rule.
The change into ncn seem very dubious too.

Other mappers are trying to contact you.  For a first, please pause any further change of the Brussels bicycle network.  We opened a topic on the OpenStreetMap BE Matrix channel, this might be the best place to discuss tagging standards.

Thanks in advance.
CurlingMan13 (2023-11-21 03:23:57+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142052988
eggie (2023-10-02 19:41:56+00:00): Waarom oneway	no
oneway:bicycle	no
oneway:mofa	no
oneway:moped	no

Dit kan allemaal weg..want oneway=no is default op wegen.. en de rest van die accesstags zijn de uitzonderingen voor tweewielers op oneway=yes?
Dus nog even kijken.
accesstagging is echt lastig in het begin.
Er zitten overal haken en ogen aan.
mapse
eggie
eggie (2023-10-02 19:42:08+00:00): Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=142053469
eggie (2023-10-02 19:43:24+00:00): Wanneer het eenrichting is dan dus wel
oneway	yes	
oneway:bicycle	no	
oneway:mofa	no	
oneway:moped	no
Máttias (2023-10-03 07:17:03+00:00): Bedankt Eggie! Fijn die tips. Ik kan je helemaal volgen. Ik ga er naar kijken en het aanpassen.
felipeeugenio (2023-10-02 21:28:50+00:00): Hola.
Gracias por sus ediciones.
varios temas:
1) no toda área verde es parque. 
2) está agregando parques que contienen edificios completos dentro. Ya corregí todo eso en la mañana en su primera edición, ahora lo hizo otra vez. Es evidente que esos edificios no son parques.
3) Hay una manera en la que escribimos, por favor usar mayúsculas y tildes cuando corresponda.

Además agregó grass donde todo parece indicar que no hay pasto.

Todo parece indicar que necesita parques para jugar a algún juego. Es así? Por favor cuidado con sus ediciones. Cuidemos el trabajo de todos.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142053509
NorthCrab_upload (2023-10-02 19:20:28+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2208805202
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1212598683

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
gscholz (2023-11-11 08:13:36+00:00): Hi muecke73,
this changeset has destroyed the boundary relation of "São Caetano":

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-51.91003&lat=-29.38588&zoom=14&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

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=142053572

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7942780/history

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
fititnt (2023-12-13 22:15:43+00:00): This is not a generic relation, but an administrative division. That's bad :(

The organized editing destroyed an administrative division (by the way, documented with IBGE code and with Census population) and none of the organizers fixed (despite this project be "100% validated").

Thank @gscholz for helping with this. But problems like this should not happen in the future in this region in any future organized editing.
EvertonBortolini (2023-12-20 04:36:46+00:00): Thanks @gscholz for solving this mapping problem!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142053572
eggie (2023-10-02 19:39:56+00:00): Dag Máttias.. Maak de eindnodes van die tunneltjes vast aan de gebouwomtrek.
De juiste tag voor dit soort tunneltjes is
tunnel=building_passage

Wanneer iets oneway=no is dan horen de uitzonderingen van tweewielers  op oneway=yes ook niet getagd te worden. 

Kijk je nog even?

Mapse
eggie
kapazao (2023-10-03 15:45:18+00:00): Hi, excuse me but addition of elements as forests in that way is not acceptable.
The geometry is really poor and should be fixed adjusted to aerial imagery and reality. The forest covers others elements and other editors will need to fix your editions.
We have had problems in the past with elements made as this and we have removed a lot of them to try to create them in a good way.
I hope you can fix it.
Regards
Pieter Vander Vennet (2024-09-25 11:19:07+00:00): Hi, you removed the 'start_date' here. Why?
nivaOne (2024-10-09 07:04:13+00:00): Hi Pieter, I can't remember why. I believe the date did not match some press articles which indicated various other dates. Feel free to put it back. 
Is it used in Mapcomplete (some filters?) Not sure what it's value is? 
N.
jleedev (2023-10-02 23:45:39+00:00): Reason for deleting these?
jleedev (2023-10-03 20:22:52+00:00): Reverted in 142117162
fititnt (2023-12-13 21:46:55+00:00): Olá muecke73. Qual a fonte de amenity=fuel https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1212603404 ? Pode explicar como consegue apenas usando imagem aérea deduzir algo como isto nessa região?
mavl (2023-10-03 14:20:29+00:00): Здравствуйте. Этот пакет правок удаляет адресные теги. Удалённые теги восстановлены.
Grass-snake (2023-10-03 16:57:11+00:00): Хорошо
zlyisalat (2023-11-27 13:58:03+00:00): Do you have any proofs this path exists?
Барвінок (2023-11-28 10:09:49+00:00): На яких даних нанесли цей путівець?
Dodko (2024-01-23 21:03:14+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23947901/history
Prečo ste vymazali amenity=funeral_hall?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aamenity%3Dfuneral_hall
Matthew Hostak (2024-01-23 21:11:19+00:00): Zdravim, v skratke: lebo som to zle pochopil. Akurat to opravujem, len to robim po castiach. Bernolakovo bolo na plane akurat zajtra zhodou okolnosti.
CurlingMan13 (2023-11-21 03:18:08+00:00): Please review this:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

You are overlapping landcover, which is not allowed on OSM.  I have cleaned it up here.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142055131
eggie (2023-10-02 20:50:05+00:00): Dag Robert.. 
Zou heel goed kunnen...maarrrrrr... 
Is er wel een fietsverbod of is het een eigen interpretatie? 
Welk bord staat er vooraan. 

Waarom alleen de brug met bicycle=no getagd? 
MVG
eggie
Robert867 (2023-10-02 21:27:51+00:00): Goedenavond Eggie,

Dank voor je reactie, iets meer motivatie en 'bewijs' is wel handig ja, haha.

Het bruggetje is hier te zien, als je goed kijkt zie je ook het bordje van klompenpad: 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.212396699972&lng=5.5045564&z=17&pKey=1103578413896734&focus=photo

Het pad er achter is denk ik ook een voetpad, maar dat heb ik verder niet bekeken.

Groet Robert
eggie (2023-10-02 22:05:49+00:00): Oke Robert..
Lijkt me ook wel handig als het hier niet routeert voor fietsers.
Mapse..
eggie
Frans S (2023-10-03 08:28:26+00:00): We welcome you as a new mapper.
Thanks for your contribution to this project.
This changeset is reviewed by a Global Validator to check that the tasks has been mapped in accordance with the quality standards of HOTOSM. 
We cannot expect from a new mapper that he/she delivers  high quality mappings from the start, so we offer some guidance.
Please pay attention to next summarized issues. (see attached document with examples for more info)
A: Inaccurate mapped. 
C: Collecting multiple buildings and mapping them as 1 building.
D: Connecting nodes of buildings to other buildings or features like roads and residential areas.
H: A courtyard or a clearing not mapped into a building.
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/142055301
wireguy (2023-10-20 13:21:29+00:00): Brittt, welcome to osm.   Be careful what you delete.  fixed two broken boundaries.
kapazao (2023-10-03 15:59:07+00:00): Hi, please use a better zoom with PNOA imagery to edit elements in a good way with realistic geometry and use proper tags or I will need to revert your changes and report your editions.
You have more than 13000 edits to know how to map and understand what I am telling you.
Regards
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142055470
Baloo Uriza (2024-11-26 22:54:44+00:00): Is the housenumber a range?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142055636
oarn (2023-10-02 20:31:26+00:00): Nei nå får du gi deg, da får du markere parkeringsplasser alle andre steder også!!!!
harahu (2023-10-02 20:48:19+00:00): Hva som er kartlagt og ikke andre steder er irrelevant. Om jeg ikke alt hadde gjort det skulle jeg selvsagt invitert deg til å kartlegge min egen parkeringsplass. Og du står selvsagt også fritt til å kartlegge dine naboers parkeringsplasser. Men slette korrekt innhold i OSM, det gjør man bare ikke.
bjorkegeek (2023-10-04 09:18:27+00:00): What is the purpose and source of these huge changesets? I see changes in this and similar changesets that are just plain wrong, on my own property. I could fix them, but I'm afraid these huge bulldozer-style changesets will overwrite my data again.
riiga (2023-10-04 15:52:30+00:00): The purpose is mainly to improve the geometry of the buildings. If there are errors or mistakes, let me know more in detail which changes are wrong and I can try to revert them. This changeset might look huge, but I mainly work a few city blocks at a time.
bjorkegeek (2023-10-04 19:32:55+00:00): It changed the road https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1202016617 from footpath into a driveway. You cannot possibly get a car through there.
riiga (2023-10-04 20:00:03+00:00): Then by all means go ahead and correct my mistake, or if you don't want to, I'll fix it the next time I make more edits in the area.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-02-08 01:47:22+00:00): What is the usefulness of having this relation? To me it seems like unnecessary complexity for maintenance etc..
Minh Nguyen (2024-02-08 02:07:03+00:00): This roundabout cannot be represented by a single closed way because of the routes that traverse it only partially. Including the entire roundabout in one of these routes would inaccurately indicate a loop (and also cause some editors to scramble the member order). Since there’s still only one roundabout despite the multiple ways, I’ve added the ways to a junction relation. Junction relations haven’t been documented formally, but there are a few proposals related to it, including https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Junction

In theory, a data consumer could use a junction relation to more reliably determine the extent of the junction, but I figured there isn’t any harm in keeping this relation around even if it isn’t actively being used. I’m curious what you’re referring to in terms of complexity and maintenance – did something change about this roundabout that required a change?
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-02-14 00:36:15+00:00): In my opinion this is essentially duplicate data especially since the major routers on OSM work perfectly without it. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
Since it was proposed in 2007 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Junctions and only has 1400 uses I don't think it'll ever see any usefulness. In terms of complexity any data with relations involved is generally more work to maintain.
Minh Nguyen (2024-02-14 01:28:15+00:00): I would concede that a junction relation is inessential for a minor, unnamed roundabout such as this. However, I don’t think this mapping style is completely superfluous.

Again, the only reason I bothered creating a relation here is that I had to split the closed way into five ways for accurate routing. It’s already difficult enough to convince mappers of the need to split these nice round ways into little pieces; the ability to group them back together as *one feature* provides a little consolation. Thus, a junction relation is recommended for complex roundabouts like turbo roundabouts. [1]

Furthermore, many roundabouts have an identity of their own. Without a relation, I guess the alternative would be something like roundabout:name=*, roundabout:ref=*, roundabout:wikipedia=*, and so on. If the “one feature” principle really applies in this case, then we should really be having this discussion about man_made=bridge and man_made=tunnel.

I agree with you that relations come with some maintenance overhead in general, but unless you can explain how you were personally inconvenienced by this relation, I think we have much bigger fish to fry. There are still plenty of “route” relations representing non-routes, and right here at this very intersection are some examples of unnamed informal landuse areas that we no longer glue to roadways as a rule.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/2603707#How_to_get_accurate_geometry
silversurfer83 (2023-10-03 15:06:01+00:00): Moin,

Warum hast du denn
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/49989477
gelöscht? Das aktuelle Luftbild gibt dort einen Weg her.

Grüße
silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142055878
Cowboy79 (2023-10-05 12:52:58+00:00): Habe den Weg nicht gelöscht, sondern verlegt und zugehörige Tags korrigiert. Dort verlaufen zwei parallele Wege. Eigentlich könnten dort noch viele genauere und weitere Tags vergeben werden.
Gazer75 (2023-10-02 20:38:49+00:00): Du kan jo berre fortsette å slette så kjem du raskare til å bli blokkert...
Du eig ikkje kartet og data i dette. OSM har hage og vegar og parkering som er private andre plassar. Så lenge ting er tagga på rett måte så har du ingen rett til å fjerne.
Marek-M (2023-10-03 06:48:11+00:00): Dla wielu dróg zezwalanie dostępu dla rowerów, pieszych jest zbędne, bo wynikają z kategorii drogi - całkiem niezła lista jest tutaj: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Poland

Co prawda dla highway=track nie ma rubryki ale tam wszystkie pojazdy są domyślnie dopuszczone.

Dla dróg powinno dodawać się raczej tagi dla pojazdów, które nie mogą taką drogą się poruszać o ile nie wynikają one z kategorii drogi.
BikeBarian (2023-10-03 07:23:45+00:00): Dopiero zaczałem przygode z aktualizacja map i jeszcze wszystkiego nie ogarniam. Wypelniam opcje dostepne w edytorze dla danej drogi. Sugerujesz zeby zostawiac pola niwypelnione dla rubryk "horse", cycle etc i jakos wypelniac te dla pojazdow ze wskazaniem ktore nie moga sie tam poruszac ??
Marek-M (2023-10-03 08:24:42+00:00): Tak, te tagi bicycle=yes, foot=yes, etc. w większości sytuacji są zbędne. Jeżeli znaki nie zakazują komuś wjazdu (rzadko w swoich okolicach widuję np. zakaz wjazdu na koniach), to wystarczy sam highway=track/highway=path. 

Ewentualnie, jeśli jest to droga leśna i nie można po niej jeździć samochodem https://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/faq/samochod (nie jest potrzebny do tego żaden znak, wystarczy np. szlaban na drodze), to należy dodać motor_vehicle=forestry
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:access#Ograniczenia_związane_z_ruchem
ovitters (2023-10-05 09:42:22+00:00): Bij de Kensington weg (noorden) ontbreekt een heel huizenblok als je dit vergelijkt met PDOK. Dit gaat om huisnummer 11 t/m 21. 

Hetzelfde voor de noortkant van "Karlberg". Ook hier ontbreekt een heel huizenblok. Ditmaal 17 t/m 27.

Zou je deze huizenblokken willen toevoegen? Ik heb geen flauw idee hoe je dat doet.

Alvast bedankt
eggie (2023-10-05 09:46:32+00:00): Hoi  Er wordt periodiek geupdated vanuit de BAG..  Dat kan versneld worden door een verzoek te doen op het forum van OSM in het draadje BAG importverzoeken.
Ik zal even als voorbeeld zo'n verzoek indienen. 
Groet
eggie
eggie (2023-10-05 09:50:04+00:00): Verzoek loopt https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bag-importverzoeken/3394/1416
eggie (2023-10-05 19:27:40+00:00): Veel opnieuw geïmporteerd... opnieuw ingemeten.
Gr eggie
ovitters (2023-10-05 19:48:07+00:00): Echt helemaal geweldig! Echt indrukwekkend hoe snel je dit hebt gedaan!

In een ander deel van Zevenhuizen gaan ze over een tijd ook beginnen met bouwen. Ik hoop dat verzoek gelijk op de juiste plek aan te vragen. Echt top!
eggie (2023-10-05 19:59:10+00:00): Oke...  Je weet de weg nu. :)
harahu (2023-10-02 21:06:35+00:00): Det er riktig at du la inn denne parkeringsplassen først, og jeg hadde nok ikke bidratt til den, om det ikke var for deg. Men at du la den inn først gir deg ikke noe eierskap til den. Om det du har tegnet inn er en korrekt gjengivelse av virkeligheten, og er i tråd med nasjonale skikker for tagging, så skal det ikke slettes, samme hva.

Jeg vil revertere dette endringssettet også, og rapporterer deg til DWG om du ikke gir deg nå.
Filip009 (2023-10-04 08:10:22+00:00): Prečo je na túto cestu zakázaný vstup bicyklom? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/55988032
mirec240 (2023-10-04 09:15:57+00:00): Je to len ťažko priechodné pre peších, takže s bicyklom už vôbec. Cesta zarástla za tie dva roky, keď to vysekali.
Filip009 (2023-10-04 10:16:24+00:00): Okej, a načo je tam potom access=no? Na cestičku automaticky nepúšťa autá. Púšťa tam len peších a cyklistov. Odporúčam zo zákazov nechať len zákaz bicyklom a pridať note="Zarastená cesta, neprejazdné bicyklom"
silversurfer83 (2023-10-03 15:09:38+00:00): Hi

warum hast du hier "use_sidpath" gelöscht?
Sehr aktuelle mapillary Bilder https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=123415584071611&focus=photo zeigen klar ein VZ241 am begleitenden Weg.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142060969
Cowboy79 (2023-10-05 13:04:52+00:00): Weil - mindestens - ein Routenplaner fürs Fahrrad (naviki) wegen dieser Tags eine Fahrt Glückaufstraße-Römerstraße-Forststraße nicht zulässt.
silversurfer83 (2023-10-05 13:28:40+00:00): Ah. OK.

Aber das ist kein Grund korrektes tagging zu ändern. Das ist ein Grund dem Router ein Ticket zu schreiben.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer