piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
user_8655426 (2024-10-07 09:32:00+00:00): Hello,
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!

I checked your changesets.
You used Bing as the background image. It's a bit off in Hamamatsu. At the moment, "Japan GSI seamlessphoto Imagery" is the best. (newer and clearer than Bing)
But your edits are OK. Thank you for mapping Hamamatsu.

Happy Mapping!

---

Beginners' guide
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Beginners%27_guide

Learn OSM
https://learnosm.org/en/beginner/

FAQ
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FAQ

Using aerial imagery
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_aerial_imagery

Good practice
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157107309
RedAuburn (2024-09-26 03:10:46+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4360672
Aleksandar Matejevic (2024-09-26 05:32:58+00:00): Hi, you have deleted boundary between Bhutan and Tibet. If this boundary is not correct, then you should add the correct one. This way both states have invalid boundaries which is bigger issue. Can you correct the boundary or I need to revert it to last known state?
Sparkbright (2024-09-26 06:13:10+00:00): will add the actual boundary between Bhutan & Tibet in some time. i am verifying with the GPS data
Wanglang11 (2024-09-26 06:15:16+00:00): I will add the actual boundary between Bhutan and Tibet now
Wanglang11 (2024-09-26 06:22:02+00:00): I have ameneded the boundary line as per the previously existing boundary.. please incl the same
Wanglang11 (2024-09-26 10:55:47+00:00): actual border starts with Batang La
Aleksandar Matejevic (2024-09-26 11:23:16+00:00): Are you referring to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1318305948
Aleksandar Matejevic (2024-09-26 13:32:51+00:00): I do not think this is a correct edit, this is a disputed area, but if you have knowledge of correct boundaries, than you will have to fix all state administrative boundaries, disputed ones and Admin2 in Bhutan.
Wanglang11 (2024-09-29 07:06:36+00:00): i have added the actual boundary between Bhutan & Tibet as per existing data and it matches with the ground reality. request to support uploading the same as soon as possible. regards
Wanglang11 (2024-09-29 07:08:59+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-09-26 13:10:46+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/695616741/history was marked as "China's claimed border"

on which you base your claim that China's claimed border is different here?

https://nrenner.github.io/achavi/?changeset=157107878
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-13 01:56:04+00:00): DWG revert - undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164877077
tastrax (2024-09-28 07:35:10+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, +61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features#Phone_Numbers .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
rant-better (2024-09-28 07:41:05+00:00): Hi tastrax, thanks for the comment. I'll make sure to use the proper format going forward. Cheers
JJIglesias (2024-09-26 04:47:11+00:00): Te sugiero q revises eso de fuel octane 100. Pues tal cosa no existe en Bolivia. Una Cosa es q que el Gobierno la llame Gasolina Premium 100 y otra que tenga esa graduación realmente. 

Internacionalmente el RON 100LL es combustible para aviación y no para vehículos. 

A lo sumo la Premium 100 debe llegar a RON 95, jamas a 100..
5m4u9 (2024-09-26 14:25:41+00:00): si vi el error y ya corregí, revisando un poco en OSM se basan en la fórmula de combustible más que el nombre, tiene sentido. Hay una página para documentar, lo haré luego.
mf8s003j (2024-09-26 04:44:52+00:00): Thanks mate! Really appreciate that
os-emmer (2024-10-10 15:41:09+00:00): Hi openmap-vn,
it seems that you changed something that does not look right. Can you have a second look on these highway=*?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1091824440
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1315289916
dpolovinkin (2024-10-03 15:25:19+00:00): добрый день, а подскажите, а где именно тут tree row который вы замапили (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1318294309)? выглядит ведь со спутника как просто насаждение деревьев хаотичное, где же там ряды..? внизу их вообще нет где вы поставили)
Ruslan Fatih (2024-12-07 15:47:14+00:00): Согласен, поправил. Замены ряд деревьев на полигоны.
dpolovinkin (2024-12-09 07:36:04+00:00): супер, спасибс)
Dino Morica (2024-09-26 06:12:19+00:00): I think Wanglang 11 is correct in his appreciation of the boundary issue.
habi (2024-10-21 20:32:51+00:00): Danke für's Erledigen.
Ich wollte das mit JOSM machen, habe es aber vor, in und nach den Ferien vergessen...
Piagno (2024-10-22 05:49:46+00:00): Keine Sache, mit der Shift-Taste ging es auch mit iD schnell ;)
Ethan Grobin (2024-09-26 13:53:50+00:00): Ok edit, although you should put all the info on the buildings themselves and not on nodes.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157109361
rant-better (2024-09-26 21:58:45+00:00): Hi realetham. Thanks for the comment.

I spent some time reading up on the best practice for where to put address information (buildings vs points/nodes) and the conclusion I found was that both are acceptable but points/nodes were slightly more favoured. Maybe that was just a USA centered opinion though. I will look around Melbourne more and see what is the most common practice is and edit.
Ethan Grobin (2024-09-27 02:03:39+00:00): Both are accepted, but I've never seen anyone use points for addresses when there is a building in Australia. Also, IRL the address info refers to the building. I can ask the osm Oceania community if you want.
rant-better (2024-09-27 02:08:31+00:00): Have a look at the houses around Footscray, that's what I was going off mostly.

That would be great if you could ask the Oceania community. Would be good to settle on a standard to use, I'm fine either way.
naka1306 (2024-09-26 06:04:36+00:00): change 092615
nevw (2024-09-26 10:31:27+00:00): Is this a hospital or a clinic?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dhospital
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dclinic
nevw (2024-10-04 10:56:27+00:00): no response, changed to clinic, fixed opening hours
nevw (2024-10-14 09:15:36+00:00): changed to dentist
jithin26 (2024-09-26 16:05:54+00:00): hi,my name is jithin,I'm a 3rd yr student at DSU,actually i'm doing a minor project related to navigation..we would like reachout for some of your suggestions
my email: jithinmurthy2004@gmail.com
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-09-29 16:14:56+00:00): Hi,
1) why did you delete the track to the south of the Arula - Sihva?
2) The track to the North is not a track anymore - it's nothing, just a line. It should stay a highway=track
3) If you want to set a private access, use access=private instead of access=no
4) Are there any signs which forbid access to the North? I can't see any from here
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=58.02855439999999&lng=26.392600399999992&z=17.401561976662112&focus=photo&pKey=330148892913506&x=0.4077168312691912&y=0.6121442493294554&zoom=0.6976744186046513
EdnaV (2024-09-29 16:57:51+00:00): Hi, 
1) I haven't changed Arula-Sihva track. This is still the mainroad and highway track. When you mean bike road then yes.
2)When you go there then you can see that there are several signs bothway that this is private property, drive-in to someone's home. There is 
 a dog and according to your Estonian law, if the landowner has imposed a ban, then you are not allowed to stay on the private road. And going to the yard also interferes with people's privacy. It is not a road, no highway=track. This is road created by a forest transport, and passing through a person's possession disturbs residents. It would be good to use the main road (asphalt) to avoid infringing people's privacy.

Best regards,
Edna
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-09-29 17:38:42+00:00): Please stop your edits immediately, I'll write in more detail.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-09-29 17:51:09+00:00): 1) The question is about this road
https://osmcha.org/changesets/157111365?filters=%7B%22users%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22EdnaV%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22EdnaV%22%7D%5D%2C%22date__gte%22%3A%5B%7B%22label%22%3A%22%22%2C%22value%22%3A%22%22%7D%5D%7D

the southern part was completely erased, but I guess it's still there at least partially.

2) Thanks for clearing this up, that there indeed are signs. (Though just "eramaa" sign doesn't forbid cyclists and pedestrians by itself). Still, a road is a road and map should reflect this. You should not delete it. We should just tag it as private. Different tags can be added to show how well maintained it is. See wiki for surface and grade.

5) I see that you are adding a track besides the road. I don't see it on aerial imagery. Is it there in reality?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1319289551#map=16/58.02593/26.39754

6) What's the source for the bicycle route being redirected there? Are there signs or any other data source? I think if the route is not maintained enough - it goes through roads where access was forbidden and there is no info on the internet, we should just remove it from at least those roads, but not invent a new route.
EdnaV (2024-09-29 18:17:37+00:00): Thank you for your quick answer and clarifications. 
1) There are added signs  ->If you go through it, you can see that people have tried to plant a forest there, but there are many damaged saplings, due to an incorrectly marked path and has caused much damage in private property. There is a driveway. There is an entrance road to the house.
2) There are multiple signs. "Eramaa" with  a prohibition sign and private road -> A private road is a road that is located on the immovable property of a legal or natural person (TeeS § 5.2) and is not included in the list of public roads. According to the second sentence of § 5.2 of the TeeS, a private road may be used only with the permission of the owner of the immovable property.A private property sign with a prohibition sign means that with the permission of the holder, it is not allowed to be in the private property. It's also natural not to come to the yard of someone's home.
5) No, you can delete it, but this makes sense that bicycles can use this main road when they want to go to Kääriku.
6) Yes absolutely sure, we should remove those roads where access is forbidden and not invent a new route, but as I said that this makes sense to lead them to asphalt road that they can go to Kääriku. 

Best regards,
E
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-09-29 18:44:58+00:00): As I understand the removal / attempt to make the track from the asphalt road in Kõlli järv direction was a mistake and you've fixed it. And for you the question is about the other direction.

I've restored the road where it clearly exists on aerial imagery with a private access and deleted the new track along the asphalt road.

As for cycling route I'm not sure - it's a really local route which may not exist anymore, that's why I'm not sure there is a point in inventing something.
eggie (2024-09-26 08:16:37+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.

Feedback Lijkt me oke zo. 
MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
The-Lorax (2024-09-26 07:50:37+00:00): Super, merci Frosm. Y suis passé la semaine dernière mais n'ai pas eu le temps d'effctuer l'ajout.
frosm (2024-09-27 00:35:18+00:00): avec plaisir ! tout est juste ? il manque une borne à l'entrée de la place
frosm (2024-09-27 00:37:35+00:00): la borne est peut-être ici https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1746546518 d'après la discussion sur l'autre changeset
Dave Venables (2024-09-26 10:06:16+00:00): The "Bubble Inn"
The update was correct but when entering the changeset comments I accidently used the name of this micropub in Peterborough https://www.openstreetmap.orgnode/4331512852 that I often visit when working in the area
Dave Venables (2024-09-26 10:07:49+00:00): Bumble Inn Peterborough https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4331512852
New Bubble Inn in Coton-in-the-Elms https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/550157535
BCNorwich (2024-09-27 05:58:08+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

I've removed your 2 sections of Main Road because they duplicate existing highways, duplication can cause problems with routing.

Regards Bernard.
ObscureAngel (2024-09-26 14:24:56+00:00): Hello 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

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping ! :-)
eggie (2024-09-26 08:20:57+00:00): Dag Johan, Je vraagt feedback 
Lijkt me oke zo.
lane_markings	no klopte dat niet?
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=157112926

MVG
eggie
user_21293476 (2024-09-26 08:11:43+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/kowaw/diary/405181
bikepiper (2024-10-18 20:48:02+00:00): Hi!
  Der Weg der über die als Parkplatz getaggte Fläche geht ist wirklich nicht mehr mit der L12 verbunden. Ich war mehrfach dort, als ich den neuen Kreisverkehr gemappt habe. die Luftbilder sind nicht aktuell (auch bing). In dem Zaun ist auch kein Tor o. dgl., zwischen dem neuen Radweg und der L12 ist eine gepflasterte Senke, gut 1/2 m tief.
  Den Way #226272907 sollte man wohl am besten löschen.
bikepiper (2024-10-20 12:40:41+00:00): Ich hab die nicht mehr existente Verbindung zur L12 (highway, gate) jetzt entfernt, siehe
note #4486656 bzw. aktuelle Bilder hier:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:L12,_Hagenbrunn,_neuer_Radweg.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neuer_Radweg_an_L12,_Hagenbrunn.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zaun_an_neuem_Radweg,_L12,_Hagenbrunn.jpg
BCNorwich (2024-09-26 11:10:04+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

The access=private tag on it's own is all that's needed it implies that all forms of access are private and there is no public access. 

Regards Bernard.
rskedgell (2024-09-26 10:24:37+00:00): If you've set access=private, you don't really need to set private for other transport modes, as the access tag applies to all transport modes. It doesn't need to be changed, as the extra tags don't have any effect.
trigpoint (2026-03-11 15:13:46+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/179707075
pavvv (2024-09-26 08:12:12+00:00): Proszę nie dodawać takich wartości tagu description=* w OSM.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:description
Warin61 (2024-09-27 01:04:00+00:00): Hi,
Welcome to OSM!
I have restored Node: 2548179394 back to where it was. This is used by administrative boundaries (suburbs etc) and is sourced from government data. Not the end of the world... 
Keep mapping, have fun.
fortera_au (2024-09-27 01:43:09+00:00): Hey, driveways shouldn't really be attached to buildings, and I usually wouldn't map any that aren't a decent length, they're not actually a road.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/157113794
Warin61 (2024-09-27 07:24:51+00:00): @ fortera_au  
Driveways can terminate at garages i.e. a building. You might like to mention which driveway the comment is directed at?
fortera_au (2024-09-27 07:57:22+00:00): I've rarely seen them drawn when it's just enough room for a car or two, and confirming they're actually going into a garage isn't the easiest with aerial imagery. If there's areas where each one is mapped, I'd love to see how it's been done there, but I've never come across it or seen anyone else map them, since they're not really a road of any kind when it's just a standard residential driveway.
rskedgell (2024-09-27 06:37:35+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157156042
TrickyFoxy (2024-09-26 08:29:47+00:00): name= это не внесения владельца. Ну и не стоит вносить персональные данные, даже свои
TrickyFoxy (2024-09-26 08:29:59+00:00): не для внесения*
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-09-30 20:20:02+00:00): reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157313687
eggie (2024-09-26 08:25:30+00:00): Dag Sebas,
Het verbindingsstukje stukje Robert Stolzhof naar het fietspad heb je omgetagd naar footway. Nu zal het niet meer routeren voor fietsers.
Is het wellicht een highway=path? surface=...... Dat routeert wel voor fietsers.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2024-09-26 08:29:00+00:00): Denk dus 
highway=path
surface=paving_stones
foot=yes
bicycle=yes
Die laatste twee accesstags zijn eigenlijk default, maar zetten we voor de duidelijkheid voor medemappers zodat men  ziet dat er een survey is geweest.
eggie (2024-09-26 08:31:08+00:00): Ahh  ... en JOSM!
eggie (2024-09-26 08:34:16+00:00): Kort door de bocht
highway=footway  Alleen taggen bij G7 bord en/of duidelijk aleen voor voetgangers.
highway=path   Wanneer er geen G7 staat (De wandelaar met kind) 
en dan is het wel  bicycle=yes of no
Sebas3 (2024-09-26 08:35:51+00:00): Zekers! JOSM werkt een stuk robuuster merk ik nu al. 

Heb dat stukje omgezet naar een footway omdat dit officieel geen plek is om te fietsen, maar zal informeel genoeg gebeuren. Dus dan is het inderdaad beter om dat op te lossen aan de hand van jouw suggestie.
eggie (2024-09-26 08:41:21+00:00): Al die doorsteekjes in wijken zijn ook gewoon voor fietsers... al dan niet bedoeld.
Alleen bij G7 is er een fietsverbod of als er een bord staat 'niet fietsen'. 
Heb je een stoeprand dan vaak weer footway gebruiken.
Een uitsparing barrier=kerb kerb=lowered  Dan vaak weer path. 
Het is steeds een afweging. 
Ik tag bij twijfel ten gunste van de fietser.
eggie (2024-09-26 08:45:18+00:00): Nog sterker. Er staat nergens in de wegenverkeerswet dat je niet op de stoep mag fietsen.
Wel staat er dat je moet fietsen op de rijbaan. Dan moet die er wel zijn. :)
Sebas3 (2024-09-26 09:01:23+00:00): Nou zo leer ik ook nog is een hoop. Ik kan het vanmiddag aanpassen
eggie (2024-09-26 09:11:26+00:00): Top!
Sebas3 (2024-09-26 09:43:05+00:00): Aangepast. Wel nog een vraag. Verderop is er naast het fietspad een footpath gemapt. Maar hier staat geen G7 bord en sluit daar een fietspad vanuit het Robbert Stolzhof op aan. Betekend dat dat de footway ook aangepast dient te worden naar path met diezelfde tags?
eggie (2024-09-26 09:52:27+00:00): Nee..., dat kan gewoon footway blijven, want het is duidelijk bedoeld voor wandelaars.

Het is G7 en/of duidelijk bedoeld voor voetgangers.
Sebas3 (2024-09-26 09:53:01+00:00): Het gaat om het doorsteekje bij Robert Stolzhof 204. Dat doorsteekje is gemapt als cyclepath en komt uit op een footpath.
eggie (2024-09-26 10:01:40+00:00): Ahh .. zo'n  zelfde doorsteekje. 
Even gespiekt
formeel dus een highway=path met surface=paved of specifieker.
Er staat nl geen bord G7 of G11

Wel de surfacetag toevoegen, want een path wordt anders afgehandeld als onverhard, Een cycleway wordt afgehandeld als verhard.

Verder kennen we ook Ducktagging.
Het kwaakt als een eend dus is het een eend.
Het is ingericht als fietspad dus taggen we fietspad.
Je kunt het ook vragen aan de voorgaande mapper Lachgast.
Die zal altijd wel antwoorden.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Lachgast
Lachgast is hier lokaal bekend. 

Groet
eggie
Sebas3 (2024-09-26 13:20:29+00:00): Hi eggie,

Dat doorsteekje zal ik aanpassen zodat het een paved path is met toegang voor fietsers en voetgangers.

Alleen dat doorsteekje komt uit op een footpath (die parallel loopt aan het fietspad), dus dan loopt het qua routering toch dood voor fietsers? Of kan dat nog worden aangepast?

Groet Sebas
eggie (2024-09-26 13:39:41+00:00): Bij nr 203? Dat zal dan een highway footway zijn. Dus niet bedoeld voor fietsers. Ook al ontbreken de borden.
Een fietspad zal het zeker niet zijn.
Groet..
eggie
rskedgell (2024-09-27 06:58:39+00:00): Reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/157156679
HellMap (2024-09-26 13:20:31+00:00): Just to let you know that Kalmju iela was already aligned correctly. The current aerial is out of date, so please don't use it to align it. I have retraced and realigned it.
TthL (2024-11-05 20:10:15+00:00): A kaszói erdő tévesen lett felbontva kisebb részekre, egy nagy erdőtömbről van szó. Ha egy erdőtagban tarvágást végeznek, és éppen egy szál fa sem áll ott, az attól még ugyanúgy erdő marad. Az erdő pontos mérete és határai a következő oldalon láthatóak: https://erdoterkep.nebih.gov.hu/
GBAB (2024-11-06 07:46:43+00:00): Kedves TthL!

A multipoligon felbontása egyáltalán nem érinti a térkép használhatóságát: a felhasználó pont ugyanazt fogja látni, mint korábban. Ez csupán a szerkeszthetőség miatt fontos: a nagy multipoligonokkal nagyon nehéz bánni. Pl. ha egy kis része módosul, akkor az egészet szerkeszteni kell, ami kényelmetlen.

A másik kérdéshez:

- Az erődtérkép, ahogy te is írod, alapvetően közigazgatási szemléletű. Az az erdő, amit az ingatlannyilvántartásban erdőként tartanak számon. (Akár akkor is, ha ott épp nincs is fa.)

- Az OSM „valóságszemléletű”, vagyis az az erdő, ahol van egy csomó fa. Függetlenül attól, hogy az ingatlannyilvántartásban hogyan van bejegyezve a terület. Ennek az az oka, hogy az OSM-et hétköznapi embereknek szánták, akiknek az a lényeg, hogy lehetőleg ugyanazt lássák a térképen, mint a terepen, s általában kevésbé érdekli a telekkönyv.

Légy jó!

Gábor
TthL (2024-11-07 19:06:58+00:00): Kedves Gábor!

Én amatőr szerkesztő vagyok, a multipoligonokhoz nem értek - lehet hogy nem jó helyre írtam a hozzászólásomat, ezért elnézést kérek :-)

Viszont továbbra is tévedésnek tartom a kaszói erdő ilyenfajta ábrázolását. Az erdő kezelőjének kötelessége a letermelt erdőrészt "felújítani". Sebtében belelapoztam a hatályos erdőtörvénybe, idézek belőle: 

2009. évi XXXVII. törvény
az erdőről, az erdő védelméről és az erdőgazdálkodásról
V. fejezet
51. § *  (1) Az erdő felújítása az erdő kitermelt vagy kipusztult faállományának újbóli létrehozására irányuló tevékenység. 
(2) Az erdő faállományát 
a) annak véghasználatát követően,
 […]
az erdőgazdálkodónak az e fejezetben foglaltak szerint […] fel kell újítania.
Forrás: https://net.jogtar.hu/jogszabaly?docid=a0900037.tv  - Wolters Kluwer - Minden jog fenntartva!

...azaz alapvetően 1-2 éven belül az adott területen újra facsemeték lesznek. Az erdő addig is erdő marad, nem lesz helyette szántó, parlag, stb. (Illetve az erdő nemcsak fából áll, különböző élőlények, organizmusok együttese :-)) Ráadásul a legtöbb vágásban visszahagynak magszóró "hagyásfákat" is, tapasztalatom szerint ez a kaszói erdőre is jellemző, így általában az sem mondható el, hogy az adott terület fa nélkül maradna.

Ha a szerkesztői felületen egy műholdképet állítok be háttérnek, azon világosan látszik hogy a tárgyalt erdő-multipoligon indokolatlan felszabdalásának köze sincs a valósághoz.

Mi a Börzsönyben az erdő-multipoligonra szerkesztünk az adott vágás helyére terület-elemeket, általában tarvágásnak, füves pusztának, bozótosnak jelölve. Véleményem szerint ez sokkal inkább megfelel a valóságnak, illetve ha az adott terület újraerdősül, az adott elemet könnyen el lehet távolítani.

Üdvözlettel, legjobbakat kívánva,

Levente