piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Boi van den Hoogen (2023-01-12 10:02:32+00:00): Het grote probleem is dat er vanaf Terschelling geen route kan worden gepland van "huis" naar een plek in Nederland of omgekeerd. Je krijgt dan altijd de fout melding dat er geen route te vinden is.
Nu blijkt er dus een afgesloten zone om de haven op West-Terschelling te liggen. En in de navigatie is het ook niet mogelijk om een veerboot in de route op te nemen / zetten en de snelheid daar van aan te passen.

Dit probleem wil ik graag opgelost zien zodat ik vanaf huis een route kan instellen.
mvrg
Boi
eggie (2023-01-12 11:20:36+00:00): Dag Boi..

Zal straks even kijken op de terminals of daar iets op slot staat.
Het is ook al eerder aan de orde geweest op het forum van osm.
Daar kun je uiteraard ook het probleem aan de orde stellen.
Soms staan de toevoerwegen op het terrein op access=private 
Jouw aanpassingen haalden echter niets uit.
Kom er op terug.
Groet
Eggie
eggie (2023-01-12 11:39:54+00:00): Boi,
In OSRM, GraphHopper en Valhalla werkt de veerverbinding gewoon

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=53.35866%2C5.21463%3B53.16190%2C5.43295#map=12/53.3072/5.2298

De toegangswegen op het haventerrein staan op access=permissive Dat betekent dat het gewoon routeert. Een barrier=gate zonder accesstags routeert ook gewoon. 

Vaak staat in de navigatie de  mogelijkheid aan Veerdiensten vermijden. dat zou ook nog kunnen.

Het probleem zit in de routingapp die je gebruikt. 

Kijk voor de zekerheid even naar je instellingen op Veerboten vermijden aan staat. 
MVG
eggie
Boi van den Hoogen (2023-01-13 01:56:15+00:00): Probleem gevonden, je moet niet alleen veerboot aanzetten (welke al aanstond), maar je moet nu ook andere wegen aanzetten en die stond nog uit.
Nu werkt alles weer. Dank je
Boi
Javierpf (2023-01-11 16:13:45+00:00): Sobre las habilitaciones de tramos que hiciste, hace pocas horas hice la revisión viendo fotos de Dic y Ene, y no aparecían habilitados. Como te enteraste de que los habilitaron?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:10:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:10:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:04:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
silversurfer83 (2023-01-11 15:58:31+00:00): Could you PLEASE keep the HOT edits in the area they belong and not edit something small somewhere else on the planet in the same changeset? It really is annoying.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131147467
yasslay (2023-01-12 10:39:41+00:00): I've reviewed the changeset and the quality of the buildings they've added are awful. None of them are properly mapped and they don't reflect their real world shape whatsoever. For example, this house in Wales (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1130915290) and others like it are mapped awfully. This needs to be addressed immediately and other mechanical edits like it.
map per (2023-01-14 08:20:29+00:00): @1234Admin: Please start talking to us. Not doing so and adding further nonsense to OSM will just result in further suser blocks by the DWG.
user_8882856 (2023-01-14 11:04:03+00:00): 👍
silversurfer83 (2023-01-14 16:02:13+00:00): At least we know you read our messages.
Please adhere to the guidelines set forth by the community which you can find at wiki.openstreetmap.org
Thank you
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:05:49+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:01:57+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:05:20+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
DaveF (2023-06-09 20:06:46+00:00): Hi
Please don't duplicate prow_ref tag values in the name tag. 'FP 81' is not a name.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/22868349/history#map=17/51.23126/-0.31874
etgg (2023-06-12 11:03:42+00:00): Hi there, In the absence of a formal name in this field I provide a duplicate of the prow naming as it provides a locating name when viewing in rendered mapping services which is very useful when describing where you are, and identifying it as a formal right or way as opposed to an un-adopted path. By all means feel free to amend to your wishes, but just be aware of the reasons behind the duplication. Thanks,
DaveF (2023-06-12 12:39:36+00:00): Please don't tag incorrectly to suit a specific rendering.
A prow_ref isn't a formal name. What do you do when there is a formal name?
There are published & well used tags to define PROWs: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation#Public_Rights_of_Way_in_England_and_Wales
etgg (2023-06-12 12:59:02+00:00): Hi there, as already mentioned, and to answer your query,  if there is already a name field given then that is left as is. The PROW designation webpage you referenced makes no indication of 'correct' or 'non-correct' combination of name field  with a prow_ref tag. Thanks for sending though.
SomeoneElse (2023-07-25 13:37:24+00:00): For info, this seems to have accidentally added a large fence to an area of heathland.  See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/1-member-multipolygons/101507/84 when I happened to spot it in response to a question about something else.
RedAuburn (2023-07-25 14:00:11+00:00): oops! good spot, removed it 👍
SomeoneElse (2023-07-25 14:10:47+00:00): Thanks!
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:05:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:02:14+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:06:36+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:07:11+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:10:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:10:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:06:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:09:07+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:10:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:05:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
Langlaeufer (2023-01-11 15:16:46+00:00): Hello Alex,
what makes your unsure about access of this track?
Is there any sign? otherwise you do not need to tag any access-Tags
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131148618
AlexMacLeica (2023-01-12 10:09:31+00:00): Hi thanks for checking. This was my mistake. There is no sign. Set the access to yes and left the others as default
danieldegroot2 (2023-02-28 16:52:42+00:00): Hey Anne,

See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/161760101
Are you sure Penston's Garden derives its name from the River Breaghagh?

Regards,

Daniel
StpnGeorg (2023-01-20 18:45:30+00:00): Is this really necessary?
clay_c (2023-01-25 14:31:27+00:00): Reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131698124

Discussion here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-small-special-exclaves-of-symbolic-but-legal-foreign-ownership/7771/5
clay_c (2023-01-25 14:31:28+00:00): Reverted here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131698124

Discussion here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-small-special-exclaves-of-symbolic-but-legal-foreign-ownership/7771/5
kuhni74 (2023-01-11 14:51:01+00:00): Quellen für Hofnamen waren: basemap, Franziszeischer Kataster, Franzisco-Josephinische Landesaufnahme
aixbrick (2023-01-16 17:56:09+00:00): Hallo und willkommen bei OSM,
die Daten zur Schule (Name, Adresse) sind bereits auf dem Gelände (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/131516207) erfasst. Ich habe diese daher wieder entfernt: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131347816.
Gruß
BCNorwich (2023-01-12 07:52:02+00:00): Duplicated section of the highway was removed.
rivermont (2023-01-15 20:24:46+00:00): Reverted in changeset #131313112
NunoCapeloCaldeira (2023-01-13 01:37:37+00:00): hello can you explain this path? there's certainly nothing there. waiting for reply before revert
Puxan (2023-01-13 12:21:41+00:00): Suposo que és per error, però has marcat un segment molt llarg del torrent com tunel. Si vols jo ho puc solucionar
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131149874
Juan_bali (2023-01-13 14:12:02+00:00): Si haurà estat per error, Gràcies!
jeslop (2023-01-12 22:04:30+00:00): Hi brc22,

You have been asked not to erase these paths as they exist in the ground. You can use tags to prevent access to them, but not delete them. Reverse the changesets as soon as possible.

Regards,

Jesús López
OpenStreetMap Foundation
Data Working Group
brc22 (2023-01-13 16:44:20+00:00): Hi Jesús,

We have found that these trails, even when marked as private, can be found on OSM and other maps that use OSM data. This is causing trespassing, impact or rare and sensitive plants, and conflict between property owners and hikers. Some of these paths are leading the public directly to private homes. The paths should not exist and only continue to because of use by trespassers or unauthorized users.
Allison P (2023-01-15 19:45:17+00:00): It is not the fault of OSM that users are misusing the map data. You have no right to modify another's geodatabase in opposition to reality.
rivermont (2023-01-15 20:26:40+00:00): I'll also note that the main trail, which runs between two houses, is also present on Google Maps as the Snake Mountain Trail. Google does not use OSM data, so deleting features here will not affect the service with many more users.

Reverted in changeset #131313112
aceman444 (2023-01-24 22:26:02+00:00): Hi, please do not add wikidata tags to objects that are not the object itself. E.g. the Javorina information board cannot be linked to the Javorina mountain wikipage. If you want to add the wikipage of the subject on the board, use subject:wikidata, see  https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Slovensko%20(Slovakia,%20S%C5%82owacja).html and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikidata#Secondary_Wikidata_links .
Tomas_J (2023-01-24 22:52:06+00:00): Opravil som, pardon, toto mi ušlo .
aceman444 (2023-01-24 22:57:05+00:00): Dakujem :)
Tomas_J (2023-01-24 23:16:37+00:00): Inak super kontrola na https://matkoniecz.github.io/OSM-wikipedia-tag-validator-reports/Slovensko%20(Slovakia,%20S%C5%82owacja).html. 

musím do toho občas pozerať.
*Martin* (2025-01-01 18:02:28+00:00): ahoj. prosim ak vodny tok je v relacii (na slovensku by vsetky pomenovane mali byt), tak wikidata pridaj do relacie, nie priamo na way. dakujem.
Tomas_J (2025-01-01 18:10:38+00:00): Ahoj, ano, robím to už tak, resp. vodné toky na Slovensku pri pridávání wikidata ignorujem - všetky kontrolované Wikidata už na relácii mali. Toto bol ešte nejaký starší changeset.
*Martin* (2023-11-10 09:34:56+00:00): ahoj. casto pridavas duplicitne wikidata ktore treba zlucit na wikidata strane. pozri najprv prosim relaciu daneho doku ktora ma v tomto pripade ine wikidata (s ktorym to treba zlucit). toto teraz hromadne opravujem.
*Martin* (2023-11-10 09:35:47+00:00): inac vseobecne ak ma tok relaciu, tak wiki* tagy patria do relacie, nie na way
*Martin* (2023-11-10 09:36:27+00:00): tietu duplicity z way mazem, je toho plno
Tomas_J (2023-11-10 09:46:45+00:00): Ahoj, Ospravedlňujem sa za chyby , môžem to skúsiť po sebe prečistiť alebo hromadne zmaž . Toky už nepridavam. Bolo to robené cez aplikáciu a neskoro som zistil , že tagy nepridáva do relácie. 

Duplicity som zatiaľ nezlučoval. Skúsim to pred ďalším pridávaním. 

Dík a sorry.
*Martin* (2023-11-10 09:49:11+00:00): vdpohode, mam na to opverpass query a ide mi to celkom rychlo, nejaka hodinka mojho zivotA :)
BCNorwich (2023-01-11 16:47:35+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

If some access is allowed, foot=yes, then it can't be access=no. I've removed the access=no tag.

Regards Bernard.
marczoutendijk (2023-01-11 15:43:55+00:00): Het vlak van de brug én het pad over de brug waren met elkaar verknoopt. Die heb ik opgeschoond in dezelfde changeset als waarin ik de pier heb bewerkt.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-02-15 12:17:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162533977 where the changeset comment is: Reverting Mundi app changes - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mundi-app-changesets-revert/114478/29
Ropino (2023-01-12 12:40:49+00:00): Hi,
please check/correct:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/629558123
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/388934913
it was:
highway=residential
now:
highway=access ?!
Thx in advance
damianeue (2023-01-12 13:06:07+00:00): Hi Ropino, thanks for the warning, I made a mistake with highway=service + service=access, I already fixed it.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-02-15 12:17:47+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162533977 where the changeset comment is: Reverting Mundi app changes - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mundi-app-changesets-revert/114478/29
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-02-15 12:15:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162533977 where the changeset comment is: Reverting Mundi app changes - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mundi-app-changesets-revert/114478/29
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-02-15 12:16:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162533977 where the changeset comment is: Reverting Mundi app changes - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mundi-app-changesets-revert/114478/29
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-02-15 12:15:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162533977 where the changeset comment is: Reverting Mundi app changes - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mundi-app-changesets-revert/114478/29
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-02-15 12:15:58+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162533977 where the changeset comment is: Reverting Mundi app changes - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mundi-app-changesets-revert/114478/29
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-02-15 12:16:23+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162533977 where the changeset comment is: Reverting Mundi app changes - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mundi-app-changesets-revert/114478/29
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-02-15 12:17:45+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162533977 where the changeset comment is: Reverting Mundi app changes - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mundi-app-changesets-revert/114478/29
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-02-15 12:17:42+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162533977 where the changeset comment is: Reverting Mundi app changes - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mundi-app-changesets-revert/114478/29
SomeoneElse (2023-07-23 23:00:45+00:00): For info I've commented on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131478650 about the merging and the currently silly elevant value.
bxl-forever (2023-01-11 16:13:49+00:00): Hello,

Would you mind having a second look at the information board named "Chêteau-ferme de Bethléem - De Kasteelhoeve van Bethlehem - Das Burggehöft "Bethlehem" - The Bethlëem chateau-farm".

Either the sign itself is misspelt, or the names have not been typed correctly in OSM, because:
* French name: shouldn’t it be Château?
* English name: Bethlehem is the expected spelling.

What do you think?
elucci (2023-01-11 16:45:47+00:00): Hello,
There is indeed a typo error on the French name (â instead of ê), while for the English one, I confirm that there is indeed a diaeresis and no circumflex accent on chateau. 
It is not the first time I see wrong dates or unusual spelling in these green tourist boards. Do you think it's worth clarifying that this is indeed the name on the board in a note?
bxl-forever (2023-01-11 17:36:18+00:00): Thanks for your reply.

Yes, it is a good idea when you see an unusual name or an obvious mistake in the official name.  In OSM the "note" tag of an object is made for this, this is to alert other mappers so that they will think twice before "fixing" the mistake.  You might want to write something like: "The English name is really spelt Bethlëem on the display."

Just for fun, a selection of nice use of the note tag.
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/785865648
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/224879823
* https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4418285657
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-02-15 12:15:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162533977 where the changeset comment is: Reverting Mundi app changes - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mundi-app-changesets-revert/114478/29
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-02-15 12:17:39+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 162533977 where the changeset comment is: Reverting Mundi app changes - see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mundi-app-changesets-revert/114478/29
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-03 13:36:19+00:00): Hello! https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6489453370/history has shop = whirlpool that was added in this edit
shop=whirlpool ? What is the meaning of that shop value? What kind of services or products are sold here? Is anything from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_for_key_%22shop%22 fitting? Maybe new value needs to be invented? Maybe this data is wrong and there is no shop here? Maybe it is not a shop but something else?
surveyor54 (2025-12-06 15:13:32+00:00): Hi, 
perhaps a new tag 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑝=𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠_𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑠  would be better?
Here are sold whirlpools, saunas, swim spas and infrared cabins.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-07 03:06:48+00:00): maybe? definitely it is more clear than shop=whirlpool
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-07 03:07:31+00:00): (depending on what you want you may just retag this one or also document it at wiki - I can help if you are unsure how - or go through entire https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process )
surveyor54 (2025-12-09 11:50:17+00:00): I think 𝐬𝐩𝐚_𝐨𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 is better,  because it does not include services such as massage or mud baths......

Such shops are so rare, that the effort for Proposalprocess is not worthwhile.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-09 13:12:18+00:00): also works, I guess
bxl-forever (2023-01-11 16:07:19+00:00): Hello,

The street name is written in two languages (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/552235079) and the building addresses only in Dutch (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/143399967).  This might cause validation issues.

Shouldn’t this be unified to the same naming convention for all of them?
joost schouppe (2023-01-12 12:14:03+00:00): Yes, I was being a little lazy. For me it's still unsettled what we should do here. The wiki says facility = main language only; but in the border municipalities of Brussels the wiki is not followed. I really don't mind which way it goes, but as long as it's not entirely clear, I tend to follow the easiest solution.
syntex (2023-01-11 17:22:26+00:00): Źle. Dlaczego stara nazwa nie jest zachowana w old_name?
:-} (2023-01-11 17:27:58+00:00): Zapomniałem dodać.Dodam później
NorthCrab (2023-01-11 22:12:21+00:00): @syntex podaj proszę źródło które mówiłoby że nie ustawienie old_name jest złe. jest to zabieg rekomendowany dla świeżo zmienionych nazw ale nie zastosowanie się do niego nie jest błędem i stwierdzenie "źle" to za dużo. można edytującemu co najwyżej zasugerować stosowanie old_name i wymienić jego atuty.
syntex (2023-01-11 23:15:21+00:00): Jest złe. W życiu nie słyszałem nazwy Plac Pole Elekcyjne a Młynów to nazwa utrwalona od wielu lat. Nawet ztm na przystankach zostawia napis dawniej i nazwę poprzednią. Jest to świeżo zmieniona nazwa, a nawet jeszcze nie zmieniona, bo dopiero za parę dni będzie. Poza tym nie trzeba się domyślać jak nazywał się ten obiekt wcześniej.
NorthCrab (2023-01-12 03:48:46+00:00): Okej, jeśli stara nazwa jest aktywnie używana to rzeczywiście przydałoby się old_name.
BCNorwich (2023-01-11 17:00:13+00:00): Hi, The roundabout had several routes associated with it that needed to be kept intact. Also, you inadvertently made a duplicate highway. So I've reverted the changeset and then adjusted the layout to what I think you wanted.

Regards Bernard.
VictorIE (2026-02-03 18:50:10+00:00): Hi,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148522676/

You have a fixme here. "fixme=is this actually a waterway? no clear evidence of it from streetlevel imagery at the supposed road crossing."

If you look at Bing Streetside, one side of the road has two gates. If you look to the right of the left-hand gate, you can see the void above where the stream (no more than a ditch really) is. You can't actually see the stream.

The short section of wall is also more suggestive of bridge than culvert. I've shortened the bridge span a lot.

However, looking at GSGS 3906, I do think the southern end of this stream might be confused with a road and it should be truncated.