piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Yushclay (2026-01-27 18:18:19+00:00): Hi, thanks for sharing the community thread for those concerns. But I am reluctant to revert them back to single carriageways as unlike the examples used in that thread, there isn't mixed traffic where the MTS Trolley is sharing spaces with vehicles. there isn't mixed traffic where the MTS Trolley is sharing spaces with vehicles; it is a mode-separated corridor where the tracks act as an exclusive right-of-way.
Reverting them to single carriageway would also misrepresent rail crossings at the ends of those corridors by placing the road centerline directly between the rails, creating 'false positive' crossing nodes at every intersection. 
And when that consensus was made in the community thread in 2020, Tesla FSD (full self driving) was released afterwards using OSM data, not an issue for street navigation UNLESS vision sensors are impaired and driver is not properly supervising. Which mean that would lead to the vehicle leaning more heavily on it's mapping services, and making it single carriageway would nudge a car under FSD into trolley traffic.
Also, it didn't reflect the 25th St & Commercial trolley station in the median, so single carriageways in that part doesn't apply.
Frank Peng (2025-12-13 00:06:48+00:00): Can you explain why you tagged this suburb boundary into a road and changed a section of Lakeview Road from a secondary road to an unclassified road? I have talked to you about doing this before (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175070230 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174652113). You must not damage valid map data by changing valid suburb or administrative boundaries into roads, and adding features on OSM that don't actually exist in the real world. What is the source for those changes? Thanks.
Frank Peng (2025-12-17 00:54:06+00:00): Those incorrect map edits you made have been fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176027760. Please do not change valid administrative or suburb boundaries into roads. This is not acceptable on OSM. They shall remain as administrative or suburb boundaries. Please elaborate on why you changed valid administrative or suburb boundaries into roads.
InsertUser (2025-12-18 14:53:01+00:00): This is a private facility. There is no public access except to customers. Even if there were then it would be access=permissive, not foot=yes.
InsertUser (2025-12-18 14:43:18+00:00): `foot=yes` indicates that everyone has the legal right to access a place on foot. This is a private jetty, there is no public access. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
rskedgell (2025-12-12 22:41:23+00:00): The museum has already been added to OSM, but only 2 months ago: osm.org/node/13256051041

This is the second time you have added a duplicate of Moco. Deleted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175865528
NeisBot (2025-12-12 20:29:24+00:00): Welcome, and thanks for your edits!

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

In total, I detected 14 potential crossings.

Problematic elements (top 3 by category):
https://osm.org/way/591847614 v6 | 9 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=175860150
pitscheplatsch (2025-12-16 17:00:46+00:00): Should be fixed by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175963649
literan (2025-12-13 11:31:25+00:00): неверный порядок слов в названии улицы. Исправьте, пожалуйста
Ozon OSM15 (2025-12-13 19:34:26+00:00): Здравствуйте. Исправила
yelisey90 (2025-12-12 20:15:00+00:00): Hint: if you right click on the building and select "Square" option (or just press Q), the building will become better looking ;)
LevanGo (2025-12-19 19:18:08+00:00): Thanks for the tip
felipeeugenio (2025-12-13 11:52:08+00:00): Hola. No hay que repetir los tags del rencinto en el edificio.Se generan duplicados.

Además, por favor cuidar la ortografía.

Gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175860667
SomeoneElse (2025-12-12 20:15:49+00:00): (in the pouring rain)
Littlebtc (2025-12-12 19:54:19+00:00): (8) 和平西路左轉康定路等路線調整為停靠龍山寺(剝皮寮)
yelisey90 (2025-12-12 20:49:47+00:00): Although they may be signposted as "supermarkets", according to OSM standards shops such as Kalata, Ori Nabiji, Nikora and Carrefour City are designated as convenience shops. In contrast to this, Carrefour Market, Nikora XL, Agrohub and most Goodwills are mapped as supermarkets.
MarkoŠatrak (2025-12-18 19:39:35+00:00): Orientation changed by accident on Whitecap Boulevard fixed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176090573 #OptimoRoute
inquisitornaega (2025-12-12 21:56:04+00:00): out of context this changeset sounds hilarious.
ilias_ (2025-12-12 22:09:52+00:00): Si Amine is going crazy in Berrechid!

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Amine%20SOUINIDA/history
inquisitornaega (2025-12-12 22:18:16+00:00): Almost makes me jealous haha, I too was once that excited and passionate :(
Frans S (2025-12-13 11:05:23+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping. 
We welcome you as a new mapper.
Please be more accurate in following the rooflines. Most buildings are fairly rectangular, so square these buildings with the Q key while selected.
Best regards
Gregory Peony (2025-12-15 02:03:42+00:00): Thank you for your contribution. If you want to experience the OSM community or to get timely feedback from other mappers; I recommend that you attend a mapathon. You can find events here https://osmcal.org/

these footpritns represent buildings. They are accurate, the southern one could perhaps be a tiny bit smaller, but this is minor.
JAAS (2025-12-16 15:42:10+00:00): Hola Ctrl+shiftF5

Este es ya mi segundo intento de poder entablar una conversación con usted. El motivo es para poder apoyarle en sus ediciones, ya que actualmente no se están realizando todas de manera correcta y que con estas ediciones se están afectando a las rutas navegables. 

Otros errores recurrentes incluyen agregar nombres abreviados y/o eliminar nombres anteriores, cambiándolos por otros nuevos, sin dejar rastro existente del nombre anterior. Y lo peor de todo es hacerlo todo SIN citar las fuentes para respaldar todos estos cambios... Para todas las ediciones hechas en OSM, por ser una plataforma abierta, es necesario contar siempre con una fuente indicando de donde se han tomado los datos agregados. Esta fuente debe ser real y verificable por cualquier otro editor. Otra recomendación para cualquiera utilizando OSM es estar disponible para poder discernir con cualquiera que cuestione las ediciones - es decir, cuando existen dudas - se deben aclarar...

Y yo tengo mis serias dudas con la `Carretera Longitudinal de la Sierra Norte` que desde hace un tiempo atrás se encuentra agregándole la etiqueta de `construction` a una buena parte de ella. Al hacer esto prácticamente queda "eliminada" esa ruta del mapa - evitando que se circule sobre ella. Alrededor del mundo NUNCA he visto que una carretera se cierre completamente por trabajos de mantenimiento (cosa que ya investigué por mi lado por la falta de los datos suyos existentes) - y que en todo caso, se suelen cerrar por segmentos (tramos) y generalmente dejan espacios para circular o en otros casos se crean rutas alternas sugeridas.

Resumiendo: tengo dudas genuinas y sugerencias que podría darle al comprender yo bien lo que está sucediendo actualmente con esa ruta. Así como también tengo otras dudas acerca de otros aspectos editados por usted.

Esto NO es un reclamo de ninguna manera. Es una solicitud para poder intercambiar ideas y conocimientos en favor del mapa que no nos pertenece a ninguno de los dos, pero que para poder usarlo debemos apegarnos a los lineamientos que ya han sido establecidos previamente. Espero que logremos tener una comunicación proactiva - por el bien de todos los usuarios de OSM.

Saludos cordiales,
JAAS
Udarian (2025-12-13 16:40:39+00:00): generally buildings shouldn't be inside of other buildings, for these cases the building:part= tag exists, for info see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building . It could also be useful to look at the taginfo page for the tag https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/building%3Apart#values . 

Happy mapping,
Udar
FlamingoOSM (2025-12-13 22:31:40+00:00): Ok, thanks for letting me know. I will make the same changes to my previous ones.
stasiu512 (2025-12-13 12:28:14+00:00): cześć, mam wątpliwości co do tej linii https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1458146754. co masz na myśli tagując width=0? czy faktycznie jest tam zakaz ruchu rowerowego? dlaczego horse=no? skąd dane o nachyleniu 20%?
nygus7 (2025-12-16 22:00:52+00:00): Dziękuję za spostrzeżenia. Wchodząc w szczegóły - jest to ścieżka (wydeptana przez ludzi) która w pewnym momencie ma bardzo duży spadek ze skarpy (wysokość 2 metry). Zejście z rowerem raczej niemożliwe. Prośba o poprawienie jeśli jest niezgodność.
Sylabowy Kot (2025-12-12 22:06:03+00:00): Poimprezować nie można w spokoju, bo ktoś robi taki dziwny, mocno zwracający na siebie uwagę, wandalizm.

Wycofałem: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175864789 
z kolei tobie grozi ban za dziwne edycje.
Sylabowy Kot (2025-12-12 22:13:39+00:00): Prośba o podawanie komentarzy oraz źródła dla informacji niepochodzących ze zdjęć.

Dach się nie pokazuje, bo obszar chodnika totalnie niepotrzebnie nachodzi na teren stacji benzynowej. Po za tym to nie jest miejsce na obszarowe drogi typu pedestrian, bo to nie są deptaki, a zwykłe chodniki przydrożne.
bartgron (2025-12-12 22:19:23+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
Sylabowy Kot (2025-12-12 22:04:51+00:00): Źródło informacji?
felipeeugenio (2025-12-13 11:50:01+00:00): Hola. Access=permitt es para una situación muy distinta a esta.(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access).

Además por favor ojo con los tags redundantes. un footway es foot=yes y motor_vehiclo=no por defecto.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175862671
Filip009 (2026-01-10 11:09:27+00:00): Zdravím, neviem, či dočasné veci patria do OSM. Aj keď je pravda, že pri rekonštrukciách ciest meníme postupne jednotlivé cesty podľa reality.
aceman444 (2026-03-17 20:47:50+00:00): Ono aj zalezi, ako dlho je to docasne, ci to stihnu pouzivatelia aj vyuzit. Toto klzisko tu bolo 4 mesiace, tak to uz podla mna bolo celkom zaujimave pre OSM.
Ale uz skoncilo, dam ho prec.
PedroMTG13 (2025-12-13 09:56:54+00:00): micromapping matosinhos.... :P
ehheheeheh
dmfr (2025-12-13 11:07:14+00:00): Oops... a Maia a fazer ganhos territoriais xD
TrickyFoxy (2025-12-18 09:33:17+00:00): В правом меню редактора есть кнопка «Настройки фонового изображения». Выберите там спутниковые снимки ESRI — они свежее
bartgron (2025-12-12 22:02:42+00:00): Granice pozamieniane na drogi, połączone z innymi drogami... No ładnie ładnie...
rskedgell (2026-02-01 08:29:55+00:00): Adding #CrosswalksMaybeMissing does not excuse adding decorative sidewalks which are at best useless for pedestrian routing. Please either map them properly or not at all. As I actually use OSM-based pedrstrian routing in London for planning runs and walks, contributions like this are unhelpful and unwanted.
RVR015 (2026-02-02 16:07:19+00:00): Feedback receive - we will take a look at it this today.
RVR015 (2026-02-02 16:16:29+00:00): *Feedback received - we will take a look at this today.
VLD319 (2026-02-02 22:53:57+00:00): Hello rskedgell, 

I apologize for any inconvenience. I have extended and connected the footways to address the issue. Changeset #178027339.  

Thanks, VLD319
SomeoneElse (2026-02-03 00:27:10+00:00): Hello VLD319 - please take another look (see e.g. https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#21/51.42443/-0.01403 which has updated - OSM Carto has not yet for me).  There's a crossing there at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8257543236/history that is disconnected from the two new ways that you've just drawn.
There are also a number of missing driveways in this area - if you're going to add separate sidewalks, you really do need to finish the job.
RVR015 (2026-02-03 16:36:13+00:00): Appreciate the call out, SomeoneElse. The team will add in the driveways and add a map note on the sidewalk stating driveway mapping is in progress.
rskedgell (2026-02-03 17:00:32+00:00): As I was there on Sunday morning and it was fresh in my memory, I've made a few little tweaks and added two crossings of Beckenham Hill Road (one with accessibility features, one without).

Adding the driveways would be very helpful, thanks.

Next time I'm in Beckenham Place Park for a swim, I'll survey any extra details of more recently sidewalks and crossings with StreetComplete.
VLD157 (2026-02-03 18:43:22+00:00): Hello everyone, 

I have mapped all of the driveways I could verify along this section of Beckenham Hill Road in changeset 178062300. Hope this helps! 

Thanks, VLD157
rskedgell (2026-02-03 19:34:01+00:00): Thanks @VLD157 !
eserte (2025-12-13 14:20:56+00:00): Hi Emil1887,

machst du die Änderung noch richtig (Busspur statt Radweg Richtung SO, Radspur statt Radweg Richtung SW)?

-- Slaven
ScottWalkerAU (2025-12-13 10:14:58+00:00): Hi - is this meant to be a junction=roundabout instead of oneway=yes, for the circle?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175863874
Mingwei (2025-12-29 02:56:12+00:00): Hey - please don't map bike lanes separately unless they're actually a bike path separate from the road
bartgron (2025-12-12 22:18:08+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Dobre_komentarze_zestawu_zmian
Sylabowy Kot (2025-12-12 22:08:41+00:00): Zmiana wycofana, bo dodała niezbyt rozbudowane to samo, kasując niepotrzebnie obiekt pamiętający historię. 

Prośba o podawanie komentarzy oraz źródła dla informacji niepochodzących ze zdjęć.
MarkoŠatrak (2025-12-15 16:20:24+00:00): Fixed maxheight applied on too short segment and related way splits made in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175968833 #OptimoRoute
bartgron (2025-12-12 22:17:08+00:00): Zestaw zmian wycofany:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175865070
Pozdrawiam
osmviborg (2025-12-13 07:04:30+00:00): Nu er der så dobbelt op på cykelstien. Stien er allerede tagget på Englandsvej som 'cycleway=track'. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Da:Cykelstivejledning
marc__marc (2026-01-08 13:18:41+00:00): Bonjour,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8290356524
est-ce un preset ou renseigné à la main ?
car crossing_ref a été remplacé par crossing=uncontrolled (deja correctement renseigné) + crossing:markings=zebra
Cordialement,
Marc
Alexb60 (2026-01-08 13:53:29+00:00): Bonjour,

J'ai restauré le noeud après sa suppression due à une probable fausse manip (fusion avec un numéro de rue : https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1988073723). Je n'ai pas dû faire attention au crossing_ref alors présent. Je l'ai corrigé.
marc__marc (2026-01-08 14:34:54+00:00): merci pour ton retour, je n'avais pas vu la fusion de nœud
karr4s (2026-01-05 11:24:34+00:00): Bonjour,
Il semble qu'il y ai eu une erreur lors de cette modification : le champ "description" a été ajouté mais est resté vide. Je le retire.
Bonne journée. ;)
NorthCrab_upload (2025-12-12 23:23:07+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13373023080

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
b-jazz (2026-01-05 20:36:24+00:00): Hey wat,

I appreciate any work towards cleaning up golf courses, but I found a problem in your methodology. If you look at the second hole fairway, you'll see that the nodes on either side of node 4218321798 were removed from the fairway, but not the green. This leaves the two objects overlapping and setting off my Q/A checks for overlaps. I'm not sure how automated this cleanup is, or if it was just a one-time manual oversight. Just wanted to let you know. thanks.
watmildon (2026-01-05 21:33:54+00:00): Oh goodness. Let me review this and the couple of my other recent changesets like this.  I am a bit surprised this did trigger a JOSM warning but will investigate that too. 

Thanks for pointing it out!
watmildon (2026-01-06 01:21:37+00:00): It's super weird. I must not have had both geometries downloaded into the layer. So one got simplified and the the other didn't but because they were somewhat gradually shifting, I missed it as I did my manual scroll through. I have patched that spot up. Good catch.

Can you tell me about your overlap checks? I would love to know more.
b-jazz (2026-01-06 01:32:06+00:00): Thanks for the clean-up.

I get a weekly dump of the US from geofabrik and run it through a bunch of filters and code and SQL/PostGIS magic to generate working data files (lists of URLs of problem golf course features). I then go and clean those up best I can. The two major phases of my project are fairways and greens overlapping, along with greens fully inside fairways but not probably set as a multipolygon. The former has been completed and the latter is just a day or two from completion. It has taken over 3 years of work.

I also have related nightly dumps of the diffs that does a analysis to find out what has changed and if it fails various checks. I then go and clean those up and if appropriate, notify the mapper of their errors and how they can improve in the future.

I'm working on a diary entry draft that will detail a bunch of this. I should dust it off and finish it up.
Hendrik Helsper (2025-12-12 23:18:41+00:00): Faktisch wird die Radquerung auch in Richtung Hbf genutzt. Ich weiß allerdings nicht, ob das legal ist (, denn streng genommen fängt der Zweirichtungsradweg erst beim Vz 241 an). Wenn ja, dann müsste das "oneway"-tag entfernt werden.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-13 00:52:12+00:00): Here, it looks like you may have duplicated a beach? Uthuru Magu & Uthuru Beach?
And a "football stadium" will be a major construction with enclosed grandstands etc. This would just be a leisure=pitch + sport=soccer.
Thanks!
SomeoneElse2 (2025-12-13 12:28:53+00:00): Hello,
There's now a tiny gap in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9058875#map=23/51.49475585/-0.12439015&layers=S .
Cheers,
Andy
For info see also https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/id-visibility-of-relations/138374/21 )
MacLondon (2025-12-14 04:11:57+00:00): Thanks Andy. This gap is now fixed.
ChrissW-R1 (2025-12-12 23:54:57+00:00): https://osm.org/node/11286041060/history

Does this speed camera really no longer exist?
felipeeugenio (2025-12-13 11:43:28+00:00): Hola. Esta es la tercera edición en Playa Ancha que hacen tres maperos distintos y que parece ser parte de un trabajo universitario. La edición contiene elementos o no existentes o duplicados o con tags incorrectos y todas con una calidad sub estándar.

Parece ser información privada volcada en una base de datos de producción mundial. Por favor instruirse con mayor detalle sobre la naturaleza del proyecto OSM en el chat de Telegram de la comunida chilena de maperos en el link en mi perfil, pero por favor detener este tipo de ediciones.
Por lo pronto, serán reversadas.

Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175866506
JoeG (2025-12-31 00:29:11+00:00): Hi! I intend to revert deletions of fences, gates and footway=sidewalk in this one.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175866874
BubbaJuice (2025-12-13 00:03:48+00:00): Also used EIA 860-2024 early release for generator capacities and start dates
BubbaJuice (2025-12-13 00:04:33+00:00): & https://www.uesaz.com/rio-rico-to-harshaw/ for voltages
Fizzie-DWG (2025-12-13 00:49:06+00:00): Hello Agil1519 & welcome to OSM! Thanks for your enthusiasm, but there are a few things we need to point out about your mapping. 
- please don't map things as a building if they're not. You've tagged the Stelco power station as a building but it appears to be outdoors? 
- the "Name" tag is for the actual name of the feature, not a description, so the Police Station, Courthouse, football stadium etc shouldn't be named that way, the name should show what is on the sign outside. If it doesn't have one, please don't add one!
Any questions, please ask!
Thanks
Graeme Fitzpatrick             						
Moderator          		
OSMF Data Working Group
qstep (2026-04-21 10:18:18+00:00): Üdv! A https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1458183104 még építés alatt áll? Keresztülmegy rajta ez az S506-os vonal: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8021074
balint36 (2026-04-26 15:49:33+00:00): A bontás 51+49 – 82+00 hm közé szól, de csak egy részét bontották el, a maradékra maradt a wiki által megengedett címkézés.
A viszonylatos kapcsolatokkal nem szoktam aktívan foglalkozni, így nem tudom most annak mi a címkézési/nem címkézési rendszere, így ahhoz nem nyúltam.
flohoff (2025-12-13 11:19:48+00:00): Auch hier

path -> footway

bicycle=yes 

Das ist jetzt ein bischen durcheinander.


Siehe auch Wiki:

"Die Benutzung dieser Wege durch Fahrzeuge ist in der Regel nicht erlaubt. "

D.h. hier müsste ein Z239 stehen z.b. - Steht aber nicht. 
Und auch hier ist das wieder zuwegung zu den Fahrradständern.

Flo
stirps (2025-12-13 14:03:46+00:00): Ich antworte hier mal vertretend für die changesets von Schenke, Marktkauf und dem Nordbad:

Die meisten Wege, die ich als footway gemapped hatte, werden mMn auch hauptsächlich als footways verwendet; Bei Schenke werden Radfahrende wohl kaum einmal "die Runde machen" und bei Marktkauf werden wahrscheinlich einfach nur die allermeisten Menschen zu ihren Autos gehen, die Zebrastreifen dürfen ja genau genommen auch nicht als solche von Fahrrädern genutzt werden, in der Praxis sieht das dann anders aus.

Und selbst wenn dann doch einmal Radfahrende diese Routen benutzen wollen passt das mit dem tagging schema trotzdem: "For ways designated for pedestrians, but which also allows riding bicycles, use either highway=footway and bicycle=yes or highway=path, foot=designated and bicycle=yes." (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway#When_to_use).

Das bzgl. des Zugangs zu den Fahrradständern ist dann glaube ich noch etwas subjektiver, mMn ist es auch da vertretbar footway zu verwende, da eben der primäre Nutzen ist, zu Fuß zum jeweiligen Ziel zu kommen und der sekundäre Nutzen, das Fahrrad abzustellen. Wirklich mit Geschwindigkeit da durchgefahren werden sollte ja sowieso nicht...
flohoff (2025-12-13 11:18:28+00:00): Moin,
auch hier hast du ganz viel zu Footway umgetagged. 

Stehen da Zeichen 239 ? Ich glaube nicht. Und auch hier ist wieder die am Eingang vom Marktkauf rechts zufahrten zu den Fahrradständern. 

Das zu einem footway zu machen halte ich für falsch.

Es gibt keine offiziellen Schilder wie z.b. Z239 die das zu einem footway machen.
flohoff (2025-12-13 11:16:15+00:00): Du hast hier

highway=path
auf footway geändert.

Allerdings mit foot=yes/bicycle=yes 

Das ist jetzt ein bisschen durcheinander. Wenn das ein footway ist ist foot=yes über und fahrräder dürfen da eigentlich nicht fahren.

Da das aber der zugang zu den Fahrradständern ist ist das IMHO eher path als footway.

Das war schon korrekt gemapped.

Flo
flohoff (2025-12-13 11:15:02+00:00): Du hast hier an der Welle die Mauern an dem Abgang eingezeichnet. 

Du kennst die OSM Best practices zum thema "Parallele linien"? Hier geht ja in der Mitte der Fuß-/Radweg durch und aussen sind die mauern. Wenn das sauber aussehen soll müssen die Nodes immer in einer linie liegen:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways
stirps (2025-12-13 13:44:10+00:00): Die linksseitige, untere Mauer kam nicht von mir und ich hatte die für konform gehalten (wenn du die meinst, der Rest sieht ziemlich parallel aus). Habe trotzdem noch einmal alles nachgearbeitet