piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
kapazao (2024-03-05 18:38:28+00:00): Sí, Catastro por desgracia en muchos lugares está regular y hay que revisar bien los elementos. En algunos casos incluso aparecen manzanas enteras giradas algunos grados :(, no sé cómo lo harán.
Gracias por el comentario y espero puedas corregirlo.
Un saludo
dieghernan (2024-11-27 09:31:30+00:00): Buenas, he empezado a revisar algunos edificios por Fuente Santa para alinearlo con PNOA, creo que ahora está mejor
eggie (2023-09-21 11:28:26+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
Osmwithspace (2023-09-21 11:03:23+00:00): Ich hab noch einen Weg auf dem Luftbild entdeckt:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141553342
eggie (2023-09-21 11:31:40+00:00): Dag Werner,

Kijk even naar de wiki svp.
bollard=pollerinzinkbaar_paaltje is geen OSM tag.
bollard=rising
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=bollard
Kijk je nog even, want dit geeft foutmeldingen.. https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=141553502

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-09-21 13:41:30+00:00): Pas je zelf de paaltjes aan?
literan (2023-09-22 05:59:52+00:00): ваш дубль удалил
user_5359 (2023-09-21 16:07:31+00:00): Welcome to OSM! I remove your SEO SPAM (mostly foreign keys)! Please have a look on https://wiki.osm.org
mueschel (2023-09-30 09:11:37+00:00): Hi,
you used the new tag "bicycle:priority" here. As it's a tag describing priority, the common form of the key would be "priority:bicycle" - first the key, then the vehicle class is applies to. Could you consider changing that?
Carto'Cité (2023-09-30 12:02:25+00:00): Hi mueschel,
Yes, thanks you for tour observation. And yes this is what I is what I thought afterwards.
Thank you.
Charles
Carto'Cité (2023-09-30 12:09:56+00:00): Done :)
Do you have the reference about this rule? I would like to use it to promote these way to describe.
Charles
mueschel (2023-09-30 12:42:40+00:00): You can compare to e.g. 
maxspeed:hgv
or
maxweight:agricultural

Here's a page in the Wiki that describes an order that matches most keys we have:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Order_of_key_parts


But: Maybe "priority" isn't even the correct tag here? Wiki says it's to give priority to one direction of traffic. Maybe "priority_road" is better suited on the ways here?
Carto'Cité (2023-10-02 14:02:48+00:00): Hi mueschel,
Thank you again for your help. You are absolutely right about using priority_road instead of priority, I will change it in my proposal.
Regards.
user_5359 (2023-09-23 06:09:30+00:00): Revert nicht erlaubte Quelle siehe Diskussion https://www.osm.org/changeset/141590814
aTarom (2023-09-21 16:09:01+00:00): Hola, gracias por editar, puedes revisar estos ways con
"abandonded:building" en vez de "abandoned:building"
entiendo que los añade algún script de conversión de forma automática?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704070/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704071/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704072/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704073/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704075/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704076/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704077/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704078/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704079/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704080/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704083/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704084/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704085/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704086/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704087/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704088/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704089/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704090/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704091/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1209704092/history
dieghernan (2023-09-21 16:57:22+00:00): Ups! Bien visto, me extraña habérmelo pasado porque lo validé con JOSM. Lo reviso y corrijo
Marek-M (2023-09-21 13:01:52+00:00): You used the 'location' tag incorrectly here, which should take specific values according to the Wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location - in this case, it is better to write descriptive values in the tag, e.g. 'description' or 'note'. I corrected this object in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141558509
felipeeugenio (2023-09-21 12:55:33+00:00): Hello.
Does the airport no longer exist?
olehz (2023-09-21 19:08:34+00:00): Sorry, I don't remember your case. I've done edits all over the globe. I used the official AIP and removed duplicates from false Wikipedia data. What is ICAO code of your airport?
olehz (2023-09-21 19:09:39+00:00): http://vfr-demo-map.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/map.htm
olehz (2023-09-21 20:55:42+00:00): http://vfr-demo-map.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/map.htm
olehz (2023-09-21 20:56:27+00:00): html
osmviborg (2023-09-21 12:11:28+00:00): Undlad venligst at 'snappe' områder på veje!
olcastle (2023-09-21 12:41:25+00:00): Det beklager jeg. Har netop frakoblet andre zoner jeg førhen har tilkoblet veje. Beklager jeg spørger dumt, men hvorfor bør man egentlig ikke koble zoner på veje? Jeg er desværre endnu ikke så garvet på OSM.
osmviborg (2023-09-21 12:44:16+00:00): Det kan være meget 'trals' senere at redigere begge dele.
b-holdet (2023-09-21 12:52:36+00:00): Og ikke mindst, at veje ikke har noget med zoner at gøre.
Er der et fællesskab, så ja. På samme vis som kommunegrænser er uafhængige af alt andet, selvom landskabet under ændrer sig.
Владимир К (2023-10-05 12:17:37+00:00): Добрый день. 
Мне кажется, вы слишком точно двигаете линию дороги на середину по спутнику. Не надо этого делать, когда появляется 3я или 4я полоса на поворот, разворот и тд. получается волнистая дорога, которая не совпадает с реальностью, потому что если двигаться на перекрестке прямо, то не надо подруливать по волне, как тут https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/55.74824/52.44018
CometSeeker (2023-10-05 17:39:21+00:00): Добрый день, Владимир!
«Волнистость» в данном случае возникла лишь из-за того, что на текущий момент проспект отрисован со значительным сдвигом, при этом я в этом пакете правил и выравнивал только пешеходные/велодорожки, которые примыкают к перекрёстку, а сам перекрёсток не сдвинул (наверно, стоило это сделать сразу). Для информации для дорожек на данном участке карты использовано смещение Esri 7.16; -1.94.
eggie (2023-09-21 11:48:43+00:00): Knooppunt losgemaakt van landuse
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=141554742
eggie (2023-09-21 12:10:29+00:00): De Constantijnstraat is gerenoveerd.
Je werkt met een oude achtergrond . PDOK actueel in niet recent. 
Ik pas even wat aan, want er zijn ook geen aparte fietspaden meer.
De wandelroute Nijvere Loper is stuk.  (Routerelatie)
Zal al zo zijn geweest. Bestaat die route nog wel? 
gr eggie
eggie (2023-09-21 12:11:53+00:00): https://www.satellietdataportaal.nl/?base=openstreetmap&res=0.3%2C0.5&datemin=21-09-2022&loc=52.36401%2C6.464370%2C19z&overlay=mos-0&marker=loc&acqdate=2023-09-09&acqid=20230909_103043_PNEO-03_1_1%2C20230909_103111_PNEO-03_1_1&sensor=Pleiades-NEO
Op'tRad (2023-09-21 17:40:20+00:00): Dank voor losmaken.

Ik besef dat het satellietbeeld oud is.

Nijvere Loper bordjes zitten nog wel in dit dorp. Of die nog compleet is, weet ik niet.
eggie (2023-09-21 17:49:50+00:00): Oke.. de route doet het in ieder geval weer.
Pdok in editor iD is verouderd. De nieuwe luchtfoto komt in iD zodra Nederland er helemaal op staat. Nog niet dekkend kennelijk.
Het zijn luchtfoto's.. 
De link hierboven is wel een satfoto.. Die zijn soms een week oud.
Op'tRad (2023-09-21 18:05:31+00:00): Constantijnstraat lijkt me goed, zo.

De oostzijde van de Markt zou ik classificeren als Straat, de rest van de Markt niet - eens?
eggie (2023-09-21 18:15:59+00:00): Eens ... Zou er residential van maken ..  Dat ziet er dan logischer uit. 
Doe je dat zelf?
eggie (2023-09-21 18:17:32+00:00): Hoewel .... Dan is die situatie gelijk aan de Grotestraat en dan krijg je een voorkeurroute via de Markt. Dat lijkt me niet de bedoeling.
Op'tRad (2023-09-22 07:04:32+00:00): Luchtfoto's ah ja; we hebben een keer zo een vliegtuig zien vliegen. Heel strak evenwijdig heen en weer, bij heldere lucht.
Op'tRad (2023-09-22 07:21:49+00:00): Heb de Markt zelf aangepast. Weggetje toegevoegd naar de achteringang van het Leger des Heils
Frans S (2023-09-24 13:19:04+00:00): Hello.  Thanks for mapping on this task.
A remark. This is an emergency project in which Buildings and Roads need to be mapped. 
Please don't spend time on tracks in between farmland and farmland areas. 
Best regards
Frans S (2023-09-24 13:19:55+00:00): Bonjour. Merci de nous avoir confié cette tâche.
Une remarque. Il s'agit d'un projet d'urgence dans lequel les bâtiments et les routes doivent être cartographiés.
S'il vous plaît, ne passez pas de temps sur les pistes entre les terres agricoles et les zones agricoles.
Meilleures salutations
SomeoneElse (2023-10-12 12:03:27+00:00): Hello,
The deletion of https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/254212144/history seems to have created a gap in a number of relations, including https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/254212144/history .  I'm presuming that these roads do actually join up here?
Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
Best Regards,
Andy
trigpoint (2023-09-24 13:12:01+00:00): Hi, just wondering what sources you are using for these edits. Surveys to find and only map fire hydrants seems a lot of work.
Cheers Phil
yngndrw (2023-09-24 14:57:13+00:00): Hi Phil, the changes I'm making are all in my local area. I'm using a combination of Google Street View to find the hydrant signs and from there locating the hydrants themselves. In some cases the location of the hydrant is not obvious so I've either marked them with a fix-me note or gone there myself to locate them.

It's really just a curiosity for me, finding the distribution of fire hydrants in a rural area.

-Andrew.
trigpoint (2023-09-24 19:08:49+00:00): Hi Andrew
Thank you, however using Google Streetview for OSM is against Google's terms of use.

You should not look at it when mapping. Edits involving it should be reverted.

Sorry to be so harsh, but when it comes to sources OSM needs to be skeaky clean.

Cheers Phil
yngndrw (2023-09-24 19:22:48+00:00): Hi Phil, I have passed every single one of these hydrant signs myself many times in person either by car or on foot. (Just passed a few now while walking our dog) Using street view to refresh my memory is not an issue in my view - Google do not have a monopoly on my memory after all, even though they probably think that they do.

Thanks,
-Andrew.
trigpoint (2023-09-24 20:15:15+00:00): Andrew, unfortunately refreshing your memory is an issue according to google terms of use and OSM mapping guidelines. We are a volunteer project and cannot afford to be anything other than squeaky clean.

If you see things when out why not take a photo of them or you can use open data sources such as https://www.mapillary.com/ or bing streetside.

Cheers Phil
trigpoint (2023-09-24 20:34:40+00:00): Or try an app such as streetcomplete which allows you to map whilst looking at the object
yngndrw (2023-09-24 21:28:36+00:00): Hi Phil,

I have recently seen all of these hydrant locations, in person - Just this weekend I've passed about half of them and I've passed every single one of them over the past month. You should consider them to have been personally visited and verified by eye.

Thanks,
-Andrew.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-01-20 16:22:06+00:00): Hi, do you happen to know anything about https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11207548631 ?

As I understand it's an outpost/pickup point for 01.ee, ox.ee and pets.ee

I've noticed that they have a large selection of pets.ee stuff on shelves which you can probably buy on the spot, so maybe it's not just an outpost for pets.ee ?

What do you think if create separate nodes for the shop=pet and shop=outpost even if they operate as one facility?
Zverik (2024-01-20 19:21:00+00:00): Yeah I guess that makes sense. I've seen the other links there, but outside of that nothing gave up it's not a single shop. I obviously didn't do an online check.
qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq (2024-01-21 10:57:20+00:00): Thanks. I've split the shop.
map per (2023-09-22 16:56:20+00:00): Hallo MB_OSM,

bitte keine beschreibenden Namen wie "Sitzbank" verwenden (siehe: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Namen#Namen_sind_keine_Beschreibungen). Hab den Namen hier wieder gelöscht.

Danke und viele Grüße
map per
aleksaJov (2023-12-12 08:59:09+00:00): Hello olehz,

As a military part of aerodrome, IATA code is not valid and useful. The civilian part of aerodrome "Aéroport de Guelmim" has IATA code and may serves the purpose. Please, remove duplicate IATA code from military feature.

Regards,
Aleksandar
olehz (2023-12-12 09:26:16+00:00): It's incorrect to divide the airfield into 2 parts (civilian and military). They use a common runway after all.
aleksaJov (2023-12-12 11:14:12+00:00): Please provide source where is explicit explained to not divide airfields into two parts. As OSM Wiki related articles about tagging and mapping there no defined to avoid these situations. In many cases depend on country, the aerodrome spatial area shares same runway or have separated runways for military/civilian purpose. The host/owner may be military or civilian. Also, issues can produces different information starting with name, contact information and Wikipedia articles, etc.
Above all, issue is routing to proper location on civilian/terminal part. If there is one entity, they refer to aerodrome name and find short route to location. There is no separation between civilian or military part, they route to shorter route instead of finding a correct result. Resulting problem can be arrival to entrance at military airbase instead civilian airport.

The IATA code purpose is not for military using or airstrip attributes. A quote from Wikipedia explains: IATA airline designators are used to identify an airline for commercial purposes in reservations, timetables, tickets, tariffs, air waybills and in telecommunications.

The OSM Wiki for military=airfield (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dairfield) has wrong tagging guideline where is IATA code included in instruction.
olehz (2023-12-12 14:07:44+00:00): See: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141555869
Pan (2023-09-21 13:08:33+00:00): We dont know if they are individual trees or not and there is absolutely no reason not to draw the surface of of foliage even if we know where the trunk is located. Destroying someone's work is absolutely unacceptable. I am reverting your damage.
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-11-16 09:21:34+00:00): See followup in https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15085

Includes

> Someone will at some point delete or simplify your hyper-detailed forests, adding the abstraction that is neccessary for a map and that you fail to contribute. When this happens, you will not revert these edits as you have in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/141555620 because such simplification of your over-detailed data is an improvement of the map, not - as you seem to believe - a destruction of valuable information. The hyper-detailed information you are contributing is neither precise nor valuable.
Jan Olieslagers (2023-09-22 08:11:06+00:00): IATA code no longer assigned. It had already been removed half a year ago, didn'y you see??? Re-adding comes close to a revert war, which is a kind of vandalism.
olehz (2023-09-28 06:02:06+00:00): Ok. I see.
moje_konto (2023-09-24 21:30:55+00:00): On the photomap the way is connected, if there is some movable barrier - then it would be better to explicitly mark it on a node, but leave the way connected.

For example:
barrier=block
barrier=bollard
moje_konto (2023-09-28 22:56:02+00:00): www.openstreetmap.org/node/11207566270

I connected the way and marked one node as barrier=yes.

It would be good to specify exact type of this barrier.
Jan Olieslagers (2023-09-22 08:07:48+00:00): The IATA code that you added is NOT assigned. Please verify your data more carefully! For IATA codes the sole reference is https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/?airport.search=ZMG
olehz (2023-09-28 06:01:12+00:00): Ok. Thanks!  Using your link I found almost 200 similar cases and corrected them
aleksaJov (2023-12-12 09:15:38+00:00): Hello olehz,

As a military part of aerodrome, IATA code is not valid and useful. The civilian part of aerodrome (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/665995354) has IATA code and may serves the purpose. Please, remove duplicate IATA code from military feature.

Regards,
Aleksandar
olehz (2023-12-12 09:27:42+00:00): It's incorrect to divide the airfield into 2 parts (civilian and military). They use a common runway after all.
aleksaJov (2023-12-12 11:13:38+00:00): Please provide source where is explicit explained to not divide airfields into two parts. As OSM Wiki related articles about tagging and mapping there no defined to avoid these situations. In many cases depend on country, the aerodrome spatial area shares same runway or have separated runways for military/civilian purpose. The host/owner may be military or civilian. Also, issues can produces different information starting with name, contact information and Wikipedia articles, etc.
Above all, issue is routing to proper location on civilian/terminal part. If there is one entity, they refer to aerodrome name and find short route to location. There is no separation between civilian or military part, they route to shorter route instead of finding a correct result. Resulting problem can be arrival to entrance at military airbase instead civilian airport.

The IATA code purpose is not for military using or airstrip attributes. A quote from Wikipedia explains: IATA airline designators are used to identify an airline for commercial purposes in reservations, timetables, tickets, tariffs, air waybills and in telecommunications.

The OSM Wiki for military=airfield (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:military%3Dairfield) has wrong tagging guideline where is IATA code included in instruction.
olehz (2023-12-12 13:53:12+00:00): > Please provide source where is explicit explained to not divide airfields into two parts

Lol. You yourself wrote that the IATA code is identical. This is one airport that has mixed MIL/CIV uses and uses the same RWYs. But it is impossible to determine this geometrically in OSM. In fact, the airport diagrams in OSM are simply terrible. This is very worse than the AMDB standard. And your proposal to ignore the IATA code, which in fact exists, seems strange to me.
olehz (2023-12-12 13:55:02+00:00): https://skybrary.aero/articles/airport-mapping-database-amdb
olehz (2023-12-12 13:59:15+00:00): I look at the problem from the point of view of aviation and land use, and you from the point of view of routing. You can tag the building rather than remove the official UN codes.
olehz (2023-12-12 14:03:19+00:00): My company uses OSM as one of the sources for drawing airport diagrams (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7sMxRg-JvM) and your proposal is very bad from this point of view.
aleksaJov (2023-12-14 09:33:20+00:00): I would agree that OSM has some undefined tagging guidelines and options for MIL/CIV airports. OSM has a significant number of approaches in polygonization globaly for these type of aerodrome. If You have suggestion for better mapping solutions here in OpenStreetMap community, be free and share proposal at OSM Wiki pages in section for aeroway.
Local community has mapped these aerodromes as separated entities and that is dataset which we have. In these case IATA code refer to Aalborg Airport, not to Aalborg Air Base.

ICAO code is referent for both. 

Your mention, AMDB standard is not related to OSM. Is not official implemented in OpenStreetMap to present airport data models which refer to different type of presenting data.
olehz (2023-12-18 20:21:22+00:00): I want to apologize. Anyway, I hate Russia and Serbia (mini russia), you killed my friends and destroyed my future. So I don't see any constructive conversations. Fuck off and good bye.
olehz (2023-12-18 20:25:11+00:00): Lovers of dictatorships from Russia/Serbia/Hungary have no relation to the Danish airport. There's nothing to discuss here
Fizzie-DWG (2023-12-21 07:07:36+00:00): olehz, please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15506
mueschel (2023-09-24 09:52:16+00:00): You and your colleagues introduced new tags here: 

maxheight trimble
maxheighttribble
maxheighttrimble
maxweighttrimble
hgvtrimble

Please explain what all these tags mean.
devasen (2023-09-27 09:40:45+00:00): Hi mueschel,
Thank you for taking the time to look over the changeset. These tags are applicable only for our internal edits, however owing to a technical error they got published on OSM. 
We have identified all the changesets belonging to these tags added by the editors and have deleted the incorrect attributes/syntax in the changesets #141790368 ,#141790142 & #141790274. We apologize for this error and will be cautious while contributing on OSM.
Regards,
devasen
osmviborg (2023-09-21 12:30:12+00:00): 'Legende børn' skilt er ikke det samme som stillevej.
zstadler (2023-10-16 19:43:17+00:00): שלום דניאל,

תודה על עבודת המיפוי שאתה עושה!

מקובל לשים את תגיות השמות של סינגלים על היחסים, כמו שעשית בסינגל השלוחות

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16358371

העברתי את השם של סינגל משפחות -טבעת שפת מדבר ליחס שלו

התיוג
colour=green
על הדרך אומר שיש סימון בשטח של שביל האופניים והסימון הזה הוא בצבע ירוק.
אם התכוונת שהצבע הירוק יופיע במפת האופניים הפתוחה כדי לציין שביל בדרגת קושי קלה, אז התיוג הנדרש הוא של 
mtb:scale

דבר נוסף, אם תוכל, נוגע לקטעים שבהם 
הסינגל עובר על דרך עפר. במקרים אלו לא מקובל להשאיר שני קווים, אחד לאופניים והשני לכלי רכב, שמייצגים את אותה דרך בשטח

מצאתי, לדעתי, כפיךות כזו עם השביל השחור ליד סוכה במדבר. כנראה שיש כפילות דומה עם השביל האדום שם, אבל אני לא בטוח

אשמח לעזור בכל נושא.

תודה,
זאב
jeslop (2023-11-06 16:50:02+00:00): Changeset reverted due to fictional mapping

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143701922
freeExec (2023-09-21 13:11:24+00:00): А номера там на нём не было?
eggie (2023-09-21 13:35:23+00:00): Dag alt_name   gebruiken.. en als het alleen lokaal is loc_name..
Dus bij name=.. alleen de officiele naam. 
eggie
Op'tRad (2023-09-21 18:10:49+00:00): Nijverdalse Venus ... ik zit vrij diep in de lokale historie maar dat heb ik hier echt nog nooit iemand horen zeggen. Textielmaagd wel. Feitelijk is het een jubileummonument, maar hoe het officieel heet?-? Ik ben toch het meest geneigd Naatje gewoon als officiële naam voor te stellen.
eggie (2023-09-21 18:41:24+00:00): Up to you... 😀
Maar wel eenduidig.. dus geen twee namen achter elkaar.
We kennen name=.. dat rendert.
..alt_name= rendert niet..

En loc_name=  zoals de omwonenden iets noemen.
Bv De kolenkit voor een kerk in sloterdijk.
De fluitketel.. voor station blaak.. enz.
Zie wiki. .. name
empty_child (2023-09-21 19:48:09+00:00): Добрый день, GMV-Geo
Пожалуйста, не делайте name=DogGolingo Grooming • დოგოლინგო გრუმინგი. Оставляйте только на грузинском. Если вы боитесь, что пользователь увидит картули и испугается, то для этого мы и прописываем name:en и другие языки
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-03-15 10:04:13+00:00): Is "Food and sleep" describing what is available at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5022300727 ?

Or is it an actual name of that place?
StopConsuming_StartProducing (2024-03-15 16:56:42+00:00): Since Osmand (and probably otherapps) always only displays either restaurant or accommodation (whatever they consider first), I was trying to make sure people understand that it is both.
une abeille (2023-09-21 14:58:55+00:00): The cycleway was not missing, it was tagged on the highway. I had verified it on site just a few days ago. Having it drawn in as a separate way makes it hard for people to know what kind of bike lane it is: currently the section that is just painted and the section that is actually divided from the road are represented the same way, which I feel is deceptive for people looking for the safest routes.  

This was also not drawn in with the correct offset, so it is misaligned.
felipeeugenio (2023-09-22 12:14:52+00:00): ?
Totally non-existent road