piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
TinPetreković (2025-07-21 20:03:25+00:00): National network tags have been removed because they do not align with the official source.(https://hepgis-usdot.hub.arcgis.com/apps/usdot::national-network-conventional-combination-trucks-map/explore)
mtmail (2025-07-23 11:33:55+00:00): Das Haus wurde in Riedenburg, Deutschland eingetragen. Steht es nicht in Österreich?
eggie (2025-08-26 19:57:38+00:00): Dag padvinder,
En hier gaat het weer mis.. Heb je dit nu gecontroleerd?
Zou Go Map!! 4.3.2 geschikt zijn voor mp's? 

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-08-27 06:32:59+00:00): Hersteld
padvinder (2025-08-27 19:26:32+00:00): Vreemd. De verschillende controletools gaven geen fouten. Ik heb gisteravond, schijnbaar voordat eggie herstel pleegde, al herstelpoging gedaan: eiland helemaal weggehaald en opnieuw in multipolygoon aangemaakt. Hopelijk reden we elkaar niet in de wielen.
eggie (2025-08-27 19:29:54+00:00): Als het een inner mp is zal het wel goed komen.
Groet..
eggie
EliotB (2025-07-21 21:56:57+00:00): I see this is turning into a bit of an edit war.
User kinobi has contacted me about "maintaining" their edits.  
I've explained that this is unlikely to work, better to mark the ways "private", and there might be a gate on their property that could be marked "locked" on the map.
woodpeck (2025-07-21 23:16:27+00:00): I have reverted the deletion and added a private access marker.
EliotB (2025-07-21 23:35:37+00:00): Looking at the satellite imagery, I think it might be arguable that the north end of the track is of a different character to the southwest part leading from road to buildings.
It appears to be wheel tracks across farmland.  I.e. highway=track.

I agree that ways with access=private is correct mapping.

I have warned kinobi again against continuing in an edit war
StC (2025-07-22 20:35:12+00:00): Hi,

this changeset has broken a hiking route that passes there. I'll fix it. Please don't forget to have a look at relations when you make changes.
sheldonelectric (2025-08-06 22:08:29+00:00): Bien vu, merci!
Axel Flordal (2025-07-21 21:20:40+00:00): Varför är detta inte en footway?
archie (2025-07-21 21:36:29+00:00): Jag kan inte påminna mig om att ha sett en skyltning där som säger att det är en gångväg.
Axel Flordal (2025-07-21 21:57:23+00:00): Ingen skyltning vad jag såg men tycker att det är "used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians" baserat på wikin. Även barriären i botten av backen är ett tecken på det. Också att den går rätt från trotoaren tyder på att det är en gångbana.
Leo Slager (2025-07-22 10:37:31+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
NorthCrab_upload (2025-07-21 20:43:25+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/13016171238
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13016184449

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
SekeRob (2025-07-31 06:57:07+00:00): Hi,

This CS appears with flagged items in OSM Inspector of broken boundaries, likely present before but coming to the fore because of the type change. The gaps are small and guessable, which would not be right on my. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=12.54333&lat=41.87851&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.50&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

cheers
dieterdreist (2025-07-31 12:31:48+00:00): thank you for reporting, indeed I only corrected the tag but did not check the geometry, so now these are tested in osmi and fail, will look into it asap,
thank you
Baloo Uriza (2025-07-23 13:55:39+00:00): Good first edit!  Though on street names, we don't abbreviate North or Street.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169264598
Leo Slager (2025-07-22 10:38:34+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
user_5359 (2025-07-22 06:20:48+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Please add the adress information to the main buildung not to the street crossing.
Leo Slager (2025-07-23 10:07:09+00:00): De data van de school aub niet taggen op het gebouw maar op de reeds aanwezige adres-node.

ik pas het even aan.
Liskwartier (2025-07-23 10:45:14+00:00): Dank je wel
Joseph R P (2025-07-22 01:56:09+00:00): Hello, the source you provided doesn't seem to explicitly show these roads as official proposals. Even if they were proposed at some point, and thus now outdated, there wouldn't be a point in mapping them as recent ESRI imagery shows that road right-of-ways have been graded over in these construction areas, and they do not align with the ways you traced. It would also be unlikely for Evelyn Brook Street to connect directly with a freeway ramp or for 5th Street to be routed straight through a federally-protected land.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-07-22 05:13:46+00:00): Alright then... Well, what's to be done about the tertiary stubs at Tule Springs Parkway and Theme Road (near a park)?
Joseph R P (2025-07-22 20:01:16+00:00): Tule Springs could be downgraded to unclassified since right now it is technically a dead-end road, though considering it is actively being expanded—the rest of it under construction right now—I wouldn't overthink it. Summerlin West currently has a lot of roads in this situation right now as well.

Theme Road on the other hand is a rare case of an un-extendable tertiary stub. It's a lengthy, busy collector road, but it has no outlet. Stubs of any classification can exist in rare cases if the road is significant enough, and usually they're caused by geographical restrictions (like the road is within an island, peninsula, or valley) or because the development has ended and thus so has the major section of the route (see southern Pahrump, Sandy Valley, and Mt Charleston for examples of tertiary/secondary stubs). The Sparks/Spanish Springs area has a few tertiary, secondary, and primary stubs as well.
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-01-30 04:10:38+00:00): Alright 👍 (comes back 6 months later)
So, uh, this area (and these roads) have changed a lot in half a year. Using BetterOSM.org, I can overlay these older edits with the new ones I made earlier today. You were right in that most of the proposed highways don't match with what's been constructed (except for one, which weirdly does match the older edit). You we also right in that Evelyn Brook Street wouldn't link directly to the CC 215 off-ramp; that appears to be me misinterpreting the proposed map's lines and attempting to match it with the ways already in existence. However, it does come close, ending at an entrance to an apartment complex. You were also right about 5th Street not being routed through federal land: a much newer parcel map (courtesy of OpenWeb) shows it skirting near the boundary before snaking its way northeast to Sandstone Ranch Parkway before curving northwest to end at what appears to be an extension of Grand Teton Drive. Tule Springs Parkway is STILL at a stub, and the right-of-way visible on Esri and OpenWeb shows that it just suddenly terminates near the border of Tule Springs. (I could vaguely trace out a circle from OpenWeb and Esri, but I don't know if this is the final/intended product.) Critically, however, a parcel map shows intersection plans for Tule Springs Parkway and 5th Street. The problem is that, from its current eastern terminus, it would have to go through Tule Springs before meeting up with 5th Street – which, as you've stated, is highly unlikely. What appear to be extensions of Grand Teton Drive also go through Tule Springs, but upgrading it to tertiary was the only way I could keep the continuity between Sandstone Ranch Parkway/Park Highlands Boulevard, Losse Road, Tule Springs Parkway, and 5th Street as tertiary roads. What should be done with this newly found information?
blm07 (2025-09-04 19:28:58+00:00): Bonjour, Pourquoi avez-vous supprimer les cheminements que j'avais créés ? Sans même échanger avant d'effectuer de telles actions.
Philippe9517 (2025-09-05 08:09:26+00:00): Bonjour,
Vous parlez des trottoirs ?
blm07 (2025-09-05 14:35:35+00:00): Bonjour, oui c’est ça.
Philippe9517 (2025-09-06 14:43:29+00:00): Bonjour,
J'habite le secteur ( Ermont, Eaubonne, Sannois, Saint Gratien , ...) et je le connais très bien.
Je pense que les segments "trottoirs" doivent êtres réservés aux trottoirs physiquement séparés de la route. 
Ce qui n'est pas le cas ici.
Je ne vois pas d'autre utilité.
J’utilise un GPS basé sur la cartographie OSM pour mes déplacements à pied et je suis surpris par le tracé des itinéraires dans ce secteur.
Traversé aux passages piétons en zone 30, changement de directions, passage d'un trottoir à un autre, ...
On a le droit de circuler sur le trottoir que l'on veut !!
Pouvez vous me dire quelle est l'utilité de tracer des trottoirs dans les rues d'Ermont ?
blm07 (2025-09-06 17:12:01+00:00): Bonjour, Je vous remercie d'avoir répondu. Les trottoirs que j'ai mappé sont séparés de la route par des bordures. Je vous invite à regarder le wiki sur les trottoirs et les cheminements piétons. intérêt est d'avoir des données plus précises. 
Nous ne sommes pas obligés d'être d'accord sur la façon de cartographier mais avant de faire des suppressions d'une telle ampleur, la moindre des choses aurait été d'échanger avec les autres contributeurs. 
De plus, vos suppressions n'ont pas été faites proprement : présence de nœuds et voies isolées, suppressions des trottoirs mais vous laissez les attributs sidewalk=separate sur les routes... 
Quoi qu'il arrive, supprimer des données car une application calcule mal le routage ne me semble pas pertinent. J'ai également ouvert un sujet sur le forum : https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/suppressions-cheminements-pieton/37261/4
trial (2025-09-06 19:41:50+00:00): > On a le droit de circuler sur le trottoir que l'on veut !! 
Et donc de cartograhphier le filaire piéton que l'on veut (en fait les deux si possible). Je précise que je ne suis pas un fana (je préfère sidewalk=both), par contre je ne détruis pas le travail d'autrui, merci de faire les revert qui simposent. Et s'il y a des erreurs de les signaler ou de les corriger.
Le graphe piéton est une aide pour les applications d'aide aux déficients visuels.
archie (2025-07-21 22:58:31+00:00): Vänligen flytta inte på inritade vägar/gator. De är rätt placerade. 
Däremot måste du justera din bildbakgrund (speciellt Bing), eftersom satellitbilderna inte är justerade och uppvisar en "imagery offset". 
Dvs allt du ritar in är en aning felpacerat. Och vad värre är du flyttar gatorna till fel position. 
Hur du kan göra justeringen visas här: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Using_aerial_imagery. 

Så förstör inte andra mappers arbete genom att felplacera de vägar som de har ritat in.
Gustav R (2025-07-22 22:06:43+00:00): Tack för infon! 
Förutsatte att det bara skulle vara att sätta igång och att allt skulle vara inställt och klart när editorn öppnades!

Är helt ny till det hela, så det blir nog tyvärr inte sista gången du får korrigera mig, men vill såklart lära mig att göra allt ordentligt! :)
archie (2025-07-22 23:18:17+00:00): Ja, jag är ledsen, men justeringen kommer man inte undan. 
Du skulle under tiden du lär dig att justera bildbakgrunden komplettera de adresser som redan finns på byggnaderna eller på noder i byggnaden. Där saknas oftast husnumret. Det vore en hedersam uppgift och du känner till de lokala förhållanden förmodar jag.
Gustav R (2025-07-23 18:14:14+00:00): Helt lugnt! Jag förstår helt. Det verkade inte allt för krångligt att justera, i alla fall inte med iD. (Håller så sakta på att bekanta mig med JOSM, har däremot inte vågat pusha några ändringar där ifrån ännu haha). 

Har du några bra tips på 'ankare' att justera gentemot? Tänker kanske vägarna om man nu vet att de är ritade som de ska.

Stämmer att jag har lokal kunskap. Är Alingsåsare, så jag tänkte att mitt lokalområde skulle vara ett hyfsat lugnt och bra ställe att börja lära sig på. :)
archie (2025-07-23 18:32:45+00:00): Fint! Ta trafikverkets baslager. Vägarna är någorlunda bra justerade. Sedan är de flesta vägar i din omgivning riktigt bra (jag skall ta mig en titt och korrigera).
Gustav R (2025-07-23 19:00:20+00:00): Okej! 
Så om jag förstår dig rätt, justera utefter trafikverkets baslager (overlay?) och räta upp vägarna efter det, snarare än de vägar som redan är ditmålade?

Tack så mycket! :)
Leo Slager (2025-07-22 10:40:18+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
Tatfahren (2025-07-22 07:17:06+00:00): Hallo Bernhard W,
am aktuellsten ist um Wilsdruff derzeit das Bing Luftbild von August 2024, das mapbox Luftbild ist (datiert anhand von mir bekannten Bauzeiten von Neubauten) von Mitte 2022.

Esri hat Satellitenbilder von Februar 2025, die sind aber ziemlich unscharf.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/169267432
Bernhard W (2025-07-22 23:39:38+00:00): Hallo Tatfahren, Danke für die Hinweise. Ich hatte die Bilder von Bing, Mapbox und Esri abwechselnd unterlegt. Ich habe nur wenige Nodes verschoben, überwiegend dort, wo Straßenteile in Bing nicht gut erkennbar waren und in Mapbox besser zu erkennen waren oder wo die Wege in beiden Bildern nicht gut überein stimmten. Die Verläufe in Mapbox sind überwiegend besser erkennbar, deshalb habe ich Bing nur dort angegeben, wo ich tatsächlich auch Bing als Grundlage benutzt habe.
Bernhard W (2025-07-22 23:44:12+00:00): Ergänzung: In der Chronik waren viele Einträge ziemlich alt, vermutlich noch älter als alle jetzt automatisch angebotenen Luftbilder. Die "Gedenkstätte" für den MW-Sender Wilsdruff ist auf keinem der genannten Luftbilder enthalten, die habe ich als Baustelle nach diversen Fotos ungefähr eingetragen.
Alliegaytor (2025-07-22 01:04:43+00:00): I've fixed all your mistakes (again) here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169269117

Please see the relations and how the members are **ordered** and have appropriate **roles** and learn from it.
LachlanTansey2009 (2025-08-06 23:03:48+00:00): Thank you for fixing these for me, I do appreciate it. I have taken your advice into consideration and have since learnt to correctly order my relations.
NeisRevert (2025-07-23 16:44:29+00:00): This changeset has been reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/169355655
where the changeset comment is: 
Remove vandalism
silly_goose (2025-08-01 15:08:02+00:00): Just out of curiosity:
Is it neccessary to use "access:conditional" *and* "motor_vehicle:conditional" for routing purposes or wouldn't the latter suffice?

Got some other changesets where I could improve and update tags :)
silly_goose (2025-08-01 15:12:45+00:00): (ahhh, apparently Mapy uses the first tag - Rheinufertunnel has the first tag only and it shows as road closure)
Haritron (2025-07-22 01:38:00+00:00): Added Al Sharqaia Road based on Maps feedback near Cairo, Alexandria Agricultural Road #adt
fortera_au (2025-08-01 23:47:48+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 169841222, 169841249, 169841240, 169841260, 169841200, 169841256, 169841237, 169841215, 169841214, 169841228, 169841245, 169841232 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incompatible source
Alliegaytor (2025-07-22 02:31:28+00:00): I've checked all 15 route relations and all of these have the same issues as I've previously discussed with you... You do understand that you are breaking things, right?

If you don't believe me, check this tomorrow (the issues shown today are already fixed by me): https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=pubtrans_routes&lon=145.08489&lat=-37.82686&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.50&overlays=ptv2_routes_invalid%2Cptv2_error_ways%2Cptv2_error_nodes (it'll show most of these as having errors as you added the ptv2 tag to the routes...)
LachlanTansey2009 (2025-08-06 23:02:34+00:00): Hello, I have since replaced all the relations with new ones (hopefully) in order. Thank you for raising this concern with me.
NeisBot (2025-07-22 02:45:53+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
pitscheplatsch (2025-07-23 07:27:33+00:00): 👍 Thank you for updating the element https://osm.org/changeset/169271311
aharvey (2025-07-22 05:38:58+00:00): Rather than deleting the highway=* tag I suggest we use the lifecycle prefix https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix#Stages_of_decay per the guidance at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Cycling_and_Foot_Paths#Closed/Illegal_Paths

For example disused:highway=path or abandoned:highway=path or demolished:highway=path or destroyed:highway=path depending on the state of the unsanctioned and illegally constructed mountain bike tracks.
emilyat_ (2025-07-22 05:40:57+00:00): thank you I will use these instead!
jmania (2025-07-22 05:24:08+00:00): Bu yol kapalı!!!!
ratrun (2025-07-22 16:51:24+00:00): Thank you for correcting this location. I could swear that in the morning when I made the change there were no barriers mapped, but probably I just overlooked them.
NeisBot (2025-07-22 03:21:42+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
pitscheplatsch (2025-07-23 07:28:06+00:00): 👎 (Partly) Reverted due to lack of response from the original contributor by https://osm.org/changeset/169327431
Ashes SAF (2025-07-22 03:34:37+00:00): It's probably best if someone takes a look at this. I didn't select the option to request review, but I should have.
literan (2025-07-22 20:13:05+00:00): зачем вы массово удаляете indoor-объекты, а также теги с объектов?  Это вандализм. Откат.
NeisBot (2025-07-22 04:06:32+00:00): Hi Homepass Tasikmalaya, welcome and thank you for your contribution to the OSM project!

To help improve collaboration and make your edits easier for others to understand, please consider providing brief descriptions of your changes in the comment field. This will make it easier for the community to follow your adjustments. You can find some helpful tips on good comments here: https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Furthermore, based on your map edits in this changeset, I’ve drafted a suggestion for what a comment could look like: "Added new buildings with addresses and names."

PS: I’ve also sent this message via the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#HelpfulComment #Gibberish #AIgenerated
fortera_au (2025-08-01 23:47:17+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 169841222, 169841249, 169841240, 169841260, 169841200, 169841256, 169841237, 169841215, 169841214, 169841228, 169841245, 169841232 where the changeset comment is: DWG revert: incompatible source
TrickyFoxy (2025-08-01 14:22:47+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169821332
StC (2025-07-25 16:47:50+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a brisé la continuité d'un itinéraire pédestre qui passe par là, en raccourcissant ou supprimant un chemin qui continue d'apparaître sur les photos aériennes. Est-ce que la disparition du chemin est confirmée ? où passe l'itinéraire désormais ?
user_22768934 (2025-07-25 17:51:05+00:00): voilà j ai réparé le chemin .desolé
NeisBot (2025-07-22 04:56:36+00:00): Hi fazhrysatria, welcome and thank you for your contribution to the OSM project!

To help improve collaboration and make your edits easier for others to understand, please consider providing brief descriptions of your changes in the comment field. This will make it easier for the community to follow your adjustments. You can find some helpful tips on good comments here: https://osm.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Furthermore, based on your map edits in this changeset, I’ve drafted a suggestion for what a comment could look like: "Added new nodes and ways, primarily creating building outlines with 'building=house' tags and assigning street numbers to them."

PS: I’ve also sent this message via the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#HelpfulComment #Gibberish #AIgenerated
kapazao (2025-09-19 11:14:25+00:00): Please do not change these ways to unclassified.
In spain we usually use track for highways like these that do not connect important places and are unpaved.
Regards
007Transformer (2025-09-21 16:01:22+00:00): Hi Kapazao,
Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.
007Transformer (2025-09-23 11:05:49+00:00): Hi kapazao,
Thank you for reaching out and making the corrections. We will take your feedback into account for our future edits in Spain. Is there a Wiki article or a forum thread that we can refer to regarding this community practice?”
kapazao (2025-09-25 17:25:15+00:00): Hi, we talk in OSM forum about this: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/highways-unclassified-vs-track/121443

I hope it helps you understanding it as I know it is a big difference with the usual mapping in other countries.
Regards
mapguru (2025-08-26 08:18:36+00:00): ist das Stück am See entlang wirklich nicht mehr vorhanden weggebaggert , bin das vor 5 Wochen erst gefahren ?
theophrastos (2025-08-26 16:08:07+00:00): Welchen Weg meinst du genau, in diesem Gebiet wird gerade relativ viel gearbeitet und manches habe ich aus der Entfernung beobachtet. Daher ist es durchaus möglich, dass ich an der einen oder anderen Stelle falsch liege.
mapguru (2025-08-27 06:06:45+00:00):  ich meine die Verbindung von den Wegen 1416453739, v1 und 
1416453741, v1  
Da konnte man , war zwar holprig , aber man konnte da, den See gut umfahren. Man kam da von Viereth und konnte am Main entlang auf den Radweg an der Autobahn gelangen. Jetzt ist der gestichelte Weg unterbrochen.

mfg
mapguru (2025-08-27 06:45:07+00:00): Um zu verdeutlichen was ich meine .
In Google Earth bei diesen Koordinaten
49°55'28"N 10°48'34"E
ist der jetzt verschwundene Weg zu sehen

mfg
theophrastos (2025-08-27 08:39:13+00:00): Ah, okay

Ich habe dort nur bemerkt, dass die Uferböschung in diesem Bereich teilweise weggebaggert wurde und bin davon ausgegangen, dass man nicht mehr durchkommt. Die ESRI-Luftbilder zeigen den Weg auch noch, aber der Baumstreifen am Ufer den man dort sehen kann, existiert nicht mehr. Den Weg habe ich jetzt mal entlang der geschätzten neuen Uferlinie eingezeichnet, vielleicht kann ich im September mal mit GPS-Gerät dort entlang gehen.

MfG
mapguru (2025-08-27 09:19:53+00:00): Danke !
Vielleicht fahr ich heute da mal hin.
Irgendwie gehst vorbei und wenn dann
halt zu Fuß.
nfg
mapguru (2025-08-28 06:17:10+00:00): Ich bin gestern den Abschnitt gefahren .
Da kann man wie bisher um den See fahren kein Problem. Ist wie es war eine festgefahrene Spur , wie auf Google Earth zusehen ist, das passt ziemlich gut sogar. Ich hab die Strecke aufgezeichnet . Die Kurve um das kleine Wäldchen gibt es nicht mehr , geht jetzt gerade weiter. 

mfg.
mapguru (2025-08-28 06:53:25+00:00): Ich hab jetzt den Verlauf  nach dem Track
korrigiert. Was nicht mehr passt ist das Seeufer. Das verläuft ca. 25 m parallel zu den Weg. Das kann ich aber nicht ändern. Das übersteigt meine Fähigkeiten.

mfg.