piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
george1201 (2025-12-26 21:50:28+00:00): Es stimmt, dass es für KFZ-Straßen ein implizites Fußgängerverbot gibt. Bei den Abschnitten https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/158204674 und https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/322329869 handelt es sich aber nicht um eine solche Straße. Diese beginnt bzw. endet erst weiter oben in der Auf- bzw. Abfahrt zur L605. In Richtung Süden steht das Zeichen 331.1 (Beginn KFZ-Straße) bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13033774054, erst danach hat die Straße die Eigenschaft motorroad=yes (also KFZ-Straße). Davor ist es eine gewöhnliche innerörtliche Straße (motorroad=no), auf der Tempo 50 gilt. Richtig, die Straße hat keinen Bürgersteig. Hier regelt die StVO in §25, dass Fußgänger dann die Straße benutzen dürfen. Da innerorts, dürfen sie sogar die Straßenseite frei wählen.

Richtung Norden gilt ähnliches, dort findet man das Zeichen 331.2 (Ende KFZ-Straße) bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/31093581. Bis dorthin darf man als Fußgänger am Straßenrand gehen. Aktuell ist dort fälschlicherweise foot=no eingetragen, was man aus der Beschilderung aber nicht ableiten kann.

Auf KFZ-Straßen (motorroad=yes) gilt übrigens implizit foot+bicycle=no. Das muss also nicht explizit eingetragen werden.
eggie (2025-12-24 10:55:13+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
scarapella (2025-12-25 09:41:38+00:00): Hi meuchel,

Thank you for all your contributions to openstreetmap and a Merry Christmas to you (should you choose to celebrate it.)

I saw you made a few changes to waterway=access_points and leisure=slipways from the ice_skating access tag ice_skates=yes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ice_skates

to the sport tag sport=ice_skating
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dice_skating

The choice of ice_skates=yes on my part was intentional to indicate positive access and be consistent with tagging for canoe, boat, etc. on the access points and slipways.  In my opinion the ice_skates access tag is relevant and should be retained.  I hadn't chosen sport=ice_skating since I felt that it was used more in the spirit of distinguishing between the usage of different types of leisure=*.  However, it's certainly not inappropriate and if it helps someone, that's great.

I'm very happy to hear your opinion as well.

Cheers,
scarapella
mueschel (2025-12-25 10:02:01+00:00): Hi,
I made changes because you used 'ice_skate', not 'ice_skates'. 

I don't think 'sport' is limited to e.g. pitches, but generally describes what sport can be done at or is supported by any feature.

Does 'ice_skates=yes' deliver any additional information? Objects are rarely explicitly closed for ice_skates, so 'yes' doesn't give additional information. Usually bans are for entering ice on lakes in general, not just with ice skates.

If you think 'ice_skates' should be tagged here, I can add it back.
scarapella (2025-12-25 10:28:08+00:00): Hello,

First, thank you for correcting my typos. That is embarrassingly common problem for me, and I'm always appreciative of the help cleaning up after my mistakes.

As well thanks for the thoughtful response. The intent behind the tagging of specific access points is to indicate places I know personally or through  other nordic/wild skaters are used for ice skating specifically.

I chose ice_skates=yes (and try to spell it correctly...) to be consistent with some of the more recent trail mapping conventions I'm used to mapping (typically canoeing in my case).   

To take the canoeing example, all waterways are in theory possible to canoe unless specifically banned or impossible (and those should be access|boat|canoe=no ).   Putting canoe=yes on a waterway (or an access_point|slipway) indicate that a waterway is known good for canoeing.  As visualized here:
https://opentrailmap.us/#map=5.19/50.839/9.523&mode=canoe&selected=way/1381119699

It follows that those where canoeing is specifically cultivated (e.g. those part of a route=canoe relation) would be canoe=designated.

When I looked to start tagging ice skating locations, I found that the same conventions were already used on with ice_skates=yes being used on waterways to indicate skating was specifically allowed (in addition to piste:type tagging).    So I chose to go with ice_skates=yes on access points that are known good for ice skating and ice_skating=designated on those specifically designed to attract ice skaters (of which I only know one so far.)

In summary (after a far too long comment). I tried to stick with an existing convention already found for wild ice_skating that is compatible with conventions for other outdoor activities. 

Cheers,
scarapella

P.S.  I took care of adding back the ice_skates=yes and left your addition of sport=ice_skating in place.
mueschel (2025-12-25 10:34:57+00:00): 👍
yvecai (2025-12-25 14:58:54+00:00): Bonjour, je suis étonné que toutes ces pistes ne soit qu'en piste:grooming = classic seulement ?
tontonfabrice (2025-12-26 03:01:14+00:00): Bonjour, suite à une randonnée sur place je me suis permis de compléter les pistes nordique de ce domaine. Comme il n'y avait pas de neige, je ne peux pas préciser comment est le damage. Ces pistes son balisées donc damées alors j'ai mis le damage minimum, pour moi "classic". A changer si vous connaissez le domaine.
yvecai (2025-12-26 07:19:02+00:00): Cela fait longtemps que j'ai pas skié dans les Vosges , mais il y a bien 9 chances sur 10 que ce soit classic+skating.
Mais autant ne rien mettre, car un domaine qui ne préparerait que pour le classique, ça existe et c'est assez particulier. Il se peut aussi que certaines pistes ne soient que balisées pour le ski de randonnée nordique (économie de fuel, c'est une tendance).
Yves
silversurfer83 (2025-12-26 12:39:35+00:00): Hi there :)

for barrier=gate to be interpreted correctly by routers there needs to be a shared node with the highway. In this CS you added 3 gates but only two have shared nodes with the highway=path they are supposed to obstruct.

Maybe check and correct those, ok?

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176344899
tux67 (2025-12-24 10:32:35+00:00): Hallo TCSarahSchwarz,

lt. Zeitungsbericht ist die Apotheke seit Anfang Dezember geschlossen und ich hatte sie gerade auf disused gesetzt. Wieso jetzt die "Wiederinbetriebnahme"? 
Telefonnummer und Öffnungszeiten sind darüber hinaus im falschen Format.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:opening_hours
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:phone#Anwendung

Bitte um Stellungahme hier im Changesetkommentar.

Gruß
tux67

Quelle:
https://rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/moenchengladbach/apothekensterben-in-moenchengladbach-weitere-schliessungen-honorarsaetze-werden-nicht-angehoben_aid-140623673
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176344966
TCSarahSchwarz (2025-12-24 11:22:39+00:00): Vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Auf den Artikel bin ich in meiner Recherche nicht gestoßen. LG
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176344966
tux67 (2025-12-24 11:35:48+00:00): Wie mappen nur nach eigenem Vor Ort Wissen oder (2. Wahl) aus zur OSM Lizenz kompatiblen Quellen. Google gehört zum Beispiel nicht dazu.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice
silversurfer83 (2025-12-26 12:43:44+00:00): Hi :)

same gate problem here.

Some editors will give you a warning, when you add gates as more than one node but you can ignore those if you have a dedicated node that says barrier=gate and if the gate obstructs some highway the node should be connected to that highway.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176345738
NeisBot (2025-12-27 16:49:26+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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/4332197391 v8

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Hotel in Tbilisi Old Town"
---
Например, более нейтральная и фактическая версия вашего описания могла бы быть: "Отель в Старом городе Тбилиси"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisBot (2026-01-01 18:39:07+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/176714677
NeisBot (2025-12-27 16:49:29+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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13399560446 v1

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Virguez Law firm personal injury and immigration services Georgia North Carolina"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisBot (2026-01-01 18:39:09+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/176714679
(Deleted leftovers after several edits)
kubahahaha (2025-12-30 10:28:30+00:00): Zobacz tą uwagę, do twoich zmian się odnosi

https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5109487
Dodko (2025-12-25 10:55:02+00:00): Vymazal si číslo domu
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/80078224/history
gymko (2025-12-25 11:06:00+00:00): Áno, mám miestnu znalosť, býva tu môj rodinný známy a z tejto drevenice som odstránil číslo domu. Pretože bolo duplicitné a zlé. Ďakujem za upozornenie a pochopenie.
Dodko (2025-12-25 11:36:11+00:00): Potom treba vymazať kompletnú adresu všetky tagy addr: a ref:minvskaddress a source:addr
Dodko (2025-12-25 11:50:35+00:00): Majiteľ by mal chybu polohy adresy nahlásiť na obecný úrad, aby opravili adresu v registri adries, podľa registra adries sa navigujú aj záchranári.
gymko (2025-12-25 11:57:13+00:00): Dobre ďakujem za tieto upozornenie. Prajem pekný zvyšok dňa.
NeisBot (2025-12-27 16:49:30+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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/366079276 v4

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Monark management training location"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisBot (2026-01-02 11:59:37+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/176739752
(Only the affected tags were deleted; other unrelated data was left untouched)
NorthCrab_upload (2025-12-25 06:23:14+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera nadmiarowe informacje. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Paczkomat nie powinien mieć nazwy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13152381822

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
NeisBot (2025-12-27 16:49:31+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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/12159705132 v2

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Monark management training facility"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisBot (2026-01-02 11:59:38+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/176739753
(Only the affected tags were deleted; other unrelated data was left untouched)
KennyDap (2025-12-24 21:40:15+00:00): Stop doing this kind of spam.
Ra_colate (2025-12-26 12:33:12+00:00): Hi KennyDap, please accept my apologies for making you feel like that. I don’t have such intentions. I also should have provided a clearer changeset comment.
My intention was to fix a multipolygon error which was received through OSM validation checks. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Valid_multipolygon_conditions is stating that inner polygons must not overlap with outer polygons and not touch on common segments. 
Thank you for your understanding on this matter.
mueschel (2025-12-24 16:14:39+00:00): Hi,
could you check these edits? All these proposed barriers crossing major roads seem a bit suspicious.

Btw, 'proposed' is a prefix, the proper tag would be 'proposed:barrier'.
AndyB_66 (2025-12-24 19:27:57+00:00): There's nothing suspicious about these edits – the tender for the new expressway has been announced (https://ted.europa.eu/pl/notice/-/detail/816930-2025), and you can see the plans here: https://mapwarper.net/layers/2384. Thanks for pointing out the tagging error – I continued editions done by the user "d3mol3k" and simply didn't notice it.
NeisBot (2025-12-27 15:33:00+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 18 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/372310064 v70 | 18 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176349528
NeisReview (2025-12-27 15:46:38+00:00): Partly reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176387817
masoudghorbani (2025-12-24 19:41:09+00:00): این مکان و این شعبه بر اساس اطلاعات دقیق گرفته شده از دفتر مرکزی شرکت کتابشهر ایران در نقشه ثبت گردیده است .
user_5359 (2025-12-25 17:25:27+00:00): Welcome to OSM! Sorry, but business entries without addresses are not in line with OSM. Please add the street and house number, or we will have to mark this as SPAM.
I have now reverted your changes.
NeisBot (2025-12-27 16:50:13+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.

⚠️️ Problematic element (limit 1):
https://osm.org/node/13399637392 v1

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Plumbing company in Riverview"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisReview (2025-12-27 17:00:09+00:00): ❌ Fixed by https://osm.org/changeset/176403463
masoudghorbani (2025-12-24 19:38:47+00:00): این مکان و این شعبه بر اساس اطلاعات دقیق گرفته شده از دفتر مرکزی شرکت کتابشهر ایران در نقشه ثبت گردیده است .
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-04 16:24:50+00:00): Fonte survey:d'altra Genesi
Deleted
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-04 17:54:53+00:00): Fonte survey:d'altra Genesi
Deleted
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-04 17:57:03+00:00): Fonte survey:d'altra Genesi
Deleted
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-04 16:52:23+00:00): Fonte survey:d'altra Genesi
Deleted
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-01 17:58:26+00:00): Parliamo del sentiero 724-B relazione N°19964646, ho visto che hai segnato "survey : CAI", mi dici quale sezione CAI ha realizzato questo sopraluogo e che numero di sezione è?
E in quale data e stata fatta?
Su questo tracciato ci sono i cartelli segnavia?
Cortix (2026-01-01 19:07:17+00:00): Ho parlato con il comune di Moggio, sezione CAI di Lecco, data 2017 ma mese incerto, forse luglio.
I cartelli ci sono.

Prego non continuare a fare queste domande stucchevoli perché è l'ultima volta che ti rispondo. Non ho tempo da perdere in questo modo.
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-02 17:08:04+00:00): Anche Io settimana scorsa ho parlato con Babbo Natale, per cui cancello "Survey :Cai" perechè nessun CAI Ti ha autorizzato ufficialmente a fare relazioni a loro nome.
Sino a prova contraria.
Cortix (2026-01-03 18:52:12+00:00): Pensala come vuoi... non mi urta
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-04 16:55:07+00:00): Fonte survey:d'altra Genesi
Deleted
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-04 16:44:34+00:00): Fonte survey:d'altra Genesi
Deleted
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-04 16:58:09+00:00): Fonte survey:d'altra Genesi
Deleted
masoudghorbani (2025-12-24 19:39:51+00:00): این مکان و این شعبه بر اساس اطلاعات دقیق گرفته شده از دفتر مرکزی شرکت کتابشهر ایران در نقشه ثبت گردیده است .
ChehrehBargi (2026-02-17 20:47:31+00:00): @masoudghorbany
Naming must be in accordance with the rules and if a mistake is registered, it must be corrected. You have not followed the rules in registering the title.
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-04 17:05:46+00:00): Fonte survey:d'altra Genesi
Deleted
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-04 17:01:17+00:00): Fonte survey:d'altra Genesi
Deleted
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-04 17:04:13+00:00): Fonte survey:d'altra Genesi
Deleted
trial (2025-12-24 21:08:44+00:00): Bonjour, l'usage en France n'est pas de mettre les adresses sur les bâtiments mais en limire de voirie privée/publique, comme le fait le cadastre et les BAL (bases d'adresses locales). Contribuer avec StreetComplete est moins efficace qu'avec les outils développés par @vdct : https://bano.openstreetmap.fr/pifometre/pifomap.html?ratio=N&insee=29031#map=19/47.76904/-3.56336 par exemple
Angelo Giuseppe (2026-01-04 17:09:18+00:00): Fonte survey:d'altra Genesi
Deleted
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-02-15 22:03:11+00:00): zerkniesz na https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/5155328 ?
masoudghorbani (2025-12-24 19:35:18+00:00): این مکان و این شعبه بر اساس اطلاعات دقیق گرفته شده از دفتر مرکزی شرکت کتابشهر ایران در نقشه ثبت گردیده است .
masoudghorbani (2025-12-24 19:34:43+00:00): این مکان و این شعبه بر اساس اطلاعات دقیق گرفته شده از دفتر مرکزی شرکت کتابشهر ایران در نقشه ثبت گردیده است .
eggie (2025-12-24 11:00:34+00:00): Oke... Nuttige aanvulling. Meestal gebruiken we highway=path voor die verbindingen. Dat routeert ook voor fietsers. 
Een highway=footway heeft een G7 bord en routeert niet voor fietsers. Staat er geen bebording dan path gebruiken. 

MVG
eggie
Bienson (2025-12-27 21:42:33+00:00): Doppelhaushälften sind building=semidetached_house

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:building%3Dsemidetached_house
gscholz (2026-01-18 08:15:26+00:00): Hi zorothepirate,
your recent edits have left behind a lot of errors in the OSM database regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-8.40838&lat=41.54397&zoom=14&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

This kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps. Can you please fix this?

Kind regards
Guido
zorothepirate (2026-01-18 09:13:40+00:00): hello, 
thank you for your message. as you can see my objective was (mostly) to create sidewalks where they were not represented phisically on the map. i have noticed that if i dont tag the main road with sidewalk separate some complications arise. since i am a new editor, i am not fully sure exactly how to do this properly, but if i understood correctly your comment the issue is related to that? since the map assumes that each road already has a sidewalk? i dont exactly have a systematic aproach to this since ive edited as i go on the iD editor. i've learned that on the app streetcomplete there is an easy way to separate the sidewalks from the road so there is only one correct way for each sidewalk. but its still not a systematic aproach so its hard to know and intervene in each and all ways. please let me know if i got your issue correctly, or if you are refering to something else. i can ask for help from more experience editors and see how to correct this but please do let me know exactly what the issue would be so i can look for a solution and figure out how to approach this matter, im available to correct whatever i am able to. thank you!
zorothepirate (2026-01-18 09:18:32+00:00): @@ another possibility: do the blue markers on your link mean that there are ways drawn on top of already existing ways? so a fix would be maybe to delete the extra added layer which is on top of another one?
gscholz (2026-01-18 12:02:43+00:00): Thanks for your feedback. Yes indeed the blue markers (updated once per day at about 00 UTC) show, where two ways are put on top of each other.
Guido
zorothepirate (2026-01-21 17:45:03+00:00): update: i've edited all the issues and corrected them, thanks for the input
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/zorothepirate/history?before=177527062#map=13/41.54379/-8.35407
kapazao_import (2026-02-09 18:53:58+00:00): Hola, por favor fíjate bien en el elemento que estás editando y su etiquetado.
Aquí has puesto un nombre al elemento de la señal viaria que no es el suyo sino del edificio de al lado.

Un saludo
FranciscoDurán (2026-02-09 19:49:11+00:00): Hola: 
No entiendo muy bien todo esto, pero el rectángulo amarillo está en un patio privado y cerrado que pertenece a ADIF y tiene ese cartelito en la valla de acceso.
Gracias por tu corrección, pero no sé qué tengo que cambiar. 
Un saludo.
BCNorwich (2025-12-26 06:13:42+00:00): Hi, there seem to be lots of highways duplicated or joined at differing layers. Please see here:-  https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-0.48631&lat=51.47100&zoom=18&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas

Regards Bernard.
mstrbrid (2025-12-26 11:24:32+00:00): Hi Bernard, 

Thanks for the heads-up. I very  much struggled with clearing the 'errors' related to these multilevel plans in JOSM. I've not found a good example to follow for creating indoor routing over several levels (not layers).
A mapper prior to me used laterally-staggered `highway=footway`s to overcome the issue but I found that to be really messy and not scalable to multilevel buildings so have partially ignored the errors such as those highlighted by geofabrik for being false positives where the `level=` tag is present.
If you've got some good practice examples for me to follow and improve from, I'd be immensely grateful to see them!
MxxCon (2025-12-24 20:08:13+00:00): Invalid tags and no camera here according to satellite imagery. Changeset reverted in full.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176374788
eggie (2025-12-24 11:40:45+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
dcf77 (2026-01-22 12:55:22+00:00): Szia Balázs!
Épületen belüli fűtött és/vagy külvilágtól ajtókkal elzárt gyalogút az inkább highway=corridor. A tunnel=building_passage az egy folyamatosan nyitott átjáró.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcorridor
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tunnel=building%20passage?uselang=hu
urbalazs (2026-01-22 15:44:44+00:00): Szia dcf77!
Igazad van, de sajnos ez egy kényszermegoldás. Ahogy a wiki is írja, highway=corridor seems to be ignored by some routing engines (as of 2025-08, at least GraphHopper and OSRM ignore it), ha pedig nem teszem rá a building_passage-t, akkor pedig azért panaszkodnak a validátorok, hogy épületen keresztül fut a gyalogút. Szerinted hogyan oldjuk meg ezt a problémát?