piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Jez Nicholson (2025-01-15 21:56:55+00:00): No problem. Replacing the tanning place I assume. I've moved it down.
AskManav (2026-07-16 06:08:27+00:00): Godnichi Naal route is very techincal. It is better to keep this route unmapped so that novice hikers do not venture close to this gully specially from the Desh side.
eggie (2025-01-14 14:33:09+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
IvicaBanovac (2025-01-14 13:19:13+00:00): Reverted beacause of acidental node

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161344971
eggie (2025-01-14 14:32:06+00:00): Dag Ben... 

Je vraagt feedback. 
Die paden kloppen wel. Het beste kun je een pad gewoon aanpassen. Dus niet verwijderen en dan weer opnieuw intekenen. De landuse en het water zou je nog wat aan kunnen doen. Ik heb het nu water en gras een beetje gefatsoeneerd. Genoeg te doen hier.

MVG
eggie
silversurfer83 (2025-01-14 19:02:08+00:00): Moin Zusselkopp :)

Kurzer Hinweis zu "unklaren Linien": Wenn du ein Objekt im Editor anklickst und dann in der Spalte links bis zum Abschnitt "Eigenschaften" hinunterscrollst findest du alle Eigenschaften, die dieses Objekt hat im Klartext. Weiter oben entscheidet der Editor, welche davon dir wie angezeigt werden. Wenn du also etwas unbekanntes siehst, scroll ganz nach unten. Und selbst wenn unter "Eigenschaften" nichts steht, kanns es sein, dass das Objekt Teil einer Relation ist. Steht dann auch da unten.

Wenn du nun feststellst, dass du ein "leeres" Objekt vor dir hast (also einen Punkt oder eine [geschlossene] Linie ohne jegliche Eigenschaften), dann solltest du noch nach der Geschichte des Objekts gucken. Das geht so: STRG+SHIFT+C drücken. Das blendet das Chronik-Feld ein (auch im Menü rechts unter "Kartendaten -> Chronik-Feld anzeigen" zu finden). Im Chronik-Feld kannst du dann "Änderungen auf osm.org" anklicken, dann kannst du sehen, wer das Objekt erstellt hat und welche Eigenschaften es vielleicht einmal hatte. Wenn du auch dort nichts hilfreiches findest und auf dem Luftbild nicht zu erkennen ist, was es sein könnte, dann kannst du es löschen.

Wenn du jedoch nur nicht verstehst, was es sein soll, dann kontaktier bitte den Account, der für das Objekt verantwortlich ist oder frag im Forum (c.osm.org). Wir löschen nämlich nur, was falsch ist. Dinge, die uns nicht gefallen oder die wir nicht verstehen können diskutiert werden, jedoch nicht ohne Rückfrage gelöscht.

Hier die kleine Grasfläche ist jetzt kein Beinbruch, aber grundsätzlich wäre es gut, wenn du in Zukunft darauf achtest. Danke.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Good_practice

happy mapping
silversurfer83
AndyB_66 (2025-01-15 17:34:43+00:00): Podaj, proszę, źródło tych zmian. Uzupełnij znaczniki dróg, które dodałeś.
intschutschuna (2025-02-01 09:55:56+00:00): Hallo Pascal1909,

wir taggen die Straßenklassifikation nach Verkehrsbedeutung, sie rechtfertigt auf diesem Abschnitt der Steiermärker Str. jedoch keine Hochstufung auf primary. Ich habe diese Änderung deshalb wieder zurück genommen.
Das Thema wurde genau für diesen Abschnitt schon einmal hier diskutiert: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/32478053
Pawe1909 (2026-07-23 08:17:47+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis!
Fizzie-DWG (2025-01-27 02:07:25+00:00): DWG revert - Google Maps used as Source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161801346
Metzor (2025-01-16 21:19:16+00:00): Hallo suyhoo, hallo alle anderen Kartographierenden, die hier drauf stoßen,

Die Diskussion "Erfasse auch keine Objekte, die nicht mehr existieren" bitte hier führen:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161382007#map=11/48.5132/9.2944

Schöne Grüße
Metzor
superkiria (2025-01-14 17:31:21+00:00): Дороги именно в такой конфигурации, как была уже нет, но часть её осталось, не нужно было удалять всю дорогу, достаточно было убрать только часть.
AskManav (2026-07-16 06:07:00+00:00): Maashacaa Col is a very techincal climb and requires very high climbing experience. It is better to keep this route unmarked so that novice hikers do not approach this gully unprepared.
superkiria (2025-01-14 17:34:18+00:00): Вы плохую дорогу почему-то отмечаете как хорошую. Вы указываете "дорогу второго класса", а следует указать "служебную" или просёлочную.
lyctkel (2025-01-19 09:46:11+00:00): Danke für die Korrektur von https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5998090465.
Nathan_A_RF (2025-02-03 20:51:45+00:00): Hi, please remember to change maxspeed:type tags when changing maxspeed tags
karr4s (2026-04-06 07:41:52+00:00): SIRET erroné (81878921600145 au lieu de 81878921600152). De plus, le POI était mal situé (placé sur le parking). C'est corrigé.
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2026-04-07 07:01:29+00:00): Bonjour merci pour la correction et le repositionnement. Désolé.. Bonne journée
Henry572 (2025-03-14 08:44:01+00:00): Hallo Im Fokus,
Bin letztes Wochenende hier am Kreisverkehr vorbeigekommen und die Straße schien wieder frei zu sein. Ich dachte ich schreibe mal, um dran zu erinnern. Wenn du auch nichts anderes als den geplanten Fertigstellungstermin weißt, kann man die Straße wohl wieder freigeben.
Viele Grüße,
Hendrik
Im Fokus (2025-03-17 22:10:33+00:00): Hallo Hendrik, danke für die Erinnerung.
Habe die Tags der Millrather Straße entsprechend geändert. 
Gruß
Im Fokus
Kovoschiz (2025-01-14 17:17:03+00:00): It depends on what you mean by that. Certainly drawing a `building=` doesn't prevent `covered=yes` from being added.
The issue is there's no differentiation on when you should do that, and for long or wide bridges. Walkways can be specifically designed under viaducts to be sheltered. Then you have an arbitrary distinction on why roadways shouldn't get it.
Kovoschiz (2025-01-14 17:18:02+00:00): In Germany, someone used 1 `covered:by=bridge`
Kovoschiz (2025-01-14 17:24:08+00:00): In this case, it would be more straightforward to argue it's not `covered=yes` from how narrow and curved it is. But other cases, some users may find splitting `footway=sidewalk` to add `covered=yes` easier than drawing the entire `man_made=bridge` , then you have to ask why should the roadways not get `covered=yes` together.
vectorial8192 (2025-01-14 17:59:19+00:00): To clarify, what I mean by "consequential" is that, the cover doesn't actually belong to the road. In this case, the cover is "caused" by another road going over it, so the underside road should never get "covered=yes".

I generally do not see "bridge parts" as useful data. That belongs to the topic "micro mapping" and it makes future "minor" edits more difficult to manage because suddenly I would be touching 10 other items that I never intended to touch.

"covered=yes" is reasonable in the following cases:
- full-cover sound barriers
- slope protection covers
- building "covers" that are pre-planned (!!!) such as Kwai Hing BT under a cover, upon which New Kwai Hing Gardens is built
- and perhaps more
vectorial8192 (2025-01-14 18:04:02+00:00): Another angle:

Some turn restrictions on OSM are actually wrong, with same principle: they are consequential. Some irl turn restriction signs are a reminder that, due to the destination road having special restrictions (e.g. wholly bus lane), it is as if there was actually a turn restriction that prohibits e.g. turning left. This is "consequential", and should not result in a creation of a turn restriction relation; instead, map the destination path as "with special restrictions" and let the routers figure out the rest.
vectorial8192 (2025-01-14 18:06:56+00:00): Also another angle:

See note https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4588210 for another very likely case of "consequential mapping".
vectorial8192 (2025-01-14 18:12:41+00:00): Note that "covered:by=bridge" is descriptive mapping and I support it. But just don't add "covered=yes" just because the driver cannot see the overhead sun.

If following consequential mapping principles, then multi-stacked highway interchanges will have many useless "covered=yes" segments that does nothing but to indicate "the driver cannot see the overhead sun here", which is useless and nonsensical. Like, you can just analyze the map and then realize, some other bridge is crossing over the road but at a higher layer, and so this segment very likely cannot see the overhead sun. It should be like that. Empower the tools.
eggie (2025-01-14 14:37:57+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
karr4s (2026-04-06 07:36:44+00:00): SIRET erroné (81878921600145 au lieu de 81878921600079). C'est corrigé.
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2026-04-07 06:43:04+00:00): Bonjour Merci d'avoir corrigé le siret. Bonne journée
karr4s (2026-04-06 07:44:16+00:00): SIRET erroné (81878921600145 au lieu de 81878921600087). C'est corrigé.
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2026-04-07 06:58:41+00:00): Bonjour merci pour votre correction. Bonne journée
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-09 08:13:12+00:00): Cleaned up SEO spam for POI in changeset 183861734

https://osm.org/changeset/183861734
karr4s (2026-04-06 07:39:56+00:00): SIRET erroné (81878921600145 au lieu de 81878921600038). C'est corrigé.
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2026-04-07 07:03:41+00:00): Bonjour, merci pour la correction du siret .Bonne journée.
karr4s (2026-04-06 07:32:39+00:00): SIRET erroné (81878921600145 au lieu de 81878921600129). C'est corrigé.
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2026-04-07 06:35:49+00:00): Bonjour , merci d'avoir corrigé le siret donné par erreur.
karr4s (2026-04-06 07:38:34+00:00): SIRET erroné (81878921600145 au lieu de 81878921600137). C'est corrigé.
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2026-04-07 06:58:47+00:00): Bonjour merci pour votre correction. Bonne journée
karr4s (2026-04-06 07:43:13+00:00): SIRET erroné (81878921600145 au lieu de 81878921600046). C'est corrigé.
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2026-04-07 07:01:59+00:00): Bonjour merci pour votre correction. Bonne journée
AnaVrbica (2025-01-19 21:18:34+00:00): Reverted because of an added node

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161540815
karr4s (2026-04-06 07:35:09+00:00): SIRET erroné (81878921600145 au lieu de 81878921600053). C'est corrigé.
votre_solution_de_visibilite_digitale_locale (2026-04-07 06:42:07+00:00): Bonjour merci d'avoir corrigé le mauvais siret.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-01-27 02:07:20+00:00): DWG revert - Google Maps used as Source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161801343
cxzlw (2025-05-17 15:18:26+00:00): 1. 深国交确实有一条内外连通的人造活水系，见附图
2. Andy 是本校学生

如果没有异议的话我会revert你这个变更

附图：

http://www.sznews.com/news/pic/2021-02/22/1884cfcf-82fe-4ab3-9e44-31e8819dae2c.jpg.2

http://www.sznews.com/news/pic/2021-02/22/e3e0e288-9e1e-4e4d-bf9d-91d78064b909.jpg.2

http://www.sznews.com/news/pic/2021-02/22/83681d24-364b-4061-8be2-e31d8b946279.jpg.2
AndyShu666 (2025-05-17 15:24:10+00:00): 感谢！！！
Taksine (2025-05-17 15:31:45+00:00): 了解了，但是这不应当叫“深国交护城河”，它不可能会是一个正式的名称，不应当放在OSM的名称中。如果有相关学校文件能证明有这些名称，欢迎revert。
cxzlw (2025-05-17 15:47:29+00:00): revert(161348330): 恢复被破坏的“深国交护城河”

As a SCIE student, I can confirm there is definitely an artificial stream around the campus. The related naming can be updated in a future commmit.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/166397881
jandar22 (2025-01-20 19:45:28+00:00): Hi, a couple comments:
* the new building (w1351224883) overlaps an already-existing building. If this was intended to map a sub-part of the building with different height for 3d rendering, this part should be tagged as building:part=yes rather than building=yes.
* the name=* tag for w1351224883 is all lowercase, which should not be used unless a given place's name is stylized as such in the real world.
* typically places should only be named on the map once to reduce clutter. In this case the apartment complex "The Ivy at Berlin Place" is already mapped and named as residential=apartments, w15907297

For reference:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Good_practice
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:part
eggie (2025-01-15 19:19:56+00:00): Dag jashano... Geef concreet aan wat je hebt aangepast svp. Verander niet te veek in één changeset
Wat is acces	=private
access is de juiste sleutel.
Die oprit zit ook nergens aan vast. 
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=161348572
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-01-15 19:23:40+00:00): Nog iets... Een los trottoir intekenen mag wel, maar is ongebruikelijk. Je zult dan ook verbindingen moeten maken met andere wegen. Het routeert anders nie.
MVG
eggie
jashano (2025-01-15 21:23:37+00:00): Sorry ik zal het fixen
Ik ben van plan om nog te editen in Driel en 
zal vanaf nu beter op de tags letten en de  change logs  completer maken 

Ik ben nu niet in de gelegenheid om te editen maar over een week kan ik het oplossen 

PS
En heb je liever dat ik alle trottoirs apart toevoeg  of dat ik ze verwijder en het bij de tag van de weg hou?
eggie (2025-01-15 21:31:34+00:00): Hoi,

Een medemapper heeft die typfout in access al aangepast. Ikzelf heb wat verbindingen aan dat trottoir gemaakt.
Fout is het niet, maar er worden mestal geen trottoirs apart getekend. Die tagging kun je toevoegen in de hoofdrijbaan met sidewalk=right left of both of no(ne)

Dat werkt ook, maar de standaardkaart laat het (nog) niet zien.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk

Van hoef je niets te verwijderen. Ik screen gewoon en geef tips. :)

Mapse
eggie
jashano (2025-01-15 21:34:49+00:00): Bedankt voor de informatie 👍
Paul Berry (2025-01-14 15:08:04+00:00): Worcester: Various street → associatedStreet relations.
mcliquid (2025-01-14 20:25:04+00:00): Hi pyrog, not essential, but could the surface and sac_scale value be retained?
pyrog (2025-01-14 20:37:53+00:00): For me a "real" via ferrata isn't a path, so SAC scale have no meaning and probably surface=ground isn't very pertinent.

But… it seem that some contributors use both sac_scale and via_ferrata_scale according to the wiki and/or this long discussion.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:via%20ferrata%20scale

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/distinguish-via-ferrata-as-sport-build-just-for-the-sake-of-them-from-via-ferratas-that-are-parts-of/120286/19
mcliquid (2025-01-14 20:44:30+00:00): I see, thanks for the second link! Currently 34.30 % of all ferrata's with via_ferrata_scale have a sac_scale. And 13.20 % have a surface. Considering that only 23.77% of highways have a surface tagged, this is not that unusual I would argue.
GiovanniPen (2025-01-14 15:19:37+00:00): why? il sito web ancora lo riporta lì (google idem)
pavvv (2025-01-14 16:26:59+00:00): ani to nie podchodzi pod żadną z definicji primary z wiki, ani nie jest to ważna droga, bo główny wjazd to Warszawska, ani to obwodnica, bo funkcję obwodnicy pełni S1 + co to za obwodnica co przechodzi przez centrum miasta? naprawdę wiele można tu pisać. bezpodstawny revert.
Yunkers (2025-01-14 16:33:41+00:00): Właściwie to z jaką powodu ta droga miałaby być primary? Chodzi o to że tak było zawsze czy jest za tym jakaś głębsza idea?
szalona_entropia (2025-01-14 18:08:27+00:00): Podobno zmiany primary <=> secondary miały być najpierw dyskutowane na forum, a ta nie była. Więc możecie te pytania przenieść tamże.
pavvv (2025-01-14 18:39:34+00:00): Myślę, że ta osoba też powinna przedyskutować tę zmianę, co?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/19839503
Jak już mówiłem, droga nie ma żadnego powodu do bycia primary. Nawet argument klasyfikacji urzędowej nie działa! Poza tym secondary wydaje się być adekwatne do sytuacji.
Napisz na forum, jeśli uważasz, że droga powinna być primary, ale ja nie widzę żadnego powodu. Jeśli już arteria ma być primary, to zdecydowanie ul. Warszawska, 3 Maja i Partyzantów. Wtedy też szlak primary nie będzie się urywał.
Florek89 (2025-01-14 21:30:41+00:00): Uważam, że rację w kwestii rozpoczęcia dyskusji na forum ma szalona_entropia a nie pavvv. Tak jak napisał dyskusje o takich zmianach powinny być najpierw rozpatrywane na forum, nie ważne, że ta droga nie ma sensu jako primary.
Widzę, że Yunkers rozpoczął już dyskusję na forum i się odniosę także.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/kategorie-drog/57996/266
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:42:01+00:00): I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

A forest and a boundary can exist at the same time with the same name. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:42:16+00:00): I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

A forest and a boundary can exist at the same time with the same name. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:42:53+00:00): I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

A forest and a boundary can exist at the same time with the same name. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

The forest's name is not even the same.

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:43:19+00:00): I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

A forest and a boundary can exist at the same time with the same name. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

The forest's name is not even the same.

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:43:45+00:00): I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

What is the spelling error? You have not corrected the name, but deleted the node.

How is the node misplaced? You have not correct the position, but deleted the node. I previously already mentioned you can adjust the position away from the boundary centroid if this seems better to you.

How is the name illogical? Even assuming this has any bearing on OSM using official names, you have not corrected the name, but deleted the node.

Please undo your edit and fix the issue instead.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:44:10+00:00): I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

What is the spelling error? You have not corrected the name, but deleted the node.

How is the node misplaced? You have not correct the position, but deleted the node. I previously already mentioned you can adjust the position away from the boundary centroid if this seems better to you.

How is the name illogical? Even assuming this has any bearing on OSM using official names, you have not corrected the name, but deleted the node.

Please undo your edit and fix the issue instead.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:44:35+00:00): How is the node misplaced? You moved it outside its boundary, which is most definitely incorrect.

What is the spelling error or how is the name incorrect? You have not changed the name in any way.

Please fix the position of the node.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:44:47+00:00): I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts. And it was already mentioned to you that `locality` does not apply as a tag for this.

Please fix your edit.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:44:52+00:00): I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts. And it was already mentioned to you that `locality` does not apply as a tag for this.

Please fix your edit.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:47:17+00:00): I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

A forest and a boundary can exist at the same time. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

The forest here isn't even currently named in OSM data.

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:48:05+00:00): How is the node misplaced? You have not corrected the position, but deleted the node. I previously already mentioned you can adjust the position away from the boundary centroid if this seems better to you.

A different feature and a boundary can exist at the same time with the same name. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:48:19+00:00): I have already provided 4 sources all of which describe these boundaries as city parts.

How is the meaning of the name relevant?

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.
richlv (2025-01-17 15:15:41+00:00): Lūdzu apspriest šo tēmu kādā publiskā topikā Latvijas OSM kopienas čatā https://osmlatvija.zulipchat.com , changeset komentāros viss ir pamatīgi izšķīdis.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:53:50+00:00): A different feature and a boundary can exist at the same time with the same name. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

Not that any feature here actually has the same name.

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.
HellMap (2025-01-14 22:49:03+00:00): A different feature and a boundary can exist at the same time with the same name. Many features have the same name. This is not a reason to delete either feature.

Not that any feature here actually has the same name.

Please undo your edit or explain why this is a problem.
totera (2025-01-14 23:28:39+00:00): Scusa DnaX, fammi capire il modus operandi... Tu modifichi luoghi che non conosci direttamente, trovi una parrucchieria Primadonna (inserita peraltro tredici giorni fa), non ti preoccupi di fare neanche una ricerca sul web, e basandoti soltanto sul nome decidi che è un negozio di scarpe?
DnaX (2025-01-15 08:14:45+00:00): Ciao, ho pensato fosse un palese errore, visto che in un centro commerciale è più comune l'omonima conosciuta catena di scarpe e accesssori. In effetti dovevo controllare la data di inserimento o semplicemente inserire una nota in caso di dubbi.

Per il resto, sto cercando di uniformare i brand delle principali catene di negozi italiani e non. Ho anche aggiunto alcuni brand/operatori sull'indice NSI (https://nsi.guide), quini se hai dei suggerimenti possiamo vedere insieme.

Per il resto durante questo changeset mi sono lasciato troppo prendere dalla mano.
totera (2025-01-15 14:43:02+00:00): Capisco, ma stiamo attenti... per le catene del resto è anche facile fare un controllo sui loro siti.
Come marchi mancanti mi vengono in mente i supermercati Coal e Oasi, i carburanti IS (Simonetti Petroli), i negozi di abbigliamento Imperial e King, le pescherie Sapore di Mare, le profumerie Naïma
eggie (2025-01-14 17:25:20+00:00): Je hebt alles dubbel getagd..  Maak een keuze.  Denk dat op een node het niet zal renderen.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-01-14 17:25:38+00:00): .. en er zit een spelfout in !
eggie (2025-01-14 17:02:30+00:00): Hoi,

Maak een keuze....  De adresnode heeft de voorkeur. Het staat nu dubbel.

MVG
eggie
mcliquid (2025-01-14 16:04:18+00:00): Im Zeitungsartikel sieht man im Titelbild das Schild "Radfahrer absteigen". Das drückt "bicycle=dismount" aus. Man darf hier mit dem Fahrrad drüber, aber nicht fahren - nur schieben.

Ich habe das wieder zurück geändert.
Marek-M (2025-01-14 15:57:21+00:00): Żródło AED: https://iknurow.pl/knurow-defibrylator-na-strazy-bezpieczenstwa/
dypa (2025-01-14 16:16:01+00:00): здравствуйте, почему вы удалили светофор перед пожарной частью? он установлен в примерно в декабре месяце
Константин Гам (2025-01-14 21:42:21+00:00): Хм. Смотрел по Я.зеркала...

А переход пешеходный точно был светофором регулируемый?

Верну
dypa (2025-01-15 06:29:29+00:00): А разве можно использовать зеркала?! вроде только панарамы можно. Уточню, спасибо за информацию.

Переход регулируемый, но светофор всегда выключен, кроме случая когда выезжают пожарные - какими тегами это замаппить - я не знаю.

к сожалению мое видео с регистратора очень темное, но я нашел фото снятое днем https://m.vk.com/wall-65108612_901684
Константин Гам (2025-01-15 11:56:04+00:00): Зеркала теже панорамы, насколько я знаю. 
Пакет откачен.
dypa (2025-01-16 07:41:13+00:00): спасибо 👍