piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
MassCartog (2026-07-29 21:51:05+00:00): FYI this object was removed in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186601966 but another user just said "not flock". Wanted to let you know in case that was not true.
mini-me (2026-07-23 17:41:56+00:00): admin_level=8 - это, например, сельские поселения. На обычные деревни не ставится. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1540299774
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1540301324
Тут должен быть мультиполигон (можно type=boundary+boundary=place), иначе это два разных НП.
JJIglesias (2026-07-18 20:00:59+00:00): Saludos y gracias por tu deseo de colaborar, por favor NO cambiar la clasificacion de las vias, que responden a estrictos criterios en base a conectividad, importancia de las poblaciones y caracteristicas.

Te sugerimos leer esto:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Viales

Gracias
JJIglesias (2026-07-18 20:09:00+00:00): hay gran cantidad de vias agricolas (tracks) y senderos (paths), ademas de arrollos (stream) en esa zona para agregar, te sugerimos que empieces por alli.

Por favor activa la opción ISSUES en el panel derecho de tu editor, para q te aparezcan tus errores, si los hubiera

Saludos cordiales y sigue mapeando.
JochenOSM (2026-07-21 15:51:50+00:00): Hallo Niiepce, du hast hier name:en=limited, language:de=yes und language:fr=limited verwendet. Was sollen diese Tags denn bedeuten? 
Sollte das "name:en=limited" ein language:en=limited sein? Aber language:iso= wird ja eigentlich nur für Schulen genutzt, das proposal von 2019 hat sich m. E. nicht wirklich durchgesetzt - im deutschen wiki wird es auch nicht erwähnt.
Niiepce (2026-07-25 12:55:45+00:00): Hallo Jochen,
Danke für die aufmerksame Überprüfung. "name:en=limited" sollte hier "language:en=limited" sein. Ich habe es verbessert.
Zur Nutzung von: "language:*=*":
Das wird einigermaßen verbreitet für verschiedenste Fälle verwendet und ist im deutschen und englischen Wiki dokumentiert. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:language:*#Usage
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-18 23:37:48+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20959
Vinber (2026-07-18 17:37:56+00:00): Oups, un peu large comme changeset, désolé, pris dans le flow de correction du format des numéros
Vinber (2026-07-18 17:38:48+00:00): Oups, un peu large comme changeset, désolé, pris dans le flow de correction du format des numéros
dzamper (2026-07-18 20:56:57+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/162034615
Tu chyba trzeba podzielić na dwa bo lanes=* nie zgadza się z turn:lanes=*
Mariusz Dykierek (2026-07-19 08:24:05+00:00): Dzięki. Skorygowałem
noahheffron (2026-07-18 19:55:01+00:00): This node, and others recently added nearby, does not exist. Please only add nodes that you have verified on site. Thank you for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.
noahheffron (2026-07-18 19:54:57+00:00): This node, and others recently added nearby, does not exist. Please only add nodes that you have verified on site. Thank you for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-18 20:38:39+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is strictly prohibited on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account. Business POIs added to the map must be visitable physical locations that are verifiable on the ground. See https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information.

Reverted adding SEO spam POI with online only and quite possibly illegal business in the middle of nowhere with blatant advertising, malformed tags, and possibly prohibited source of Google Maps, in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185977927
alpacaMaps (2026-07-18 18:35:58+00:00): This changeset adds one or more surveillance cameras in a spot that looks unlikely — the nodes sit well away from any road, or atop apartment complex buildings, which usually means the cameras aren't physically present on the ground.

If these cameras are real, please let us know so the map stays accurate. Otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you avoid adding cameras that aren't actually there, and that you remove any temporary or test nodes once you're done.

If this was simply a mistake, no problem at all — just clean up the nodes that don't correspond to a real-world camera, and leave a quick note here so we can help.

Thanks for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.

— alpacaMaps
Frank Peng (2026-07-18 20:48:28+00:00): No turn restrictions were removed in this changeset. You just added those turn restriction relations, but the members of those relations are not connected to each other, plus, those turn restriction relations are missing the required node with the "via" role. Turn restriction relations need to have at least three members:
- a "from" way
- a "via" node, or one or more "via" ways
- a "to" way

Members of turn restriction relations need to be connected to each other. The "via" node or way(s) in a turn restriction relation connects the beginning and end ways representing the attempted turn. Please refer to the following links:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Members
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction#Examples

Also, I see that you deleted a node where the roads intersect at a 4-way intersection (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/227915036/history), causing a gap or breakage in the roads, and the roads to no longer intersect. This could affect routing engines or routing software, where if there is a gap in a road, it could cause routing engines or routing software to think that the road dead-ends there and direct drivers onto another route to reach their destinations. Roads need to be connected; otherwise, people can't access them. It is important to take the utmost care when making map edits that could damage or delete valid map data. We need to take care to avoid damaging or deleting valid map data.

And one final thing, unfortunately, I can see here that you added nodes to already straight ways. As mentioned previously, straight ways need to be dead-straight, that's one line between two nodes with no nodes in between. Please refer to this link: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_straight_ways_straight
Frank Peng (2026-07-18 20:50:37+00:00): You can view this changeset on OSMCha, which may be easier to review: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185971234
Frank Peng (2026-07-18 21:04:11+00:00): I would love to hear the source or an explanation for  this map edit.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185971234
Frank Peng (2026-07-22 00:21:11+00:00): Reverted for deleting a valid intersection node, causing a gap or breakage in those roads, and adding invalid turn restriction relations.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186147516
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185971234
vasony (2026-07-24 19:01:47+00:00): Szia!

Van Római út és Római sétány tábla is? 

Tamás
qstep (2026-07-24 20:56:47+00:00): Sétány egyik végén "út" tábla: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1660529511733262

Sétány másik végén "sétány" tábla: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=3009349822736506

Monostori felől az úton "út" tábla: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1192125962997995
Tacsipacsi (2026-07-25 18:05:06+00:00): Köszönöm a mapillarys képeket! Még két információt tudok hozzájuk tenni:
– A Római téren (a https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8843930169 biciklitároló mögött) van egy nagyon régi, ránézésre a lakótelep építésének időszakából származó térkép. Ezen a https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/806164084 és https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/396966152 mellé valóban Római sétány van írva. A https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1531489339 mellé semmi nincs írva, de a színkódolás alapján valószínűleg a Légió utca részének tekintette a térkép készítője (ahogy egyébként a https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/184445884 előtt az OSM-en is szerepelt).
– A https://obuda.budapestkozut.hu/ címen elérhető hivatalos térinformatikai rendszerben Római út van (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1531489339), a másik két vonalhoz nincs név, így a Római sétány név nem fordul elő.

Szóval szerintem:
– A „Római út” név helyben és hivatalosan is létezik. Van róla számozva ház is (1 db). Mindenképpen maradnia kell az OSM-en.
– A „Római sétány” név hivatalosan (már?) valószínűleg nem létezik, róla számozott ház sincs, de ki van táblázva, tehát szerintem az OSM-nek azt is tiszte feltüntetni.
vasony (2026-07-25 18:43:09+00:00): Köszi, egy kérdés van, hogy akkor ennek  számozása menyire valid?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253130267
Római sétány 6-ra van most osm-en rakva
Tacsipacsi (2026-07-26 17:59:58+00:00): Jó kérdés. A Facebook-oldalukon összevissza: a https://www.facebook.com/obudafahaz/about_contact_and_basic_info részen sétány (lehet, hogy a Facebook valami adatbázisból szedi ezt, és felülbírálta a kézi bevitelt?), a szabad szöveges részen (https://www.facebook.com/obudafahaz/about_details) már út. A térinformatikai rendszer szerint egy telek a Klímacentrum Irodaházzal (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253130272 + https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4043586830), és egy 141-es szám van rajta feltüntetve, ami nyilván a Szentendrei úton értendő, szóval az nem segít. Ha legközelebb arra járok, megnézem, hogy ki van-e írva az ajtóra/kapura utcanév (bár esélyes, hogy nincs).
Tacsipacsi (2026-07-31 18:11:41+00:00): Ma arra kanyarodtam, a kapun semmi nincs – se utcanév, se házszám.
vasony (2026-07-31 19:32:15+00:00): Remek, akkor rád bízom, hogy az egész Római sétányal meg ezzel mi legyen.
noahheffron (2026-07-18 19:55:16+00:00): This node, and others recently added nearby, does not exist. Please only add nodes that you have verified on site. Thank you for helping keep OpenStreetMap accurate.
Luzandro (2026-07-20 09:27:26+00:00): Hallo,

access=customers ergibt hier nicht wirklich Sinn, nachdem es keine Kunden dieser öffentlichen Straße gibt. Die Beschränkung war schon korrekt mit motor_vehicle=private erfasst. foot/bicycle/horse=yes ist dabei implizit und sollte nicht grundlos zusätzlich angegeben werden.

Das Tagging für cycleway ist jetzt mit cycleway=cycleway:both=yes ebenfalls fehlerhaft. Ich nehme an, du wolltest stattdessen cycleway mit cycleway:both=yes ersetzen, aber zum einen sollte da besser angegeben werden, um welche Art von Fahrradstreifen es sich handelt. Zum anderen halte ich es für unwahrscheinlich, dass dort auf der schmalen Straße jetzt in beide Richtungen ein Fahrradstreifen markiert ist (es gab auch davor nur ein paar Piktogramme, die das Fahren gegen die Einbahn verdeutlicht haben, also shared_lane ).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:cycleway
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185971999
Luzandro (2026-07-31 13:45:18+00:00): rückgängig gemacht
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185971999
Luzandro (2026-07-31 13:42:11+00:00): rückgängig gemacht
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185972217
Luzandro (2026-07-31 13:37:30+00:00): rückgängig gemacht
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185972259
Luzandro (2026-07-20 09:36:55+00:00): Hallo,

der Gehsteig war korrekt mit sidewalk:right=separate getaggt, da dieser als separater way erfasst ist: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1419310741
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185972397
Luzandro (2026-07-31 13:36:07+00:00): abgesehen von lane_markings, surface und maxspeed rückgängig gemacht
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185972397
aceman444 (2026-07-31 15:58:34+00:00): Hi,thanks for the updates. But it seems you have shifted all objects according to Ortofotomozaika, while they were all drawn according to the cadastre map (source=kapor2). You should have changed the source on the objects when you used a different source. Second, as all the objects are now shifted relatively to the cadastre map, let's hope the new positions are correct and you haven't introduced a systematic wrong shift. Note the area is raised by a few meter, so there may be a skew in the Ortofotomozaika because it is shot from the side, rarely from a point just above the objects. You can see it on buildings that the roof is at different position than their base. And in OSM we map the object where the base is.
You made this mistake with building https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/739643650 which you have shifted to align with its roof, but that is incorrect.
So let's see what happens in a year when a newer Ortofotomozaika is published, whether you will not need to shift the objects back :)

What is worse, you seem to have duplicated the footway at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1540314591 (there is already https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/902159829 ). Also, as far as I know that area, there is n gravel surface on those roads, but a very fine dusty material. I called it surface=clay, but I am going to fix that. Some other ways are marked with surface=fine_gravel, but no gravel.
Baloo Uriza (2026-07-20 17:48:15+00:00): Mostly good but it is bad practice to leave names off sidewalks; this information is already in active use by multiple consumers and routing engines.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185973832
AgusQui (2026-07-22 03:25:35+00:00): Este tramo de Udaondo no está habilitado, por eso estaba como disused y por eso hay mapeado un bloque https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/106932817
felipeeugenio (2026-07-19 15:17:16+00:00): Hola. por favor agregar nombres con capitalización normal.
Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185974218
ScarlettB (2026-07-18 19:23:43+00:00): Forgot source, it's aerial and local knowledge, just as most of the other recent changesets with similar changes.
noahheffron (2026-07-18 22:17:46+00:00): Hi -- what is your reference for this? UCA's boundary does include some of the properties you've now excluded, and doesn't include some of the ones you've now included
karson_ (2026-07-19 14:41:00+00:00): Revert both the changesets if you feel that is appropriate. I'm not local to the area.

Everything I excised in this changest is not owned by the University, per the county records. Unless UCA has a rather abnormal definition of what counts as campus, typically most colleges would equate private property as != campus. I didn't check the additions particularly closely. It's possible that I added some rental houses adjacent to the campus, which are owned by the University, but not restricted to renting to students.
noahheffron (2026-07-19 15:30:09+00:00): Thank you for explaining your information source.

There are newer campus maps for both than are available on their websites, and newer aerial imagery the county hosts (that I've confirmed usage rights) than what is available in iD. As an example, there indeed are several properties at both which don't say they're owned by the universities but are exclusively for student housing and included in their residence options. For several years, UCA even long-term leased space in downtown Conway for several classes & outreach events, which wouldn't have shown on county ownership despite being considered part of campus.

I appreciate the intent and the effort you gave, and I won't be reverting, though I did further revise the boundaries for both colleges to be more accurate. Please consider reaching out to local editors prior to these kinds of larger, grayer changes so we can help advise or provide newer resources.
HellMap (2026-07-19 16:20:38+00:00): Kādēļ šeit nodzēsti gaismas lukturi? No kāda avota zināms, ka tie vairs nepastāv? Vēl pirms mēneša šeit bija. Jau daudz reižu lūgts izbeigt nepaskaidroti dzēst kartes elementus.
Asais (2026-07-19 16:54:07+00:00): Tad kāpēc Tu gaismas lukturus neatzīmē arī citās vietās Jelgavā,ja tik gudrs esi.
noahheffron (2026-07-18 22:18:57+00:00): Hi -- similar question here, what is your reference for this?
Kamerijker (2026-07-29 07:50:27+00:00): Het Sint-Pietersbos is veel te ruim. Het gedeelte op Dworp is het Krabbos. Enkel het gedeelte op Buizingen noemt Sint-Pietersbos. Gelieve dit gebied dus te splitsen.
Kamerijker (2026-07-29 09:42:01+00:00): Intussentijd verander ik de naam in "Sint-Pieterbos/Krabbos"
Tom Ameye (2026-07-29 16:00:31+00:00): Dag Kamerijker. Bedankt om dit te melden. De applicatie Topoferraris Viewer kan misschien helpen in dit kluwen. Halle heeft veel natuur, veel bos en nog heel wat verbeteringsmogelijkheden op het vlak van kartering.
mvg
Tom
cgp (2026-07-18 19:45:40+00:00): Probably not a surprise, but the Google streetview is out of date, it will show Novi Meadows here.
rskedgell (2026-07-19 07:19:48+00:00): I don't doubt that there's a CCTV installation here, but do Flock operate in the UK and how do you know it's ALPR/ANPR?
BCNorwich (2026-07-19 05:04:06+00:00): Hi Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Are there 2 cameras here? If not please remove one of them? Also please more precisely position the position.

Regards Bernard.
no details provided here (2026-07-19 08:18:56+00:00): Hi John - I started work on Church Street recently trying to straighten the spiky buildings and tag them correctly. I've got some details for this part of Orrell too if you need a hand. See my DMs.  Best wishes!
HellMap (2026-07-19 16:18:30+00:00): Jau vairākas reizes celiņiem, kas nav ietves ir pielikti ietvju tegi. Tā pat arī vairākās citās izmaiņās. Jau vairākkārt minēts par to, ka tas nav pareizi. Lūdzu izbeidz likt nepareizas vērtības celiņiem.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:footway=sidewalk
not_a_big_fan_of_the_government (2026-07-21 00:29:01+00:00): I just went out and checked this site and wasn't able to find the camera, are you absolutely certain it was a flock camera and not the vehicle detection system that wrong way signs use?
medusalator (2026-07-21 03:35:03+00:00): Yeah I agree, drive here often and I’m pretty sure they mixed up the wrong way camera
HellMap (2026-07-19 16:19:33+00:00): Kādēļ ietvei noņemts ceļa apzīmējums šeit un 185977249 izmaiņā? No kāda avota ir izmaiņas? Vēl mēnesi atpakaļ šeit bija zebras. Kas šeit ir mainījies?
Vi2727 (2026-07-21 20:23:17+00:00): Torpenvej (by Netto) is oneway 

There is a oneway sign infront of Torpenvej 11.
pred_ (2026-07-22 17:06:50+00:00): Ah, indeed, thanks!
HellMap (2026-07-19 16:19:56+00:00): Kādēļ šis posms ir norādīts kā veloceļš? Šeit nav veloceļa zīmes. Kas šeit ir mainījies?
Asais (2026-07-19 16:51:50+00:00): Tas ir gājēju un velo ceļš. Ja konkrētā vietā nav attiecīgas zīmes,tad tie ir apvienotie!
ZeLonewolf (2026-07-19 00:10:54+00:00): DWG Ticket#2026071910000019
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/wholesale-missouri-route-edits-by-ne2/145510/6
Flap Slimy Outward (2026-07-19 01:39:17+00:00): Reverted at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185985760
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-07-19 05:16:18+00:00): See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/reviewing-recent-changes-by-flap-slimy-outward/144716/42
HellMap (2026-07-19 16:21:04+00:00): Kādēļ šeit ātrums nomainīts no 30 uz 20? Uz kāda avota tas ir balstīts? Kādas ir šeit ceļa zīmes? Šeit ceļiem ir jau pievienots "maxspeed:type=LV:zone30" kā norāde, ka šeit ir 30 zona. Kas šeit ir mainījies?

Tavās izmaiņās ir pārāk daudz kļūdu. Un nav zināms, cik kļūdu nav pamanīts vēl. Lūdzu kartēt lēnāk, uzmanīgāk, paskaidrot izmaiņas un norādīt avotus!
Asais (2026-07-19 17:00:17+00:00): Tāpēc ka tā ir LBTU iekšējā teritorija,kā jebkura DUS vai citu uzņēmumu teritorijas pirms kurām nav attiecīgu zīmju,jo CSN viss ir pateikts. Pēc Pilsētsaimniecības datiem tā ir 20 km/h zona,tikai universitāte pēc pils remonta nav uzlikusi atpakaļ zīmes.
Asais (2026-07-19 17:01:23+00:00): Avotā es norādu,kur ņemu info!
Cmapuk-noxa6bl4 (2026-07-18 21:31:41+00:00): Где-то здесь у Вас Онежское озеро оказалось без нескольких сегментов. Это всплыло уже при проверке моих правок в центре Онеги. Исправил - замкнул...
joost schouppe (2026-07-22 08:20:35+00:00): Het lijkt me sterk dat de paden hier https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1540332434 publiek toegankelijk zijn. De toegang gaat over privaat terrein, het bos zelf is bij mijn weten privaat bezit, er is geen spoor van gebruik op Strava, en enkel op recentere historische kaarten duikt iets op van wegen in het bosje. Ik heb het alvast nagevraagd bij de gemeente - want volgens hun data lijkt er inderdaad geen toegangsbeperking van toepassing.
t_ja (2026-07-18 21:04:47+00:00): Ahoj,
naozaj netusim, aky je zmysel tychto zmien, ale pre OSM nevidim ziadny prinos v tisickach bodov s oznacenim note="made conflict".
Preto ta ziadam o odstranenie vsetkych takychto zmien.
Yakari (kleiner Indianer) (2026-07-19 07:22:00+00:00): Ahoj,
sú to pracovné poznámky pre vytvorenie konfliktu keď je rešenie fonfliktov ciest v JOSM, tak niejaké body boli smazané. Zrazu to pak smažem.
Enock4seth (2026-07-25 10:16:07+00:00): Salut Jean-Marc,  

Nice to see you :)

power=minor_line => https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dminor_line fits best for the lines
Jean-Marc Liotier (2026-07-25 10:33:21+00:00): Hi Enock - I knew you would notice this place sooner or later !

So, thats what the JOSM validator was complaining about... It is my first time mapping lines at this level of detail. So, thanks - minor_line for most, and I think what topologically looks like the trunk along the main road is actually power=line. I'll change that soon !
Jean-Marc Liotier (2026-07-25 10:47:25+00:00): Done: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/186339300 - though ultimately that'll be worth a survey
Enock4seth (2026-07-25 21:40:59+00:00): Thank you!
Đuro Jiří (2026-07-18 20:53:12+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185978375
:-)
Alexey Vazhnov (2026-07-18 22:16:43+00:00): Đuro Jiří, thank you for the fix!
And thank you for doing changes in the small boundaries!
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-19 07:41:29+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.

This changeset contains serious problems and should be reverted. A shared road node was moved, distorting two highways and creating crossing warnings. It also adds promotional “max77” data, a website in official_name, an implausible height=500 house, an incorrect address, and unsupported road names and attributes.

OSM should contain verifiable features that exist on the ground, not advertising.
FajrAl (2026-07-19 10:15:10+00:00): Hi, thanks for the bump. True, these data are nonsense. This changeset has been reverted in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185998907
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-19 14:17:09+00:00): Thanks @FajrAl
Vi2727 (2026-07-21 10:50:14+00:00): Just a friendly reminder not to add address to school areas, buildings, places, or other mapped features. In Denmark, addresses are mapped as separate address nodes imported and maintained automatically from the Danish Address Register (DAR). Keeping them as separate nodes allows their tags and positions to be updated correctly.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Da:Adresser
pred_ (2026-07-22 17:06:18+00:00): Thanks, also for cases like this where it's not a singular address, but rather a range?
Vi2727 (2026-07-22 17:39:55+00:00): I believe so, although I’m not completely certain. I can see that @osmviborg removed the address tags shortly afterwards, so I assume the same applies to address ranges as well.
muralito (2026-07-20 13:16:40+00:00): Hola. Esto de no permitir girar a la derecha como acá https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/21116145 seria algo bastante raro en Uruguay, ¿estas seguro que eso es lo que quisiste mapear?
muralito (2026-07-20 13:19:04+00:00): Lo de no doblar en U está implícito para todo Uruguay, no hace falta mapearlo explícitamente ya que no se permite legalmente en ninguna intersección.
muralito (2026-07-20 13:20:19+00:00): Aclaro, lo de no doblar en U si hace falta mapearlo cuando el miembro "via" no es un nodo sino otra via que conecta los tramos "to" y "from".