piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
RuleVR (2025-12-22 11:05:34+00:00): Organic heb ik, Is echt fantastisch voor wandelroutes. Wist niet dat ik daarmee kan editen. 
Bedankt voor de tips! Ik ga kijken. 
Groeten!
eggie (2025-12-22 11:08:44+00:00): Editen.. volgens mij alleen simpele zaken.. bv een winkel toevoegen e.d.
AgusQui (2026-01-26 19:01:30+00:00): El recorrido 10 llega hasta Tunuyán, por favor consultar antes de eliminar paradas.
NeisBot (2025-12-27 15:26:20+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 13 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1460165054 v2 | 6 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/13388837383 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176239381
NeisReview (2026-01-04 07:20:37+00:00): ✅ Should by fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/176653828
NeisBot (2025-12-27 15:26:21+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 7 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/829098837 v8 | 4 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1362795595 v3 | 3 crossings

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176239531
NeisReview (2026-01-08 07:06:01+00:00): ✅ Should be fixed by 
https://osm.org/changeset/176958561
https://osm.org/changeset/176959090
TrickyFoxy (2026-01-17 13:16:42+00:00): 👋 В правом меню редактора есть кнопка «Настройки фонового изображения». Выберите там спутниковые снимки ESRI — они свежее
JoeG (2025-12-31 00:10:12+00:00): Hi! This one has 2 footway=sidewalk deleted
JoeG (2025-12-31 00:08:50+00:00): Hi! I intend to revert deleted fences and footway=sidewalk on this one.
JoeG (2025-12-31 00:07:43+00:00): Hi again. This changeset has footway=sidewalk deleted on 4 ways. As for the other changeset, is there a reason for this?
Bienson (2025-12-22 03:21:14+00:00): Bitte als disused:shop=* oder disused:amenity=* (oder shop=vacant) stehen lassen - solange das Ladenlokal noch existiert.
NeisBot (2025-12-27 15:51:41+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/13394141112 v2

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Digital marketing agency in Kolkata"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisBot (2026-01-01 17:39:16+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/176712772
無限の刃 (2025-12-22 04:16:56+00:00): 施設種別の変更も願います。
NeisBot (2025-12-27 15:26:25+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 7 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/221135057 v10 | 6 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/2301932909 v4
https://osm.org/node/12418917732 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176241496
NeisReview (2025-12-27 15:49:30+00:00): Seems it is corrected by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176281870
b-jazz (2025-12-22 20:01:44+00:00): Thanks.
無限の刃 (2025-12-22 03:52:55+00:00): 『name は名称だけ』  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:名称#name は名称だけ 『JA:Key:disused:*』 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:Key:disused:*
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-12-22 03:12:31+00:00): I made a typo in both the comment and the source. The correct URL is https://osm.org/changeset/176165267.
user_5359 (2025-12-22 08:03:37+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.
nevw (2025-12-22 04:02:17+00:00): This tag is not generally necessary as the boundaries of the districts are already mapped. 
Pokolbin:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6059206
Cessnock:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6058958#map=13/-32.83349/151.36709
Nulkaba:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6059187#map=14/-32.80956/151.37684
Benoît C MdP (2025-12-22 10:54:47+00:00): Bonjour Benjamin,

La rue de Coulmiers est bien une zone de rencontre. Pourquoi avoir modifié les attributs ? Je corrige.

Bonne continuation

Benoît
NeisBot (2025-12-27 15:51:43+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/13394309452 v1

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Insurance office"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisBot (2026-01-01 17:40:33+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/176248828
Thanks @user_5359
rskedgell (2025-12-22 10:08:18+00:00): Are you sure about the access tags here, which have the effect that no transport mode is permitted (including pedestrians and cyclists) and also (redundantly) no motor vehicle is permitted?

The Mapillary imagery from 2023-06 would suggest the bollard be tagged as:
barrier=bollard + bollard=removable + motor_vehicle=private + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive

These need a little context. The traffic sign prohibiting motor vehicles except for access would usually be motor_vehicle=destination, but with a line of bollards that's not really true. It's on a private (ownership) road, which we can assume from the 5mph speed limit (doesn't occur on public highways in the UK), so signage doesn't have to be consistent. Because it's privately owned, bicycle and foot are assumed to be permissive unless there's evidence of a legal right of way.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/user/milhouse?lat=51.4895733&lng=-0.2868646&z=19.254109981608817&focus=photo&pKey=2000001437030905
Char_Vad (2025-12-25 13:55:11+00:00): Hi rskedgell,
Thanks for the detailed explanation. My colleague from the UK did some research and is fairly confident that the road is still an adopted road by the local council and so likely not private. The speed and access restrictions are due to the Brentford Football Club’s stadium and are for safety reasons due to the foot traffic that will use this road to access the stadium.  

Based on your feedback and these findings I am proposing the following:  

Remove access=no tag and add following tags bollard=removable, motor_vehicle=permissive. This would resolve the routing issue for pedestrians and cyclists and allow motor vehicles that are permitted to access. Kindly let me know if you have any other thoughts.
rskedgell (2026-01-13 11:02:42+00:00): Please let me offer my apologies for taking so long to reply to you. I visited Lionel Road South yesterday evening, recorded imagery for Mapillary and made some initial updates using StreetComplete and SCEE.

Although Lionel Road South has (legally dubious) 5 mph signage, which would usually suggest an unadopted road ( ownership=private ), London Borough of Hounslow have made traffic orders for the road suggesting otherwise. The most recent of these are summarised in the notice at https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4178860

For part of the road between the bollards and the mini-roundabout, I have changed the road from highway=tertiary to highway=unclassified and added  motor_vehicle=destination + bicycle=designated access tags.

The bollards really ought to have the same access tags as the road beyond them, but as they are locked and cannot be passed without explicit permission I have added motor_vehicle=private with a note=*

The status of one-way working on Lionel Road South seems a little dubious. There is a one way sign (TSRGD diagram 652) at its junction with Kew Bridge Road and one way signs (diagram 606) opposite some of the service/pedestrian roads joining it. However, what I assume were "no entry" signs (diagram 616) near the mini-roundabout have been covered over and I saw a couple of motor vehicles being driven the "wrong" way. It may be worth contacting LB Hounslow's highways department for clarification and I suspect an enquiry from TomTom may get a faster response than from a private individual.

The Mapillary imagery is still processing, but should be available later.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/177173491
literan (2025-12-22 19:43:02+00:00): и зачем вы поверх дороги еще одну нарисовали? 

откат
NeisBot (2025-12-27 15:51:44+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/13394408705 v1

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "State Farm office in Denver area serving Colorado and Kansas"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisBot (2026-01-01 17:41:52+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/176712868
(Deleted leftovers after several edits)
kasmar00 (2025-12-27 20:47:39+00:00): Hej, w nazwach stacji kolejowych nie stosujemy przedrostu "PKP". Wystarczy sama oficjalna nazwa "Radzyń Podlaski".
Poprawione w: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176502533
MxxCon (2025-12-22 17:01:56+00:00): Hello.
Please note that location description must not be stuffed into the name= tag. We have branch= tag for that.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176246667
catdreamer (2025-12-22 11:36:55+00:00): 請注意勿把路徑和行政區界線、河川等相連
colty45 (2025-12-24 01:17:14+00:00): 請問行政區界與山徑路線重疊如何添加山徑?
NeisBot (2025-12-27 15:51:46+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/way/1459776521 v2

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Residential layout with plotted development and common amenities"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisBot (2026-01-01 17:43:34+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/176613652
Thanks @NeisBot
NeisBot (2025-12-27 15:51:47+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/13394458181 v1

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Facial studio in Vancouver"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisBot (2026-01-01 17:43:36+00:00): 🔄🤖 Partly reverted due to either a lack of response from the contributor or remaining promotional text by https://osm.org/changeset/176712923
(Deleted leftovers after several edits)
arjunaraoc (2025-12-23 02:25:22+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  India page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India) and  join OSM India Telegram channel (https://t.me/OSMIndia). You have deleted  a residential road. If it is based on your local knowledge, please do mention "Local Knowledge" of "Survey" in the source tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176247917
fndoder (2025-12-22 09:45:18+00:00): Он не отсутствовал, просто был не совсем верно обозначен - не в фактическом месте, а в торце этого дома со стороны ул. Сибгата Хакима.

Лучше не создавать дубль, а просто переместить в правильное место уже существущую точку.
Allroads (2026-05-14 20:02:57+00:00): service=emergency moeten wel realitisch worden ingetekend, als je dat over een island met kerb inteken tussen een G11 en B6 door. Wat dan ergens 2.75 breed is.
https://api.panoramax.xyz/en/index?s=fp;s2;p3341ce3b-56db-4485-8bc2-c639f2c2f638;c297.33/-17.09/30;m20.8/52.376932/4.902088;vt;udefault
Nu doe je  het mijn inziens wat verkeerd.
Hoe lossen we dit op?

Is vanaf Lijnbus strook om de lantaarnpaal heen voor de zebra een betere optie?

Groeten Allroads.
Allroads (2026-05-14 20:04:04+00:00): Gaat over deze way https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/1460425685
Глеб (2025-12-22 18:29:06+00:00): У терминалов не бывает названий.
NeisBot (2025-12-22 07:51:22+00:00): Hi genebeveridge, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 80% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 2 highway(s)
- 1 leisure(s)
- 23 natural(s)
- 24 source(s)
- 1 surface(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176248690
Stromatolite (2025-12-23 06:53:20+00:00): Yes, I've reviewed the deletions and believe they are appropriate.
pitscheplatsch (2025-12-27 13:11:51+00:00): Thanks for your reply.
FenyMufyd (2025-12-24 09:31:08+00:00): Mohon maaf Pak Dani sepertinya cara tagging Anda salah dan melanggar aturan do not map for rendering, dan jangan menggunakan descriptive names. 

Landuse orchard sudah benar dan memudahkan untuk query pencarian terima kasih
FajrAl (2026-05-18 14:26:14+00:00): Ini menggunakan batasnya TN Tesso Nilo. Lebih baik petakan secara terpisah/buat baru.
Mapiate (2025-12-22 12:03:34+00:00): Hi, for the name updates that you're applying can you please be sure to add the name of source? Typically, this would be added for other mappers to understand the history of the object.
kabir-ih (2025-12-24 21:38:56+00:00): Hey @Mapiate—I'm operating off of shapefiles provided directly from the local government.

How can I best share the provenance of that info?
NeisBot (2025-12-27 15:51:52+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/3205359060 v2

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

✅ For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Event venue in Śląsk"
---
Na przykład, bardziej neutralna i fakticzna wersja twojego opisu mogłaby brzmieć: "Miejsce wydarzenia w Śląsku"
---
(Auto-translation)

#MapWithoutSpam #Tag #Description
NeisBot (2026-01-01 17:43:36+00:00): 🚫 Text removed by https://osm.org/changeset/176283355
Thanks @bartgron
vasony (2025-12-24 08:21:29+00:00): Szia!

Az utcanév nem helyesírási kérdés, az utca neve az ami a táblán szerepel. Jelen esetben az itteni nevek felmérésen alapultak, visszaállítottam az eredeti állapotot.

Tamás
NeisBot (2025-12-27 15:26:41+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 63 potential crossings.

⚠️️ Problematic elements (top 3):
https://osm.org/way/1305160048 v1 | 11 crossings
https://osm.org/way/4290382 v17 | 10 crossings
https://osm.org/way/1305158982 v3 | 9 crossings

⚠️ Dragged Nodes (max 3):
https://osm.org/node/12088220324 v2

Would you mind revisiting those areas?

#CrossingCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=176250311
DENelson83 (2025-12-29 19:54:10+00:00): This changeset has been reverted.
Fraxi (2025-12-22 12:14:52+00:00): You might not be a Bulgarian, but I'd like to note some issues on this changeset:
-you named https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12919157490 as "Акумпатори". May be you have seen on a sign "Акумулатори", which means "accumulators"(or rechargeable batteries). But, then the main feature of this POI should be changed to shop=car_parts. Now it is still considered as being an insurance office. What did you see there?
-Are you sure that this pastry shop - https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9719073529 - works non-stop? Anyhow, the value for the working time should be redacted.
- https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11819845637 - You very likely mean "EasyPay", which is not a bank, but a payment centre.
joost schouppe (2026-01-05 13:40:02+00:00): Bedankt, dit is erg nuttig voor mij!
Fraxi (2025-12-22 12:18:57+00:00): I removed some of the names you added with this changeset, because in fact they are descriptive names. Please, if you cannot check the meaning of the inscription on time, just leave it unsigned(and this quest uncompleted) for another mapper. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-01-01 17:12:35+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 176711822 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly nonexistant bus stops.  See https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11552607 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19245
snikers89 (2025-12-22 12:07:05+00:00): Jakie jest źródło tych zmian? W tym miejscu nie ma przystanków autobusowych.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-01-01 17:12:37+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 176711822 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly nonexistant bus stops.  See https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11552607 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19245
snikers89 (2025-12-22 12:06:03+00:00): Jakie jest źródło tych zmian? W tym miejscu nie ma przystanków autobusowych.
eggie (2025-12-22 10:23:50+00:00): Dag Niels Je hebt een bomenrij verbonden met een weg, maar bomenrijen routeren niet. 
Verder heb je zo te zien relaties bewerkt. Zal zo eens kijken of die nog heel zijn.
Wegen splitsen met editor iD waar een relatie loopt gaat meestal fout.
Dat kan alleen met editor JOSM.

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=176251341

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-12-22 10:24:46+00:00): Aanvulling Je hoeft geen oneway=no op wegen te gaan taggen. Dat is de default.
eggie (2025-12-22 10:31:43+00:00): Wanneer je oneway=yes op wegen gaat taggen routeert het niet meer correct voor fietsers, want die zijn bijna altijd uitgezonderd van eenrichtingsverkeer. Heb je met die uitzondering rekening gehouden?
We taggen dan oneway:bicycle=no bij op zo'n wegdeel. En idn ook voor moped en mofa.
MVG
eggie
NielsH80 (2025-12-22 10:44:46+00:00): Excuus, fietsers mogen hier wel tegen de richting in.
eggie (2025-12-22 10:50:21+00:00): Ahh... oke.. ik heb her al aangepast voor fietsers. De bomenrij heb ik ook teruggelegd.
Meestal krijg je plakeffecten als je schuift met de kaart in editmodus.
Beter dus kleinere stukjes bewerken.. opslaan.. uit de editmodus en dan naar het volgende stukje.
De 'fout' onstaat omdat je met de linkermuis schuift.. maar ook selecteert. Bv de eindnode van de bomenrij.
Dan schuift niet de kaart maar de bomenrij.
De rest is natuurlijk prima.
Mapse..
eggie
NielsH80 (2025-12-22 10:53:24+00:00): Bedankt voor de tip. Ik zal er op letten.
eggie (2025-12-22 10:55:46+00:00): Wat ik wel vreemd vind in die Ambachtsstraat is het feit dat ik alleen dat rode ronde bord met de witten streep zien en niet het blauwe vierkante bord met de witte pijl.
Zou het wel voor het hele gedeelte gelden of gewoon een fout zijn van de wegbeheerder. en kun je van af dei parkeerstrook bij dat plantsoen gewoon terugrijden? 
Leuk om uit te zoeken. 
Ik gebruik het verkeersbordenbestand van de overheid.. https://wegkenmerken.ndw.nu/kaart/verkeersborden/c6a43e8c-d861-42cf-9137-6f903a38300f?maxsnelheidfilter=1f5451a0.________Dw&kaartlagen=SPEED_LIMIT,TRAFFIC_SIGN,BGT&verkeersbordfilter=a5790999._____________________________38D&zichtbaar-gebied=5.24327,52.0227,5.24734,52.02459
NielsH80 (2025-12-22 11:09:18+00:00): Interessant, dat het rechthoekige bord ontbreekt is me nooit opgevallen. Vanaf de parkeerstrook zou je in theorie terug kunnen rijden qua breedte. Daarna wordt het echt te smal voor auto’s in twee richtingen.
eggie (2025-12-22 11:14:38+00:00): Zou in dat geval de weg splitsen en het bredere deel ontdoen van oneway=yes en oneway:bicycle=no... want dat zal de praktijk zijn.
En evt een keer een berichtje naar de Gemeente dat de situatie onduidelijk is.
Pas je het zelf aan?
Maar misschien staat het bord er nu wel?
NielsH80 (2025-12-22 14:19:38+00:00): Ik heb nog even gecheckt, maar er staat geen bord. Ik heb het nu aangepast (hopelijk dit keer zonder fouten ;-))
eggie (2025-12-22 14:56:21+00:00): Het is in ieder geval oké zo.
Mapse
eggie
snikers89 (2025-12-22 12:07:51+00:00): Jakie jest źródło tych zmian? W tym miejscu nie ma przystanków autobusowych.
bartgron (2025-12-22 12:38:11+00:00): Nie odpowie ci, gość generalnie dodaje fikcję, można usunąć wszystko co dodaje
snikers89 (2025-12-22 13:14:33+00:00): Tak wiem, ale Pan Admin światowy coś zwleka z zablokowaniem tego konta i kazał najpierw pisać mu komentarze z pytaniami pod wątpliwymi zmianami
SomeoneElse_Revert (2026-01-01 17:12:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 176711822 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some allegedly nonexistant bus stops.  See https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=11552607 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/19245
Kiana_Kaslana (2025-12-27 15:45:43+00:00): 已对您的部分编辑进行回退处理：https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176488945
1. 您所参考的“Esri World Imagery”位于相关地带的影像已过时，不应作为第一来源参考。实际情况是部分原路段因新学校的建设被废弃；
2. 相关路段系船山区县道“花书路”。
wolfgang8 (2025-12-22 13:43:47+00:00): Die Ladestation ist bereits eingetragen https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/713976897. Vermutlich ist diese gemeint, oder wurde mittlerweile eine zusätzliche errichtet?
DerKaiserschmarren (2025-12-22 21:53:07+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis - ist Berreinigt. https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=713976897
DerKaiserschmarren (2025-12-22 21:53:47+00:00): Falscher link: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13394721417