piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
NorthCrab (2023-01-28 08:49:18+00:00): Jak wydasz zgodę to mogę Ci automatycznie zamienić surface na jakiś inny - jak podasz jaki - w twoich ostatnich zmianach. Ale to już opcjonalnie i jeśli oczywiście uznasz że piasek jest poprawny to nie będę w tym przypadku się upierał ;)
emersonveenstra (2023-01-26 22:12:19+00:00): Hi,

Thanks for your contribution! In OSM, it's considered bad practice to name things based on their description, like "Tee #1 Mens" or "#1 Fairway". They aren't necessary and are better expressed using different tags. Would you mind removing those names? Thanks!
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-04-03 15:55:38+00:00): Can you look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3625907 ?

It seems to me that amenity=monastery was more correct
gpserror (2023-01-31 17:55:49+00:00): hi, thank you for your contributions, however I've noticed there were a lot of errors introduced to the map due to your contributions.  If you could, could you fix them?  perhaps these changes need to be reverted back to a previous state if you're not sure on how to fix some of the problems introduced.
gpserror (2023-01-31 17:59:50+00:00): BTW one such error that showed up is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/440823644 - I'm not sure what this used to be but it's definitely not a road, I think it used to be a boundary of sorts but it was changed and now I don't know what it represents.
Gonéo (2023-01-27 21:00:57+00:00): Bonjour et merci pour votre contribution.

Attention, pour les outils c'est service:bicycle:chain_tool

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Tag:amenity=bicycle_repair_station

Je vous laisse corriger ?
skyper (2023-01-26 23:35:14+00:00): Hallo inbx,
danke für die Änderungen, allerdings fehlen da jetzt wohl so einige `foot=designated` und `bicycle=designated` bzw `bicycle=yes`. Bei gemeinsam benutzen Fuß- und Radwegen mit blauen Schild ist das jeweils "designated", siehe auch https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/3523152.
Wenn Du willst, kannst Du auch noch die exakte Beschilderung mit `traffic_sign=` angeben und bei https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27314068 sollte entlang der Neumagenstraße bis zur Ampel wohl `path=sidewalk` als Hinweis dass es ein Trottoir ist, und für den Übergang dann `path=crossing`.

Viele Grüße,
skyper
NorthCrab (2023-01-28 08:51:12+00:00): Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Jeśli ustawiasz kolor to proszę stosuj zwroty które zostały udokumentowane - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:colour. Mogą to być wartości wspierane przez CSS (kolory po angielsku) albo wartości numeryczne jak np. #ff0000 w tym przypadku.

Zmianę poprawiłem, ale uważaj na przyszłość

https://img.monicz.dev/-DCA6ztJWcH

Pozdrawiam!
kamonal (2023-01-28 11:12:44+00:00): Dzięki. Zastanawiałem się nad tym, ale reszta w UI była po polsku.
camlewwri (2023-02-23 10:47:05+00:00): This area is not a landfill site - it is a drainage pond
eggie (2023-01-27 06:52:05+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback  Niet alles is goed gegaan. Kijk naar de foutmeldingen hier boven. De wegen liggen nu los van elkaar.
Een betonblok heeft geen naam en niet een maxspeed. 
Ik zal het aanpassen.
Je edits https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=131750882

MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
goedegazelle (2023-01-27 06:14:51+00:00): Please don't remove tags like "mast:type", even if the tag is incorrect. It is still data that awas added by someone for a reason.

Wiki: Automated edits are strongly discouraged unless you really know what you are doing!
streckenkundler (2023-01-27 08:01:06+00:00): Where has this and the other mass edits been discussed and approved?

Otherwise, a revert is urgently needed here!
SherbetS (2023-01-27 14:18:53+00:00): Hi. can you link any objects where data was damaged?
streckenkundler (2023-01-27 14:47:04+00:00): This is a general question!

Where were these and the other mass changes discussed and approved?

I expect a prior announcement and a list of which key-value is to be exchanged for which key-value.  I am not interested in individual objects!
SherbetS (2023-01-27 14:52:52+00:00): I am exchanging mast:type=communication
with tower:type=communication

I also deleted the tag mast:type=column because I couldn’t think of an appropriate substitute tag.
streckenkundler (2023-01-27 15:01:05+00:00): Again: Where were these and the other mass changes discussed and approved?
skyper (2023-01-27 15:03:32+00:00): Hi,
it might be OK to change `mast:type=communication` to `tower:type=communication` but this still needs a discussion in advance if you want to perform this change on a larger scale like Sven (aka streckenkundler) mentioned. But there is no benefit to remove `mast:type=*` with other values. Probably these should be changed to `mast:construction` or `tower:construction` but this would need another discussion in advance.
streckenkundler (2023-01-27 15:03:59+00:00): >I also deleted the tag mast:type=column because I couldn’t think of an appropriate substitute tag.

Sorry for writing it so harshly: 

This is exactly what I call vandalism!
streckenkundler (2023-01-27 15:08:42+00:00): For mass edits, I expect a list beforehand of what is to be exchanged. Pure deletion is not possible at all! That must be ruled out!
This mass edit must be announced in advance and discussed within a reasonable time. 

That's why I think a complete revert is necessary here!
streckenkundler (2023-01-27 15:20:56+00:00): See: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/massenedit-mast-type-tower-type-disskutiert-und-abgesprochen/8291
streckenkundler (2023-01-27 15:27:25+00:00): Stop your editing immediately! DWG is switched on for checking!
SherbetS (2023-01-27 15:27:32+00:00): > Where were these and the other mass changes discussed and approved?

I had not had prerequisite discussion before making these changesets. My mistake. 

>That's why I think a complete revert is necessary here!

I’m fine with this.
Woazboat (2023-01-27 15:28:01+00:00): I don't see the problem with changing the unconventional mast:type to the accepted tower:type, but tags definitely shouldn't simply be removed.
SomeoneElse (2023-01-27 15:49:01+00:00): @SherbetS Thanks.
Fizzie-DWG (2023-02-02 04:02:26+00:00): Reverted by DWG. User incorrectly made mass edit without realising local differences: changeset/131985470
rchive (2023-01-26 23:09:04+00:00): Also marked road as demolished
wkdgs (2023-01-31 09:08:20+00:00): Steht da wirklich ein offizielles Schild mit der Geschwindigkeitsbeschränkung 20? Wirkt für mich sehr ungewöhnlich für einen Hinterhofparkplatz.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131751606
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2023-02-02 18:02:45+00:00): What is the source for motorcar=destination ?
That seems a little odd here?
Lauxsin (2023-02-06 23:35:03+00:00): Howdy and thanks for reaching out! A Maps user requested an update to the access restrictions involving these roadways. The source used for these edits is Mapillary Imgery: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.71856&lng=9.631804&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=394544875046449
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2023-02-07 01:22:12+00:00): I cannot read the text on the signs.

It looks like it should be motor_vehicle and not motorcar

and probably private instead of destination
Lauxsin (2023-02-10 00:31:49+00:00): While the text from the sign isn’t very legible, there are vehicles visible in SDFE Imagery on the other side of the tunnel. It makes sense that they would be traveling through the tunnel and parking rather than driving around it on another roadway. However, I do see your point about the possibility of private access tagging here considering the sign itself and if you think it’d be a more accurate fit for these features, I’d have no problem with you updating the features.
HurricaneGator (2023-01-27 18:55:45+00:00): Correction: Source used was Maxar Premium Imagery.
ivanbranco (2023-01-29 00:03:21+00:00): Ciao gabenarni,

perché layer=-1?
gabenarni (2023-01-29 11:50:35+00:00): Ciao ivan,
hai ragione, ho sbagliato :p

Avevo visto che in un punto il marciapiede passava sopra all'edificio e senza pensarci ho cambiato il livello. Ho rimesso a posto.
mariotomo (2023-01-27 08:08:04+00:00): hi, thank you for helping correcting the geographic information added by this local YM chapter. some of us within OSM (not participating to these organized edits) wonder how YM teach OSM to their members, as the hashtags #teachosm-project-1484 and 1486 suggest. I'm inviting (with very limited success) you reviewers to join the discussion at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/how-do-youthmappers-teachosm/5501/
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131752409
Leo Slager (2023-01-27 16:48:56+00:00): Helaas is het bewerken van routerelaties met de editor iD niet goed mogelijk. De nieuwe wegen worden achter aan de relatie toegevoegd en staan dus niet op de juiste plaats in de route.
Wil je serieus met routerelaties aan de slag dan adviseer ik je om over te stappen naar de editor JOSM.
Daarmee kun je de nieuwe wegen invoegen in de relatie op de juiste plaats zodat er geen gebroken route ontstaat.
Leo Slager (2023-01-27 16:49:19+00:00): de routerelatie van bus 46 is weer gerepareerd.
mariotomo (2023-06-06 15:55:36+00:00): »Corrected highway to be layer above waterway.« this has disabled a warning and triggered an other one: "Long Highway above ground and no bridge".
NorthCrab (2023-01-27 03:32:04+00:00): Zamieniłem obszar wokół na landuse education. Jest to preferowane rozwiązanie gdy wewnątrz znajduje się więcej niż 1 amenity edukacyjne: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=education 👍️
kubahahaha (2023-01-27 03:44:38+00:00): Nie chciałem tego robić żeby domyślny render nie przestał wyświetlać. Nie umawialiśmy się kiedyś żeby dawać tagi jednocześnie dopóki nie będzie szerszego wsparcia? Ale tak jest też poprawnie
NorthCrab (2023-01-27 03:47:51+00:00): Tak ale nie jest to wymóg, jedynie zezwolenie. Ja nie lubię mapowania pod render bo mam wrażenie że dev od carto nigdy nie dodadzą wsparcia jak będziemy iść na takie uproszczenia :P
NorthCrab (2023-01-27 03:48:01+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=education#Multiple_facilities_on_one_site
mariotomo (2023-02-04 11:44:06+00:00): when using JOSM, you can avoid introducing redundant nodes by activating the "simplify" tool. it's a potentially dangerous tool, so don't use it when you don't see the effects!
mariotomo (2023-02-04 11:47:37+00:00): but please do not overestimate buildings. in Panama roofs are already generally larger than the buildings below them, so overestimating roofs as buildings is generally the opposite of what is desirable. please do accept contact requests by local mappers.
highflyer74 (2023-01-27 08:18:02+00:00): Hello!

Is the name of the ship wreck you added actually "Unknown 1923 - Canmore 327615"? This seems a little odd... Please remember to only use name=* for actual names:

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

Also when editing, keeping changesets more local helps other mappers:

- https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Remember to use useful changeset comments. "Various" is not so helpful for others.

Also the source of the information you added should be added to the changeset before uploading (e.g. how do you know the position of that wreck).

If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask other mappers.

Thank you!
Harvesterify (2023-01-27 18:20:43+00:00): Looks like it is the real name : https://canmore.org.uk/site/327615/unknown-1923
highflyer74 (2023-01-27 18:33:16+00:00): That's certainly not the ship's name I would say... It's a classification by Canmore.

There is a tag that is documented for this case: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ref:canmore

First of all though, the source of the data added by @VGPaleontologist needs to be confirmed, as Canmore probably does not allow its data to be used as freely as OSM is designed:

https://canmore.org.uk/content/legals

Have a good night for the time :-)
mariotomo (2023-02-04 11:37:50+00:00): hi, I'm not sure how you did this, but by "squaring" already squared buildings (what you actually did was making them larger), you added redundant nodes. like at ways 1080635166, 1080635165, 1080635163.
in this case I think your edit made things slightly worse, so much slightly that I'm not going to fix it back.
mariotomo (2023-01-27 10:09:37+00:00): in the area there's the microsoft buildings footprint layer. have you considered using it and with your local chapter focus on interpreting and tagging for function?
JoannaGW (2023-01-27 14:46:05+00:00): Hi again - I edited the shape/length of the highway to where I could see cars and where the road appeared more clear. I also edited the tag to service, as it is only a few hundred meters long and  provides some access to a few buildings
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131753687
Mingwei (2023-01-27 01:27:54+00:00): https://acfloodcontrol.org/files/watersheds/maps/pdfs/san_lorenzo_creek.pdf
mariotomo (2023-01-27 10:05:27+00:00): hi. a hint when choosing a highway classification: roads leading to small premises like the two you created here do not fall in the "unclassified" category. possibly residential? or service like driveway?
JoannaGW (2023-01-27 14:32:25+00:00): Hello, I edited the tagging to residential roads. There are multiple buildings so I thought residential may be more accurate than a service tag indicating a driveway.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131753801
mariotomo (2023-01-27 15:57:05+00:00): :+1: :-)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131775684
MxxCon (2023-01-27 03:51:26+00:00): You set all of Long Island as smoking=no... 😕
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131753811
snake21 (2023-01-27 04:16:35+00:00): Thanks for fixing. They probably wouldn't be too happy about that...
GOwin (2023-01-27 04:50:10+00:00): It appears that you're trying to add street cabinets(?), and you're mis-tagging them as community centers.

Please use a better app, and tag them correctly as man_made=street_cabinet + street_cabinet=telecom + ref=*

OsmAnd is capable of doing this, and is free, too.
abakus_uploader (2023-01-27 23:33:07+00:00): (Wiadomość automatyczna)
Cześć!
Otrzymujesz ten komentarz, ponieważ dodałeś lub zmodyfikowałeś adres, który jest niepełny lub błędny.
Adres powinien zawierać minimum trzy znaczniki: addr:city=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:street=[nazwa_ulicy] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Wyjątkiem są miejscowości bez nazwanych ulic - wtedy stosujemy znaczniki: addr:place=[nazwa_miejscowosci] + addr:housenumber=[numer_porządkowy].
Bez poprawnego oznaczenia adresów, nie będą one brane pod uwagę przez wyszukiwarki, dlatego warto je dostosować do ww. schematu (w zależności od sytuacji).
Więcej informacji na forum: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=5632 - a pytania najlepiej zadawać tu: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=681873
Pozdrawiamy!
LuxuryCoop (2023-01-28 13:54:29+00:00): 안녕하세요! 오픈스트리트맵에 기여해 주셔서 감사드립니다.
바뀜집합 검토 요청을 주셔서 확인해 본 결과, 문제가 없습니다.
앞으로도 꾸준한 기여 부탁드립니다!
okwithmydecay (2023-03-24 14:50:10+00:00): I've noticed that this edit removed cycleway:both:lane=pictogram that I had surveyed with StreetComplete - is there a reason for this? I've noticed this in other edits eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/132980539
okwithmydecay (2023-03-26 18:42:13+00:00): I also noticed this changed cycleway:both to shared, where the correct value is shared_lane according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
MacLondon (2023-03-30 22:13:54+00:00): Hi, I've tested with StreetComplete and can see that for some reason the app completely ignores "cycleway=shared" tags, which are used on roads the entire width of which are shared with vehicles. These can be signed in UK with either a blue rectangle sign or with cycle logos.

"cycleway=shared_lane" is the tagging where a designated individual lane 
(rather than all of that side of the road) is shared with vehicles. Example: a 4-lane (2+2) two-way road where the outer 2 lanes have cycle logos but the central 2 lanes don't. I can see why StreetComplete automatically adds "cycleway:both:lane=pictogram" tags as the blue rectangle sign isn't used in this instance.

https://goo.gl/maps/rZVHEMqMMSbKShWe7 is an example of a "cycleway:right=shared_lane", and https://goo.gl/maps/AqwEejHgyzyq35CQ8 of an eastbound "cyclewayleft=shared_lane".

In the case of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8562574#map=19/51.54183/-0.05674&layers=Y, this shows on the CyclOSM infrastructure map as having an 'outside LANE' on both sides of the road that cyclists share with vehicles. Howerer, this road (https://goo.gl/maps/JA3o2QzKBNkvqofP8) doesn't even have any lane markings!

Apart from having inaccurate tagging of the infrastructure (that I realise StreetComplete prompts people to add), the "cycleway:both:lane" tag here makes no sense as there are no lanes.

Unfortunately in the last year or 2 the TfL conflation has mistagged lots of the cycling infrastructure in London, but I suspect StreetComplete is now compounding this with further mistagging.
okwithmydecay (2023-04-03 17:25:31+00:00): Thank you for the explanation. As you are more familiar with this topic, could you please raise a Github issue with StreetComplete so that they can add support for cycleway=shared
okwithmydecay (2023-04-11 17:40:00+00:00): I've raised a bug report https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/4941
duckman56 (2023-03-29 10:41:26+00:00): i think you made a mistake i corrected it let me know if otherwise
IjRiver (2023-03-30 08:58:45+00:00): Hello duckman56, thank you for reaching out. The only edit I made in this area was reclassifying the segment [https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1135591776] from primary_link to primary. I see that you have made some other improvements in the area regarding directionality and connectivity of a few roads which is appreciated. Happy mapping!
surveyor54 (2023-01-28 10:51:36+00:00): Hi,
𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲 should start with a lowercase letter.

should start with a lowercase letter
surveyor54
Longhorn256 (2023-01-29 06:39:16+00:00): Thanks for catching that. I changed the tags in Kiasutha and Red Bridge.
surveyor54 (2023-01-29 09:05:22+00:00): 👍

best regards
surveyor54
mavl (2023-04-25 08:59:50+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 135307362, 135331978, 135327734, 135318197, 135323168 where the changeset comment is: Hi all. The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: valid data are deleted - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/7056].
marczoutendijk (2023-02-06 09:24:58+00:00): I have asked the owner of this business in a PM some more details abot the location of their company.

Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
jmapb (2023-08-09 16:17:35+00:00): Hi there, I'm wondering about the name "Grand Central Parkway" for the parking lot at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25346338 -- is this perhaps a mistake?
jmapb (2023-08-11 13:12:04+00:00): Well I've removed this name from the parking lot since I can't find any reason for it;, let me know if that's a problem.
CurlingMan13 (2023-05-16 06:16:19+00:00): FYI, you don't need to add "Area=yes" tags to the features like parking lots or buildings as this is redundant.
wkdgs (2023-01-31 09:06:49+00:00): Hi,

ich glaube es wäre sinnvoller "smoothness=*" statt "condition=*" zu verwenden: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness

Laut https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/ wird "smoothness=*" deutlich häufiger verwendet als "condition=*". Und ich meine auch, dass die meisten Anwendungen nur "smoothnes" zur Auswertung verwenden.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131756682
Langlaeufer (2023-01-27 06:11:01+00:00): Ich hab das mal in old_name gepackt
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/131757216
hotteliene (2023-08-16 20:45:32+00:00): Hallo petebuir,
Du hast im Januar in Langenhagen die Hindenburgstraße in Loebensteinstraße umbenannt (Changeset 131757216). Irgendetwas scheint mir da nicht ganz stimmig. Wenn eine Stadt ihre Straße umbenennt, wird sie auch die Straßenschilder zeitnah austauschen. Das hat sie offensichtlich bisher nicht getan. Auch müssen die Anwohner ja auch von dieser Änderung rechtzeitig unterrichtet werden. Meine Schwester, die in der Hindenburgstraße wohnt, weiß von nichts. Leider hast Du nicht Deine Info-Quelle mit angegeben. Die Hindenburgstraße in Hannover wurde umbenannt. Aber Hindenburgstraße Hannover ist nicht Hindenburgstraße Langenhagen. Daher überprüf doch noch mal bitte, ob da nicht ein Irrtum vorliegt. 
Viele Grüße,
Horst-Rainer

P.S.: Wenn Du eine Straße umbenennst, vergiss nicht die Adressen an den Häusern :-)
Langlaeufer (2023-08-16 21:29:29+00:00): Ich hatte nicht vor, eine Straße umzubenennen. Wenn ich das wirklich war ist irgendwas schief gegangen.
Falls du die korrekte Situation kennst, wäre es nett wenn du dem Straßennamen wieder korrekt herstellst
Langlaeufer (2023-08-16 21:31:32+00:00): Sorry. War ja garnicht an mich
Langlaeufer (2023-08-17 04:46:22+00:00): Im Zooviertel Hannover wurde Hindenburgstr in Loebensteinstr. umbenannt, nicht in Langenhagen!
The RedBurn (2023-02-02 12:54:28+00:00): Comme la statue a été déplacée, il faut déplacer l'élément, pas le supprimer. 
J'ai annulé le groupe de modification pour pouvoir déplacer la statue.
Lorsqu'un élément est enlevé temporairement, on peut aussi ajouter le préfixe https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:removed:*
parsewski (2023-05-25 14:16:16+00:00): hi! da sind zwei recht lange Wegabschnitte als Brücke ausgewiesen, wovon einer im Nichts endet. Stimmen die? mfg
gscholz (2023-05-25 14:29:06+00:00): Kann ich dir nicht sagen, ich habe nur die überlappenden Wege repariert.
Guido
parsewski (2023-05-25 15:14:22+00:00): Aha. Dachte, weil Version 1
Luzandro (2023-05-25 19:10:39+00:00): das bridge sollte offenbar nur für diesen way hier gelten: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1128250968

der Weg, der im Nichts endet, geht laut basemap weiter bis zur Prechtlgasse, was sich auch am Luftbild erahnen lässt, also habe ich diese Verbindung auch eingetragen
parsewski (2023-05-25 19:59:40+00:00): Das hätte ich auch so korrigiert, habe allerdings gezögert wegen der Verbindung zur Prechtlgasse. Bist du dir sicher, dass es sich hierbei um eine Unterführung unter der Ybbstalbahn handelt?
Luzandro (2023-05-26 04:27:46+00:00): nach neuerlicher Betrachtung von Luft- und Geländebild sieht es mehr nach einem Übergang auf gleicher Ebene aus. Etwas gezögert hatte ich auch, weil der weitere Verlauf Richtung Prechtlgasse zwar etwas durch die Bäume durchscheint, aber auf der Strava Heatmap nicht erkennbar ist und die Leute dort anscheinend nach der Bahnquerung entlang der Schienen Richtung Haltestelle gegangen sind. Ich habe mal einen entspr. Note angelegt.
parsewski (2023-05-26 11:34:24+00:00): Gut. Ich halte es darüber hinaus für sehr wahrscheinlich, dass der offizielle Übergang aufgelassen wurde und das verfügbare Kartenmaterial veraltet bzw im Falle Strava irreführend ist. Siehe dazu Kupferschmiedgasse#Ybbstalbahn. Ich hoffe demnächst mal wieder in die Gegend zu kommen, dann werde ich dem nachgehen.
parsewski (2023-06-11 18:04:10+00:00): War dort und den Bahnübergang gibt es auch immer noch jedoch eingezäunt. Die Leute, die vom Fuchsbichl runterkommen dürften deswegen wohl auf den Bahngleisen entlang gehen, denn um zur Prechtlgasse zu kommen, müssten noch zwei weitere Zäune überwunden werden.
Siehe Kommentar auf die Note (mit Fotos)
habi (2023-01-31 13:00:26+00:00): Tschou Hene (oder so)

Du hast hier `opening_hours` mit der Internet-Adresse befüllt.
Hier rein gehören die (maschinenlesbaren) Öffnungszeiten, der Link in den `website`-Tag.

Gruess us Bärn,
habi
habi (2023-01-31 13:03:10+00:00): PS: Siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131921298
chris66 (2024-05-26 19:13:51+00:00): Hi, warum hast Du das Museum als Freizeitpark umgetaggt?

Grüße
chris66