piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
EleGlobe (2025-08-27 13:06:49+00:00): No worries, there are several Marae that are more Technical in functioning (like Kirikiriroa Marae in Hamilton) which make it more harder to determine the Wharekai, the Wharenui is the easiest building to distinguish due to it's carvings, rectangle shape or positioning of surrounding details. However I think you should add Wharenui to the end of Toa Rangātira so it reads as "Toa Rangātira Wharenui" here. I say "Wharenui" should be put on all ends of the Wharenui Names just so it is easily identifiable. Just the Name without it can confuse people, so that's why it's needed to clarify it as the Main Marae building as it is the Cultural Heart of Marae, even if others in a Marae Area are used more than it. There are instances where there is 2 Wharenui in 1 Marae such as Apumoana Marae in Rotorua which I reccently updated as an example where I only put the Main Wharenui with the Community Centre tags but not the older, less of focus one, as so to why we can't display the shorter names of Wharenui & other smaller buildings in Marae without adding their Maori Name of their Purpose or until OSM has a Wharenui Icon render created. Cheers.
anderfo (2025-08-20 12:13:47+00:00): Ser bra ut, denne har fått både mtb:scale og class:bicycle:mtb slik jeg tror du ønsket.
joost schouppe (2025-11-05 16:58:01+00:00): Dag Peter,
Je duidt dit beter aan als niet toegankelijk in plaats van het te wissen. Anders komt het toch maar terug. Wist je trouwens dat dit pad in het GRB is opgenomen? Dus lijkt me sterk dat dit een nieuw olifantenpad zou zijn
Fiorentina (2025-08-19 14:18:45+00:00): A korábban lekommunikálásra került BicApp alkalmazás érdekében a pilisben kapott még néhány szakasz bb365 tag-et a könnyebb visszakereshetőség érdekében, de a további szerkesztések alkalmával már a class:bicycle:touring=1 és a source:class:bicycle:touring=AMFK tag-ek használatára kerül sor, hogy jelezzük, hogy az AMFK végzi a szerkesztéseket. 

Az általam az imént elvégzett módosítások a korábbi szerkesztések kiegészítései, ugyanis előfordult, hogy lemaradt egy-egy kisebb szakaszról a bb365 tag. Ahogyan feljebb is írtam, ez csak a Pilisre lesz jellemző, más területeken a korábban írt másik két tag lesz alkalmazva.
Ahogyan eddig is, kérlek nézd át és jelezz, vagy módosítsd nyugodtan, ha bármi hibás dolgot veszel észre a szerkesztéseimben. Köszönöm előre is!
infeeeee (2025-08-28 10:34:08+00:00): Miért kell a bb365? Miért nem lehet egyből a végleges címkéket használni? Egy mozdulat lecserélni a bb365-öt az újra, ahova az lett címkézve, és akkor el lehetne felejteni ezt a címkét.
Fiorentina (2025-08-28 10:38:49+00:00): Szia! 
Hamarosan cserélve lesz az összes az új címkére és eltűnnek a felesleges bb365 címkék.
s777n (2025-10-06 12:36:18+00:00): Здравствуйте. СНТ отмечаются как садоводства а не как деревни - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:place%3Dallotments Исправлено
Tomas Straupis (2025-08-19 19:42:01+00:00): O čia tikrai nuo kelio fiziškai atskirti dviračių takai, o ne tiesiog dviračių juostos gatvėje?
Kieshiuz (2025-08-20 10:16:23+00:00): Taip jie yra fiziškai atskirti, taip pat kaip ir Žemaitės gatvėje ir pagal ženklus turi  nurodytą kryptį. Pridedu nuorodą į street view: https://www.google.com/maps/@55.0805222,24.2565507,3a,75y,13.28h,78.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxl0QKcljy1CudAvfqnRyzw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D11.783207558134137%26panoid%3Dxl0QKcljy1CudAvfqnRyzw%26yaw%3D13.279702515113623!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDgxNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Tomas Straupis (2025-08-20 10:28:21+00:00): A, matau, yra tie „gumbeliai“. Na tada gal ir gerai :-) Sėkmės
ion_chi (2025-08-19 17:11:09+00:00): The crossing on Kinzie is definitely concrete. Please double check your changes
philippec (2026-07-12 20:50:08+00:00): Goed  dat u het uitleg, maar een ander toestel is geen voldoende reden om een mapillary te wissen.
ion_chi (2025-08-19 17:05:10+00:00): Both sidewalk-alley crossings are clearly concrete in Aerial and streetside imagery
NorthCrab_upload (2025-08-19 15:01:18+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera nadmiarowe informacje. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Paczkomat nie powinien mieć nazwy. Nazwa nadawana jest automatycznie, na podstawie wartości brand. Opcjonalnie, numer identyfikacyjny może być przekazany w polu ref.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13081975913

Dokumentacja paczkomatów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:amenity%3Dparcel_locker

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Allroads (2025-08-22 11:39:16+00:00): A tip on SABA use better/sharper imagery. This aerial is lined out on local grid. Do not use BING.
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/bes-eiland-saba-map-tag-discussie/134427

I did all the roads and building on the island on this grid.
ssundell (2025-08-28 17:53:38+00:00): Moi!
Justiinsa kuukausi sitten muutin tuon Paasikivenkadun eteläisen, rautatiesillan ali menevän jalkakäytävän yhdistetyksi, kun se on noiden remonttien takia tilapäisesti sellaiseksi muutettu... Tällä hetkellä Onkiniemen suuntaan se on itse asiassa suositeltu reitti (toinen vaihtoehto on tietysti Näsijärvenkadun alikulku).
jplahti (2025-08-28 18:42:09+00:00): Juu, mulla on käynyt tuossa virhe, jäänyt työmaamerkinnät huomiotta. Sori siitä.
literan (2025-08-22 13:32:09+00:00): Вы тут, похоже, мультик сломали. Почините?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15660551/history
literan (2025-08-22 13:32:47+00:00): его попутно хорошо бы разбить на части, чтобы Бачуринскую улицу не пересекал
Kai Johnson (2025-09-17 23:05:44+00:00): I have noticed some problems with your recent changesets in this area. I hope we can discuss the issues here and agree how to correct them.

In this changeset, way/1132279457 and way/914572163 were disconnected from way/10355033 -- in reality, these roads are connected.

And way/1423332338 was added with "bridge=yes" over way/689254659 -- there is no bridge here and these two roads are connected.

Likewise, way/1423332344 added a "bridge" over way/689254577 where again there is no bridge.

And way/689254577 and way/1108021256 were disconnected (although changeset/170849953 made two parallel roads here where there is only one road).

It looks like you're making these changes in an attempt to prevent access to the spur roads that lead to wind turbines. However, signage on the turbine spurs only says "Closed to motor vehicles" -- so motor_vehicle=private. There are no other restrictions on access or travel here, so travel by foot or non-motorized means is permitted.

Let's agree on how to correct this.
Kai Johnson (2025-09-17 23:44:40+00:00): It looks like we also have a difference of opinion about highway=track vs highway=service. Let's see if we can agree on how those tags should be used so we don't keep replacing each others' changes.
greentracks (2025-08-20 20:42:38+00:00): Hi Saranya!

I checked the curbs at Orchard Avenue and West 15ht Street and they are raised curbs not lowered curbs. Are you using other tools that have shown those curbs to be lowered instead of raised?

Thanks!
Saranya Prasad (2025-08-21 18:33:36+00:00): Thanks for valuable feedback. We referred to OSM Bing Streetside imagery from 2022, and based on that, we assigned the lowered curb.
eggie (2025-08-19 18:09:15+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
NieWnen (2025-08-19 17:45:29+00:00): Źródło Google maps jest zakazane do użytku w OSM, dotyczy to wszystkich edycji wstecz.

---

Dodajesz nieoznaczone jako oznaczone (uncontrolled). To błąd. 

Nieoznakowane to `crossing=unmarked` jeśli są ku temu wskazania np. widać obniżenie krawężników, czy ciągłość , a nie ma oznakowania poziomego/pionowego.

Jak takich nie ma, to najpierw proponuję szukać np. potencjalnych podjazdów i po nich łączyć je z drogami zamiast rysować jak leci, bo po nich też routing zadziała. Nie do końca w tej zamianie, bo tu akurat takich zbytnio nie ma, ale ogólnie.

Jeśli już musi być jakieś przejście z
a na mocno nieformalnego, które jest już mega istotne z punktu widzenia routingu i musi być koniecznie zmapowane można użyć `crossing=informal`, albo z `unmarked` i `informal=yes`.
driedfish (2025-08-19 17:52:34+00:00): Dzięki za komentarz. Rozumiem, że źrodła typu esri czy np. z satelitów sentinela są w porządku? Co do routingu to rzeczywiście widzę już, że informal=yes ma więcej sensu
NieWnen (2025-08-19 18:08:02+00:00): Tak, Esri, Bing, Sentinel jest OK, ale w Polsce najlepiej korzystać z Geoportalu z Ortofotomapy, bo ma najlepsze wyrównanie.

Trzeba brać poprawkę na to, że te inne będą nieco przesunięte, więc nie ma za bardzo sensu równać do nich geometrii.

Do takich geometrii może Ci się przydać warstwa BDOT Gugiku, ale nie wiem, czy w Vespuccim można ją podpiąć (nie korzystałem), na pewno w JOSMie można :).
Akurat Warszawa ma swojego WMSa, więc tu byłaby inna.
driedfish (2025-08-19 18:20:43+00:00): Okej, przetestuję kiedyś w JOSM, dzięki
Sylabowy Kot (2025-08-20 09:25:05+00:00): Od razu pomogę, że adres do usługi to https://wms.um.warszawa.pl/serwis a tutejsze BDOT-owe informacje są pod warstwami naczynajączymi się na "NMZ_". Jest ich 5, ale nie ma po co za specjalnie używać NMZ_KOLEJ. Powodzonka.
driedfish (2025-08-21 09:45:53+00:00): Dziękuję za pomoc!
nevw (2025-08-22 23:17:04+00:00): Hi, osmi found the mp seems to be missing bits in the far se and looks like there is an inner missing its outer
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7148585#map=14/-42.86813/147.65123
D_i_m (2025-08-23 07:43:34+00:00): Hi, ran the validator and found no errors
nevw (2025-08-23 09:12:08+00:00): Thanks, I’ll check again tomorrow.
nevw (2025-08-23 12:09:29+00:00): The 06z version of osmi still picks the anomaly up
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=147.65078&lat=-42.86792&zoom=16
The small water feature near the intersection of Carlton River Road and Provence Drive is an inner but the outer wooded area that surrounds it is not in the relation so you need to either delete this water from the existing mp or add the wooded area surrounding the water to the mp.
D_i_m (2025-08-23 12:31:19+00:00): Fixed the water, it’s left over from the previous mp.
nevw (2025-08-23 12:47:39+00:00): Thanks for fixing this up
eggie (2025-08-19 18:12:55+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
eggie (2025-08-19 18:11:02+00:00): Dag PW  Je het Waterlooplein 222 ergens anders heen gesleept?

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-08-19 18:12:02+00:00): Adres teruggeplaatst
PW1996 (2025-08-19 20:47:52+00:00): Excuus, eerst keer dat ik een edit maak.
Waarschijnlijk per ongeluk het adres verplaatst.

Zal er in het vervolg rekening mee houden.
Bedankt voor het herstellen.
eggie (2025-08-19 20:52:35+00:00): No problem.. Het komt omdat je met de linkermuis selecteert..maar ook schuift met de kaart. Na selectie..onbewust.. schuift niet de kaart maar de node.
Mapse..
eggie
nevw (2025-08-19 22:19:14+00:00): You have duplicated the same number under phone and mobile
CAM-Gerlach (2025-08-20 07:58:43+00:00): Thanks for refining this! Just FYI, in changest #170708973 https://osmcha.org/changesets/170708973 I fixed and refined the geometry and end tagging of the footways leading to the tennis courts to be more precise and consistent, and also added access tagging (since AFAIK these are intended for Hethwood residents, not the general public).

Also, just a note—make sure to align the VBMP imagery you're using for tracing, as its about 1-1.5 meters off. At least in the Blacksburg area, GPS tracks are a close match to Bing imagery at high zoom levels, so you can just align VBMP to that.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170677155
hfs (2026-01-07 11:00:34+00:00): Die Umbenennung "Buschstraße" in "Buschstraße 89" und Markierung als Einbahnstraße war der einzige Edit dieses neuen Nutzers und sieht mir nach einem Fehler aus. Ich habe es in

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176939444

rückgängig gemacht.
TrickyFoxy (2025-08-28 23:24:40+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/171158678
TrickyFoxy (2025-08-28 23:25:35+00:00): Точка точно должна быть во дворе?
bergfrei (2025-10-26 09:48:39+00:00): Hallo phlow666,
du hast bei Fahrwegen die Zugangsbeschränkungen geändert:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/170678148#map=16/47.51428/10.65663. 
Von meiner Seite wurden entsprechend der Beschilderung die Merkmale richtungsbezogen bereits eingefügt: „vehicle:backward” und „bicycle:forward”.  Ein Einfügen von access=no macht hier meiner Meinung nach keinen Sinn, da der Weg z. B. immer noch für Fußgänger freigegeben ist und man den Weg dann wieder mit foot=yes freigeben muss. Außerdem schließt man mit access=no weitere „Gruppen” aus, die diese Wege ebenfalls nutzen können und nicht explizit freigegeben sind.
Ich habe die „access=no” gelöscht. Bitte schaue dir die anderen von dir eingefügten Werte an.
Gruß Bergfrei
phlow666 (2025-10-26 11:33:50+00:00): Hi,
das passt. Wichtig ist nur, dass Rad fahren da raus genommen wird. 
Grüße
Cortix (2025-09-16 10:24:16+00:00): hai anche modo di aggiungere il path? Come ci sei arrivato qui?
Enock4seth (2025-08-19 17:52:55+00:00): Hi, the problem of trying to map everything by organized remote group of mappers keeps creating problems that nobody ever tries to fix. Problems you are trying to fix here is one of the many created by Apple mappers over the years that still exist. You trying to fix this doesn't fix it either. This kind of mapping is not helping.
ArinosRiver (2025-08-20 15:56:07+00:00): Hello Enock4seth,
In this changeset I aligned roads using Esri World Imagery which is consistent with GPS traces and Strava traces in the area. Would you be able to further clarify what specific issue your seeing with the edits in this changeset?
Thanks!
nevw (2025-08-19 22:10:37+00:00): Hi, you have duplicated the same phone number under the phone= and mobile=.
It looks like a phone number.
You have used min and a max age tags but both are the same age. This appears unlikely.
nevw (2025-08-19 23:17:06+00:00): correction... the max and min age tags are correct
StC (2025-08-20 07:57:21+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a brisé la continuité de l'un (et probablement deux) itinéraire(s), en ne remettant pas les membres dans l'ordre. Il semble que Vespucci soit moins performant que JOSM ou iD sur l'ordre des relations...

Je m'occupe de la remise en ordre.
mueschel (2025-08-22 08:59:27+00:00): Hi,
could you check the Wiki for the proper names of these bicycle charging sockets?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:socket:*
eggie (2025-08-19 18:47:04+00:00): Dag Woody,

Editor iD is niet echt geschikt om iets met routerelaties te doen. 
Inleggen lukt soms nog wel, maar bewerken gaat niet met editor iD . Hier lopen ook andere routerelaties en grote kans dat die 'stuk'gaan.
Wanneer je routes wilt bewerken schakel dan over naar editor JOSM 
editor josm stap voor stap
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/editor-josm-stap-voor-stap/75047


MVG
eggie
buy_osmand (2025-08-20 02:03:29+00:00): A big thank you for the ground_survey❗❕ with this, other cyclists would be able to plan their routes prior and have a very smooth ride, rather than needing to find a detour mid way 😄😁
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/170681749
JoaoPaixao (2025-08-20 20:21:59+00:00): Olá,
Fiquei um pouco confuso quanto à transformação para rota. Como assim a estrada enquadra-se numa rota?
Reino Baptista (2025-08-21 06:15:49+00:00): Caro João,

Sim, no OpenStreetMap uma estrada pode enquadrar-se numa rota. As rotas são normalmente representadas por relações (relation) que agrupam vários troços de estrada (ways) que em conjunto formam:

Rotas rodoviárias (ex.: autoestradas, itinerários principais, nacionais, regionais).

Rotas de transporte público (ex.: linhas de autocarro).

Rotas pedestres ou cicláveis (ex.: GR, PR, EuroVelo).

Ou seja, a estrada em si é um way (ou vários ways), mas pode ser membro de uma relation type=route que define a rota.

Um exemplo simples em Portugal: a A1 (Autoestrada do Norte).

No OSM, a A1 não é apenas um conjunto de troços de estrada (ways). Todos esses troços estão incluídos numa relação de rota que define a autoestrada como um todo:

Relação: A1 – Autoestrada do Norte (Lisboa – Porto)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1502233
Tipo: type=route
route=road
Ref: A1

Assim, cada segmento de estrada (way) que compõe a A1 está dentro desta relação. Isto permite que a rota seja tratada como uma entidade única, mesmo que seja composta por centenas de segmentos.

Outro exemplo: a EN2, conhecida como a “estrada nacional mais longa de Portugal”:

Relação: N2 – Estrada Nacional 2 (Chaves – Faro)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7362083
type=route
route=road
ref=N2
name=Estrada Nacional 2

Membros: mais de 1 000 troços (ways), atravessando Portugal de Chaves a Faro.

---

Podes consultar algum do trabalho já executado nas Autoestradas em:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Portugal/Rodovias/Autoestradas

Podes consultar a Padronização das Estradas em Portugal em:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Portugal/Padroniza%C3%A7%C3%A3o/Estradas

Ao dispor,
RB
JoaoPaixao (2025-08-21 19:34:08+00:00): A dúvida não era se uma estrada poderia ser uma rota, nem se os troços dessa estrada poderiam estar agrupados num só elemento (relation).

A dúvida era no uso das etiquetas para designar como uma rota. Porque tal como consta na wiki e a própria definição da palavra rota, "is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by people and vehicles".

Portanto, quando mencionas rotas pedestres, cicláveis, transporte público, eu entendo que sejam conjuntos de troços de via que juntos formam um caminho pré-determinado e com um objetivo para um evento.

Eu não conheço é nenhum evento específico que seja percorrer a estrada municipal 509, para passar a ser considerada como uma rota.

E com base na informação que transmitiste até agora, qualquer troço ou conjunto de troços de estrada pode ser uma rota. Isso inclui um exemplo absurdo como da minha casa a um centro comercial.
Reino Baptista (2025-08-22 07:16:36+00:00): Caro João Paixão,

P. f., dá uma vista de olhos a:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Portugal/Rodovias/Autoestradas
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Portugal/Rodovias/Itiner%C3%A1rios_Principais
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Portugal/Rodovias/Nacionais_e_Regionais
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Portugal/Rodovias/Itiner%C3%A1rios_Complementares

E ser tiveres mais um pouco de paciência,
Lista de objetos geográficos com tag route=road em Portugal Continental:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2al2
Na Sicília (só um exemplo):
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2al3

Finalmente, caso continues a não concordar com o que te transmiti inicialmente, pergunta a qualquer utilizador experiente em Portugal ou em qualquer outro país.
https://osmstats.neis-one.org/?item=countries&country=Portugal

RB
JoaoPaixao (2025-08-22 07:22:26+00:00): Bom dia,

já perguntei no discord a propósito do mesmo. E vi que exclusivamente para vias rodoviárias classificadas até ao nível de Caminho Municipal é aplicado uma relação como se fosse uma rota, provavelmente pela sua relevância organizacional em Portugal.

Obrigado na mesma.
Reino Baptista (2025-08-22 09:07:55+00:00): Bom dia,

Não é só em Portugal, mas sim em todo o lado.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
eggie (2025-08-19 18:19:08+00:00): Dag JR  Ik heb het hek dan maar verwijderd en ook de tag access=no van het trottoir gehaald.

MVG
eggie
JR_Nl (2025-08-19 21:08:37+00:00): Bedankt eggie. Dat hekje had ik inderdaad over het hoofd gezien op de kaart, ik vind de weergave van hekken niet erg opvallend in OSM.
Dat voetpad heb ik niet aan gedacht, een les voor een volgende keer.
eggie (2025-08-20 04:35:46+00:00): Hoi.. Je zou eens naar editor josm kunnen kijken. Veel meer overzicht en een goede foutenanalyse.
Gr eggie
Enock4seth (2025-08-19 17:46:17+00:00): Hi, how sure are you that there is a physical connectivity here that can be used by cars?
LakeHulun (2025-08-20 15:59:48+00:00): Hello,
Thanks for reaching out. I was able to verify that there is a roadway here that supports thru traffic for driving access with the imagery cited. Apple has an agreement with Maxar to use their more recent imagery to edit OpenStreetMap, which is not publicly available for editing OpenStreetMap. We generally use the imagery that is already available in JOSM but where we do use that more recent imagery, we always cite it and the date the imagery is from in the changeset source.
Thanks again and happy mapping.
Jocy0983 (2025-08-19 17:36:52+00:00): Es correcto, ahi hay una tienda de articulos deportivos
muralito (2025-08-19 21:20:27+00:00): Hi. Those "roads" does not classifies as highway=residential. They are not even roads, just a path in a private property.
DaDapperMapper (2025-08-21 19:41:54+00:00): Hi Muralito, 
After reviewing the data again, I can see how these are not significant roads and may not be useful additions. I have removed the roads, and will avoid adding private driveways in the future.
Thanks!
eggie (2025-08-19 18:20:26+00:00): Dag JR  Hier spreken tags elkaar tegen.
Ik heb highway=treck verwijderd.
MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-08-19 18:21:08+00:00): treck?? > typo track
JR_Nl (2025-08-19 21:38:40+00:00): Het lijkt er op dat er nu helemaal geen wegelement meer op de kaart wordt weergegeven, dat is ook niet de bedoeling. Misschien dan disused=highway & highway=track als attributen geven?
eggie (2025-08-20 04:39:37+00:00): Bij disused is het juist de bedoeling dat je geen weg meer ziet.
Als die weg terug gaat komen dan beter highway=construction met construction=..... path?...  gebruiken. Dat routeert ook niet.
eggie (2025-08-20 04:59:49+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:highway
eggie (2025-08-20 05:49:29+00:00): Ik heb mijn mutatie teruggedraaid, maar correct is het nu dus niet.
Het is het een of het ander.
'k Denk dat highway=construction het beste is. 
Mapse
eggie
JR_Nl (2025-08-20 19:11:14+00:00): Na bestudering van OSM documentatie en uitproberen van andere lifecycle schemes, uiteindelijk toch maar gekozen voor disused:highway=track. Waarschijnlijk zal deze weg op den duur toch verdwijnen.
Toch vond ik de weergave op de kaart passender met extra tag highway=track.
NieWnen (2025-08-19 17:48:40+00:00): Nie ma potrzeby dodawania `foot=yes` do drogi tego typu, to zbędny tag.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Poland
Rogoyski (2025-10-18 16:27:41+00:00): To raczej jazy niż tamy.
BartekChom (2025-10-18 17:02:13+00:00): Na to wychodzi. Przepraszam. "whether water passes a weir depends on the water level upstream of the weir"
MassCartog (2025-08-20 15:37:37+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. Some of the features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don’t remove valid OSM data.

You have a new account and might not be aware, On OSM, we do not removed features if they exist on the ground. If it exists on the ground, it is valid data regardless of a feature being public or private, designated or informal/illegal/unauthorized. Even decommissioned trails that still exist should not be removed. Removing them is actually considered vandalism.

It's clear that at least one (way 1376873616) of these trails removed still exist on the ground. Not being public access areas or "shouldn't be used" is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edit is incorrect and damaging to valid OSM data.

The correct way to handle this is to use OSM's tagging system. access=private, or access=no would be appropriate if they are closed the public. Once this is done, services that do use OSM data will reflect that and specify their access.

Please read this for more info:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won't_delete_roads_on_private_property

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F