piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Muhmaker (2023-10-25 14:52:16+00:00): Hallo. Mir ist schon öfter aufgefallen, dass du die Rollen forward und backward in Wanderrouten einbaust, die doppelt genutzte Wegstücke haben.
Ich halte diese Verwendung der Rollen für unnötig. Die Information über die Reihenfolge und indirekt auch Richtung der zu nutzenden Wegstücke
ergibt sich doch schon aus der Reihenfolge in der Relation. Dort dürfen Wegstücke natürlich doppelt vorkommen. Zusammen mit den jeweils benachbarten Wegstücken wird dann doch klar wie das besagte Wegstück zu durchlaufen ist. Nach meinem Verständnis braucht es diese Rollen nur wenn der Weg aufgespalten ist und du parallel verlaufende Abschnitte hast. Beispielsweise parallel verlaufende Radwege entlang von Hauptverkehrsstraßen die nur als "Einbahnstraße" genutzt werden dürfen. Für Wanderrouten kann ich mir keinen Anwendungsfall vorstellen, der diese Rollen nötig machen würde.
Selbst wenn wir annehmen dass sie nötig wären, wendest du die Rollen leider oft falsch an. Du trägst bei den ersten Abschnitten forward und bei
den letzten Abschnitten backward ein. Das ist in vielen Fällen nicht korrekt, da sich die Aussage forward oder backward immer auf die Richtung
des OSM-Wegstücks bezieht. D.h. wenn du sagen willst dieses Stück soll "vorwärts" durchlaufen werden musst du zunächst schauen in welcher Richtung das OSM-Wegstück gezeichnet wurde und danach entscheiden ob forward oder backward Rolle nötig wäre.
Das führt leider dazu, dass viele Wanderrouten unterbrochen im Routen-Editor von JOSM dargestellt werden mit deinen willkürlich eingetragenen Rollen. Ich habe auch Zweifel ob sich damit beispielsweise ein fehlerfreier GPX-Track erzeugen ließe.
Auch die Verwendung der Rollen start und finish sehe ich eher kritisch. Auch hier ergibt sich die Information die du ausdrücken möchtest doch eigentlich schon aus der Position in der Relation. Hinzu kommt, dass die Rollen start und finish nirgendwo sauber definiert oder dokumentiert sind.
Dies führt dann oft zu Warnungen in Editoren oder Prüftools. Wenn du den Startpunkt von Wanderrouten kennzeichnen möchtest kannst du dir dies vielleicht mal anschauen: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrailhead
Insgesamt möchte ich dich bitten die Verwendung der Rollen in Wanderrouten zu überdenken.
DeFra85 (2023-10-25 19:47:35+00:00): Okay, das verstehe ich. Da ich JOSM nicht nutze bekam ich solche Fehlermeldungen leider nicht.
Ich werde mich die Tage ran setzten und forward/backward eliminieren.
jeslop (2023-10-23 12:28:45+00:00): Según las normas ortográficas del castellano no es necesario el uso de comillas "Para marcar nombres propios, acrónimos o siglas....", https://www.fundeu.es/recomendacion/comillas-uso-de-este-signo-ortografico/»«“”‘‘’’. 
Revierto el cambio.
jeslop (2023-10-23 12:30:06+00:00): El enlace correcto es este: https://www.fundeu.es/recomendacion/comillas-uso-de-este-signo-ortografico/
gscholz (2023-10-24 09:32:53+00:00): Hi 143010197,
this changeset has left behind erros in the OSM database regarding self intersecting ways:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=34.24166&lat=44.58393&zoom=16&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=143010197

Especially relation 1758326 is affected here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1758326/history

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
bxl-forever (2023-10-24 09:37:46+00:00): Reverted by https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143010309
pio2_122 (2023-10-23 16:20:56+00:00): Dostęp do parkingu przed tą edycją był oznaczony prawidłowo za pomocą tagu access=private. Przywróciłem go.

access=permit, którym został zastąpiony „powinien być używany w przypadkach, gdy wymagane jest zezwolenie, ale jest ono rutynowo przyznawane każdemu, kto o nie poprosi.” (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=permit) - jest to sprzeczne z dostępem wyłącznie dla służb komunalnych.
pio2_122 (2023-10-24 10:09:02+00:00): Źródło? Takiego adresu nie ma w danych urzędowych.
Syl (2023-11-07 08:10:42+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai corrigé en enlevant le tag disant que c'est un téléphone fonctionnel et ajouté celui disant que c'est une cabine.
lefuturiste (2023-11-07 08:26:12+00:00): Merci bcp, par curiosité comment avez vous détecté ce changeset  ?
Syl (2023-11-07 09:38:06+00:00): Je fais régulièrement une requête sur les cabines en France métropolitaine pour avoir celles qui ont été modifiées ou ajoutées.
Il existe très peu de cabines Orange encore en fonctionnement (4 à ma connaissance). Les ajouts sont souvent des erreurs.
Et sinon ça fait des années que je fais attentions aux cabines en France dans OSM, en recoupant régulièrement les sources pour enlever celles qui ont disparu.
lefuturiste (2023-11-07 14:15:20+00:00): Merci beaucoup, la question c'est
- Quels outils utilisez vous ?
- Quels sont les points de publiphonie encore disponibles
- Il faut peut être envisager une plus grande réactualisation et uniformisation des tags notamment avec les life cycle prefix et les réutilisations.
pio2_122 (2023-10-23 16:29:49+00:00): Odcinek na którym obowiązuje zakaz zatrzymywania i postoju oznacza się poprzez dodanie tagu parking:[strona drogi]:restriction=no_stopping do znaczników drogi. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:restriction#No_parking,_no_stopping,_no_standing

Naprawione.
NorthCrab_upload (2023-10-23 10:40:28+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/10292211643
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1127743673

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Friendly_Ghost (2023-10-23 11:29:47+00:00): Hello. I have reverted your changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143013572

Please do not engage in edit wars.
dadavid (2025-04-25 11:27:59+00:00): Hi Eliasp, 

du hattest hier ein maxweight eingetragen, ich bin mir aber relativ sicher, dass das Schild dort sich auf das zulässige Gesamtgewicht bezieht und habe dementsprechend maxweight=>maxweightrating:hgv geändert. 

Schau gern nochmal drüber, ob das so für dich passt

viele Grüße und happy mapping :) 

David
Mateusz Konieczny (2023-11-26 15:25:57+00:00): if you remove names from roads like in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39128593/history then:

- tag to mark lack of name is noname=yes

- it is useful to specify why name is being removed
Nighto (2023-11-27 09:51:32+00:00): Hello Mateus. Thanks for checking it and fixing the noname tag. I have checked with a person who works on the Geo department on the City Hall and indeed this segment has no name. This discussion happened publicly on the OSM Rio de Janeiro telegram channel on October 23th, 2023 (same day it was edited).
user_5173844 (2023-10-23 11:46:33+00:00): Hi,

Thank you for your contribution. I think "test zone" was uploaded by mistake, could you please remove it.
bxl-forever (2023-10-23 12:05:10+00:00): Hello,

I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here.

You changed the highway type from "tertiary" to "residential".  The highway type is just a way to show some streets more or less prominently on the map.  The only condition is that highways of the same type connect properly, and unfortunately you broke the continuity here.

This is not the same as access tags, i.e. setting who is allowed to use a street.  There is a special way to tag this and it has nothing to do with the highway type.

Can you please explain what you meant by "Residents only".  Are you suggesting there is an access restriction on this street?

Thanks in advance.
jayarajsm (2023-10-24 10:05:01+00:00): Yes, I could see "Uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" boards at the entrance" . I will update the access tags instead of updating highway type. Thanks for the explanation.
eggie (2023-10-23 16:22:04+00:00): Dag Robin..
Ik heb shop =furniture toegevoegd en source=BAG hersteld.
MVG
eggie
aTarom (2023-10-23 14:24:27+00:00): Hola  Agazzr, los tag "operator1" y "ref1", creo que no habría problema en colocarlos como multivalue

operator=uno;otro
ref=uno;otro

te parece bien?

si quieres comentarlo en los canales de la comunidad bienvenido serás.

https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/es/51
Agazzr (2023-10-23 15:07:19+00:00): Hola aTarom, de acuerdo, me parece bien el cambio que propones.

Muchas gracias por el comentario!
kuhni74 (2024-11-20 10:47:20+00:00): warst Du kürzlich selbst dort und kannst https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4526567 beantworten?
eggie (2023-10-23 15:45:44+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht. 
Feedback Je fietspad heeft een bord wandelpad 	NL:G07  Klopt dat nog wel? 
MVG, 

Eggie 

Namens de OSM Community
eggie (2023-10-23 16:19:56+00:00): aangepast naar NL:G13 fietspad.
joost schouppe (2023-10-24 10:03:47+00:00): This one was already mapped as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370297947
PVitt (2023-10-24 16:13:36+00:00): According to the aerial imagery, this service way is a little off. Please double check. Thanks in advance!
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/143016365
Pajopath (2023-10-26 11:22:59+00:00): @PVitt I am a little bit confused about the osmcha design. there are two different versions of the same road segment with positions ? OSM looks but OSMCha with wrong drawing.
PVitt (2023-10-26 18:50:05+00:00): Indeed. That's strange. However, OSM needs to be correct. So nevermind. :)
Frans S (2023-10-24 10:22:14+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please tag highways in according to the rules on the highway wiki .
Highway=unclassified f.i.  
Best regards
eggie (2023-10-23 19:15:18+00:00): Dag jjjj Ik heb hier toch  even wat aangepast, want de fiets- en wandelroute moest aangepast worden.
MVG
eggie
Layft Greater (2023-11-08 11:30:36+00:00): This node's position looks wrong. Please review.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11283522682
rskedgell (2023-10-24 07:09:02+00:00): We can't use Google's imagery for OpenStreetMap, however there are two imagery layers available in iD which appear to confirm the building's removal.

It is shown as a building and labelled "Gas Holder Station" in OS OpenData StreetView (April 2016)

The label and building are both absent in OS OpenMap Local (April 2023)
jleedev (2023-10-23 23:32:35+00:00): If it actually exists it should be given service=driveway, not deleted.
rskedgell (2023-10-24 07:03:10+00:00): Thanks. The user who added it has made one other edit in the UK, adding a bus station in the middle of Woodford tube station. This has now been deleted.
pio2_122 (2023-10-23 15:50:23+00:00): Jakie jest źródło nazwy „Szybkie jedzenie”? Brzmi to jak opis, a nie nazwa.
julcnx (2023-10-30 05:05:56+00:00): Your recent changeset has been reverted due to conflicting edits and a lack of communication. OpenStreetMap thrives on community collaboration. Reach out if you have questions or need help. Let's build better maps together.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143343502
julcnx (2023-10-30 05:05:57+00:00): Your recent changeset has been reverted due to conflicting edits and a lack of communication. OpenStreetMap thrives on community collaboration. Reach out if you have questions or need help. Let's build better maps together.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143343502
TorstenKM48 (2023-11-07 14:53:48+00:00): Det blå P skilt skal fjernes, da det er private p pladser
osmviborg (2023-11-07 15:21:05+00:00): P- pladserne er tagget 'private'. Alt er lavet efter bogen. At du på standard- kortet ser et nedtonet blåt 'P' er også lige efter bogen, det er stadig en P-plads. Case Closed.
TorstenKM48 (2023-11-07 15:44:16+00:00): Kigger jeg på Krak kortet er der stadig de firkantede blå P skilte, som viser off. P plads. Skiltene skal fjernes
osmviborg (2023-11-07 15:54:00+00:00): OpenStreetMap er en database. At Krak vælger at bruge data fra OpenStreetMap, og gengive disse data, som de gør, er IKKE et OpenStreetMap problem. Skriv til Krak, fortæl dem at parkeringspladser markeret private, ikke bør være på deres kort.
b-holdet (2023-11-08 18:28:37+00:00): https://www.krak.dk/hjaelp/kort
julcnx (2023-10-24 02:26:12+00:00): Hey Fred, welcome to the Thailand community!

Just a quick heads-up: not all dirt tracks should be tagged as 'highway=track' in OpenStreetMap. They could actually be residential, service roads, or even unclassified highways. 

Take a look at this link for more details: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Thailand#Highway_classification. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Changing the classification solely because of the surface type, as you did, is kind of like tagging just to make the map look better. Here's some info on why that's not the best approach: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer.

Don't stress too much about highway classifications; instead, focus on using extra tags like surface, smoothness, tracktype, mb:scale, sac_scale, and so on to give more context.
Harvesterify (2023-10-24 10:43:22+00:00): Maxspeed à 50 avec source = FR:zone30 ?
VELODB (2023-10-24 15:35:34+00:00): Merci, je corrige la vitesse limite qui est 30km/h sur les deux chemins
literan (2023-10-23 20:40:12+00:00): это не название, а текст с вывески

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F#%D0%98%D0%BC%D1%8F_-_%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B8_%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE
Scout Jens (2023-10-24 08:39:16+00:00): Das muss jetzt nur noch auf die Wege übertragen werden ;-)
julcnx (2023-10-24 02:55:51+00:00): Hey Fred, just to clarify, this road primarily serves a temple, and it's not intended for permanent residences. That's why it had a service classification. Please take a look at the wiki link I shared in my previous message for more information. Thanks! Julien
julcnx (2023-10-24 02:56:13+00:00): Hey Fred, just to clarify, this road primarily serves a temple, and it's not intended for permanent residences. That's why it had a service classification. Please take a look at the wiki link I shared in my previous message for more information. Thanks! Julien
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/143018959
julcnx (2023-10-30 05:05:58+00:00): Your recent changeset has been reverted due to conflicting edits and a lack of communication. OpenStreetMap thrives on community collaboration. Reach out if you have questions or need help. Let's build better maps together.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143343502
Ekeefoof (2023-11-01 14:07:48+00:00): Da review_requested=yes: diese Änderung ist richtig, auf dem Strassenschild steht "Söhrenbergweg" mit h.
GMoney0805 (2023-10-23 13:37:46+00:00): dont know what I was thinking this is puerto rico not chicago. When i logged in this morning i hadn't saved my edits from friday because the site was having issues.
user_5359 (2023-10-24 05:49:32+00:00): Hello, please do not add all available key combinations of payment including the misspellings and the Japanese methods that are definitely not accepted in Germany. If this is a tool error, please report it.
MateoGR (2023-10-23 15:23:29+00:00): Gracias por las apreciaciones aTarom.
Es posible indicar el nombre del camino de la siguiente forma por ejemplo?: 
Camino de la Pineda (privado)
aTarom (2023-10-23 15:31:44+00:00): gracias por responder, el proyecto openstreetmap es una base de datos geoespaciales con el que se generan entre otros productos mapas, para ello son fundamentales las etiquetas que describen los elementos, colocar cualidades entre paréntesis, por ejemplo, no es aceptable en una base de datos ya que tienen que ser interpretados por software y este no sabe "leer", es una explicación muy básica, si quieres ampliar información o proponer algo, no dudes en ponerte en contacto con la comunidad
https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/es/51
saludos
MateoGR (2023-10-23 15:33:45+00:00): Entendido! Gracias aTarom
Fumasu (2023-10-25 17:37:51+00:00): Hallo, erst einmal vielen Dank für die Mitarbeit. Bitte beim Einzeichnen separater Radwege auch immer auf Übersichtlichkeit und Routing achten. So ein Liniengewirr wie an der Kaiserin-Augusta-Brücke ist eher kontraproduktiv.
Fumasu (2023-10-25 17:48:08+00:00): Und die crossing=traffic_signals auf den Radwegen stehen zwar im Wiki, aber für diese fragt zB StreetComplete jetzt die üblichen Fußgängerfragen ab, was mMn sehr verwirrend ist und zu unpassenden Tags führt.
christian_plus1 (2023-10-26 09:54:00+00:00): Hallo Fumasu, gebe dir Recht, die von mir kartierten Radwege an der besagten Kreuzung waren ein wenig überfrachtet, ich habe im die Radwegführungen vereinfacht/ reduziert (siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143153814).

Zum deinem zweiten Kommentar: Das stimmt, das ist bislang irgendwie noch etwas unglücklich. Vielleicht bräuchte man zukünftig ein neues Tagging-Schema für Ampel-Radwegquerungen? Oder übersehe ich etwas. Wäre auf jeden Fall mal eine sinnvolle Frage für das Verkehrswende-Projekt/ im Community-Forum.
Jordi MF (2025-05-24 18:51:25+00:00): Hola Uanraf,

Volia preguntar-te sobre l'alberg Mossèn Antoni Batlle. Estic en ell i veig que no hi ha cap placa amb el seu nom. Les úniques plaques que hi ha anomenen l'alberg com a Deltebre Xanascat. Com creus que hauríem d'anomenar-lo? Podria ser que el nom de l'edifici siga el de Mossèn Antoni?

D'altra banda, en l'alberg vas afegir una etiqueta 'fixme' en el que demanes esbrinar un codi: 'fixme=Codigo KDP. A què et refereixes? Es algun codi que coneguin en l'alberg?

Salutacions
eggie (2023-10-23 15:56:27+00:00): Hwet stuk Rosmolen via het bruggetje is dat wel een fietspad.
We taggen alleen fietspad als er een bord fietspad vooraan staat. 
Staat er geen bord dan is het wat anders. 
Wellich highway=path surface=paving_stones  Dan kan maxspeed 15 er ook af... Of wellciht valt het gewoon onder woonwerf. De paaltjes zullen de routering van autoverkeer tegenhouden.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-10-23 16:02:41+00:00): Hier het verkeersbordenbestand.. Ik zie geen fietspad hier.. dus livingstreet was correct.
De voorgaande mapper is een ervaren lokale mapper.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2023-10-23 16:02:49+00:00): https://smoothefiets.ddns.net/html/verkeersbordenkaart/index.php?lat=51.865660178&lng=4.616006613&z=17
eggie (2023-10-23 19:23:52+00:00): Databestand overheid loopt achter zie ik.  
Ik heb er een NL:G12a fietspad van gemaakt 
motor_vehicle=no en maxspeed 15 verwijderd. (Hoort niet op(brom) fietspad
MVG
eggie
willkmis (2023-10-29 03:18:30+00:00): Hi, just wanted to comment that I'm visiting Chicago, and as a former resident, I was pretty surprised that Michigan wasn't highway=primary. I've seen that you've led some discussion on the wiki and whatnot, and that there's not necessarily consensus. But I will say that Michigan and Ida Wells definitely "feel" like primary roads to me, based on how similar roads are tagged in other places. Moreover, just going by what's a state/US route feels a bit arbitrary to me, and I don't think it leads to a particularly useful map IMO. The Chicago classification looks a little too "flattened" to me, there's definitely more of a natural hierarchy to the road network than is implied by everything in the central area except North Ave. being a secondary.

Just my two cents, but let me know what you think.

Will
nickvet419 (2023-10-29 07:28:45+00:00): It feels like it should be classed differently than other downtown streets only because it is an iconic street. the functionality is the same as other secondary roads downtown and actually slower to use than the other adjacent roads.
nickvet419 (2023-10-29 07:32:14+00:00): the state and US routes like North Ave were built to function differently with more lanes and less traffic lights for faster travel times.
willkmis (2023-10-29 16:28:17+00:00): Ok, I'm not sure I agree, but probably at least Ida B. Wells and Columbus should be primary then? They come directly off the freeways.
willkmis (2023-10-29 16:39:13+00:00): And I'm not sure I buy your argument about the state/US routes. North appears to have the same number of lanes and roughly the same frequency of signals as lots of other roads in the area that it looks like you've downgraded from primary to secondary in the past, like Ashland, Western, or Roosevelt. Is there any material difference between those roads and North Ave besides the state route designation?
nickvet419 (2023-10-29 17:18:05+00:00): ya,  but take a look at my arguments about primary roads on the Chicago area wiki classification. I was asking for input on those specific roads. trying to find ways of determining why they should be upgraded.  Western is similar to Irving being a 4 lane road. but now that opens up 100 other roads that have similar features to also be primary. You could do Ida b wells and michigan, but then should you also do columbus, ontario, ohio, upper wacker, some would think rosevelt is an easy way into the city. would the boulavards need to made primary, or s Jeffery since it leads into lsd. every road that connects to lsd, since those are high traffic routes.    basically without that direct set of rules, it snowballs with everyone thinking their preferred route should be labeled as primary.
willkmis (2023-11-20 05:56:16+00:00): Sure, I agree that it's complicated. I don't think there's any single criterion you can use to separate primary from secondary in all cases. Fundamentally, the road classes represent a spectrum of importance, so at some point, judgment calls will have to be made. All I'm saying is that the current way Chicago is mapped does not in my view accurately represent the spectrum of road hierarchy, and I'd argue the policy of only upgrading state/US routes, while unambiguous, is a fairly arbitrary rule that doesn't correspond to much in reality. The multitude of other mappers that have come in and tried to change the primary tagging seems to support my opinion, but given that I don't live in Chicago anymore I'm not going to go in and start an edit war or anything. Just wanted to provide some feedback.

Re: the roads mentioned so far, honestly, at least Ohio/Ontario, Ida Wells, Columbus, Michigan at least north of Roosevelt or so, Roosevelt, Jeffrey, Ashland, and Western all seem like part of a reasonable primary network to me, in line with how most other US cities are mapped. That set is far from all of the secondary roads in the city.
willkmis (2023-11-20 06:04:35+00:00): Well, maybe Stony Island instead of Jeffrey: it's wider and gets exits from the Skyway and I-94. I guess that reinforces both the point that road classification is hard but also that the categories it attempts to represent are real. If you're interested, I actually wrote a whole diary post about the heuristics  I came up with to decide urban road classification, although it was mostly put into practice in my current home of Los Angeles, much of which is of course a very different built environment than Chicago: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/willkmis/diary/399345.
CurlingMan13 (2023-10-24 06:45:52+00:00): 'This changeset has been reverted since it exists.  Access tags should be used instead.

You can read why it won'"'"'t be removed here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/143049040