piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
Bienson (2023-01-07 21:03:15+00:00): Die Kontur war vorher korrekt. Umrisse wurden direkt aus dem ALKIS importiert (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/19400918).

Siehe z.B. https://www.tim-online.nrw.de/tim-online2/

Die weiter vorstehenden Teile können als separates building=roof eingetragen werden.

Daher revertiert in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130995835
yrtimiD (2025-05-05 14:12:10+00:00): Hi, I just corrected an old mistake, removed name tag from roundabouts junctions. By a convention name tag should be used only in case roundabout has a dedicated name.

See more here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout#The_roundabout_itself
berndw (2023-01-07 18:15:20+00:00): Hallo 
willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.

Ich habe mir erlaubt an den letzten Knoten der Stenzelbergstraße ein noexit=yes zu setzen. Ist nicht unbedingt nötig, verdeutlicht aber, das es dort nicht weiter geht.

Weiterhin viel Spaß beim Mappen

Bernd
eggie (2023-01-07 17:12:14+00:00): Combinaties access=no met foot=yes zijn bijna altijd fout.
Het is een algemeen verbod om een gebied te betreden.
Gr eggie
eggie (2023-01-07 17:37:51+00:00): Ik heb de overige access=no   (en ook access=yes .. beter niet gebruiken) verwijderd. Ook overgebleven notes met de reden van afsluiting verwijderd. 
Even los daarvan.. 
Halverwege stopt ook een wandelroute (rondje ? Oranje Wandelroute) Kan dat ontbrekende stuk weer toegevoegd worden? 
Groet
eggie
Jeroen Bergmans (2023-01-07 18:44:04+00:00): Ik heb geen bordjes voor de wandelroute gezien, dus heb geen idee hoe die verder loopt. De paden zijn iig wel open.
eggie (2023-01-07 18:48:21+00:00): 'Werk'  voor de wandelroute-experts.
Er zitten meer gaten in die route.
eggie (2023-01-07 17:10:37+00:00): Dag Jeroen... Al die paden staan no op slot met access=no

Kan dat access=no weer weg van de paden en de brug? 

Is alles dus weer opengesteld.

access=no op paden is eigenlijk bijna altijd fout behalve natuurlijk bij een bord met Verboden Toegang.
Graag reactie

mvg
eggie
eggie (2023-01-07 17:48:28+00:00): access=no heb ik verwijderd..  
Je zult dan zien dat de paden weer goed zichtbaar worden op de kaart.
MVG
eggie
Jeroen Bergmans (2023-01-07 18:10:02+00:00): Access heb ik gelaten zoals het was, en foot op yes gezet + dog=no toegevoegd. 
Hoe geef je de access voor alle anderen aan?
Jeroen Bergmans (2023-01-07 18:14:33+00:00): Maar idd, het pad is weer opengesteld
eggie (2023-01-07 18:34:54+00:00): access=no was nog van de voorgaande mapper. Het was immers verboden toegang.
foot=yes en dog=no is correct.
Het pad staat nu open voor fietsers e.d.
Je kunt dan het beste vehicle=no bijtaggen als er niet ge(brom)fietst mag worden. Dan vang je alles met wielen in één klap.
Gr eggie
eggie (2023-01-07 18:36:10+00:00): Wanneer je er wel mag fietsen dan natuurlijk bicycle=yes
ToniE (2023-01-07 17:11:47+00:00): Servus,

stimmt dann name = Bäckerei Wünsche überhaupt?

VG
Toni
ToniE (2023-01-07 17:14:28+00:00): Und ob wir die Daten von der Webseite übernehmen dürfen?

Ganz unten steht ein Copyrigth-Vermerk - das könnte problematisch sein.
Volker_Dobler (2023-01-07 18:15:05+00:00): Hallo ToniE,
ich habe den Namen in "Privat Bäckerei Wimmer" geändert, weil das ist wohl der "offizielle" Name. Aber niemand hier sagt das so, umgangsprachlich ist es die "Bäckerei Wimmer".
Bzgl. des Copyrights: ich sehe das so, dass ich natürlich nicht die Webseite kopieren darf, aber das habe ich auch nicht. Was ich gemacht habe ist dort die Öffnungszeiten nachgeschaut, das ist in meinen Augen kein Verstoß gegen ein Copyright, denn Öffnungszeiten sind öffentlich zugänglich und entsprechend hätte ich auch google.de als Quelle nennen können, denn dort stehen die Öffnungszeiten auch.
ToniE (2023-01-07 18:21:53+00:00): Mt dem Copyright ist das nicht so einfach, "Wimmer" könnten ihre Webseite als "kreatives Produkt" betrachten.

Und: Google ist absolut tabu! Von Google irgendwas verwenden geht garnicht.
M!dgard (2023-01-07 17:07:57+00:00): Bus stop still exists and has and entry for bus line 38 on its flag.
Reinhard12 (2023-01-07 21:25:17+00:00): Hallo rudusch, warum hast du den node gelöscht? Ich habe ihn vorgestern auf disused:shop geändert, damit man weiß, was dort war. 
Gruß Reinhard
rudusch (2023-01-08 10:49:20+00:00): Sorry Reinhard, da habe ich leider nicht  aufgepasst. Deine Lösung war natürlich die bessere!
rudusch
Mapiate (2023-01-19 13:06:30+00:00): Hello, the ponds that are shaped like letters and added in several of your changesets do not appear in Bing Aerial imagery. 

Please confirm if they are supported by another source. If no source supports the edits can you revert them? If you're not sure how to do this or need support, let me know.
Bienson (2023-01-07 21:04:09+00:00): Die Gebäudeumrisse waren vorher korrekt. Umrisse wurden direkt aus dem ALKIS importiert (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/19400918).

Siehe z.B. https://www.tim-online.nrw.de/tim-online2/

Die weiter vorstehenden Teile können als separates building=roof eingetragen werden.

Daher revertiert in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130995835
silversurfer83 (2023-01-09 08:47:34+00:00): Moin
(du bekommst noch weitere Kommentare ;)

Hier hast du eine Quelle angegeben, die laut deren Website nicht kompatibel mit der Lizenz von OSM ist. Daher muss ich dich bitten, diese Änderung umgehend rückgängig zu machen.
Bitte achte in Zukunft darauf, nur Quellen zu nutzen, die mit der Lizenz von OSM kompatibel sind. Danke
silversurfer83
bm6950 (2023-01-09 13:51:35+00:00): Moin zurück :)
Ich habe nicht gesehen, dass die Lizenz nicht kompatibel ist.
Davon abgesehen ist die Baumaßnahme unter https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_von_Windkraftanlagen_in_Nordrhein-Westfalen (Windkraftanlage Bracht) angegeben und zu dem war ich auch vor Ort.
silversurfer83 (2023-01-09 15:34:54+00:00): Ok. Dann wäre ja Quelle "survey" korrekt und für OSM gut geeignet. Auch Wikipedia ist leider keine kompatible Quelle. Wir können zwar Artikel an POIs oÄ verlinken aber die WP darf nicht als Quelle für unsere Edits genutzt werden.

Grüße :)
silversurfer83
Frans S (2023-01-29 18:28:07+00:00): Hello. See my comment on other changesets. Please adjust the buildings to the correct trace and square the buildings
Best regards
Ivan Lievens (2023-03-12 14:24:38+00:00): Mag ik dit gebouw wissen zodat ik met het originele gebouw de fixme kan wegwerken?
Jakka (2023-03-12 14:40:33+00:00): Doe maar ;)
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:10:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
JeroenHoek (2023-01-08 10:28:44+00:00): By replacing landuse=static_caravan with building=static_caravan you broke a number of features resulting in overlapping buildings. landuse=static_caravan was used to tag a caravan outline automatically imported and maintained via the Dutch BAG plugin. Your assumption that building was meant where landuse was used, is not correct.

If you want to change the way that is handled, please reach out to the mapper(s) who used those tags on those objects and the BAG plugin for JOSM.

Could you revert this changeset?
eggie (2023-01-12 12:54:25+00:00): Draai jij het terug?
Kreeg ook van een Duitse medemapper vragen hierover. 
Kwam nog zo'n changeset tegen
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130990920#map=6/52.516/6.064
en de discussies zonder antwoord.

https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=16547554

Groet
eggie
JeroenHoek (2023-01-12 14:37:27+00:00): Gedaan. Ik hoop dat het goed ging; een handje vol nodes en ways was al door andere (valide) edits aangeraakt.

Dit waren meer dan 10,000 ways die deze mapper heeft omgekat zonder blikken of blozen!

kechan: I have reverted these edits where you changed landuse=static_caravan to building=static_caravan for over 10.000 objects. Such a massive edit without consulting anyone violates OpenStreetMap's community standards. You didn't respond to the comments on your changeset either; please be more considerate!

The use of landuse=static_caravan is valid. These are not buildings or actual static caravans, but plots for static caravans.
kechan (2023-01-12 17:12:24+00:00): If this tag is still in use, then go on with the reversion. I was just going off the wiki!
kechan (2023-01-12 17:18:18+00:00): Additionally, this account is under a burner email (don't want my main email to get ads) so I did not get a notification about this discussion. 

I do not know who puts the possible tagging mistakes on the wiki, I just get rid of some of the ones listed.
JeroenHoek (2023-01-12 20:15:17+00:00): Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Don't use a burner email on an account you edit with! People will assume you are ignoring them. Your email address is not shared publicly, so any spam you receive would be by a direct message via this website. Some abuse happens by people creating accounts for spamming, but it's rare and often dealt with very fast.

I have also taken that mistake out of the wiki. But mind the wording of those info boxes there; they literally state: “Automated edits are strongly discouraged unless you really know what you are doing!”

At over 10,000 entities changed, what you did was an automated edit. When you address such deprecations, you really must be sure of what you are doing. A little asking around with the mappers who put those tags there would have filled you in on the nature of those; as would asking in the Dutch sub-forum.
kechan_tagfix (2023-01-12 20:59:03+00:00): Thanks for the advice!
kechan (2023-01-12 21:02:24+00:00): I often try to get close to the situation and assess it from there, but I saw how close all the examples were to each other, maybe one edit could do. I also changed the email associated with this account to my main one.
arvdk (2023-01-08 13:27:46+00:00): By replacing landuse=static_caravan with building=static_caravan you broke a number of features resulting in overlapping buildings. landuse=static_caravan was used to tag a caravan outline automatically imported and maintained via the Dutch BAG plugin. Your assumption that building was meant where landuse was used, is not correct.

If you want to change the way that is handled, please reach out to the mapper(s) who used those tags on those objects and the BAG plugin for JOSM.

Could you revert this changeset?
eggie (2023-01-12 12:52:23+00:00): Hi ...An other mapper asked me also to look at these changesets.
arvdk ... Will you revert the changeset ?

https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=16547554

Greetz,
eggie
JeroenHoek (2023-01-12 14:39:26+00:00): Reverted; see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/130990894
AngocA (2023-01-16 15:22:58+00:00): Hola. Nos puedes dar información sobre la real existencia de estas letras en terreno? Hemos buscado en Internet pero no hay evidencia de que existan, por lo que te solicitamos esta sustentación de tu aporte al mapa.
https://github.com/OSMLatam/pow/issues/14
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:02:25+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:06:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:09:01+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
yaghubianarin (2023-01-07 18:19:28+00:00): وکیل بسیار خوب و عالی هست
dayvidhackopian (2023-01-07 18:42:41+00:00): وکیل خوب و با تجربه ای هست پیشنهاد من به شما این وکیل هست
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:02:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:09:56+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:07:40+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
Frans S (2023-01-29 18:22:16+00:00): Please correct these mappings. 
rather poor mapped.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130991543
ratrun (2023-01-08 08:33:51+00:00): Hi device25!
Can you please describe your source? This activation of a new highway=primary looks rather unrealistic to me as there is already another primary, which is not connected.
device25 (2023-01-09 08:41:25+00:00): Hi! Yesterday I drove along this section of the road, it is already open and accessible to traffic. I'm not sure about the correct type of road, it can be corrected
ratrun (2023-01-09 16:58:33+00:00): Did you verify the section with a GPS? 
Please check against the arial image. What happened with the previously existing "highway=primary" https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1102903285?

If this old road still exists, are there a couple of bridges or is the new road connected with junctions?
device25 (2023-01-10 17:07:34+00:00): Yes, I specifically recorded this section of the path and loaded gpx. https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/device25/traces/5888784

I do not know in what condition the old road is now, I was already driving along a new section without any exits. All bridges have already been built
gscholz (2023-01-11 10:23:12+00:00): Hi all,
the eastern end of this new road currently is not connected to the old D555, so it cannot be used by routing software:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=27.43370&lat=39.78749&zoom=15&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges%2Cduplicated_edges_areas%2Cunconnected_open_ends_1

@device25: May be you like to fix this.

Btw. the Maxar images show at least a construction side for the northern part of this new road.
Guido
device25 (2023-01-13 12:01:03+00:00): Fix it here
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/131226619
I saw Maxar images, but I was already driving along this section ))
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:09:06+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:09:08+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
Frans S (2023-01-29 17:45:18+00:00): Hello.  See my comment on another changeset. Your mappings are below par.
I invalidated this task.
Best regards, and please improve your mapping skills when you want to map again.
Pisto81 (2024-06-27 19:16:06+00:00): building shapes are misaligned and doesn't match the building geometry in imagery#OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130992574
Frans S (2024-06-28 07:58:54+00:00): It is not common for a validator to be judged negatively for invalidating a task due to poor quality mapping by the original mapper.
Please remove the ranking bad  mapped.
Please read also previous messages before you make statements like this.
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130992574
Frans S (2024-06-28 08:02:23+00:00): See my comment on previous changeset message.
Please remove the 'bad mapped' status.
Best regards
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130992574
wireguy (2023-01-10 22:38:58+00:00): Peace, the wetland relation, relation 11078352, was not closed, had an extra member, and could be simplified.  corrected, but please review, as other wetlands in area are overlapping and may need attention.
IlBano (2023-01-11 18:25:17+00:00): Terzo commento sul medesimo problema... tutto attorno è allineato perfettamente, ma insisti a spostare elementi del territorio qui e là perchè così appaiono allineati rispetto ai dei tuoi riferimento. In questo modo purtroppo peggiori la mappa perchè la zona in cui operi è allineata a chiazze e ripristinare una situazione congruente è un lavoro complicato e dispendioso in termini di tempo.
Se vuoi usare Bing Maps almeno riallinea le immagini rispetto alle geometrie delle strade già presenti in OSM (e rifallo spesso se cambi zona anche di pochi chilometri).
Se in iD apri il riquadro degli sfondi trovi "offset delle immagini" che ti consente di fare questo aggiustamento.
Se hai dei gpx personali confrontali con lo sfondo PCN2006 o PCN2012 (che sono noti per essere ben ortorettificati) in modo da determinare che non ci siano errori eccessivi.
Ricordo che è buona norma rispondere ai commenti degli altri mappatori perchè la collaborazione è la regola base in OSM visto che ognuno non costruisce la propria mappa personale (escludendo questo siamo a 9 changeset commentati da 4 mappatori diversi, senza ancora nessun riscontro).
*Martin* (2023-10-08 07:56:02+00:00): Hello. What is the source of this data?
PanV (2023-10-08 08:07:23+00:00): Mostly vouna.gr but made some changes from own experience and other resources.
*Martin* (2023-10-08 08:10:58+00:00): It is useful to alway specify a source of your data in the changeset and also add comment.

Anyway, is data from vouna.gr allowed to be used for OSM?
PanV (2023-10-13 06:25:46+00:00): Yes it is.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:04:13+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:08:51+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:06:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:10:19+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
Separis (2023-05-06 14:30:06+00:00): Hello,
what sense does it make to place 5 buildings on top of each other?
NorthCrab (2023-01-08 03:47:17+00:00): 🚀
syntex (2025-07-27 12:06:12+00:00): 🚀
Firefishy (2023-01-11 00:53:06+00:00): Nice additions to OpenStreetMap. Another good app is https://every-door.app/
Frans S (2023-01-29 17:39:24+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping on this project. However, your mappings are of a poor quality, buildings not accurate mapped, not squared. Collected multiple buildings and tagged them as 1 building.
Also, you did not map residential areas.
Please improve your mapping skills.
Best regards
Pisto81 (2024-06-27 19:17:49+00:00): unconditional building shapes #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/130993037
eggie (2023-01-07 21:13:26+00:00): Je vraagt feedback..   De straatnaam 'moet' er nog op.
De wegen kun je hier ook samenvoegen en omtaggen naar residential.
Mapse
eggie
eggie (2023-01-08 18:36:32+00:00): Wegen samengevoegd...   omgetagd naar highway service met oneway=yes/ straatnaam
Groet
eggie
Ritchie Brouwers (2023-01-08 18:39:13+00:00): Top! Dankje!
m@rio (2023-10-01 17:29:00+00:00): Cześć jslawin,
w ramach tego zestawu na drodze łączącej DW196 z m. Roszkowo oznaczono wiadukt w miejscu przecięcia z linią kolejową - w tym miejscu nie ma wiaduktu.
Prośba o poprawne otagowanie miejsca.
SomeoneElse_Revert (2023-02-07 08:10:31+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 132181774, 132186175 where the changeset comment is: Reverting some unsourced changes to OSM.  See https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/6844 and the links from there.
eggie (2023-01-07 21:09:26+00:00): Hoi.. Veel in de wijk is nog een eerste import van een donatie van kaartenmaker AND uit 2007.
Dat lag allemaal erg willekeurig. 
Veel klopt gewoon niet. 
Er is verder niets met de wegen gebeurd. Dus genoeg te doen hier om het allemaal recht te leggen.
Veel pedestrians horen omgetagd te worden tot highway=path.
De meerkoet he ik ook iets aangepast.
Paar keer ctrl-f5 voor het effect.
Mapse
eggie
eggie (2023-01-07 21:10:30+00:00): Al die binnenstraten in de wijk kun je ook omtaggen van unclassified naar residential.
Die smaak bestond toen nog niet.
NorthCrab (2023-01-08 07:57:06+00:00): Witaj, poprosiliście o weryfikację.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/450023826
Ustawienie foot=no bicycle=no w tym przypadku jest nieoptymalne. O wiele lepszym użyciem byłoby foot=use_sidepath bicycle=use_sidepath wraz z dodaniem sidewalk=separate (bo cycleway=separate już jest).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1128058687
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/337241182
+ pozostałe
Proszę zastosuj format mapowania dróg pieszo-rowerowych z dokumentacji:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:segregated

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1128058688
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1128058687
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1128058691
+ pozostałe (łącznie 7)
Ten odcinek nie łączy się z drogą.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1128058685
Nie ma czegoś takiego jak "separated", chyba chodziło o segregated.

Pozdrawiam!
sieminsk (2023-01-08 11:28:14+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/450023826
 bicycle=use_sidepath, applies only to roads with a classification that allows pedestrian use.
Na tej ulicy zdecydowanie nie można porószać się pieszo i wzdłóż całości jest chodnik. ustawie foot=no, bicycle=use_sidepath
p
sieminsk (2023-01-08 11:58:00+00:00): jaki jest cel łączenia takiego odcinka: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1128058693 z drogą ?
NorthCrab (2023-01-08 12:19:19+00:00): Źle rozumiesz, po ulicy nie chodzi na asfalcie tylko pobocze/chodnik. Tutaj jest chodnik i należy się nim poruszać dlatego use_sidepath + separate jest poprawne.

"i wzdłóż całości jest chodnik." dlatego =use_sidepath nakazuje nim się poruszać. Tak jest to wytłumaczone w dokumentacji.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foot=use%20sidepath
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Duse_sidepath
NorthCrab (2023-01-08 12:22:58+00:00): "jaki jest cel łączenia takiego odcinka: … z drogą ?" taki aby było to zgodne ze standardem mapowania, edytor wyświetlił ci ostrzeżenie które zignorowałeś. przecinające się linie dróg/ścieżek zawsze muszą być złączone (no chyba że są na różnych poziomach - most, tunel).
NorthCrab (2023-01-08 12:23:55+00:00): Proste wytłumaczenie: aplikacje nie będą wiedzieć że droga przecina się z przejściem dla pieszych.
NorthCrab (2023-01-08 12:26:16+00:00): Przykład mapowania przejść:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.21053/21.00649

Jak nie jesteś czegoś pewien to najlepiej jest poszukać jak inni tego typu rzeczy omapowali.
NorthCrab (2023-01-08 12:27:01+00:00): Przykład z dokumentacji:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:crossing:island