piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
cielak42 (2025-03-28 18:56:06+00:00): Jasne. Szczerze mówiąc nie kieruję się jak to wygląda po wyrenderowaniu, wręcz wydaje mi się że teraz nie wygląda to "ładnie". Chciałem tylko wyrazić jakoś fakt, że nie jest to standardowy chodnik, bo ta aleja ma miejscami aż ~5-6 metrów szerokości. Tag, który proponujesz, faktycznie osiągnie ten cel.
pavvv (2025-03-29 16:49:48+00:00): Najważniejsze, żeby wartość area:highway=* się zgadzała z wartością highway=*, więc jeśli uznajesz to za stosowne, to możesz nawet dać highway=pedestrian i area:highway=pedestrian, ale w tym miejscu to raczej nie jest dobry pomysł, bo takie drogi zwykle mają nazwy. (zobacz też https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:highway=pedestrian)
Ale podsumowując, highway=pedestrian + area=yes powinno być tylko stosowane na większych placach lub naprawdę szerokich deptakach pomiędzy placami, np. ul. Oławska.
dbleps (2024-02-09 01:24:01+00:00): (explanation:) I changed name of the archipelago from "Hawaiʻian Islands" to "Hawaiian Islands". While the ʻokina should be used in the state's name ("Hawaiʻi"), and in other place names, even in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi (hawaiian language) it is not pronounced or written "Hawaiʻian" - this is a common mistake for people unfamiliar with the language (although well-intentioned).
CurlingMan13 (2024-02-09 09:44:26+00:00): please do not map for the renderer by adding things that don't exist...
Richard (2024-11-26 13:20:57+00:00): It has already been explained to you repeatedly that rural unimproved towpaths are not highway=cycleway. STOP IT.
dolphinling (2024-02-11 22:59:01+00:00): In my opinion, many of these university buildings do have names, even if their name is a restatement of the address.

See e.g. the UVM map https://www.uvm.edu/map/ which says things like "479 Main Street - Address: 479 Main St." Also, my impression from having been and worked there was that everyone treated them as named.

On the other hand, a lot of this was out of date as you fixed up with renames, demolished buildings, etc. And that only applies to college buildings, I don't have any reason to think non-college buildings have names.
ezekielf (2024-02-12 02:49:35+00:00): Thanks for the feedback.  I wasn't sure about doing this edit, thinking something like that might be the case.  The reason I ultimately did go ahead with it is because I noticed a signage difference while driving by these buildings.  Named building signs have the name in all caps and the address in proper case on the line below like this:

POMEROY HALL
489 Main Street

Signs for address only buildings use the same proper case as other addresses, and they don't duplicate the address in the all caps name style.  For example like this:

481 Main Street

Not like this:

481 MAIN STREET
481 Main Street

These two examples can both be seen here on Google street view:  https://maps.app.goo.gl/mRSiDEra4z3zQTAJA

To me, this seems to indicate that some signs show a name and an address, while others showed just an address.  So OSM tagging could match that.  However, your experience contradicts that with these addresses seeming to be treated as names among the UVM community.  I wonder if this really makes the address the name of such a building, or if people just use the address in lieu of a name?    On the other hand I am aware of cases where an address is definitively used as a name.  For example this restaurant in Jeffersonville:  https://158main.com/

If you're confident that these buildings really are named by their address (and not just referred to  as such for lack of a name), I'm happy to restore the name tags.
ezekielf (2024-02-12 03:06:09+00:00): I've also just realized that the building at 479 Main Street has two addresses: 475 and 479.  
https://www.uvm.edu/~hp206/2011/sites/17.html
The sign reads "475-479 Main Street".  Would people refer to the building using both numbers like that?
dolphinling (2024-02-12 04:29:26+00:00): I'm confident that some buildings were commonly referred to by name same as address (e.g. 70 South Williams, 284 East Avenue, and a few others).

Some others I mostly heard referred to by function or what was in them (e.g. before it was renamed I heard 438 College Street referred to as "the arts and sciences building", similar for 34 South Williams).

I never figured out what was up with the 475-479 thing. IIRC, my instructors who worked there avoided trying to name the building and just said "come to the Asian Languages department". I'd be happy copying the official map and using the name 479 Main Street with proper address tagging for both.

My overall impression is that people on campus get used to buildings having names and just start acting like they all do. This applies both to people talking and to official sources like the campus map and internal facilities data I worked with that always had a name field filled in.

Of course, all my knowledge is out of date and also UVM specific, I don't know how things work at Champlain.
ezekielf (2024-02-14 02:40:30+00:00): I've gone ahead and reverted the address based name removals for now:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147432472
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147432411

I think the question of whether these addresses are truly building names is an interesting one, and I may start a forum topic seeking other viewpoints.  It seems to me that for the most notable and well known of these buildings it probably does make sense that the name is the address.  For less notable ones I'm not so sure.
Sandal man (2024-02-09 06:43:46+00:00): Hello,
Welcome to OSM and thanks for contributing :-)
But please make smalle change sets, this helps others in tracking changes. 
Why? Have a look at the section
"Geographical size of changesets" on this wiki page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset

Thank you.
Ewrt1 (2024-02-18 21:48:36+00:00): Hi,
Thank you for contributing.
To understand your changes, please provide an understandable changeset comment. Thanks.
Ewrt1 (2024-02-18 21:48:50+00:00): *To let other mappers understand your changes
Fizzie-DWG (2024-02-10 05:13:12+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15692
Dawid2849 (2024-02-09 11:10:46+00:00): Cześć! Na OSM nie dodajemy nazw opisowych, zamiast tego korzystamy ze znaczników do opisywania obiektów: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Nazwy#Nazwa_jest_tylko_nazw%C4%85
Ze względu na to musiałem wycofać Twoją edycję

Pozdrawiam,
Dawid

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147251557
InsertUser (2024-02-09 12:40:00+00:00): Where was the actual discussion for this import?
whammo (2024-02-09 14:28:08+00:00): Hi InsertUser. The community discussion was here, also already linked in the wiki page: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/proposed-import-of-all-the-places-data-onto-existing-grocery-store-pois-in-the-us/108611
user_5589 (2024-02-14 20:14:52+00:00): This edit is utterly wrong. Canal towpaths are NOT "designated" for cyclists. Designated means a legal right from public law to do something. A Traffic Regulation Order in the UK. That is not what the Canal and River Trust allows on its towpaths.

Cyclists are allowed on the towpaths through the permission of the Canal and River Trust only. That is a permissive tagging situation. Hence the previous, correct tagging.

Please reverse this changeset.
Richard (2024-03-06 10:29:00+00:00): This is also going to absolutely wreck cycle routing. Saying that the Grand Union towpath (which is a muddy mess most of the time) is built to highway=cycleway standards, rather than highway=footway, will lead to apps directing people along an entirely unsuitable path.

I have asked DWG to revert this and other changesets given that mrpacmanmap appears unwilling or unable to read the comments left on his edits.
scarapella (2024-02-15 15:36:12+00:00): Greetings Necessarycoot72,

I came across this changeset as part of the osmi qa tools flagged an duplicate segment error.
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-68.15020&lat=45.08049&zoom=18&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_segment%2Cways

I think the issue is that way100223369 does not, and should not be included in as part of the Relation: Nicatous Lake (1433245) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1433245 because it is a peninsula and therefore the way is outside the lake area.

Cheers,
scarapella
Necessarycoot72 (2024-02-16 15:49:17+00:00): See if this fixes it.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147537898
scarapella (2024-02-23 14:50:01+00:00): Hello,

thanks for making the update so quickly. I had another look today and it's close, but I think that this way
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1251207621

is an inner of this natural=wood multipolygon
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17223244

when it should be an outer.

Here's the osmi link
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-68.14970&lat=45.08031&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=role_should_be_outer%2Cways

cheers,
scarapella
Necessarycoot72 (2024-02-25 14:26:55+00:00): Okay, set that way to outer.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=1251207621
archpdx (2024-02-09 04:55:41+00:00): Hi,
It looks like you're upgrading minor residential roads with centerlines to tertiary. While this was historically how these were tagged in the US, the community has recently started shifting away from using just physical characteristics and prioritizing connectivity when determining highway classifications (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Highway_classification).

Instead, I recommend using lane_markings=yes to show that these roads have centerlines (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lane_markings)
Dion Dock (2024-02-19 01:02:40+00:00): Thanks for the note.  You're correct, I've been simply using the "does it have a dividing line" criteria for tertiary roads.  

Interestingly, I had a separate discussion with someone else about this, given that cities sometimes throw a dividing line on a road just because it is wide.  Not sure where that went; I don't know how to track changeset discussions via the web site.

While I'm not totally happy about moving the criteria from objective to subjective, I agree it makes more sense to provide a way of describing a road's connectivity than looking for lanes.

Anyway, I'll try to use more lane_markings=yes.  I'm not sure about adding the corresponding lanes=2; better data but it kind of kills the joy.
Richard (2024-03-05 19:39:18+00:00): Aaaaargh.

Towpaths are _not_ necessarily bike routes. Significant parts of the route you have included here are not suitable for cycling - the notion of anyone cycling along the towpath at Hawford would be funny if it wasn't actively dangerous. On some sections it's expressly forbidden.

By tagging these using the standard meant for signposted, promoted, reviewed cycle routes, you are causing bike routers to send people along completely unsuitable paths.

I am probably going to have to remove these in bulk. _Please_ consult the community before making massive changes to existing practice like this.
mavl (2024-02-09 15:14:04+00:00): Здравствуйте. Для этого пакета правок запрошена проверка (review_requested=yes).  
  
В номере дома строение указывают через пробел "19 с1" вместо "19с1".  
  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%90%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B0#%D0%9D%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2
Ropino (2024-02-10 16:15:35+00:00): Hi,
please check node:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11600962868
"maxspeed=SE" ?
Thx in advance
Adam Dunn (2024-02-10 17:13:03+00:00): Oops. Not sure how I missed that in JOSM validator. I've fixed that, and checked all the other speed limit signs in the area.
une abeille (2024-02-09 04:06:31+00:00): Hi there, I believe you may have inadvertently changed this building back to its old shape. Bing imagery is from 2020, and this appears to be what you traced. Esri imagery is from May 2023 and shows a geometry much closer to what this building looked like before your edit. Could you please double check?
une abeille (2024-02-25 04:27:33+00:00): I have reverted this change, based on updated imagery.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147877403
Xvtn (2024-02-09 15:22:20+00:00): Hi! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. As far as I can tell, everything looks good - no complaints from me! Thanks for your contributions!
nyampire (2024-02-11 08:31:00+00:00): こんにちは、OSMへようこそ。

すみません、昨今、ユーザ名に mic_ という接頭辞をつけたユーザが多く登録され、建物名などの編集を行っているようです。
OSMへの参加はどなたでも行うことができ、また、企業として編集に参加をいただくことは基本的に歓迎するものではありますが、いくつかの注意点があります。
ご確認をいただけますでしょうか。

* 企業などが組織的に編集を行う場合、「Orrganised Editing Guidelines」に従う必要があります。
* 具体的には、OSM wikiへのドキュメント作成や、編集内容などのコミュニティへの連絡などを行う必要があります。

https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

* こちらについてご確認をいただき、対応をお願いできるでしょうか。
* もし不明点がありましたら、OSMF Japanでも相談を受け付ける事が可能です。info@osmf.jp までご連絡ください。

また、mic_ を接頭辞にもつユーザさんの編集には、自身で調査をされたとは考えづらい、広域の編集も多く見られます。
それらの編集に際し、著作権あるいはその他の権利で保護された情報源を活用している可能性があると考えています。
OSMは、自由な地図であり続けるために、特別な許諾が無い限り、他の地図やデータセットからの転載を禁じています。

こちらについて、どのような情報源を用いて名称や建物階数の編集を行っているか、ご教示をいただけるでしょうか。

https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

```
著作権侵害

OpenStreetMapの協力者は、著作権者から明確な許諾を得ずに、著作権のある情報源 (例: Google マップや印刷された地図) から決してデータを持ち込まないよう注意するものとします。
```

もしお返事をいただけない場合、内容の疑わしい編集と判断し、Data Working Groupと協力の上、対象ユーザの凍結および関連する編集の巻き戻しを行います。
以上二点、何卒よろしくお願いいたします。
nyampire (2024-02-11 08:32:15+00:00): こんにちは、OSMへようこそ。

すみません、昨今、ユーザ名に mic_ という接頭辞をつけたユーザが多く登録され、建物名などの編集を行っているようです。
OSMへの参加はどなたでも行うことができ、また、企業として編集に参加をいただくことは基本的に歓迎するものではありますが、いくつかの注意点があります。
ご確認をいただけますでしょうか。

* 企業などが組織的に編集を行う場合、「Orrganised Editing Guidelines」に従う必要があります。
* 具体的には、OSM wikiへのドキュメント作成や、編集内容などのコミュニティへの連絡などを行う必要があります。

https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines

* こちらについてご確認をいただき、対応をお願いできるでしょうか。
* もし不明点がありましたら、OSMF Japanでも相談を受け付ける事が可能です。info@osmf.jp までご連絡ください。

また、mic_ を接頭辞にもつユーザさんの編集には、自身で調査をされたとは考えづらい、広域の編集も多く見られます。
それらの編集に際し、著作権あるいはその他の権利で保護された情報源を活用している可能性があると考えています。
OSMは、自由な地図であり続けるために、特別な許諾が無い限り、他の地図やデータセットからの転載を禁じています。

こちらについて、どのような情報源を用いて名称や建物階数の編集を行っているか、ご教示をいただけるでしょうか。

https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

```
著作権侵害

OpenStreetMapの協力者は、著作権者から明確な許諾を得ずに、著作権のある情報源 (例: Google マップや印刷された地図) から決してデータを持ち込まないよう注意するものとします。
```

もしお返事をいただけない場合、内容の疑わしい編集と判断し、Data Working Groupと協力の上、対象ユーザの凍結および関連する編集の巻き戻しを行います。
以上二点、何卒よろしくお願いいたします。
Udarian (2024-02-10 06:06:04+00:00): what is the source for this commit??

because by a cursory glance at the various features added I have a feeling that at least part of this commit is additions that do not exist in reality. for example this commit adds English named hot5els/guest houses in the middle of Africa, while its possible that such a thing exists I doubt that it is real. this also adds a dog park that when you look at the default imagery layer for the area (somewhere in Nebraska) seems to be in the middle of a marsh or swamp of some sort, so unless some construction has happened in the area since the imagery updated (I dont know when it last updated) that along with the fact that the feature is called doggy park which doesn't seem like a name for a park (from my experience in the US they usually are named after a person, movement etc. and not just their purpose alone).
Xvtn (2024-02-09 15:17:52+00:00): Hi, and thanks for your contribution! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. I think this should be good, but my only concern is that routing engines for non-HGV travellers will discourage or avoid routing along here. But I'm not sure about that. (I got burned a while ago when a big section of I-15 was accidentally marked HOV-only and I was routed around it.)
Also, is it just this one little section that's HGV designated, or is more of Redwood Road marked as such?

Can any other mappers comment on the routing thing?
Xvtn (2024-02-09 15:19:55+00:00): Oh, looking into it some more it appears that most trunk roads in the area also have hgv=designated. So I think we're good! Thanks again!
Fizzie-DWG (2024-02-09 23:42:34+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15689
mavl (2024-02-09 14:19:23+00:00): Здравствуйте. Вам не нужно было создавать новую учётную запись. Вы могли просто ответить на комментарии.  
  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/15679
Buraddo (2024-02-21 10:14:24+00:00): Hello,

What is the source of this street name?
Loicastilor doesn't mean anything in Romanian. Also, it looks like a agricultural track, not like a street.
LakeMatano (2024-02-22 09:37:15+00:00): "Hello Buraddo. I added the street name based on Maps user feedback but I will remove it. Thank you for the insight!”
aceman444 (2025-11-18 23:41:58+00:00): Zdravim, urcite je https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1247988145 horaren?
Podla Ortofoto alebo napr. https://wa-uploads.profitroom.com/presidenthotelmontforttatry/17167273657522_xxdji0794.jpg to vyzera na vezu/vysielac.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-02-09 05:51:36+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Jeździecka":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/417807756

"Dąbrowskiego":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/418175809
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/527125020

"Strzelecka":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/440253618

"Chabrowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1021170776
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1186682567
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1186682569

"Grafitowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1021170848

"Wiosenna":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1032582815
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1127898552

"Generała Andersa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1091817840

"Bazaltowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1106169837
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1106169838

"Lawendowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1117898812
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1117898841
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1117898846

"Słoneczna":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1118809775

"Głogowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1123722480

"Czekoladowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1134796748

"Dębowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1208077827
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1208077971
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1208078080
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1208078083
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1208078180

"Górska":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1208166163

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
dimakor83 (2024-02-09 06:10:27+00:00): delete
arjunaraoc (2024-03-05 10:21:30+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  India page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India) and  join OSM India Telegram channel (https://t.me/OSMIndia).

Deleted by creator
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147242348
Joseph R P (2024-02-14 18:27:23+00:00): Hello, why do you believe a trunk route between Newark and Zanesville is a bad edit? It is a major corridor linking SR 16 to I 70, directly linking the cities of Newark and Zanesville and serving destinations beyond those points.
cotesta (2024-02-15 11:09:18+00:00): The route that's being claimed as a link doesn't function as such in practice. Most drivers, especially of anything higher than pickup truck would take as the major corridor I-70 west to SR 79 coming up to Newark.

Currently mapping applications route on I-70 to exit 142, then US 40 (4 lane road with speeds approaching the interstate), then taking Linnville up to the city limits.

There is no special designation by a higher authority to give it backing either, like SR 16 with the NHS or SR 32 a few counties south with the Appalachian corridor, etc etc. Ohio's TIMS even argues for it being lower as well, labeling it as "Minor Arterial", which roughly correlates with the Primary class OSM-wise.

It does serve a function to connect the two cities as mentioned, but not direct enough for a trunk designation.
Joseph R P (2024-02-16 02:30:34+00:00): Before I make major highway reclassification edits, I research what routers recommend, specifically Bing since the default OSM routers are heavily influenced by OSM data itself. Bing suggests that taking SR 146 is a few minutes shorter than going down to I 70. 

AADT data (https://odot.public.ms2soft.com/TDMS.UI_Core/trafficviewer) also suggests that SR 146 at SR 16 is a very major fork, with nearly half of the traffic (~7,000 AADT) heading east along the freeway exiting off or merging onto it westbound at the interchange with 146 coming to or from Zanesville, with the other ~9,000 AADT continuing east along SR 16. To me it seems that each route is about equally viable, considering both the routing suggestions and traffic data.

Regarding functional classification and NHS designations - functional classification is inconsistent by state and really only exists to be used by the state DOTs mainly to identify how roads should be funded and isn't very useful for OpenStreetMap. As for the National Highway System, it includes various types of roads and highways as well as excluding some major corridors, and is primarily for strategic mobility rather than general civil navigation.
LockOnGuy (2024-03-10 14:03:11+00:00): Hello MountSuckling, in this changeset you have disconnect the 301-2 street from the main road. on the ground it is connected and open. I assume you only looked for the sat image and thought that maybe it's closed, but that sat image is old, it doesn't have the passing bridge too if you looked. I just fixed this changeset and reconnect the street to the main road in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148463695.    
Regards.
MountSuckling (2024-03-12 14:42:04+00:00): Hi LockOnGuy, thank you for reaching out. After doing further investigation, recent aerial imagery indicates that there is a clear path in which vehicles can travel between 301-2 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/905802280) and Safi Al Din Al Hilli Street. Thank you for updating the data to reflect this. Have a great day!
MateoGR (2024-02-09 13:49:20+00:00): Que els excursionistes visiten la Font de la Teula, Roca, Can Font, el Llac Petit etc es cert, i per cert NO hi ha cap problema en aixo. Pero que es patrimoni Public on ho has vist?? El cadaste, el Registre Propietat diuen que es terreny privat.. tens documents que diguin que es terreny públic? gracies per aportar-los i compartir-los amb tothom..!  o estas dient falsetats? demostra que es public o calla... Va!  espero els docs amb emoció!!  jeje..
arjunaraoc (2024-03-05 10:23:16+00:00): Welcome to OSM.  Please visit  India page on OSM wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India) and  join OSM India Telegram channel (https://t.me/OSMIndia).
Check my improvement: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/148243544
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147244726
ivanbranco (2024-07-13 12:01:07+00:00): In cosa consistono queste attrazioni? É qualcosa di verificabile sul campo?
Đuro Jiří (2024-07-16 09:03:18+00:00): No, non esiste nulla.L'ultima volta che sono stato sulla Sicilia ne ho trovati cinque o sei sulla mappa, ma non ho trovato nulla nelle vicinanze del luogo indicato, nessuna scritta, nessuna statua, niente.
HellMap (2025-05-01 09:53:26+00:00): Čau,

Pirms dzēst, gribēju pārliecināties, ka te nav kaut kas, ko nesapratu. Šie celiņi https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1248010607 izskatās pēc grants gar ceļa nomalēm https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1603955380545967&focus=photo .
Colbertson (2025-05-01 13:24:46+00:00): Laikam aizgāju autopilotā dēļ veloceliņa un pieturas. Droši dzēs.
Ewen Hill (2024-03-01 09:28:01+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM - This a appears to be a private road and the road should be set to access=private if you could do this please.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147244854
Ewen Hill (2024-03-01 09:27:03+00:00): Hi and welcome to OSM - This a appears to be a private road and the road should be set to access=private if you could do this please.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147244990