piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
qstep (2026-07-10 15:03:54+00:00): Használhatsz már 2015 és 2016-os FÖMI-ket is, utóbbi már JOSM-ben is hozzá van adva, ha frissítesz új verzióra (19555).
qstep (2026-07-10 15:06:26+00:00): Emiatt gyakorlatilag az összes házad el van csúszva 1-2 méterrel a 2016-os FÖMI-hez képest.
zsolt d (2026-07-11 09:38:45+00:00): Igen. Máködtek is nálam rendben a 2015-2016 FÖMI ortofotók. De pár hete azok eltűntek ("nincs megjeleníthatő csempe"), és ez a 2014-es működik. Nem értem, mert ugyanazon verzióval használom,, mint korábban. Majd ránézek a frissítésre.
zsolt d (2026-07-11 09:40:24+00:00): Egyébként elképesztő, hogy a FÖMI ortofotói egymáshoz  képest el vannak csúszva. A BING stb ez ismerős. De úgy tudtam, hogy a FÖMI az pontos. Hittem is neki. De  már egymáshoz képest sem illeszkednek?.... Rémes.
itineris (2026-07-11 10:59:14+00:00): Ezt cáfolom. A művház épületét és focipályáját ellenőriztem, és tökéletesen egyeznek.

Tipp: Az illesztést a földfelszínen kell elvégezni (terep-épület találkozás, záróvonal, sportpálya stb.). Ha te az épületek tetejét rajzolod körbe és ehhez illesztesz, az bizony vándorolni fog a kidőlés miatt, ti. hogy melyik évben épp merről látta a kamera.

A 2015/2016-ból esetleg a 20 centissel próbálkoztál; azok nincsenek meg a teljes országban.
utvonalfelmeresek (2026-07-11 11:09:07+00:00): A JOSM beállításánál az ImageIO fülön a webp be van pipálva?
Nekem volt, hogy az a pipa hiánya miatt nem ment.
trigpoint (2026-07-11 15:45:17+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/185544336
pitscheplatsch (2026-07-10 14:10:04+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
This added farmland can not be true ... https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537194577
qstep (2026-07-10 15:02:29+00:00): Van erre building:architecture=gothic címke, nem kell felesleges description.
zsolt d (2026-07-11 09:31:30+00:00): A cimke érdekes, köszönöm. 
De itt szvsz nem felesleges a leírás. Mert nem az egész épület gótikus, csak a szentély falazat és bordázat. Emiatt két külön épületre bontanio, és egyiket  cimkézni már több mint zavaros, hiszen egy épület.
bxl-forever (2026-07-10 13:50:37+00:00): Bonjour,

Ceci est un commentaire sur vos modifications sur OpenStreetMap (review_requested=yes).

Dans ce changement, vous avez ajouté une image. Techniquement, c'est correct, mais il est bon de savoir que le tag image, c'est pour ajouter une photo de l'endroit, pas pour un logo.

Problème plus sérieux par contre avec les *titres* de vos changements.

Vous avez envoyé 5 changements différents aujourd’hui vers la base de données avec un titre identique : « MAJ déménagement structure ». Ça ne permet pas de distinguer vos changements, or c'est à chaque fois des modifications différentes : changer le type d'un objet, ou bien changer le nom, etc. Il est important de mieux décrire ce que vous changez.

Et ici, « MAJ » est un très mauvais titre, car ça ne donne *aucune* information. Tout le monde change des données sur OSM et les met à jour… mais ce qui est important est de préciser ce qui a été changé.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Merci de votre attention.
Alex_Bawet (2026-07-10 15:00:29+00:00): Merci des informations, je ferais plus attention lors de mes prochaines et merci d'être repassé derrière, j'ai hésité et puis demander le passage de quelqu'un.e était utile. Merci encore.
trigpoint (2026-07-11 15:45:03+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/185544336
Frans S (2026-07-10 14:13:02+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping.
Please do not collect adjacent buildings and tag them as 1 building.
Best regards
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-10 14:46:04+00:00): SEO spam, advertising and mistagging by commercial mappers is not allowed on OpenStreetMap and is subject to immediate removal and possible further consequences for your account; see https://osm.wiki/About_OpenStreetMap_for_SEO_mappers for more information. Furthermore, use of Google Maps as a source is strictly prohibited by both OSM and Google policies--see https://osm.wiki/Google 

Reverted adding SEO spam POI with advertising/malformed tags and source=* of Google Maps, in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185480775
flohoff (2026-07-10 15:20:24+00:00): Wie kommst du hier auf den namen Rusterhof - Da stehen nirgends Straßenschilder und das ALKIS kennt das auch nicht.

Die Addressen sind da - aber das heisst ja nicht das es eine solche Straßen geben soll.

Für mich sieht das eher so aus als sei die Landstraße nicht benamt und die Försterei ist lediglich so benannt.

Flo
Pieter Maritzburg (2026-07-10 15:25:38+00:00): Tim Online.
Pieter Maritzburg (2026-07-10 15:38:19+00:00): Und Bing-Maps auch. https://www.bing.com/maps/search?style=r&q=Langeland&ss=id.vdpid%3A7011838935789731841&cp=51.770531%7E9.017359&lvl=16.6&sd=0
flohoff (2026-07-12 09:32:36+00:00): Tim Online hat das nicht - Der nennt die Försterei Rusterhof aber nicht die Straße - Die hat bei Tim Online keinen namen wie man hier im Screenshot sieht.

https://tmp.zz.de/20260712-ExcludingSwipe/Screenshot_from_2026-07-12_11-31-24.png

Bing ist keine zulässige quelle und ist in teilen auch aus OSM - Also gelungene feedback schleife.

Ich trage das mal aus.
trigpoint (2026-07-11 15:44:47+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/185544336
trigpoint (2026-07-11 15:44:28+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/185544336
trigpoint (2026-07-11 15:44:03+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/185544336
silversurfer83 (2026-07-10 18:43:36+00:00): Hi there :)

could you elaborate on this monument?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14002658231

It looks like you used a descriptive name=* here

cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185478748
simonc11 (2026-07-13 15:22:38+00:00): looks like https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/4331617

location is a bit off,  56.008192, -3.394802 is a more accurate
GBAB (2026-07-17 07:52:32+00:00): Hello, 

as for the location: it is precise. There may be another anchor close to it as well;

as for the elaboration: I don't know more about it. I can put the name under a description= tag but it wouldn't help much as long as we don't know e.g. the name of the vessel it belonged to...

Cheers
silversurfer83 (2026-07-17 09:41:48+00:00): Thanks for the reply.

the tag you used is already well used, albeit not documented in the wiki.

Since I just had a minute to roam our databased I found that historic=anchor does have an article in our wiki and there are several projects like CoMaps and OrganicMaps that even display those anchors with a little anchor image.

As long as there's no more knowledge about that anchor I humbly suggest changing it to historic anchor while dropping the name=* altogether.

If the image linked by simonc11 is correct it can be linked using image=* (needs a deeplink to the image itself, not a page displaying the image)

safe travels
GBAB (2026-07-18 14:42:43+00:00): Hello,

I didn't know the tag historic=anchor but now I have changed the anchor to it.

As for the image of simonc11, you may link it but to the other anchor, not to this one in question.

Bye
maraf24 (2026-07-10 14:21:28+00:00): Zmiany wycofane.
Gabriel Seixas (2026-07-24 20:56:11+00:00): Boa tarde, a última edição feita na nova via de acesso da Avenida Eduardo Froes da Mota, precisa ser atualizado, pois depois da atualização todos os GPS e serviços de transporte UBER e 99POP tem ignorado essa saída, e dado uma volta enorme pelo bairro, prejudicando a comunidade local com altos preços nos serviços de aplicativo, precisamos de celeridade para concerto.
SaltonSea (2026-07-28 13:01:07+00:00): Hi Gabriel Seixas, thanks for reaching out. I’m sorry to hear that the updated modelling is causing issues. Looking at the data, there is already a private access tag on [https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/543999161] which should restrict routing past it. The issue could possibly be caused by how the new connections display on GPS systems, and drivers are simply mistaking this exit for the one further down. I see that [https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/710573640] was previously the connecting road here and is a lower classification which would display less prominently than a trunk link. A potential solution could be downgrading [https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537214620] and [https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537214619] to residential; however, this would go against the general OSM wiki guidelines for defining highway links: [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link]. Please let me know your thoughts!

tradução automática:
Olá, Gabriel Seixas, obrigado pelo contato. Lamento saber que a modelagem atualizada está causando problemas. Analisando os dados, já existe uma tag de acesso privado em [https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/543999161], o que deveria impedir o roteamento através desse trecho. O problema pode estar sendo causado pela forma como as novas conexões são exibidas nos sistemas de GPS, levando os motoristas a confundir essa saída com a que fica mais adiante. Vejo que [https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/710573640] era a via de conexão anterior; por ter uma classificação inferior, ela apareceria com menos destaque do que uma trunk link. Uma solução possível seria reclassificar [https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537214620] e [https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537214619] como vias residenciais, mas isso contrariaria as diretrizes gerais da wiki do OSM para a definição de conexões de rodovias (highway links): [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link]. Por favor, diga-me o que você acha!
SaltonSea (2026-07-28 17:59:41+00:00): I’ve made some additional improvements to the area as well. Have a nice day!
Gabriel Seixas (2026-07-28 19:17:39+00:00): Olá a atualização mais recente já fez efeito no App da Uber, e a comunidade local e acadêmica agradece pelo apoio. Entretanto o App 99Pop ainda não recebeu uma atualização, pois acredito que o sistema deles utiliza o Google Maps, que ainda não recebeu a atualização da via, fiz uma solicitação no dia de ontem, mas sem a certeza de que isso irá resolver, você tem alguma informação sobre isso?

Agradeço a ajuda desde já!
SaltonSea (2026-07-30 12:07:18+00:00): Hey Gabriel Seixas, that’s great to hear the issue has mostly been resolved! I have no information on Google Maps request processes but I hope you receive a quick resolution. 

Olá, Gabriel Seixas! É muito bom saber que o problema foi praticamente resolvido. Não tenho informações sobre os processos de solicitação do Google Maps, mas espero que você obtenha uma solução rápida.
maraf24 (2026-07-10 21:11:16+00:00): Czy ta zmiana drogi na primary została przedyskutowana z polską społecznością OSM i była na nią wyrażona zgoda?
maraf24 (2026-07-10 20:45:32+00:00): Wycofane.
cunfusu (2026-07-15 07:41:30+00:00): Non  credo ci sia piu uno stop nel punto indicato. rimane la vecchia segnaletica sul asfalto ma adesso chi proviene da via augusto righi ha la precedenza.
Antonino_Faro (2026-07-15 09:15:55+00:00): Ok grazie per avermelo detto, vedendo dal satellitare pensavo che era sparito per errore :')
Correggo subito
mavl (2026-07-10 14:43:19+00:00): This changeset reverts some or all edits made in changesets 185265308, 185268991, 185269282, 185320526, 185325131, 185326168, 185327881, 185328557, 185328955, 185330663, 185330735, 185332266, 185333680, 185336227, 185337834, 185390677, 185406949.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-07-12 02:41:32+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20933
maraf24 (2026-07-10 20:43:40+00:00): Wycofane. 
Kolejne takie edycje zostaną zgłoszone do DWG w celu założenia blokady na konto.
eggie (2026-07-10 14:45:15+00:00): commentaar moet zijn sidewalk aangepast
silversurfer83 (2026-07-10 18:40:06+00:00): Moin :)

warum hast du denn die emergency=suction_point alle so gemappt, wie du sie hier gemappt hast? Also warum immer in Kombi mit whitewater=put_in;egre ?

Außerdem hast du hier Wege an landuse=* Grenzen beginnen lassen. Machen wir nicht. Gehört nicht zusammen.

Grüße aus Korbach
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/185481526
FajrAl (2026-07-17 03:12:41+00:00): Most buildings have been mapped, but many building footprints are very misaligned with the Bing imagery, especially those mapped as only rectangle. Since Bing imagery has very good resolution in this area, please review and realign the geometries where appropriate before marking the task as complete. Tip: Press Q to square rectangular buildings.
to0ony (2026-07-10 21:28:41+00:00): Ogroman propust. Izmjenama si uklonio ucrtani most. Pregledaj prije nego sto radis izmjene pogotovo na cestama ovako visoke vaznosti.
Digital39999 (2026-07-11 06:16:55+00:00): Isprike nisam vidio.
user_5359 (2026-07-12 16:51:50+00:00): Hello! What is the reason for the prefix cave? Is the same reference number also used for another object?
simo_explorer (2026-07-13 08:03:46+00:00): Hi user_5359, the "cave:ref" key is explained here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave#Cave:ref_and_variants
user_5359 (2026-07-14 12:31:24+00:00): Thanks for the source; it documents the key.
soliMM (2026-07-10 17:00:43+00:00): Fully reverted in changeset: 185489117

Please do not add destination refs that do not exist on destination signs on the ground. Also, you can't put all refs into destination:ref, they need to be put accordingly into destination:ref for local and destination:int_ref for international numbering.
Gicorada (2026-07-12 16:36:08+00:00): Hanno riaperto l'incrocio gozzi/tommaseo alle auto 🤨? Lo avevo messo in construction perché stavano facendo ancora lavori, fino ad inizio settimana. Mi confermi se è riaperto?
PaololXD (2026-07-12 16:45:21+00:00): Cacchio mi sono dimenticato di questo dettaglio. No non credo sia riaperto pensavo magari si potesse mettere più che under construction più un chiusa al traffico al momento. Mea culpa
PaololXD (2026-07-12 16:46:35+00:00): Se vuoi sistemare come prima fai pure oppure se riesci a taggarla in altro modo sarebbe più corretto.
voltairovicz (2026-07-14 10:14:40+00:00): Myślę, że ten kawałek między Warszawską a Wojska Polskiego też mogłby być jeszcze secondary, w końcu obwodnica i tak jakby łączy 650 i 65 nie przez środek miasta, ale ogólnie całe obniżenie uzasadnione reszty w stronę zamkniętego przejscia
kubahahaha (2026-07-14 12:43:50+00:00): Pytałem o to na forum i Mateusz zauważył, że pewnie mało kto jeździ
65 -> obwodnica -> 650 
też mi się tak wydaje - kształt dróg jest tu mocno wygięty.
Ale jak uważasz, że lepiej zostawić secondary, to nie upieram się
mueschel (2026-07-13 06:41:29+00:00): Hallo,
soll hier wirklich jemand absichtlich Taster an die Ampel gebaut haben, in der Absicht sie nicht anzuschließen, damit Leute etwas zum Drücken haben?
Sind es nicht vielmehr Taster, die einfach nicht (mehr) in Betrieb sind?

button:feedback = no
button:placebo = yes
button:placebo:disclosed = no
button_operated = yes

->

button_operated = no
disused:button_operated = yes
Znaika (2026-07-10 16:04:44+00:00): Hi Ioraslav,
I assume the streets created by you have different layer to the exisiting streets. Please add layer (1 or -1)! I'm not sure if it's underneath or above. Now there is an issue / error  because of intersecting. So the bridge or crossing is required. 
Best regards, Znaika
Bolt051 (2026-07-10 16:16:28+00:00): Hi Znaika, 
Thanks for flagging it. To be hones, this is ground level, but underneath the existing one. Should i go with -1 then?
Znaika (2026-07-10 17:26:56+00:00): In this case I would use 0 if it's ground or keep empty but "1" for the another (old) one.
I'm not sure about this entrance https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1537235224
It's also on the ground Level. But I remember it could go to the underground parking.
And this entrance https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/467655231 is correct from the bridge
Bolt051 (2026-07-10 17:36:16+00:00): I added level=0. This multi level parking building are never mapped correctly. 
The old one...the building has 6 levels....
Znaika (2026-07-10 17:40:37+00:00): it's complex
Alexb60 (2026-07-25 19:21:09+00:00): Bonjour,

Pourquoi avez-vous déplacé cet arrêt de bus ? Ce n'est pas à cet endroit que les bus s'arrêtent.
widowild (2026-07-26 18:52:22+00:00): Bonjour,
En faite j'étais garé à la pharmacie qui fait le coin et j'ai vu l'abri de bus avec le panneau d'arrêt à l'endroit que j'ai indiqué, si le bus ne s'arrête pas là, modifie le, mais en vue aérienne ortho IGN et sur Google street il est au même endroit que ma modification
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pharmacie+Nica,+21+Gr+Grand+Rue,+59360+Saint-Souplet/@0,0,0a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sFY0JrO4Fh1N7Edb0HhZKvw!2e0!4m9!1m2!2m1!1spharmacie+nica!3m5!1s0x47c284a52a12f8bb:0xee0d56c38af64d71!8m2!3d50.0573282!4d3.5282856!16s%2Fg%2F1tc_vrh8?g_ep=Eg1tbF8yMDI2MDcyMV8wIJvbDyoASAJQAQ%3D%3D
Passe une bonne journée.
mueschel (2026-07-16 06:14:19+00:00): Hi,
'unauthorized' is not a common prefix.
What you describe in the notes has been discussed many times - and the general consensus is that if there is a path, and these are even visible in aerial images, then it can be mapped. 'informal=yes' and 'access=no' are sufficient to mark them as not usable for general traffic. In certain emergencies this information can be very valuable, be it medical issues or a wildfire.
sweaty_techie (2026-07-16 14:28:31+00:00): Agreed that the "unauthorized" prefix is not standard, and this is why it is used. This is the best available solution as we work towards correcting the map, and is expected to be temporary and better than deleting the lines.

Many tracks/paths across Western Australia (the 2nd largest state/province in the world...) are horribly inaccurate as there has been no official work and for the last 5 years a user ("DBCA" who has deleted their account recently due to the block needed to allow this work to happen) has been impersonating the state land manager and bullying other users out of making correct updates (while adding many fictitious modifications). 

Note that the "unauthorized " prefix is only used in National Park areas. Over the last few years most of these paths have been physically decommissioned (or are just outdated), or will be, by the land manager who would prefer all of these paths removed from the map. As we work through this massive task, I am taking the approach that allows all to be reviewed and any paths easily restored if desired. Taking the viewpoint that having a mapper start adding garbage to the map is much worse than them adding nothing, all of these trails are marked with the non-standard prefix to get to a trustworthy state. Consider that WA's ancient, nutrient-poor soils and slow-growing vegetation mean that even a single walk off-trail can leave a visible scar for years.

In this changeset, all "unauthorized" paths were built as informal bike trails in John Forrest National Park. Many cross with the recently built Bohrn trail which is official, and as part of it's construction (along with the Noolbenger trail it adds to) most informal trails in the area are being rehabilitated.
sweaty_techie (2026-07-25 22:54:28+00:00): Following up for completeness. Review complete, for now we have been able to keep all existing trails in the area mapped with none deleted. Those impacted by new trail development and being rehabilitated have the "disused" trail prefix.

In most emergencies/wildfires having visibility of these specific trails on a map would increase danger and risk to those involved, so this needs to be considered.
sweaty_techie (2026-07-25 22:55:15+00:00): "lifecycle prefix"*
StC (2026-07-13 09:26:06+00:00): Bonjour,

ce changeset a brisé la continuité d'un itinéraire pédestre qui passe par là (en au moins un endroit, peut-être quatre). Je m'occupe des réparations
StC (2026-07-13 10:34:38+00:00): C'était bien quatre trous causés par ce changeset. J'ai pu en corriger trois, mais pas celui dans le village de Valbellle parce qu'il y a deux itinéraires possibles et c'est impossible de savoir lequel est le bon sans aller sur le terrain ou retrouver les chemins qui étaient dans la relation avant les modifications.  Dans ces cas là, je laisse l'auteur des modifications se pencher sur la question.
Lisapple (2026-07-15 18:21:19+00:00): Merci pour ces corrections.

J'ai corrigé la discontinuité à Valbelle (44.15, 5.88) en faisant passer par la "Traverse de la Santonnière" qui semble être le chemin pédestre et équestre prévu (selon l'open data).
StC (2026-07-18 17:57:10+00:00): je ne vois pas d'amélioration à Valbelle. Je vais essayer d'arranger les choses avec cette information.
gscholz (2026-07-20 06:53:41+00:00): Hi Lisapple,
your recent changesets have created a lot of errors regarding overlapping ways (blue markers):

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=6.14568&lat=44.25981&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

As you may know, this kind of error irritates routing software and looks ugly on the maps.
Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
StC (2026-07-30 07:31:25+00:00): While we are waiting for replies and action, I keep finding routes broken by this changeset and by other similar changesets...
XimeX (2026-07-10 21:40:54+00:00): Hier gibts wieder einen missmatch:
couplings	2
couplings:diameters	B;C;C
eerib (2026-07-10 16:33:47+00:00): Reverted.

See discussions in

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185369911"

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185354915

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185294073
eerib (2026-07-10 16:47:57+00:00): See discussions in

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185369911

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185354915

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185294073
Marek-M (2026-07-11 20:28:06+00:00): Nie wiem w jakim celu połączyłeś fryzjera z relacjami autobusowymi ale to było na pewno błędną edycją. Poprawiłem te relacje BUS.
prk0ghy (2026-07-15 15:35:37+00:00): This is actually wrong. I rechecked, only the Hermann-Lingg-Str. part is both ways. The Sankt-Pauls-Platz part is one way (even for cyclists)
Marek-M (2026-07-11 20:30:53+00:00): Utworzyłeś tutaj budynek w budynku i do tego zdublowałeś POI z fryzjerem. Poprawiłem tą edycję.
eggie (2026-07-10 19:24:13+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
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-07-11 13:46:35+00:00): Cleaned up remaining SEO spam and other mistagging for POI in changeset:

https://osm.org/changeset/185538640
osmmapper222 (2026-07-10 20:07:00+00:00): Moin Tornadofang,

für das Tagging der Straßenschilder im Detail musste ich mal das Wiki konsultieren. Daher mein (hoffentlich korrekter) Senf dazu:

Der Tag highway=residential bleibt erhalten, da Fahrzeuge grundsätzlich dort fahren können. Der genutzte highway=cycleway ist ein reiner Radweg, wie man ihn z.B. entlang einer Straße findet. Fahrradstraßen werden mit bicycle_road=yes gekennzeichnet [0]. 


Zeichen 253 ("Verbot für Kraftfahr­zeuge über 3,5 t") mit Zusatzzeichen "Anlieger frei" wird laut OSM-Wiki mit hgv=destination getaggt [1].


Bei Interesse findest du einen Vergleich meiner Änderungen zu deinen hier: https://facilmap.org/#18/52.33553/9.71220/Mpnk/%22changeset%20185500252%22

Viele Grüße
osmmapper222

---

[0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:bicycle%20road=yes?uselang=de

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:access#H%C3%A4ufige_Fehler
TornadoFang (2026-07-10 20:12:00+00:00): deswegen habe ich es zur Überprüfung gegeben da die Verkehrszeichen tools und das wiki nicht eindeutig waren.
BC168 (2026-07-11 18:10:04+00:00): Moin,

laut deiner Änderung haben die Garagen – z.B. hinter den Häusern Nr. 35-47 – jetzt keine Zufahrt mehr, sondern sind allesamt nur über einen Fußweg zu erreichen. Das kann irgendwie nicht sein, oder?