piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
trigpoint (2026-03-11 15:13:23+00:00): This changeset has been fully reverted by the DWG in changeset https://openstreetmap.org/changeset/179707075
Daniil Musatov (2025-07-21 01:17:02+00:00): Добрый день! Пешеходный переход обозначается тегами highway=footway, footway=crossing. Тег highway=pedestrian используется для пешеходных улиц, таких как улица Урицкого.
NeisBot (2025-06-28 14:45:45+00:00): Hi BremenMapper, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 1 highway(s)
- 4 building(s)
- 5 natural(s)
- 62 landuse(')

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

PS: I have also sent this message through the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=168057571
BremenMapper (2025-06-29 16:44:11+00:00): Most of the deletions were intentional.  I see I deleted a small part of Jarrah Road which I fixed.  The buildings were part of the golf course, and yes, I did delete those, which perhaps I shouldn't have, and I will re-add them when I figure out how.  (Sorry for any problems I may have created)
NeisReview (2025-06-30 07:00:24+00:00): 👍 Thank you for your message and confirming that your deletions were intentional.

#HappyMapping
SomeoneElse (2025-10-16 14:04:43+00:00): Hello,
Just wondered - do you know what the difference is between osm.org/relation/123318 and osm.org/relation/19284290 ? They both look like superroutes of NCN5, but with slightly different constituents?
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2025-10-16 14:05:18+00:00): (for info see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/172948051 , where someone from Sustrans was tidying these up).
MacLondon (2025-10-16 23:00:03+00:00): Hi Andy,
I've now removed the newer one of these 2 superroute relations.
SomeoneElse (2025-10-17 01:27:49+00:00): Thanks!
osmoj (2025-06-24 17:40:11+00:00): source=survey
osmoj (2025-06-24 17:40:07+00:00): source=survey
joost schouppe (2025-07-02 13:06:54+00:00): It's not wrong AFAIK, but the style you applied here to use relations for what could be simple polygons (to be able to reuse the borders) is not popular in Belgium, because it is more complex to understand and manage...
Arflha (2025-07-07 13:35:56+00:00): Hi,
I agree with this idea for polygons that use continuous lines without tags.

However, their use is necessary when using different sources for geometry (e.g., one line without the "source:geometry" tag, the other using PICC/GRB). This is to avoid mixing geometry sources and, as a bonus, it avoids having to duplicate entire lines, which saves us time.
joost schouppe (2025-07-07 14:03:06+00:00): Can you give an example of that? My comment was triggered by this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19284328
Using an existing line for creating more polygons is just hitting F a few times, that hardly seems like more work than creating a new multipolygon? (and then there's still the added complexity I mentioned before)
Arflha (2025-07-08 09:18:29+00:00): Hi,
This one, for example, uses aerials and PICC osm.org/relation/19284329 , this one uses the same lines as the previous one, with the addition of a simple line without "source:geometry" osm.org/relation/19284222

Yes, I see the problem with the school multipolygon. I need to finish a street in Saint-Nicolas (Liège) and then I'm going to map the road between Rochefort, Han-sur-Lesse, and Wellin based on aerials and PICC, in addition to adding 2-3 walls, hence this multipolygon in preparation for the import. Something I didn't mention in the comments, which is a mistake!

Tried the F thing on both id and JOSM and it didn't work. Can you tell me more about this?

However, this doesn't solve my problem; I don't see a way to create a simple polygon object designed with lines using different "source:geometry" values except by using a multi.

As for added complexity, I've given my reason for using this type of relationship in a very specific and rare case, and as soon as we get beyond that, I can agree with you. The multipolygon is a basic and common object that every beginner knows, and if not, it takes 10 seconds to understand how it works. As for modifying a multipolygon, whether in JOSM or id, I don't really see the problem, except for the reluctance to not do as usual which isn't complexity.
Arflha (2025-07-08 10:58:34+00:00): In the case where a multipolygon is composed of lines with no tags except "source:geometry," let's say we replace this multipolygon with a simple polygon. What do we do with these two lines? If they can remain in the database and provide a source for other contributors, then I don't see any problem with switching to simple polygons.

My main concern is the sources, as long as the sources are present on the objects; I don't care whether we use polygons or multipolygons. Sources in diff comments (when there are any) are nice, but apart from the fact that you have to search the object's history each time, it doesn't allow you to work with cross-referenced or complementary sources!

(POV) However, if I had to argue in favor of multipolygons, in the long term, what would be the storage space saved by having a widespread use of relations listing shared linestrings instead of polygons listing nodes (boundaries work on this principle and it works). If I take the case of the Athénée Royal de Rochefort, it is 4 linestrings listed instead of 24 points. And knowing that by using sources like the PICC, the GRB or recent aerials, we can easily multiply the number of geometry points by 10, I let you imagine the potential savings.
joost schouppe (2025-07-08 11:35:01+00:00): For the F thing, for example in iD:
- create a new object
- click a node on an existing node of a nearby way (the tool now which line you want to follow)
- click on a consecutive point of that way (now it know in what direction to follow)
- type F for as long as you want to follow
- at every "junction" of lines you'll need to chose which line to follow next, by simply clicking again on the next node you want to follow
SpinOff (2025-06-24 19:17:58+00:00): Reverted

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168064156
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-06-25 16:55:43+00:00): "hufrur" - niby co ta edycja miała zrobić?
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-06-29 13:08:55+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 168264500 where the changeset comment is: Reverting fake park - [Ticket#2025062910000138]
osmoj (2025-06-24 17:40:01+00:00): source=survey
Andrea Musuruane (2025-07-18 16:29:16+00:00): Ciao. Gli edifici in Provincia di Biella, provengono dagli open data della provincia stessa e la loro collocazione è molto più precisa di quello che si vede dalle immagini aeree (il cui allineamento dovrebbe essere sempre verificato). Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168058987
Aldo Colombo (2025-07-21 08:14:02+00:00): Ciao,
ho modificato la posizione dell'Alpe Bosa, non guardando le immagini satellitari, ma perché sono stato sul posto e il rudere con il cartello "Alpe Bosa" non era nella posizione corretta.
Forse non dovevo cancellare il rudere esistente, ma non mi sembra corretto che l'indicazione sulla mappa non sia coerente con il cartello in loco.
Andrea Musuruane (2025-07-21 08:27:52+00:00): Ciao. Il tag place non rappresenta la posizione del cartello ma il nome del luogo, quindi poteva essere messo in qualsiasi posto lì intorno. Ciao, Andrea
George Sears (2025-06-25 14:28:44+00:00): Ciao Adim, grazie per i contributi, ti chiedo solo per piacere di aggiornare il valore di check_date (Data dell'ultimo controllo su iD) se riesci visto che facilita molto il lavoro aiutando a capire quali attività vanno ricontrollate quando passa molto tempo
Io lo faccio anche da street complete anche se è scomodo lì poiché va digitato manualmente perché appunto aiuta il mapping in futuro
eggie (2025-06-24 18:50:18+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
kguenther24 (2025-06-26 16:54:33+00:00): Hello, As of early June the bike lanes on Tower Grove from Vandeventer to Magnolia have been removed for the construction of the Tower Grove Connector cycle track. Please revert the changes you made in that section, thanks!
Edesma (2025-06-26 17:50:13+00:00): In this case, it is not reverting. It is removing the tags. Once the protected bike lanes and pedestrian paths for this first phase is finished, the new infrastructure can be added as separate ways. What your sought?
kguenther24 (2025-06-27 16:44:03+00:00): That's correct, I had removed the bike lane tags for this section about a week ago becuase the bike lanes physically no longer exist, the striping was ground off the surface and there's signage in place telling bikes to detour to Thurman Ave. I placed the preliminary line for the separated cycle track with the tags: construction=cycleway
highway=construction
lcn=proposed
Edesma (2025-06-27 20:01:28+00:00): I was  cycling this morning in the area. I went over the sidewalk (is legal in MO) just to see the works. This project will be a huge difference once completed.
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-06-25 10:29:31+00:00): Hi! Can you add a source to that info? The community decided some time ago to call the REM a light rail system. Changing it to subway should be discussed with the community on https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/communities/ca/95
SomeRailfan (2025-06-30 00:45:10+00:00): Discussed here:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/montreal-rem-labeling-as-light-metro/132047/2
osmoj (2025-06-24 17:39:55+00:00): source=survey
YPGGUUY (2025-08-27 15:51:07+00:00): 您好, 红绿灯应标注于停止线处, 而非路口交叉处. 已为您更正.
另外, 欢迎加入OSM, 祝您绘图愉快.
MihaelIvanjek (2025-06-27 21:12:43+00:00): Reverting because the road was mistakenly tagged #OptimoRoute

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168205120
Dani CS (2025-06-27 21:31:28+00:00): Bonjour,
Le panneau posé par la mairie à l'entrée de ce chemin dit clairement "Chemin de la Fontaine de l'Aulne". Quelle est ta source ?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168060069
Dani CS (2025-06-27 21:51:28+00:00): Ref: https://panoramax.openstreetmap.fr/sequence/0551f969-5ea6-4dd5-8179-3904db65c360
Yaaaaaaaa (2025-06-28 17:16:58+00:00): Merci Dani pour le retour et l'upload panoramax. Je m'étais basé sur https://adresse.data.gouv.fr/carte-base-adresse-nationale?id=41151_0329#47.352492_1.189788_17.65  Si tu es sur place, peux-tu stp vérifier s'il n'y a pas un bout de route nommé Rue de la Fontaine de l'Aulne? (probablement vers la Rue des Rouges Gorges)
Dani CS (2025-06-29 09:24:41+00:00): Merci pour la correction ! En général, si le changeset qui a mis un nom de rue indique "source=survey" alors c'est fort probable que BAN ait tort. (En plus, Cadastre est d'accord avec le panneau sur place.)
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168060069
alexgsy (2025-06-28 09:50:54+00:00): Поломалось отображение леса в районе озера Забытое и севернее вдоль реки Лосёвка
DaveF (2025-06-24 19:06:39+00:00): Don't add addr:unit=unknown. Use fixme instead.
Mateusz Konieczny (2026-04-01 20:13:47+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/966380264/history

no idea is it power=line or power=minor_line but surely not power=minor_linee
eggie (2025-06-24 18:51:58+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
user_5359 (2025-06-25 09:38:50+00:00): Hello! Please have a look on http://www.osm.org/way/1409286079. What is the mean of the tags
N03_001 = 新潟県
N03_003 = 古志郡
N03_004 = 種苧原村
N03_006 = 1956-03-3?
iso8tv (2025-06-25 15:24:34+00:00): Hello! These are what I missed removing unnecessary tags.
 the original data before import contained the following data:
N03_001: Prefecture name at the time
N03_003: State name at the time
N03_004: Village name at the time
N03_006: End of date

Thank you for pointing it out.
Edelsalami (2025-07-28 13:47:14+00:00): Hallo even666 alias Streetview247, würdest du bitte erklären warum du die Landnutzung an so vielen Stellen mit den Wegen verknüpfst? Es gibt einen Grund, warum es dort Freiflächen gibt - Wegeflächen sind natürliche Begrenzungen und gehören jeweils nicht zum angrenzen Wohngebiet, Wald, Wiese etc. Falls das ein Versehen gewesen soll, so mach die Verknüpfungen bitte rückgängig. Danke! Gruß
Dawid2849 (2025-07-23 15:46:34+00:00): Cześć. Jeśli nie stoi znak zakazujący ruchu pieszych, to zamiast foot=no dodaje się foot=use_sidepath: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Afoot%3Duse_sidepath
eggie (2025-06-24 18:57:38+00:00): Dag Koen,

Ik heb de overlappende landuse gescheiden.
MVG
eggie
MassCartog (2025-06-25 00:24:14+00:00): Hello, welcome to OSM. The features you removed in this changeset are valid. Please don't remove valid OSM data.

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

It's clear that these features exist, features being on private property is an invalid reason to remove data from OSM. So this edits is incorrect and damaging to OSM data.

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

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

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_delete_this_trail%3F
Steven_INLC (2025-06-26 01:24:37+00:00): Hello, 

Thank you for the clarification and the proper way to move forward using the system. I will not remove anymore features and I apologize for vandalizing OSM data. 

That being said, these features need to be set to private because AllTrails is using the data to encourage the public to trespass onto private property. Is there no failsafe for applications like AllTrails to make sure the data that is being published has public or private access? Or, informing property owners that their data is being used by apps like AllTrails to encourage the public to access their properties. I am sure I am not the only person experiencing this.
MassCartog (2025-06-26 02:40:20+00:00): Thanks for the response! And it looks like you took care of marking these paths private. You have done the right thing, now the trails are tagged correctly, apps that use that data will render the tails showing their access.

You can read more here: https://support.alltrails.com/hc/en-us/articles/360058130612-What-if-a-trail-is-on-my-private-property

PS it might take a while before alltrails and other apps refresh their OSM data, so might looks wrong for a while in the apps before they update it.
Steven_INLC (2025-06-26 03:04:57+00:00): Thank you MassCartog. I appreciate your help and guidance in using OSM. Also, how to properly address the issue I experienced with AllTrails.
OSMCowboy (2025-06-25 19:35:44+00:00): Correction: Source used was MGP Pro 2025-05-17
hNdrX_ (2025-07-17 21:25:33+00:00): 'fixme's sind zum Lösen von konkreten Problemen gedacht - NICHT zum Überprüfen von Veränderungen. Dafür hast du ja bereits review_requested=yes gesetzt UND einen Hinweis erstellt.
Comino (2025-06-25 01:07:14+00:00): Hi Bitcoin Amantikir,

In your edit you use the deprecated tag "payment:bitcoin=yes".

Please DELETE the payment:bitcoin=yes tag !
Use the "currency:XBT=yes" instead.

For more information please read: https://gitea.btcmap.org/teambtcmap/btcmap-general/wiki/Tagging-Merchants#legacy-tags
and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bitcoin

Happy mapping,

Edwin
rene78 (2025-07-01 05:12:06+00:00): Great work! Thanks!
Elizen (2025-07-07 08:46:05+00:00): Здравствуйте.
Подскажите, пожалуйста, откуда у вас информация об этих объектах (Рёлка - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1409297161, Горка - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1409297160), что это населённые пункты?
Судя по пкк, это всё территория деревни Моржегоры.
Elizen (2025-07-07 09:02:31+00:00): Тот де вопрос относительно объектов: Верхний Конец https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1409297162, там находится д.Родионовская. Понизовье https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1409297158, там находится д.Хохновская.

И почему вы переименовали д.Савинская в Посельская и д. Хохновская в Ёргино?
grzegorz75jan (2025-08-02 20:03:13+00:00): "Plaże" nad Dunajcem przeważnie mają żwir a nie piasek.
Pawelski44 (2025-08-03 16:34:11+00:00): Skrupulatnie to poprawiam i aktualizuje.
grzegorz75jan (2025-08-03 17:08:26+00:00): Dobre.
danbag (2025-11-07 07:01:41+00:00): Eseguendo questo changeset ho erroneamente spostato il path 1.409.301.643 di una decina di metri a nord. Provvedo a spostarlo nella corretta posizione
Ich2PunktNull (2025-06-24 19:29:05+00:00): Vespucci abgestürzt, daher kein sinnvoller Changesetkommentar
Gregory Peony (2025-07-23 03:25:32+00:00): Hi. It looks like you aligned highways to imagery well and correctly identified steps in the imagery on some occasions. The feature I flagged looks like it has sections of steps and some flat/ramp sections.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168064601
diamondarmorsteve (2025-07-01 12:48:04+00:00): Why did you retag U.S. Route 1 to secondary? It is a national highway, and this segment in particular connects two large towns, meeting the criteria for highway=primary.
Harfeur (2025-06-27 08:27:06+00:00): Bonjour, le changement est correct !
Merci beaucoup !

~Harfeur
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/168065504
map per (2025-06-25 05:37:07+00:00): Hallo Cmcmcm1,

bitte keine beschreibenden Namen wie "Protestantische Kirche" verwenden. Die Konfession kannst du mit 'denomination=protestant' eintragen (werd das gleich korrigieren).

Viele Grüße
map per
NorthCrab_upload (2025-06-24 20:11:54+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Ametystowa":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12950339118
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12950339119
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12950339120

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
gurglypipe (2025-06-25 12:34:27+00:00): Hiya, did you align the aerial imagery before realigning all the geometry here? The Bing aerial imagery is offset by about -3.15,0.47m in the middle of Horton, compared to OSMUK Cadastral Parcels (ground truth).

It looks like you’ve broken the alignment of the Gray Bridge, which I had carefully aligned in https://osmcha.org/changesets/167095100. It’s possible I made a mistake with the alignment, so I’d like to check with you. Thanks.
kreuzschnabel (2025-06-29 06:56:30+00:00): Hi gurglypipe,

I am very sorry if I broke anything or degraded data quality. Yes, I was 
following Bing imagery, after comparing it to Esri imagery and GPS 
traces from the server, and even the old Esri Clarity imagery, all of 
which aligned pretty well.

Feel free to revert my entire changeset if my assumption was wrong. I 
didnt use precision data, so your edit might well have been better.
gurglypipe (2025-07-01 12:52:39+00:00): Thanks for your reply :)

It’s interesting that all the imagery aligned with each other, but the Cadastral Parcels (or a high-accuracy GPS trace) are the source of ground truth for the UK, as they’re higher precision (and hence easier to align to) than aerial imagery.

It might be that Horton has a systematic parallax error in aerial imagery due to its altitude or the fact it’s in a fairly narrow valley.

I’ve reverted it as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168352371
NorthCrab_upload (2025-06-24 20:21:54+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12950354442
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12950354443

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
eggie (2025-06-25 07:22:44+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
VA00 (2026-06-14 14:15:01+00:00): Nie rozumiem, co te zestawy zmieniły? Usunięcie Bing jako source i nic poza tym?
Cristoffs (2026-06-14 20:33:16+00:00): Zestaw był zamknięty rok temu, wiec wybacz nie pamiętam, generalnie zwykle z usunięciem zródła leci poprawa geometrii, weryfikacja kategorii i takie tam.
eggie (2025-06-25 17:22:04+00:00): Dag Bernhard,

Het adres heb ik weer verwijderd van de gebouwomtrek.
Er is al een adresnode.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-06-25 17:23:49+00:00): Hallo Bernhard,

Ich habe die Adresse aus dem Gebäude gelöscht.
Es ist bereits ein Adressknoten vorhanden.
Grüss,
eggie
Supaplex030 (2025-06-25 08:35:33+00:00): Huch, schau mal, hier ist  in diesem Changeset (wahrscheinlich ausversehen?) eine Geometrie ohne Tags entstanden: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1409317180

Meckert nicht der JOSM-Validator, wenn man eine Geometrie ohne Tags hochladen will?

lg, Alex
fmc_Mlvln (2025-06-30 09:46:07+00:00): Danke Alex. Da habe ich wohl die JOSM-Warnungen nicht genau genug gelesen. :/
Die Geometrie ohne Tags wurde nun von mir gelöscht.

Changeset 168300844

LG Mlvln
eggie (2025-06-25 10:06:09+00:00): Dag Molensteen... Wat je hebt verwijderd zijn in ieder geval geen slagbomen maar hekken.
Maar weg is weg uiteraard.

MVG
eggie
molensteen (2025-06-25 14:06:44+00:00): dankje Eggie dat had ik over het hoofd gezien, gelukkig staan er ook geen hekken heb ik gezien :)
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-06-25 01:37:20+00:00): Hello, why did you remove the old alignments of the roads? They're there to prevent users—including myself—from remapping them.
Joseph R P (2025-06-26 20:13:48+00:00): You are correct in that it is useful for serving as a "do not re-map" note for users, which is harmless, but in an area like a construction site—and area that is subject to frequent updates—adding extra nodes, ways, and area polygons creates more clutter to have to work with and try to not to break as you add new features to the area or update their alignments to match imagery, etc.

Some people will be in favor of mapping demolished features to leave a note, while some will be wholly against adding more non-rendering clutter to the map, though, in my opinion, it should be fine as long as it can't be assumed at first glance that the road no longer exists, like in a situation where there isn't an under-construction roadway mapped right over its old alignment, in which case I would just add a note to the way.
Flap Slimy Outward (2025-06-27 04:58:15+00:00): Got it, thanks!
YomanNH (2025-07-30 06:04:47+00:00): Takie zmiany do niczego się nie przydadzą. Szczególnie ścieżka nie połączona z niczym. Bzdurne dodanie punktu z placem zabaw wewnątrz istniejącego już placu zabaw też nic nie wnosi. Poprawiłem to dziadostwo.
Sylabowy Kot (2025-07-30 21:54:52+00:00): Nie wiem, jak to wyglądało na początku, ale teoretycznie można dawać ścieżki bez łączenia - jeśli wie się, że w danym miejscu jest ścieżka, a w OSM jej brakowało, bo np. żadna ewidencja i zdjęcia lotnicze tego nie wykazują, natomiast nie wie się, jak ona przebiega. Problem się rodziłby dopiero, gdyby to była duża siatka chodników niepołączona z resztą, przez co waliłby się routing.
flo2154 (2025-06-25 07:36:02+00:00): Danke für deine Korrektur! Google Maps und Bayernatlas stimmen beide zu, dass das hier die Schwalbenstraße sein sollte (das sind zwar beides Quellen, die wir nicht zum Mappen benutzen dürfen, aber zum Verifizieren darf man durchaus mal draufschauen).

Die beiden Straßenschilder https://maps.app.goo.gl/j8rSAoKcioWqmwht6 und https://maps.app.goo.gl/b8idx1ektPs3A6cw6 sind aber auch wirklich verwirrend.