piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
gurglypipe (2024-10-27 09:08:17+00:00): The wiki documents crossing=traffic_signals as “This tag is used for traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings.”, i.e. the lights are for the traffic, not the pedestrians. That describes what’s here on the ground. Pedestrians cross when the lights are red, and vehicles won’t stop otherwise. IIRC there isn’t a button for pedestrians to request to cross, and that can be represented using button_operated=no. I didn’t add that tagging because I haven’t explicitly resurveyed it to check that.
gurglypipe (2024-10-27 09:13:31+00:00): I think perhaps you are being misled by the title which the ID editor applies to crossing=traffic_signals nodes. It does title them as “Crossing With Pedestrian Signals”, but if you look lower down, the Type is “Crossing With Traffic Signals”. I think it’s a bug for ID to title them “Crossing With Pedestrian Signals”.

In any case, the wiki gives the canonical meaning of the tags, not whatever labels ID applies to them. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:crossing%3Dtraffic_signals
Pete Owens (2024-10-28 00:59:22+00:00): Those traffic signals have nothing to do with the crossings - just traffic flows from other arms of the junction. ie the junction is signal controlled but the crossings are not.

You suggest that "Pedestrians cross when the lights are red", but there is no such time. If they are red for traffic approaching from one arm then they will be green for traffic approaching from a different direction. There is no time allocated for pedestrians at all.

The issue of buttons is entirely irrelevant - the issue is the absence of any signal control of the crossing. There is nothing that a button could request. 

It is the case that some of the crossings only cross a single lane approaching from one direction so there are times when that is held at red. But this still does not constitute a signal controlled crossing. At a signal controlled crossing when the pedestrian signal turns red then the carriageway signal must remain on red long enough for pedestrians to cross - and on puffin crossings this is detected. At these crossings  the traffic may be stopped, but could start at any instant.
wardmuylaert (2024-11-06 21:10:45+00:00): Hello Kocher, welcome to Openstreetmap. You seem to have tagged Devon Drive as having 35 mph speed limit, this seems to be incorrect across its entire stretch. What did you base this on? It also does not have two lanes everywhere.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-10-26 22:11:03+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy.

"Osiedle Przyjazne":
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4341498106
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/9964676855
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12290820286

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2024-10-28 19:59:34+00:00): HI! Please do not add cycling path as separated ways when there is no physical barriers or curb between road and the cycling path. A flex post bollard is not considered a barrier so should be mapped on the road itself. See the cycleway tags on the road way. I will remove the separated way and try to add the info related to the cycling path on the road itself. Thanks!
Azure_Maple21 (2024-10-29 03:32:46+00:00): I appreciate you picking up on my mistakes! Thanks for the tip.
rab (2024-10-27 10:27:34+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367080392

This way is not a farmyard.
Please fix it!
rhhs (2025-09-07 15:03:01+00:00): Hier is inderdaad een school in aanbouw, maar het is niet Stela Nova maar het nieuwe gezamenlijke gebouw van OBS de Regenboog en CBS De Wingerd. Ik heb de tags die volgens mij niet bij dit gebouw horen weggehaald: waarschijnlijk horen ze bij een andere school in aanbouw in een andere wijk. Ook heb ik de geschatte vorm van het gebouw in aanbouw toegevoegd, en het voetbalveld ten noorden van De Regenboog weggehaald (ligt nu een meter of 3 zand op). Hoe de paden nu lopen heb ik niet kunnen verkennen, maar dat zal zo wie zo tijdelijk zijn.
tastrax (2024-10-27 10:43:10+00:00): Hi Bob - whats with the housenumber for Glencoe Station - doesnt look right? https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?way=223387374#map=21/-29.9262608/151.7241219
bob3bob3 (2024-10-27 15:43:20+00:00): Yeah woke me up too. It's one of those blue/white actual property/address signs https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1605837640341331  and https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2310169352671621 I am guessing the Red Lion pub is at the original railway station address. sixmaps/DCSBase has the same lot/parcel number on it just west of the train line. Similar looking sign at the cemetery a bit further north. Bugger though I got the number wrong so just fixed that
tastrax (2024-10-27 22:42:28+00:00): Interesting - I wasnt aware that lot/parcel numbers were actually used as 'addresses'. I thought rural addressing (distance along a road etc) was now the norm. Thanks for the update.
NorthCrab_upload (2024-10-26 23:00:56+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1328467910
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1328467913

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
gurglypipe (2024-10-27 09:10:38+00:00): As I have said previously, the wiki documents bicycle=dismount as meaning that no cycling is allowed, but you are allowed to push your bike. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount

So bicycle=dismount is legally correct here, and more appropriate than bicycle=no because of the “cyclists dismount“ signs. IMO these are an acknowledgement from the council that cycling is not legal for a short stretch here, but that people will want to do it because there are cycle paths at both ends of the dismount stretch.
Pete Owens (2024-10-28 01:41:36+00:00): Cycling on pavements is illegal unless signed otherwise - so it is the absence of any signs allowing cycling that is the key. 

So the point at which the pavement heading out from Lascaster ceases to be shared use is actually at the junction before the dismount sign. You can see shared use signs and give way markings on the pavement heading west, but not east. And you can see cycleway markings in each direction at all the junctions it crosses till it reaches the other end at Lansil Way.

I guess the Dismount Sign in this case is just a reminder to those who inadvertently continue to ride illegally on the pavement. It has no legal meaning and are used (some would say abused) for a wide range of different purposes.
Metzor (2024-10-28 06:58:34+00:00): Hallo Enzyklopädix,

Schöne Änderungskommentare! Danke!
Aufgrund desselben nehme ich an, dass es ein Versehen war, dass die Router einen nun nicht mehr links abbiegen lassen?

https://brouter.de/brouter-web/#map=19/49.00443/8.36622/standard&lonlats=8.365952,49.004144;8.366188,49.004701&profile=car-eco
Westlich von Kriegstraße Richtung Norden auf die Südtangente...

Das hier ist nun oneway:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1328469906/history

Passt auch nicht so recht zur Notiz.

Für diese zwei Stücke gilt das gleiche:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97194767/history

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/221092727/history

Nimmst du das oneway wieder raus? Oder zeichnet du zwei separate Fahrspuren? 

Und wenn du das mit den Abbiegebeschränkungen mit iD sauber hinkriegst... Respekt! Ich habe es dort nicht geblickt :D

Schöne Grüße
Metzor
Enzyklopädix (2024-10-29 23:03:30+00:00): Uff. Du hast schon wieder recht. Allerdings bekomme ich es tatsächlich nicht hin. Habe mehreres ausprobiert. Der Brouter zeigt es noch nicht an. Aktualisiert der die Relationen live oder hat er Nachlauf? Die Linien der Route erscheinen mir noch den alten Wegen zu folgen. Sonst muss ich tatsächlich passen, vielleicht kannst du noch mal schauen… 😳😇
Enzyklopädix (2024-10-29 23:05:08+00:00): Wenn ID da zu kompliziert ist, was verwendest du? (Habe einen MAC)
Metzor (2024-10-30 07:00:22+00:00): Hallo Enzyklopädix,

Nicht ich, broutersuspects [1] hat recht ;-) 
BRouter aktualisiert immer über Nacht die Daten. Und du hast es erfolgreich repariert! Bei mir gehen nun alle Abbiegerichtungen. Danke fürs Reparieren :-)

Auf dem MAC müsste JOSM auch laufen, das basiert auf JAVA. Ich nutze überwiegend Vespucci. Das läuft auf Android.

Happy mapping
Metzor

[1] https://brouter.de/brouter/suspects/daily/Germany/BadenWrttemberg/new
literan (2024-11-03 09:40:46+00:00): не надо так делать. Это противоречит соглашениям

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F#%D0%98%D0%BC%D1%8F_%E2%80%93_%D1%8D%D1%82%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B8_%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE
rhtb0 (2024-10-27 17:06:54+00:00): 공원은 영역이 작지 아파트 대부분을 가리는 공원은 없습니다.
danderson42 (2024-10-26 23:48:17+00:00): Oops, I failed to note the source: aerial imagery for alignment, but also local knowledge from walking down that pier regularly.
aharvey (2025-07-18 03:36:35+00:00): hi apologies and thanks for contributing but I've deleted https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1328475718 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1328475717.

These had been mapped many years ago in https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32173325/history and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/457637430/history however unfortuantly another mapped decided to delete these in Jan 2024, so when you added yours you didn't see these pre-existing ones, however to retain the original history we've restored the original ways.
Metzor (2024-10-27 08:20:37+00:00): Dankeschön, Enzyklopädix :-)
rskedgell (2024-10-27 07:29:41+00:00): Please don't change crossing=traffic_signals to crossing=marked (yes, I know RapiD suggests it, it's wrong). Removing this information is very unhelpful for pedestrian navigation.
isamah (2024-10-28 03:05:42+00:00): understood, i can try my best to go back and add the traffic_signals where appropriate.
rskedgell (2024-10-29 09:18:06+00:00): Thank you!

I think the problem may be the way in which RapiD is trying to synchronise the tagging of crossing nodes and ways. Unfortunately, it seems to be giving precedence to the tagging on the way over tagging on the node. I'll take a proper look later on and raise an issue on the RapiD project on Github if that's the case.
rskedgell (2024-10-31 12:01:01+00:00): I've reset the tagging on crossings in Greater London where this seems to have happened, so there shouldn't be anything further for you to do.
rab (2024-10-27 09:58:26+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1328483265

not a building
not  layer=-1
Fizzie-DWG (2025-04-18 04:51:06+00:00): DWG revert – undiscussed Organised import from unknown source

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165095601
MxxCon (2024-10-30 23:03:55+00:00): Hello.
Rather than using address ranges of "2-26", it's better to explicitly list them. In NYC there are neighborhoods where actual house numbers are formatted as "2-26".
Also I'm not sure that addr:interpolation= tag is valid on a building if it as a proper addr:housenumber tag too.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158397579
DawsZed (2024-11-01 01:18:34+00:00): Hey thank you for checking, yeah just realizing those interpolation tags are meant for address ways. I'll remove those and also tag the addr:housenumber here more explicitly.
i2004 (2024-10-28 00:32:18+00:00): te hice cambios en el 60 bajo si despues porfa me podes corregir los errores
hoserab (2024-10-27 04:05:06+00:00): Also added detail to the parking lot/alley in behind the old library & Police Admin buildings.
mueschel (2024-10-27 10:05:56+00:00): Hi,
you added many "id_point" tags which looks like a mistake. Could you check that?
TDPA (2024-10-28 06:48:51+00:00): Bonjour,
se n'est pas une erreur, la commune viens de certifier l'adressage de sa commune et je met le plan à jour. c'est le reflet de la BAN. Cordialement.
mueschel (2024-10-28 09:21:25+00:00): Hi,
thanks for the explanation!
Maybe it's better to change to a common tag, "ref", possibly with an extension like "ref:BAN".

Tags like "id*" are not common and also not documented in the Wiki.
CurlingMan13 (2024-10-27 07:14:54+00:00): Pretty close.  I went ahead and tweaked it a bit.  Feel free to check it out to see what was done.

Also, welcome to OSM!
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/158399547
Vonter (2024-10-28 03:49:43+00:00): Hello! Thank you for the contribution!
Do you happen to have a source which mentions about an operational Inter-Corridor Line for which new relations were created in this changeset? I don't seem to be able to find a mention of it on the Wikipedia page.
JediPro (2024-10-28 06:02:26+00:00): Hi, thanks for your message. Below is the source - https://chennaimetrorail.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/chennai-metro-timetable.pdf
The timetable here is from the official Chennai Metro website and mentions the Inter-Corridor operation. Also, I have personally travelled on the system and am aware of such an operation
Vonter (2024-10-29 02:26:13+00:00): Cool. Thanks for the link!
rhhs (2024-10-27 08:10:05+00:00): Hi, are you sure these streets have the legal status of "living street"? See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=living_street If they have, the change must have been very recently. The only street in Sofia that I know with that status is Цар Иван Шишман in the centre (see the sign on the right https://maps.app.goo.gl/nZakpEs8qooY3LtLA )
Dimitar155 (2024-10-27 13:28:29+00:00): Промяната е върната.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158413156
waldyrious (2024-12-30 15:43:01+00:00): Hey Manuel, can you explain why you removed lane-related tags in this edit? For example way 20460864 lost a bunch of tags that described the lane-related information in detail.
manuel-128 (2024-12-30 17:39:33+00:00): Bonsoir Waldyrious.

Sur la voie 20460864, j’ai supprimé « lanes=3 », « lanes:backward=1 » et « lanes:forward=2 » car c’est une route avec 2 voies et non 3. Je n’ai pas ajouté « lanes=2 » car lorsque la voie n’est pas à sens unique, c’est qu’il y a par défaut au moins 1 voie dans chaque sens.

J’ai supprimé « turn:lanes:backward=through » car au bout de la voie dans le sens « backward » c'est une simple intersection qui permet d'aller tout droit ou de quitter la voie pour entrer dans le parking. Je ne vois pas l’utilité d’indiquer cet attribut.

J’ai également supprimé « turn:lanes:forward=none|through » car il y a 1 seul voie et non 2 puis au bout de la voie dans le sens « forward » c’est une simple intersection qui donne la possibilité d’aller tout droit ou de tourner à droite dans la résidence. Je ne vois pas l’utilité d’indiquer cet attribut.

Merci de me signaler si je suis dans l’erreur.

Manuel.
waldyrious (2024-12-30 18:44:58+00:00): Thanks for the quick response and the detailed explanation! I'm not an expert on lane mapping but your explanation sounds reasonable based on the little that I know. I was just concerned because from the changeset itself it merely looked like the tags were removed indiscriminately. Maybe if next time you could add a bit more detail in the changeset comment it would make it more evident that the changes were intentional and considered :)

Btw, would you prefer to communicate in Portuguese? I don't know French well enough so I defaulted to English, but I've noticed that you edit frequently in Portugal, and in Braga in particular.
manuel-128 (2024-12-31 08:45:49+00:00): Bom dia.
Só falo francês. Utilizo um tradutor para todas as línguas que me são estrangeira.
Não faço necessariamente cartografia do sítio para onde vou. Na maior parte das vezes, tento resolver notas deixadas por contribuidor no openstreetmap. Neste momento, estou a tentar resolver as notas em Portugal e, de um momento para o outro, tentarei noutra parte do mundo.

Manuel.
ilias_ (2024-10-27 12:26:38+00:00): Hi! Thank you for mapping Casablanca.
You drew a single line going around the intersection and marked it as a marked crossing. Please try to separate marked crossings and the sidewalk. Marked crossings are found only on the road. You can check the edits I just made. Thank you!
Aya Samir (2024-10-28 10:57:17+00:00): Hello "ilias_";
Thank you for the notes and edits.
Regards,
Aya Samir
NorthCrab_upload (2024-10-27 08:01:02+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8633545905
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1328516794

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
TrickyFoxy (2024-10-27 12:57:39+00:00): не стоит в name добавлять описание объекта. Для этого есть description
olecky (2024-10-31 09:51:08+00:00): I don't think cycleway:lane:*=x is understood, it's very rare. I replaced it with cycleway:both:*
Fraxi (2024-10-27 08:25:27+00:00): Е, извинявай, но "Боянски възход" не е жилищна зона... Моля, обърни внимание и на коментара на rhhs в https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158400569
NorthCrab_upload (2024-10-27 08:21:03+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/12291442982

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
G_P_J (2024-10-28 08:38:25+00:00): Poprawione.
AndersAndersson (2024-11-02 23:05:39+00:00): Maybe someone from the local community would like to review and possibly revert this.
This user has done a lot of large scale edits in Europe without any local knowledge and discussions with the local community.
balint36 (2025-10-22 08:32:43+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/194332520#map=19/48.165303/19.520060
Ezt most miért volt jó elbontottként megjelölni?
icestormy (2024-11-11 15:29:28+00:00): Selbst der Betreiber der Strecke (ÖBB Infra) bezeichnet diesen Abschnitt als Traisentalbahn. Ich kann nur Zustimmen, dass es in OMS um Infrastrukturabbildung geht, aber wenn selbst ÖBB Infra diesen Abschnitt als Traisentalbahn bezeichnet, warum löschen wir das aus OSM?

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/umbenennung-bahnstrecke-st-polten-hainfeld/117242/15
eggie (2024-10-27 10:55:05+00:00): Hoi,

Dat stuk van af de T-kruising  splitsen (Toets P) en dan onder de aansluiting voet/fietspad ook voorzien van de use_sidepath accesstags .
En de highway=crossing tags van de node halen. Dan lijkt het me verder oke. 
Groet,
eggie
OvdLeur (2024-10-27 12:32:22+00:00): Aangepast, dank voor de feedback!
eggie (2024-10-27 12:43:27+00:00): Ik heb alleen bicycle=use_sidepath toegevoegd aan het zuidelijke stukje na de splits.
Famlam (2024-10-27 10:37:18+00:00): Hi, ik heb even gereageerd op de vorige wijzigingenset om alles bijeen te houden: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158369013
mueschel (2024-11-02 16:58:24+00:00): Hi,
you add a "name:ck" Tag,  but 'ck' is not a valid language code. Which language is it?
JanerNaKole (2024-10-27 16:39:25+00:00): To przejście dla pieszych ma wysepkę, na ziemi jest namalowana zebra i nie ma świateł które kontrolują przejście.
gscscnd (2024-10-27 18:20:21+00:00): Wizualizacja: https://osmlab.github.io/changeset-map/#158403182

crossing:island=yes miałoby zastosowanie gdyby Centralna była narysowana jako jedna dwukierunkowa nitka i mielibyśmy jeden węzeł przejścia dla pieszych. Mamy dwa osobne węzły, żaden z nich już nie jest przejściem z wysepką, można by było rozdzielić drogę dla pieszych i oznaczyć odpowiedni kawałek footway=traffic_island.

Zebra jest, więc crossing:markings=zebra, tego nie zmieniałem.

Świateł nie ma, więc crossing=uncontrolled, to jest jednoznaczne w przeciwieństwie do crossing=marked.
JanerNaKole (2024-10-27 19:44:29+00:00): W tym momencie, ścieżka ma rożne tagi od punktów. W rapid pokazuje to jako błąd. Ścieżka nie ma oznaczeń jakie to jest przejście.

Z tą wysepką rozumiem, że węzły powinny być bez wysepki, ale linia już powinna mieć taki tag?
gscscnd (2024-10-27 20:19:07+00:00): Ech, iD (czy tam rapid) ma swoje podejście do tematu. Tradycyjnie przejście oznaczało się albo na ścieżce (rzadko), albo na punktach (zdecydowanie preferowane), bez duplikacji. Była dawno temu dyskusja na tagging; na wiki też nie widzę poparcia dla duplikacji, co jakiś czas zaglądam, bo temat niestety żyje.

iD sporo czasu zmarnował nowicjuszom na zbędne lub nieprawidłowe edycje, które często po prostu psuły dane (i jeszcze ich za to nagradzał). Optymistycznie zmarnował też czas tym, którzy to znajdywali i naprawiali — pesymistycznie w bazie zostały śmieci. Wszystkiego się odechciewa.

Linię zasadniczo należałoby podzielić na przynajmniej trzy części: footway=crossing, footway=traffic_island i footway_crossing. Jeżeli chciałbyś duplikować tagi z przejść, to IMHO na pierwszej i trzeciej, ale i tak na obu byłoby crossing:island=no, bo obie części przejścia są na osobnych nitkach głównej drogi.
dgitto (2024-10-27 10:45:40+00:00): benvenuto in OSM.
il tag tourism=attraction andrebbe in effetti utilizzato in associazione ad un tag che indichi di che oggetto si tratti.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism=attraction?uselang=it
dgitto (2024-10-27 10:47:44+00:00): presumo si tratti di qualche elemento speleologico e simili. Puoi controllare il wiki per trovare 
 quello più adatto.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave
jcr83 (2024-10-28 17:40:52+00:00): Bonjour,
Il y a un petit problème avec cette modification et la précédente sur ce même chemin, au sujet des surfaces. Apparemment, le chemin est séparé en deux : une piste cyclable en béton et un chemin piéton en asphalte.  Il y avait cycleway:surface = concrete et footway:surface = asphalt. Vous avez supprimé cette dernière information pour la remplacer par surface = paved. C'est moins précis que "asphalte". Je pense que vous n'auriez pas dû effectuer ce changement.
balint36 (2024-11-16 22:27:42+00:00): Szia!
A vasúvonal eddig is pontos volt, nem látom, hogy ez miben nyilvánul meg, hogy pontosítva lett, mert a 82-est helytelen módon kötötted vissza a 120a-ba.
birdlawyer (2024-10-30 19:46:26+00:00): Hello, and thanks for your interest in OSM. It appears that the features you're mapping do not exist in reality and so I've reverted this changeset in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/158556171. Please refrain from mapping features that do not exist on the ground. You can learn more about making accurate and appropriate contributions to OpenStreetMap at https://learnosm.org/. However, if you're more interested in creative mapping, I'd recommend checking out https://www.opengeofiction.net. Happy mapping!
joel56dt (2024-10-27 21:42:38+00:00): Thank you for fixing this
osmviborg (2024-10-27 10:23:24+00:00): Hvis du havde brugt 2024 ortofoto ville dit rettesæt havde set noget anderledes ud. Alling Å er i store træk allerede lagt over på øst siden af Gammel Århusvej.
osmviborg (2024-10-27 10:26:42+00:00): Masser af info på denne side: https://www.randers.dk/erhverv/miljoe/situationen-ved-nordic-waste/
funkyboris (2024-10-27 11:08:36+00:00): @osmviborg: Du er (som altid) velkommen til at rette, hvis du kan se åens forløb ud fra de billeder. Hvis det er de samme vi kigger på, kan jeg ikke se forløbet.
osmviborg (2024-10-28 14:34:59+00:00): Har du lyst, eller skal jeg? https://www.randers.dk/nyheder/nu-flyder-alling-a-frit/
Filip009 (2024-10-29 20:06:39+00:00): Zdravím, prečo ste z lesnej cesty spravil cestu bez určenia? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/277056939/history
Filip009 (2024-11-15 10:26:32+00:00): Zdravím, tam v strede lesa vybudovali cyklochodník?
eggie (2024-10-27 19:46:26+00:00): Dag Coen DJ  Je vraagt feedback.. Je voetpad geeft inderdaad een verbinding , maar stopt op een vlak en dat zal niet verder routeren. 
MVG
eggie
user_12500175 (2024-10-29 15:12:57+00:00): Hallo,
danke fürs eintragen.
Allerding bei geschlossenen Geschäften den Tags ein "disused" voranstellen. Der Name bleibt dem "Geschäftsnamen" vorbehalten