piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-04 07:00:17+00:00): Removed SEO spam description=*, split location out of name=*, fixed invalid addr:street=* and added missing contact:*=* to social media tags for POI French Florist - Orange in changeset 183627732

https://osm.org/changeset/183627732
cyclist789 (2025-02-21 11:44:01+00:00): You know, you could always *tell me* when you revert my changes, so I learn what I did wrong, and so I don't just repeat it.
Vladislav Konoplev (2025-03-21 14:55:04+00:00): Hi! Thank you for bringing this up.

I apologize for not communicating the revert of your changes earlier. The reason for reverting was that the geoglyphs you added do not appear to exist according to any satellite imagery sources. It's important to ensure that all features added to the map are verifiable and based on reliable data.

I truly appreciate your understanding, and I hope this helps clarify the situation regarding the changes. If you have any further questions or would like to discuss this more, please feel free to reach out.
cyclist789 (2025-03-22 16:48:42+00:00): I don't believe I added any glyph, I think I just consolidated the glyphs already there into a smaller number of relations, but I'll take your word for it.

I find it messy to have every single line count as its own geoglyph. Just look at this glyph:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18699860
It used to be counted as 96 geoglyphs, one for each of its lines.
cyclist789 (2025-03-28 17:03:01+00:00): Oh, by the way, what do you think about the actual Nazca *lines* being labelled as "geoglyphs" despite each just being a straight line? I find it annoying, but I sure don't know how they *should* be tagged, as they're more or less just ridges dug in sand.
ZhannaB (2025-04-01 08:27:59+00:00): Dear cyclist789,
I hope you're doing well. My name is Zhanna, and I work with Vladislav Konoplev. I’d like to clarify any misunderstandings you may have had with him and sincerely apologize for any confusion this might have caused.
You're absolutely right that mapping geoglyphs as relations is a more effective approach, and I appreciate your insight. Regarding the features in the changeset, I agree that merging ways into relations makes sense; however, it seems the original ways may not be accurate. Given that they don’t appear in any satellite imagery sources, I believe the best course of action would be to delete them entirely.
Thank you for your understanding—I look forward to resolving this together.
Best regards, Zhanna
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162654121
cyclist789 (2025-04-02 05:25:25+00:00): No problem at all.
ZhannaB (2025-04-04 15:26:24+00:00): Once again, thanks for understanding.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162654121
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-03-23 10:15:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163979213 where the changeset comment is: Following on from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163963906 , and see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/about-mapping-features-with-computer-vision/127790 - reverting some 'AI detected swimming pools', some of dubious quality.
FroschForscher (2025-02-18 11:03:54+00:00): Hallo ding_lk,
du hattest hier die aus der Ortstraße Fackelbergstraße auf gesamter Länge einen  Wartereich gemacht. Das habe ich rückgängig gemacht, vgl. https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/way/158530216 .

FroschForscher
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162654629
ding_lk (2025-02-18 11:12:43+00:00): Hallo FroschForscher, das tut mir leid, danke fürs Korrigieren
Taya_S (2025-02-18 10:39:38+00:00): Reverted SEO vandalism

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162654811
eggie (2025-02-18 10:43:00+00:00): Wanneeer die naam ook nog in gebruik is dan is alt_name oke.

MVG
eggie
SomeoneElse_Revert (2025-03-23 10:16:02+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 163979213 where the changeset comment is: Following on from https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163963906 , and see https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/about-mapping-features-with-computer-vision/127790 - reverting some 'AI detected swimming pools', some of dubious quality.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-02-18 10:50:56+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Duplikat adresu w okolicy. Adres można oznaczyć na dwa sposoby: na obszarze (dokładniejsze) albo na punkcie. Aktualizując adres, należy się upewnić, czy w okolicy nie pozostały żadne duplikaty.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11092271457
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1195094711

Dokumentacja adresów (po polsku):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Key:addr:*

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-18 18:12:28+00:00): Hi wewime, welcome to OSM!

I noticed that the changeset you created includes ways with name tags that contain house numbers. Could there have been an issue during the mapping process?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you!
wewime (2025-02-18 21:11:23+00:00): it seems to be correct
b-jazz (2025-02-24 01:07:22+00:00): Hi Yuliya,

Why remove the service=parking_aisle tag on what is clearly a route through rows of parking spots?
YuliyaSurta (2025-02-25 05:34:37+00:00): Hello b-jazz! Thanks for your feedback! I agree 
with you in this case. I will make corrections according to 
your comment. Best regards, Yuliya.
Jakka (2025-02-18 15:51:52+00:00): Deze toevoeging is op de verkeerde locatie. Een shop zit in een gebouw en niet op een highway.
Blijkt dat de onwheels app niet accuraat locatie weergeeft ?
Graag een verbetering.
NorthCrab_upload (2025-02-18 11:30:53+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/1360878689

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Jakka (2025-02-18 15:54:53+00:00): waarde hebben nooit hoofdletters tenzij eerste letter van eigenamen.
toilets:wheelchair:accessible_via GROUND_FLOOR
onxheels app gaat in de fout
sykul (2025-02-18 13:20:33+00:00): Merci beaucoup. J'avais moi-même tenté de le faire, mais je n'avais pas réussi à comprendre les relations de routes.
mavl (2025-05-13 15:09:09+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
MicDK (2025-02-19 18:24:04+00:00): Hello,

I always micromaps steps connected and leading to the entrance of a house as part of a whole building. Others does the same. This is in order to create a realistic 3D image of a complete building.

I made a small research related to the difference between stairs and steps. I'm okay with using steps when we are outside and stairs when we are inside. Thanks for pointing this out.

Our changeset has distorted my earlier 3D mapping because the single steps has disappeared. Please look here:
https://demo.f4map.com/#lat=55.0379453&lon=10.6041718&zoom=21&camera.theta=66.142&camera.phi=-136.479

That's why I intent to redraw the steps as part of the complete building. Building->Steps is present in taginfo for building

I ask for your kind understanding.

Best regards
MicDK
keepright! ler (2025-02-20 17:40:47+00:00): I respect your intentions to create a 3D representation of this private property (probably your home), however, your usage of OSM tags partially counts as tagging for a specific renderer, F4map in your case. Consider: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Also look at my changeset just before this one for better context: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162656640

I commend the geometric level of detail, but I want to express my opinion (which might be flawed) about some tags:
1. Instead of landuse=driveway, better use area:highway=service and something like area:service=driveway to draw the area of an access road. Plus, you should also draw the center line, in this case highway=service with service=driveway.
2. The key height=* should not be used for the elevation of the steps relative to “the normal ground” – or maybe it should be? Not very sure about this anymore; I did change height=* to ele:relative=* in my first changeset, though.
3. Regarding the structures in the garden, which you mapped as building=portal with 3D building tags. I didn’t touch these, since I realized a conflict of interest: building=* is not fitting for such a structure (something like man_made=portal fits better), but only building=* has such an elaborate 3D mapping
4. The main topic of discussion: the staircase. It’s really diligent of you to map every single step as a rectangle, but building and building:part are really not the right tag keys for this since staircases are not buildings by themselves – they’re highways. For that reason, I changed each of the steps to area:highway=steps and the level parts of the staircase to area:highway=footway. After doing that and adding highway centerlines, I didn’t see any purpose in the enclosing building=stair polygon and deleted it.

Tagging in OpenStreetMap can sometimes be complicated and both of us having differing opinions is perfectly normal.

Have a nice day!
— keepright! ler
keepright! ler (2025-02-20 17:44:30+00:00): P.S.: In 3. where I wrote “elaborate 3D mapping”, I meant:
“but only building=* has such an elaborate 3D mapping and tagging scheme”, referring to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM-4D/3D_building
MicDK (2025-03-07 11:23:52+00:00): Hello keepright!

Thanks for your kind answer to which have a few comments.

1) I agree with you that driveway should not be used in this way. I have had this discussion with others, and we agreed on using landuse=garage or garages for areas in front of a garage or garages.

Regarding driveways to single houses, they are very rarely mapped in Denmark. Driveways like these are self evident when they are directly placed next to a road with common access.  

2) Yes, F4 Demo doesn´t render the height of steps, so it will be best to use height as relative to normal ground (0 meters).

I agree with you, that stairs shall be used only indoors, and steps shall be only br used outdoors. I haven't been consistent but I will take notice and attempt to correct this from now on.

3) Yes, you're right. Building=portal is used by me to obtain proper rendering in 3D. 

The OpenStreetMap definition of buiding is quite wide, but a portal still is a fixed man made construction. For that reason I consider the use of building=portal for acceptable.

4) The same goes for building=steps. They are fixed man made constructions, and there are examples of how steps are rendered in the same manner as I do.  

Please check out this link:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/43.8382446/4.3562270

For that reason I consider the micromapping of building/building_part=steps for acceptable. Not that everyone absolutely should map steps like me. Only in order to make steps rendered in the best possible way in 3D.

My best regards
Michael alias MicDK
keepright! ler (2025-03-07 18:46:18+00:00): Since this is a complex topic, I have decided to start a discussion on the Community Forum:
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/a-danish-mapper-with-a-unique-view-on-3d-tagging/127022

You’re welcome to join the discussion!
archie (2025-02-18 11:39:09+00:00): Perfekt läge!
felipeeugenio (2025-02-18 11:44:09+00:00): Hola Mario.
Bienvenido a la cominidad OSM Chile.
Veo que varias de tus ediciones, espaciadas por varios años, son para ajustar la municipalidad y la comisaría a las imágenes satelitales.
Te cuento que estás usando imágenes Bing para hacer las ediciones. Pero hay otros proveedores; Todos tienen diferencias entre si. Incluso las imágenes de un mismo proveedor tienen diferencias entre si cuando las renuevan. Incluso a veces tienen diferencias cuando se traslapan e incluso a veces cuando haces zoom.

Cuento corto: no vale mucho la pena cambiar las cosas por unos metros. No estás seguro si acaso lo estás mejorando o no, y otro mapero puede desplazar todo para el otro lado y ninguno va a tener muy buenos argumentos para discutir.
Gracias en todo caso por las ediciones. Ojalá puedas seguir aportando con tu conocimiento de la zona con puntos de interés y otras cosas que sean de tu interés.


saludos
Fizzie-DWG (2025-03-13 06:46:59+00:00): Reverted by DWG - poor quality & lack of HOT response

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/163556765
mavl (2025-05-13 15:03:54+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changesets 166207855, 166207980, 166207904, 166207831 where the changeset comment is: The changesets are reverted [DWG has the request to revert the changesets. Reason: poor mapping, road removal - https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/17614].
JakubS (2025-02-18 13:22:06+00:00): Zauważyłem, że twoja edycja zawiera obszary landuse przyklejone do dróg. Nie jest to zalecany sposób rysowania obszarów zagospodarowania terenu ze względu duże komplikacje przy późniejszej edycji. Granicę obszaru landuse=residential od strony drogi powinno się rysować wzdłuż ogrodzenia, w ten sposób uzyskamy nie tylko lepszą topologię danych, ale też odwzorowanie rzeczywistości wyraźnie oddzielające obszar zabudowy mieszkalnej od pasa drogowego.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:U%C5%BCytkowanie_ziemi#1._Odwzorowanie_rzeczywisto%C5%9Bci_w_terenie
user_22533075 (2025-02-18 17:35:34+00:00): Such Dir ein Hobby!
olo81 (2025-08-09 19:58:30+00:00): Nazwa jest tylko nazwą, nie dodajemy w nazwie opisu miejsca. Jeśli nie jest to już boisko, nie dodajemy go. OSM nie jest mapą historyczną. Dostęp to nie to samo co własność. Jeśli nie ma ogrodzenia i swobodnie możemy tam wjechać, to nic nie stoi na przeszkodzie dodać takie drogi.  Jeśli są jakieś przeszkody fizyczne, dodajemy takie, bramy, szlabany.  I tu znowu odpowiednie tagi jeśli np. można ominąć szlaban rowerem czy pieszo.
ceirios (2025-06-23 20:18:09+00:00): Helo Storgar,

Features should not be given descriptive names like "Fish and Chips" or just "Shop". Instead, you should search for tag presets shown on the sidebar when you're editing, and fill in the "name" fields in with the name of the business. For example, you can search for "fish and chips" in there, and a preset should come up.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1360612657
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1360885841

Diolch,
Ceirios
Storgar (2025-06-24 02:32:09+00:00): Thank you, will remember that for the future 😊
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-02-18 11:56:03+00:00): 162655103, 162655084, 162654349, 162653454, 162653307, 162652773, 162651772, 162651559, 162651108, 162650072, 162649281, 162649215, 162648279, 162647905, 162647472, 162647250, 162644657, 162644580, 162633590, 162633486, 162633012, 162632936, 162631957, 162631237, 162630652, 162630139, 162629958, 162607914, 162607728, 162607291, 162606124, 162606079, 162605686, 162605436, 162603595, 162603557, 162603488, 162603476, 162602782, 162602602, 162601925, 162601811, 162601695, 162601190, 162600436, 162598931, 162598629, 162598506, 162594942, 162594906, 162594527, 162593696, 162593642, 162593581, 162593463, 162593370, 162593264, 162592917, 162592880, 162592660, 162592629, 162592505, 162591833, 162584170, 162583858, 162564770, 162564666, 162564455, 162564274, 162564258
Mannivu (2025-02-18 16:10:28+00:00): Ciao, grazie dell'aggiunta. Dalle immagini satellitari, però, sembra che l'edificio abbia una forma un po' diversa da quella che hai disegnato tu, quindi l'ho sistemato un po' https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162667214
EneaSuper (2025-02-18 12:26:48+00:00): Ciao, non conosco esattamente l'architettura e la planimetria dell'ospedale naturalmente, ma penso che sia tutto corretto ed eventualmente migliorabile.

Grazie per starmi aiutando in questa faccenda ❤️
Niels Elgaard Larsen (2025-09-29 01:34:38+00:00): Aire de grand passage is not a tourist=caravan_site.

It is a residential=halting_site.

I have changed it
george1201 (2025-02-18 19:31:16+00:00): Ist das tatsächlich ein einziger riesiger Behindertenparkplatz? Was soll aber capacity=0 bedeuten? Passt also doch kein Auto drauf?
C_1965 (2025-02-20 21:46:00+00:00): Vor Ort angesehen und auf capacity=2 aktualisiert
george1201 (2025-02-18 19:35:08+00:00): Ist das nicht ein Paradebeispiel für parking=surface, statt parking=street_side? Immerhin sind auch die Wege auf dem P-Platz mit parking_aisle getaggt.
C_1965 (2025-02-18 22:19:09+00:00): Guter Punkt. Das habe ich auch gleich korrigiert. Danke!
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-02-20 23:10:27+00:00): This changeset removed the highway tag.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162659161
Ladhari (2025-02-21 08:26:10+00:00): Thank you for the verification , the highway tag was added again
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162659161
felipeeugenio (2025-02-18 12:31:59+00:00): Id	Contributor	Tmstmp UTC	Action	Comment
4629642	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629656	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629637	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629646	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629660	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok
4629641	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629655	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629650	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629636	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629640	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629645	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629649	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629654	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629644	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629658	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629653	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629639	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629648	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629643	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629657	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629638	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629652	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:26	closed	ok.
4629647	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:25	closed	ok.
4629661	felipeeugenio	2025-02-18 13:25	closed	ok
BCNorwich (2025-02-18 15:01:20+00:00): Hi, Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Your new area would not be verifiable as formally named name=Home Area. it could be as per the other tag a description=home Area.

Unfortunately the landuse=residential area is within an already mapped residential area (Way: 44928988) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/44928988#map=17/51.544536/-0.194139

Thus I've removed the duplicate area.

Regards Bernard.
eggie (2025-02-18 14:25:27+00:00): Dag Leo,

motor_vehicle=no  hoeft niet op een highway=construction
Het routeert niet voor regulier verkeer. 

Wel in de gaten houden als de weg weer opengaat dat deze tag er niet opblijft.
MVG
eggie
rskedgell (2025-02-18 16:43:21+00:00): (Review requested)

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thanks for updating this. For the staff car park you already have access=private, to which you could add private=employees. It might also be worth adding disabled=yes to the staff car park, otherwise data consumers may treat the disabled spaces you've added inside as private (i.e. disabled spaces for staff only).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:private
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disabled
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-18 19:36:32+00:00): #seo #spam
eggie (2025-02-18 14:20:48+00:00): Dag gekooktei

In de BAG is het geen apart pand. We importeren vanuit de BAG.
De bedrijfsinfo taggen we bij op de adresnode.
Ik heb de info nu overgezet naar de adresnode. Van het zelf ingetekende stuk een building:part=yes van gemaakt en de oude BAG vorm hersteld.
Het zal anders problemen geven bij periodieke herimport.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-02-18 14:22:44+00:00): ... Aanvulling.. Verder nooit naar de Dakranden kijken en zeker niet bij schuin genomen luchtfoto's.
Het gebouw ligt weer uitgelijnd volgens de BAG.
gekooktei (2025-02-18 19:14:26+00:00): Bedankt voor de correctie!
ilias_ (2025-02-19 10:55:26+00:00): Hi Nona Mostafa, are you sure access is not private there? I have not been there myself but it looks like a private residence.
nona mostafa (2025-02-20 13:30:24+00:00): Hi ilias_
I understand your point of view, but as of now, there is no concrete evidence that the area is private, and I removed the access and barrier tags  based on this track mapillary:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=317257240006276
Regards
nona mostafa
pitscheplatsch (2025-02-18 19:36:30+00:00): #seo #spam
rskedgell (2025-02-18 16:49:05+00:00): I'm not sure if you're already using it, but there is a map overlay available in the iD editor you're using, "OSMUK Cadastral Parcels", showing Land Registry parcels. It can sometimes be quite helpful for some land boundaries and alignment.
Filip009 (2025-02-19 11:06:12+00:00): Zdravím, aký je zdroj tejto úpravy? Podľa wikipédie, sa tu nachádza cesta I/69 https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesta_I._triedy_66_(Slovensko) https://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesta_I._triedy_69_(Slovensko)
Filip009 (2025-02-19 11:07:19+00:00): Sorry, moja chyba, nepozrel som na zdroj zmeny, v ktorom to je jasne uvedené.
aceman444 (2025-03-09 14:34:30+00:00): Hej, je to v oficialnych zmenach.
Mozno by nezaskodilo v takychto pripadoch ponechat stare cislo v znacke old_ref, ako sme urobili napr. pri cestach III.triedy.
evgenykatyshev (2025-02-19 06:57:01+00:00): Thank you for updating. I deleted the restaurant from the old location too
yelisey90 (2025-02-19 07:39:08+00:00): But the address is strange... 31 ალექსანდრე გრიბოედოვის ქუჩა is at the other end of გრიბოედოვის ქუჩა...
evgenykatyshev (2025-02-19 11:19:49+00:00): Moved it to correct location https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162696271
mga_geo (2025-02-21 08:16:17+00:00): Bonjour,
Dans les relations type=route_master il ne doit y avoir que des relations.
Pouvez-vous corriger s'il vous plait ?
Marc
user_22493933 (2025-02-21 13:03:47+00:00): Bonjour Marc,
Je suis navré, je ne comprends pas ce que vous attendez de moi. Je suis débutant en la matière et de brèves recherches n'ont pas pu éclairer ma lanterne. Pourriez-vous m'expliquer quelle est la coquille afin que je puisse ne plus la répéter ?
Bonne fin de journée et bon weekend!
mga_geo (2025-02-23 10:23:46+00:00): Bonjour,
La configuration des relations dans OSM est décrite dans le wiki et pour les relations de transport dans la page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport.
Il faut un certain temps pour digérer cette documentation.
Et après l'outil pour manipuler est JOSM.
iD n'est pas approprié pour les relations.
Je vais corriger en attendant que votre connaissance d'OSM progresse.
Bonne continuation
Marc
user_22493933 (2025-02-23 12:35:06+00:00): Bonjour,
J'ai consulté la doc et regardé les arrêts autour pour tenter de comprendre mon erreur, sans succès. Je ne sais donc toujours pas quelle correction était nécessaire.
Par ailleurs, la mention de la ligne 11 a été supprimée sur l'arrêt (était-ce cela le souci ? Certains arrêts mentionnent toujours la 112 qui n'existe plus, la 11 semble la remplacer au moins partiellement).
Merci pour votre temps et bonne continuation égalemement.
mga_geo (2025-02-23 13:26:48+00:00): La relation route_master "11" https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12305674 contenait un arrêt
cf https://osm.virtuelle-loipe.de/history/?type=relation&ref=12305674
Les arrêts doivent être dans les relations route=bus avec le parcours.

La relation Bus CTRL 112 n'est plus active disused:route=bus.
Lors de la migration de CTRL en IZILO j'ai passé en disused les relations  supprimées.
user_22493933 (2025-02-23 13:36:59+00:00): Un grand merci pour cette explication et navré pour le temps perdu !

Ne serait-il pas préférable d'ôter toutes les informations relative à la ligne 112 ?