piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
eerib (2026-05-12 21:54:29+00:00): I don't mind changing the name to some combination of the two, like:

"Spineless (DFL)"
or
"DFL (Spineless)"

But I can't find any reference to the DFL name anywhere. Are you able to point to anything that has the DFL name?

The only references I can find are for the previous name this trail had which was "Leeker".

There is a Strava segment with the name "leaker"

https://www.strava.com/segments/39742646

On Trailforks the trail is named "Leeker" but is hidden from public view.

https://www.trailforks.com/trails/leeker

On TheTrail.net it's listed as "Leeker"

https://thetrail.net/trailHTML/staticHTML/mtSeymour/leeker.html
DontMessWithTexas (2026-05-12 22:01:04+00:00): I originally named the trail Leeker but the crazy chick who renamed it to "spineless" races DH and always finishes last so it should be name "DFL".  Dead Fucking Last.
eerib (2026-05-13 16:37:22+00:00): I've changed the primary name to "Spineless (Leeker)" for now as a compromise to handle the evolving situation.

OpenStreetMap requires the name of a feature to be the most prominent sign-posted and commonly used name so if you would like to change the name to "DFL" then you would have to go change the in-person signage for the trail and get people to use that name.
empty_child (2026-05-13 06:57:17+00:00): Добрый день
Спасибо за вклад в проект. Один момент: не используйте общие описательные имена (generic names). Например, магазин с name="Магазин". Предпочтительно использовать в таких случаях просто основной тег shop=convenience. Так как вы редактируете на сайте в редакторе iD, он обычно начинает подсказывать желтой нотификацией
Andrea Musuruane (2026-05-19 13:56:52+00:00): Ciao. Questo sentiero è isolato (non è collegato al resto della rete). Inoltre, le restrizioni da impostare sono quelle legali (ovvero ci devono essere i cartelli). Ciao, Andrea
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182529777
Andrea Musuruane (2026-05-19 13:57:37+00:00): motor_vehicle=no su un highway=path è il default, e non deve essere inserito.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182529777
ceirios (2026-05-12 17:52:58+00:00): Helo,

Firstly, do you have a source for "fact that it is an SSSI does not necessarily have to be in its name"? Is this cited anywhere? There are plenty of other SSSIs around the UK that have SSSI in their name field and have not been changed. (Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13427323)

Secondly, you didn't update the name:cy field nor capitalise Elenydd in the description tag.

Cofion gorau
Ceirios
ceirios (2026-05-13 09:21:14+00:00): I reverted this changeset for the reasons I mentioned above.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182590704
conifermapper do sul (2026-05-13 14:45:31+00:00): Now that sounds a bit reactionary…Have you even considered the point im trying to make ?
ceirios (2026-05-13 19:04:35+00:00): But what point are you making? It doesn't make sense to remove SSSI from the name.

At what point would this end? If we go by your theory then we wouldn't need to have National Landscape/AONB on those boundaries too.
Norbert Wołowiec (2026-05-13 20:28:36+00:00): This is not RoadName. Parkowo is a village. You cannot use the name of the village as a street name.
schobbish (2026-05-11 22:07:09+00:00): Hi there and welcome (back) to OSM! Here we do not delete private roads that still exist. Private roads should instead be tagged with `access=private`. See wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

If this road has been demolished, let me know. Otherwise I will restore the road for you in a couple hours. Don’t worry about re-adding it yourself since restoring is a different operation which preserves the history, just please don’t continue to delete roads that still exist.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182530390
schobbish (2026-05-12 05:39:34+00:00): Done in changeset 182537733 and changeset 182538114. These restored deletions from this edit and changeset 136882904 respectively. I had a look at your other edits and I mostly agree that the roads are no longer roads at the points you cut them off. For changeset 182538114 I restored Dirt Road but made it a bit shorter.
happyrobyn (2026-05-12 16:39:44+00:00): Thank you so much!  I'm new to OSM so I'm learning!  Your guidance is very helpful.  Thank you so much!  :)
bxl-forever (2026-05-12 01:11:42+00:00): Hello,

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16738852 is a waterway relation, it should contain waterway=* linear ways with the different parts of the river.

Why did you add two sub-relations to it?  You added the two following objects to the end of this relation, despite it is not a container relation (aka. super-relation).
* Relation Ladoga-Onega waterway (11207506)
* Relation Volga-Baltic waterway: Cherpovets-Vytegra (11207505)

I am asking because I observed the same pattern on another edit on the Rhine river.  This does not seem to make sense and can potentially corrupt some third-party apps.

Thanks in advance.
TedIsAwesome (2026-05-14 17:49:32+00:00): Apologies for the mistake, have fixed accordingly. Please let me know if there are other problems. Thanks
bxl-forever (2026-05-14 19:08:45+00:00): Thanks for the correction.

I won’t comment on every mistake but you have probably noticed that on OSM the primary name of a feature is always in the local language.  You can add translations as secondary languages, but not the other way round.

Example here:

name=Ladoga-Onega waterway
name:ru=Водный путь Ладога - Онего

If this river is mostly/entirely in Russia, we should use the Russian name as "name" and the English translation as "name:en".
NorthCrab_upload (2026-05-11 22:43:36+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/way/448501739

Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Wildsharky (2026-05-13 06:48:15+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:182583836
silversurfer83 (2026-05-12 20:29:02+00:00): Hi there :)

these really do not look like they belong in name:*=* so I'd like to know why you think they do. Cheers
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182531470
silversurfer83 (2026-05-13 15:52:20+00:00): I write a DM and was assured that Ted answers all comments via DM. Since I think this is *very* unhelpful in a community project, I will post parts of our discussion here so people can follow.

I also asked them to reply here.

#########


Ted writes:
    As for the naming issue in the changeset, I named them so because the relation were originally nameless, and those were the most distinctive names I could find that would work for that pair of relations. If you have found better ones feel free to change and improve it, I just don’t want relations to be nameless if they can have a name for it. Thanks

To which I answer:
Adding a name simply for having a name still feels wrong. Part of the name=* you set looks like it should be a tag or a ref or I don’t know yet but it sure doesn’t look like a name. Until that is settled, the best I can think of is moving it to description=*

##################

Please add all comments in this public discussion.
TedIsAwesome (2026-05-14 18:01:36+00:00): Apologies for the communication confusion, I will adjust to using comments from now on.
For the river sections, I have renamed them to more appropriate names (upper and lower rhine) which should address the naming concerns. Please let me know if there are still problems regarding this. Thanks
Matmat-25 (2026-05-11 23:53:36+00:00): je dirais place dédiée à la recharge et tous les attributs de fonctionnement liée à la borne et l'opérateur
silversurfer83 (2026-05-20 19:09:03+00:00): Hi :)

die Bänke und access_points auf einen gemeinsamen node zu mappen ist in meinen Augen etwas unglücklich. Auch wenn das Schild an der Bank befestigt ist. Die Eigenschaften lassen sich halt nicht trennen. 

Grüße

silversurfer83
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182531884
sundew (2026-05-20 19:34:46+00:00): Hallo silversurfer,
ich habe das von anderen Stellen anderer Mapper so übernommen, aber habe auch kein Problem damit, das in Zukunft als separate Nodes einzutragen. Hast du schonmal recherchiert, wie das mehrheitlich sonst gemacht wird?
LG sundew
eggie (2026-05-12 07:03:56+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
Feedback  De info heb van de gebouwomtrek gehaald. Info hoort op de adresnodes.
Op nr 31 zit ook Silver Lining PMU. Op het andere gebouw bevindt zich ook nr 31 met de info voetzorg.
Klopt dit nog?

MVG,
Eggie
Namens de OSM Community
projectroutine (2026-05-12 10:37:00+00:00): Het was niet mijn bedoeling om het op het gehele gebouw te zetten, excuus daarvoor.
Een van de 2 gebouwen (rechterzijde) waar de ingang voor Perdok Dienstverlening is heeft als addressering 31-1 (The Blue Box) waarin een aantal verschillende bedrijven gevestigd zijn. Ik heb een recente foto van de ingang waar een bedrijvenlijst op staat maar weet zo niet hoe ik deze het beste kan delen mocht dit helpen.
eggie (2026-05-12 10:40:57+00:00): Hoi.. foto delen hoeft niet.
Up to you..
Paar keer ctrl f5 toetsen. Dan zie je het bedrijf wel op de kaart. Scherm verversen.
Mvg,
eggie
ajmat (2026-05-12 09:53:49+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id: 182546230
woodpeck (2026-05-12 00:03:52+00:00): Hello Duul_vc, if you delete over 100 buildings, a changeset comment of "cambios" is not good enough. Explain why the buildings were deleted (mapped incorrectly? destroyed? ...?)
Wildsharky (2026-05-12 11:29:54+00:00): Reverted in changeset id:182537440
Wildsharky (2026-05-12 11:28:19+00:00): Partially reverted in changeset id:182537108
Adikso (2026-05-12 02:40:58+00:00): Prosze uważać żeby nie usuwać nazw ulicy. Usunąłem też następujące tagi:
- taxi - to dotyczy generalnie dróg
- parking - klub nocny nie jest parkingiem
- leisure=dance - dotyczy specjalnie zaprojektowanych sal tanecznych (nie kluby, bardziej typu walc, tango etc)
- theatre:genre - dotyczy teatrów

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182535078
OlasMapy (2026-05-12 11:28:01+00:00): Bydgoszczy jak już
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-05-20 01:21:12+00:00): Reverted due to being added by a SEO spam account and apparently derived from Google Maps information, which is expressly prohibited by OSM policy

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182903747
nevw (2026-05-27 07:35:13+00:00): Hi, outer ways cannot share segments in multipolygons. This would need to be drawn as simple polygons.
https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=153.29334&lat=-27.58593&zoom=19
Baloo Uriza (2026-05-18 12:54:54+00:00): It's worth adding street names on sidewalks if you know the name, it helps with pedestrian directions.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182533255
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-12 08:01:21+00:00): Hi Embeh, welcome to OSM.

I am not sure, but should your mapped "experimental stage" be part of the OSM database?

Best regards.
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-12 08:02:53+00:00): Ok, maybe I should have checked your first changeset earlier: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182533271
bxl-forever (2026-05-12 01:02:51+00:00): Hello, and welcome to OSM.

Adding missing businesses is okay and encouraged.

However, please never add extra addresses to the map through those businesses.  I have cleaned your first two edits, which generated extra addresses to the map.  I wanted to warn you, because taking good habits from the start is always a good idea.

One more thing: mobile phone numbers are preferably mapped through "contact:mobile", whereas "contact:phone" is for land lines.

Thanks.
Glassman (2026-05-13 00:40:17+00:00): Is this a food truck? If so you should add the tag street_vender instead of amenity=restaurant. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:street_vendor%3Dyes
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182533625
Granitebrains (2026-05-13 01:26:37+00:00): Oh yes. It is a food truck - but permanently located. Thanks, lll update it.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-05-13 03:34:57+00:00): DWG revert - apparent fictitious mapping

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182580199
SomeoneElse (2026-05-14 09:51:49+00:00): Hello,
I think that this edit has broken "Jubilee_Walkway_City_Loop" (relation 12890344).  Have a look at https://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeMap?relationId=12890344 and you'll see the problem.  That had problems beforehand (it was in 3 pieces) but is now worse (it is now in 6).
Please make sure that:
a) You fix these relations where you edited them
b) After future edits, you and the rest of Uber's editors always check for relation breakage with JOSM's validator.  You can't rely on iD to tell you about relation breakage.
Best Regards,
Andy
SomeoneElse (2026-05-14 09:55:09+00:00): One other thing:
You've added a kerb node at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13819691425/history , but there was already a kerb way mapped at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/522699904/history .  It would have made sense to add the kerb node where the crossing way intersects with the kerb way, since that is where the kerb is.
Best Regards,
Andy
Vandana@28 (2026-05-15 07:52:58+00:00): Hi Andy,

Thank you for the helpful feedback and for pointing this out. You are completely right. 
We reverted the changes and we didn't get notified about relation breakage at the location in OSM ID editor.
Deleted our standalone kerb node since the existing kerb already covers this location.
Thanks for the suggestion to use JOSM editor we will look into this.
Best regards,
Vandana
SomeoneElse (2026-05-16 13:42:08+00:00): Did you actually do anything here?  I've fixed the gap and the kerb in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182743252 .
Vandana@28 (2026-05-18 04:43:19+00:00): Hello Andy,
Thank you for reaching out and for taking the time to flag this issue with the "Jubilee_Walkway_City_Loop" (relation/12890344). We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused by our edit. 
And thanks for fixing the relations from your end.
We will check on possibilities to use JOSM validator for upcoming edits on relations.
Fizzie-DWG (2026-05-13 03:34:58+00:00): DWG revert - apparent fictitious mapping

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182580199
Fizzie-DWG (2026-05-13 03:31:18+00:00): Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20274
Frans S (2026-05-28 10:14:18+00:00): Hello. Thanks for mapping 
On this task, the high-rise buildings are regulary incorrectly mapped.
You can see both one or more side walls and the roof. The Imagery is taken under a certain angle, so you can see more .
Often all visible walls and roofs are mapped as 1 building.
The correct way is to map the roofline and move the whole object on their footprint.

Check this video.
For buildings with a few floors, start watching from position 1 minute. 
https://youtu.be/Tpi-BTMVo1M
https://youtu.be/dsfUcslLtVc?si=bEHwRl1sxDI_GA0H


Best regards
bijsgohsdacu (2026-05-12 05:01:28+00:00): 何したかわかるように、チェンジセットのコメントを書いてください。
bijsgohsdacu (2026-05-12 05:15:31+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JA:%E5%A4%89%E6%9B%B4%E3%82%BB%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E3%81%AE%E8%89%AF%E3%81%84%E3%82%B3%E3%83%A1%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88
dawnstar_ (2026-05-12 02:54:44+00:00): Forgot to add sources; they are aerial, survey and street view.
b-jazz (2026-05-14 01:34:52+00:00): FYI, 

Golf course holes have a direction to them. Please make sure you start at a tee and draw the way towards the green.

Also, you might want to avoid making huge changesets that have a wide variety of edits in them.
Kovirii (2026-05-14 11:23:56+00:00): Thanks for the heads up
felipeeugenio (2026-05-12 12:32:02+00:00): Hola Rubén. 
Dos temas
1) si una calle no tiene veredas y es de una sola vía, lo más probable es que sea un living_street. por favor no cambies categorías sin preguntarnos
2) Las profesiones me da la impresión que son informativas y no forman parte del nombre. Los paréntesis definitivamente no. Tu tienes alguna idea de si la gente los usa como parte del nombre? porque suena bastante extraño y ya ha pasado en otras partes de Chile en donde se transmite información adicional en los carteles, pero no son parte del nombre.

Saludos y gracias
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/182535950
CAM-Gerlach_Repair (2026-06-15 09:50:26+00:00): Reverted adding SEO POI with blatant advertising and malformed tags, possibly sourced from Google Maps, in changeset 184128607

https://osm.org/changeset/184128607
ManuelB701 (2026-05-12 03:54:14+00:00): Was ich eigentlich meinte ist, dass ich einige Gebäudeteile wiederhergestellt habe, die unfairerweise gelöscht worden sind.
in2itivity (2026-05-23 07:11:56+00:00): Hmm, I'm a bit hesitant if this is the best way to represent the current layout at Cambie+KingEd. Because those two bike paths aren't properly connected to the road, the two cycleway links seem to suggest a somewhat unsafe movement that those bike paths are probably not built for. I'm not sure it's a good idea to map those movements until the work is done and we know for sure what the intended movements are for those.

It seems like the current use of those two bike paths is actually to act as temporary sidewalks, at least for those tiny segments right next to the corner. Because it is usually prohibited to cycle in sidewalks, I added "bicycle=no", which is a bit unorthodox for "highway=cycleway". Maybe it would be better to change those to "bicycle=dismount" instead?

I made a revision to this area in changeset/183053444; feel free to let me know your thoughts!
nyanpsyche (2026-05-23 16:42:12+00:00): Makes sense to me, thanks for the revision
nevw (2026-05-12 07:16:19+00:00): Can you elaborate on what you have mapped here.
nevw (2026-05-13 08:09:05+00:00): I reverted this unlikely viewpoint.
nevw (2026-05-12 07:30:20+00:00): This appears well displaced from where the golf range is covered mostly a wooded area. Are you able to map it more accurately?
nevw (2026-05-12 07:32:02+00:00): Cor..
This appears well displaced from where the golf range is. The area you have outlined is mostly a wooded area. Are you able to map it more accurately?
nevw (2026-05-12 07:35:50+00:00): Hi, why has the vet clinic got an Italian cuisine tag?
MaxxBeef (2026-05-12 08:02:17+00:00): Hiya, I was wondering that too but didn't know how to change it from my phone. There used to be an Italian restaurant next door though, that could be why?
nevw (2026-05-12 08:56:03+00:00): Ok, thanks. I’ll delete that tag.
keithonearth (2026-05-13 21:40:47+00:00): I was unsure about trusting the note from the other OSM editor, so I checked the addresses in person today, and they are correct.
Aurimas Fišeras (2026-05-16 06:20:38+00:00): Labas,
kuo šis žiedas yra ypatingas, kad reikalinga papildoma oneway žyma?
Tomas Straupis (2026-05-16 08:20:52+00:00): Visi keliai, kurie yra vienpusiai turi oneway žymą (tiek roundabout, tiek _link). Aš nežinau, kodėl prancūzai nusprendė, kad kai kuriais atvejais oneway _negalima_ dėti. Faktas, kad visi duomenų naudotojai naudoja oneway žymos info, bet ne visi naudoja to išskaičiavimą iš kitų žymų. Čia grynai iš praktikos (kur be oneway žymos buvo neteisingas maršrutizavimas), tiesa gal 10 metų senumo, bet nžn. ar yra poreikis daryti tikrinimą iš naujo, juk ta oneway žyma niekam netrukdo?...
Aurimas Fišeras (2026-05-16 08:50:36+00:00): „Prancūzai nusprendė“ tai dėl Osmose (https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/lt/issues/open?source=6641&item=4020&class=101) testo?

Hmm, bet pagal junction=roundabout apibrėžimą „oneway=yes is implied and redundant. “, kai _link keliai yra nebūtinai vienpusiai.

Patikrinau – Lietuvoje iš 1154 kelių su junction=roundabout žyma, oneway=yes turi tik 23.
Ir sprendžiant pagal (https://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/lt/issues/graph.png?country=lithuania&item=4020) niekada ir neturėjo?
Tomas Straupis (2026-05-16 09:00:06+00:00): Tai blogai, reiškia kažkas „patvarkė“ nepasitaręs/nepasiklausęs, kodėl ta oneway buvo uždėta :-( O tai trukdo ta oneway žyma? Kad savo laiku visi žiedai turėjo oneway garantuoju, nes kažkada, kai buvau pastebėjęs problemas su maršrutizavimu, buvau viską perėjęs ir sutvarkęs.
Aurimas Fišeras (2026-05-16 09:23:24+00:00): Man tai netrukdo, bet kadangi nėra „tvarkos“ ir daugiau žiedų šios implied žymos neturi, ją ir nuėmiau.
O pagal žiedų redagavimų istoriją panašu, kad ir JOSM kažkada siūlydavo nuimti.
Galiu visur sudėti atgal.
Tomas Straupis (2026-05-16 09:34:10+00:00): Taip, čia sena istorija su tais oneway... Net nežinau, gal dzin. Gal susitvarkė visi tie kiti galai, dėl kurių aš grąžinęs buvau oneway. Pakeisiu mūsų validatoriuose, kad nesikabinėtų, o su praktiniu naudojimu laikas parodys.
ygcgjp5 (2026-05-17 15:28:25+00:00): Gi čia sena istorija, oneway šitame žiede uždėtas ne dėl roundabout, o dėl _link... _link realiai vienintelis atvejis Lietuvoje kur žiedai turi oneway.
Tomas Straupis (2026-05-17 16:06:54+00:00): Šiaip, matyt, vėlu jau ką nors keisti, bet variantas tai negeras. Tarkim susidedi vektorinius duomenis į qgis/arcgis ir ten yra standartiniai maršrutizavimo algoritmai, kuriems nurodomas laukas, kuriame yra vienpusio eismo požymis. Dabar gausis, kad nėra VIENO lauko, kuris rodo šitą vieną svarbiausių maršrutizavimo savybių, o teks kurti dinaminius/skaičiuojamus laukus, kombinuojant kitų laukų reikšmes :-( Jau nekalbant apie painiavą, kad rinkinyje kaip ir yra oneway atributas, bet jis kažkodėl nepakankamas.
will2high (2026-05-16 14:00:19+00:00): Sollte da nicht ein tag highway:pedestrian vergeben werden.
Ist ja ein Platz allerding ist hier noch kein Weg eingezeichnet.
MagnumDaGreat (2026-05-12 21:18:02+00:00): Denne vej mellem Boulevarden og parkeringspladsen er ikke en adgangsvej men en midlertidig vej for anlægsmaskiner, imens de etablerede den store parkeringsplads, og nu så for det kommende boligbyggeri på samme område som vejen. Så jeg vil ikke mene den burde blive kortlagt, og hvis den skulle være, så ikke som adgangsvej. Der er dog planer for sammen med boligerne at etablere en sti langs åen på næsten same trace.
osmviborg (2026-05-12 21:32:39+00:00): Vejen er der, enhver der ser den kan kortlægge den. Du kan tilføje f.eks. "access=no" for at begrænse adgangen til vejen.
MagnumDaGreat (2026-05-12 21:44:49+00:00): Så gør jeg det.
JeroenHoek (2026-07-16 11:12:45+00:00): Die is helemaal niet weg. Waarom verwijderde je die?

https://viewer.satellietdataportaal.nl/@53.18592,5.766682,19/?datastrip=20260714_SVNEO-02&sensorname=SuperView-NEO
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-12 06:05:41+00:00): Hi, welcome to OSM.
are your modified names real?
KIMSEJIN0209 (2026-05-12 06:08:55+00:00): Im new to this program and I guess I made a worng modification. Should I erase all the names I made with the roads?
FajrAl (2026-05-12 07:37:34+00:00): Hi, I've reverted this in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/182541351
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-12 07:51:36+00:00): Hallo DE13845, willkommen bei OSM.

Vielen Dank für die Änderungen bzgl. der Fahrradnutzung. Sind diese auch so ausgeschildert?

Viele Grüße
DE13845 (2026-05-12 07:55:52+00:00): ja, die besagten Wege sind explizit als Reitwege gekennzeichnet (Zeichen 238). Wir haben die Mountainbiker häufig auf diese Schilder hingewiesen - aber es wurde uns entgegen gehalten, dass auf Komoot diese Wege als Fahrradwege "freigegeben" seien.
DE13845 (2026-05-12 07:56:56+00:00): wenn Fotos als Nachweis benötigt werden, kann ich diese nachreichen. Der zuständige Revierförster (Kontaktdaten habe ich) steht auch für eine Bestätigung zur Verfügung.
pitscheplatsch (2026-05-12 08:12:00+00:00): Danke für die Antwort.