piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
kesterlester (2026-03-22 19:22:06+00:00): And XXX59 is a strange sort of oil pipeline marker whose strange style was invented to make them fit in better with the countryside. Although they are actually made (I think) of white painted concrete, they are meant to look like (and they do loook like) a wooden stile (the sort you use to walk into a field that sheep are not supposed to escape from). This was to stop them, supposedly, making the countryside look industrial. In some places, though, modern farmers or land owners have had to put their own signs on them saying "THIS IS NOT A FOOTPATH" and "DO NOT ENTER" as sometimes people mistake them for real stiles.
SomeoneElse (2026-03-22 19:46:03+00:00): Thanks!
kesterlester (2026-03-22 19:48:50+00:00): PS - the XXX56 node also has a tall vertical post with a black and yellow hat on it, which makes it visiible from the air. Hence recorded as "aerial" marker.
SomeoneElse (2026-03-26 13:18:17+00:00): Someone's found a picture: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/marker-stile/142518/7 - I can see why people might get confused!
kesterlester (2026-03-26 14:39:03+00:00): Indeed. That's the sort of thing. There are loads of them, mostly for the oil network.  I have posted another comment on that discussion.
osmviborg (2025-11-29 06:43:40+00:00): Hej, du bruger for mange vej-links. Kun hvor der er fysiks adskillelse af vognbaner bruges links. Mindre helleanlæg er ikke at betragte som adskillelse. Se mere her: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Editing_Standards_and_Conventions#Divided_highways
ThomasA (2025-11-29 10:51:46+00:00): Ah, jeg kan godt se, hvad du mener. Separationen her er kun en kort "ø", og vejbanerne er ikke fysisk separeret i hele den markerede længde (i hvert fald ikke alle vejstykkerne). Det retter jeg.
ThomasA (2025-11-29 10:55:48+00:00): Jeg har ladet mig inspirere af andre store kryds som https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/57.024339/9.942230 og https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/57.037706/9.931464, hvor venstresvingsbanerne er separeret på lignende vis. Vil du mene, at de også er forkerte?
osmviborg (2025-11-29 11:17:50+00:00): Præcis. En anden bruger er godt i gang i Aarhus, med at fjerne de unødvendige links. Det kan være en udfordring hvis der f.eks. er mange busruter, relationer, på de enkelte veje.
ThomasA (2025-11-29 11:25:03+00:00): OK. Jeg tager lige et billede på stedet i eftermiddag, så vi er helt på samme side om de fysiske forhold, før jeg retter videre.
ThomasA (2025-11-29 11:26:39+00:00): Hvad med sådan noget som busvejen gennem AAU campus: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175254989#map=18/57.015117/9.978735 ?
Den er tagget som to separate kørebaner, selv om de ikke er fysisk separerede.
osmviborg (2025-11-29 11:30:46+00:00): Der er to cykelstier, busvejen er én bane.
ThomasA (2025-11-29 11:46:28+00:00): Ah, nu ser jeg, at det er fordi openstreetmap.org slet ikke renderer dem. Det virker godt nok temmelig uhensigtsmæssigt.
ThomasA (2025-11-29 12:07:40+00:00): Er der et godt sted a uploade billeder til brug for diskussion af tagging, eller skal jeg bare selv lige finde et sted at dele billeder fra?
osmviborg (2025-11-29 12:11:10+00:00): Det er ikke noget jeg bruger.
osmviborg (2025-11-29 12:48:27+00:00): Glemte en ting, links bør erstattes med turnlanes:
https://lgms.nl/p/osm/cached-wiki/?page=Key:turn
ThomasA (2025-11-29 17:35:26+00:00): OK. Det holder jeg lige in mente. De egenskaber er bare arvet fra tidligere udgave af krydset.
ThomasA (2025-11-29 17:37:24+00:00): Det er her er krydset set fra Budumvej mod syd: https://arildsen.org/s/EYrerq78QxrSFoy.
Så skal ligeud-/højresvingsbanen bare være en del af sydgående Budumvej tagged som en del af 'turn:lanes', selv om den er separeret fra venstresvingsbanerne?
ThomasA (2025-11-29 17:50:13+00:00): Her har vi krydset set mod nord fra Niels Bohrs Vej: https://arildsen.org/s/r9p8ifdo3ZW3TkR
Mener du godt nok, at venstresvingsbanen skal tagges som en del af én nordgående vej (med baner via 'turn:lanes'), selv om den er så adskilt fra de andre baner af det brede felt, som jeg gætter på bliver skraveret inden længe?
osmviborg (2025-11-29 18:11:20+00:00): Ser på det i morgen. I mellemtiden, brug dette som inspiration: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/56.182933/10.169531
ThomasA (2025-11-29 18:26:19+00:00): Ja det bliver jo godt nok meget enklere. Jeg kan egentlig godt lide ideen om attributter fremfor separate veje. Det bliver "geometrisk" enklere, men informationen er der stadig.
user_5359 (2025-11-29 08:38:34+00:00): Welcome to OSM! You forgot the Wednesday on the key opening_hours. And your website have other values!
NeisBot (2025-12-13 21:51:24+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Jewelry buyer in La Habra"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-12-13 21:57:10+00:00): ✅ Corrected by https://osm.org/changeset/175266537
osmviborg (2025-11-28 21:49:03+00:00): 'motorvej' staves med 'o' ikke 'e'
Ltrlg (2025-11-29 12:32:06+00:00): Bonjour, pourriez-vous remplir le commentaire de modification à l’avenir ? Entre autres avantages, ça rend les historique plus lisibles. [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications].

Une source serait bien aussi, je doute que le nom de cette route soit écrit en grands caractères au sol (comme le supposerait de laisser seulement le « imagery_used » renseigné).
literan (2025-11-29 10:15:13+00:00): не надо описания ставить в тег name
literan (2025-11-29 10:15:45+00:00): а, сорри, промахнулся. Вы как раз все правильно сделали (только фиксми надо убрать)
eggie (2025-11-29 07:50:34+00:00): Dag Tomas, Ik heb een clubhuistag toegevoegd aan de node. 
Je ziet anders niets.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-11-29 07:55:29+00:00): De dubbele vermelding heb ik verwijderd. De club staat nu op alleen op nr 40A.
Je had alleen de check_date verwijderd.
MVG
eggie
Tomas09 (2025-11-29 13:12:51+00:00): ah bedankt voor het fixen
eggie (2025-11-29 07:39:17+00:00): Dag Guido.. Beter geen BAG adressen veranderen en dan gaan slepen met een bedrijf dat verhuisd is.
Beter is het om de oude adresnode leeg te maken en de inhoud over te zetten op de nieuwe adresnode. Anders ontbreken straks adressen en andere worden verdubbeld.

MVG
eggie
eggie (2025-11-29 07:46:08+00:00): Adres hersteld.. Info samengevoegd
Guido Groet (2025-11-29 15:44:20+00:00): Dank je wel, ik ben nog lerende.
Cs137 (2025-11-28 23:24:01+00:00): I changed the node instead of adding a new one, which I should not have done. Thus, this changeset should be removed.
ftrebien (2025-11-28 22:52:30+00:00): Datas das imagens: 2025-01-01, 2025-02-10, 2025-02-25, 2025-03-14, 2025-04-28, 2025-05-13, 2025-06-10, 2025-06-25, 2025-07-10, 2025-08-21, 2025-09-23, 2025-10-08, 2025-10-23, 2025-11-19. Método: filtro threshold no GIMP ajustado manualmente para cada imagem (porque estão em condições de iluminação diferentes), média das imagens resultantes, threshold no nível 127 (50%), e por fim vetorização e ajuste das relações.
Fizzie-DWG (2025-11-29 03:15:47+00:00): Hello Auinflicik24. Please note that mounts etc should all be lower-case e.g. pole not Pole. Could you please correct them? Thanks!
Graeme Fitzpatrick             						
Moderator          		
OSMF Data Working Group
01345790 (2025-12-04 18:23:36+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance

I'm curious I don't see anywhere where it says anything about lowercase and upper case.  And then another osm is adding gantry when there is no mention of it. Can you explain this?
mcliquid (2025-11-30 09:16:48+00:00): Grüß dich und vielen Dank für deine Bearbeitungen! 

Wenn du die Löschung in Isny und die Ergänzung am Gaisberg separiert hättest, wäre der Changeset nur halb so groß und damit deutlich besser kontrollierbar

Weitere Hinweise findest du hier:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

Vielen Dank fürs Beachten und weiterhin viel Freude beim Mappen!
Comino (2025-11-28 23:36:26+00:00): Hi,

Can you explain why you deleted "Historic Robie's Country Store" from the map?
user260 (2025-11-28 23:45:45+00:00): I put the node's data into the building that was under it.  I also changed its name to "The Robie Store".
Comino (2025-11-30 14:09:42+00:00): Got it.
Thanks for flagging that.

Edwin
Ltrlg (2025-11-29 12:38:33+00:00): Bonjour et merci pour votre contribution !

Cependant, la source indiquée n’est pas utilisable sur OpenStreetMap : les conditions d’utilisation de Google Maps interdisent son utilisation dans ce contexte. Vous pouvez voir les détails ici : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Google. Merci de l’éviter à l’avenir.
watmildon (2025-11-28 23:31:12+00:00): Thank you!!
Autopistero20502020 (2025-11-28 23:40:59+00:00): Por favor, no debe de suprimirse esta relación porque se produce un conflicto por el Wikimedia (mapa de Wikipedia), ya que va relacionado con el articulo en español de Autopista Navarra-Guipúzcoa en contra del otro articulo en euskera que esta mal redactado. La Autovía de Navarra es oficial entre Medinaceli y Tudela y no termina en Astigarraga. Esta dividido en 3 administraciones diferentes, por favor, hay que informar bien lo que pone en Wikipedia con las referencias oficiales del Estado, Gobierno de Navarra y la Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa.
MarinoBM (2025-11-30 21:57:30+00:00): Hola Autopistero20502020, los problemas de Wikimedia deben arreglarse en Wikimedia. Esto es OpenStreetMap y esta edición no es correcta porque con ella estás duplicando de forma indebida una relación que ya está en OpenStreetMap.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14063419
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19896518#map=11/43.1941/-1.9923
Por favor, soluciónalo.
Hugoren Martinako (2025-12-02 10:14:37+00:00): Revertida la duplicación de una relación que ya existe

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175395215
Autopistero20502020 (2025-12-06 17:51:16+00:00): @Hugoren, gracias por revertir y recuperar la relación que había modificado anteriormente. Lo puse de forma provisional porque no sabía quien debería de recurrir para corregir.

@MarinoBM, Wikimedia no se arregla, OpenStreetMap esta vinculado con el Wikimedia y el problema viene desde aquí. Eso es lo que he consultado con ellos de Wikipedia. ¿Cómo se corrige la relación para que aparezcan las líneas de la autovía en el Wikimedia?, no se puede hacerlo en Wikimedia, sino, se lo hace creado una relación de OpenStreetMap. Esta muy claro que el agua.
MarinoBM (2025-12-09 19:07:43+00:00): El problema era que que habías duplicado una relación. Como la relación ha sido eliminada, el problema ha quedado resuelto.
Hugoren Martinako (2025-12-09 21:04:14+00:00): Aparte de eliminar la relación que habías duplicado, también cambié posteriormente el valor de la wikidata a la que apuntaba la relación antigua. Se puede ver aquí: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14063419/history/18

En cualquier caso, ya está resuelto y bien enlazado.
Autopistero20502020 (2026-01-05 18:22:29+00:00): @MarinoBM y @Hugoren, muchísimas gracias por todo!! Muchos saludos cordiales!!
Maplev (2025-11-29 07:57:29+00:00): Skąd się wzięła ta nazwa ulicy? Ani TERYT ani EMUiA nie wykazują takiej nazwy.
Lumikeiju (2025-11-29 00:44:31+00:00): Because of a JOSM bug, this changeset was uploaded with the same changeset comment as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175258261. Apologies.

The actual comment for this changeset should be: "Update locations and Mapillary tags on bike racks and remove their imported "note=*" tags."
Source: "Bing Aerial Imagery;King County Orthoimagery;Mapillary;Bing Streetside"
Eiim (2025-11-29 15:25:53+00:00): The building you added is Thomson Hall, which was demolished last winter, along with the parking lot and nearby paths. I've reverted this changeset in 175280317.
SpinOff (2025-12-12 21:02:18+00:00): Zręby z reguły nie mają takich nazw, choć domyślam się że to raczej rage-edit
Eiim (2025-11-29 15:31:27+00:00): Why did you remove a bunch of trees from campus? I haven't been on campus for a few months, but I really doubt all of those trees have been removed.
Eiim (2025-11-29 15:29:10+00:00): It looks like you mapped a number of desire paths as footways. At a minimum, these should be mapped with informal=yes. From personal experience, I can also say that these change fairly frequently, so unless you've checked these paths recently, I wouldn't recommend adding them. Also, why did you remove a number of trees?
Glassman (2025-11-29 20:38:56+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175260447
Glassman (2025-11-29 20:39:07+00:00): Thank you for your edit. I reviewed your work and it looks good.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175260484
MxxCon (2025-11-29 02:32:42+00:00): Hello.
Please provide supporting information that the speed limit on this light rail line is 55mph
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175260644
MxxCon (2025-11-29 02:32:10+00:00): Hello.
Please provide supporting information that the speed limit of these subway lines is 55mph
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/175260724
Comino (2025-11-29 10:34:18+00:00): Hi,

You have tagged the following:
currency:XBT=yes
Which states, Bitcoin accepted.

and

payment:lightning=no
payment:lightning_contactless=no
payment:onchain=no

Which states, Bitcoin NOT accepted.

Please fix this error.

Happy mapping,

Edwin Comino
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Comino
https://btcmap.org/tagger/6794624
nevw (2025-11-29 13:39:28+00:00): Hi, the conservation park is mapped as a boundary relation and the name is added to the relation only. The members forming the mp should remain untagged. Same for multipolygon relations.
Exception would be if the way added to the relation is an entity itself… like a lake.
See the wiki for boundary or multipolygon relations
nevw (2025-11-29 13:49:40+00:00): It is best practice not to join areas to roadway centreline nodes. In this case the conservation area border probably ends near the property line or fence line. Not mixing or joining roadway parts makes it easier for data users.
kaleidoscopica (2025-12-11 21:39:14+00:00): I do believe Alligator Creek is actually a river in OSM definitions - it is wider than 3m. Refer to the wiki for river and stream: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driver vs https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream
cronoser (2026-03-12 16:10:43+00:00): mejoradas etiquetas
kudomenagi (2025-11-29 11:30:22+00:00): OpenStreetMapに情報を追加してくださりありがとうございます。特に航空写真では見えない道は現地調査が必要なため、貴重な変更セットだと思います。

道以外が変更オブジェクト一覧に表示されるとのことですが、これは追加した道と行政境界や土地利用等のウェイに交点ができたことが原因です。例えば道のウェイ（https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1454579846 ）を追加した際、所沢市と狭山市の行政境界のウェイ（https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/268536575 ）との交点にノード（https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13339732090 ）が追加されています。物理的に接続している場合（道と道、道と建物、…）は交差する箇所にノードを作成し、行政境界や土地利用のウェイと交差する場合は基本的にノードを作らない、というのが私の理解です。

追加された道に付けられたタグは適切だと思います。
疑問等は OpenStreetmap Japan Discordサーバや https://community.openstreetmap.org/ に投げかけると適切なアドバイスをいただけるかもしれません。
Starfall (2025-11-29 04:58:46+00:00): Please ignore the change log note; the app saved my previous edit note.
What was actually changed was parking lot info as in total capacity numbers and a disabled parking spot count.
olo81 (2025-11-30 17:47:49+00:00): Do wycofania
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:highway=residential?uselang=pl
Jak byk pisze "Drogi do pojedynczych zabudowań zazwyczaj oznacza się jako highway=service (i najprawdopodobniej również service=driveway)."
olo81 (2025-12-09 00:24:02+00:00): Wycofane
C2oc4 (2026-02-26 15:39:41+00:00): Dobrze.
eggie (2025-11-29 07:35:57+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
hieuvan (2025-12-01 14:21:26+00:00): Cần lưu ý những vấn đề sau:

- Thời Pháp thuộc, một số làng chia thành nhiều giáp/thôn (mà bạn gọi là "phía", nhưng được ghi nhận là các làng khác nhau.

- Những làng này tuy ngày nay vẫn tương đối nguyên vẹn, nhưng về bản chất thì làng/bản/sóc/phum không phải là đơn vị hành chính chính thức. Vậy nên sẽ có một số "làng" trên bản đồ cũ không phù hợp để đưa lên OSM (vd. Quần ngựa ko phải là làng). Nếu có thời gian thì có thể nghiên cứu nhanh xem những làng nào còn tồn tại tới ngày nay.

Cảm ơn bạn vì đã quan tâm tới lịch sử TP Hanoi
ChaireMobiliteKaligrafy (2025-11-29 12:56:59+00:00): Merci pour l'ajout de POIs (points d'intérêt)!

C'est très apprécié!
Eslam_Elsayed (2025-11-30 12:57:48+00:00): Hello pidugu konda reddy,
Thank you for your contribution to OSM,
I noticed that you changed the classification of several existing streets to highway=construction in the following changesets:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175266163
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175267993
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175266434
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175265865
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175264459
By changing the classification to construction alone, many roads appear “floating” on the map without a defined road type. This can negatively affect routing, map rendering, and overall data quality.
According to OSM guidelines.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dconstruction
 The correct way to map a road under construction or a future road is to use:
highway=construction together with construction=* (where * describes the type of road being built, e.g., construction=primary, construction=residential, etc.).
 Also, I could not find any reliable sources or public documentation (e.g., local news or municipal announcements) justifying a long-term closure or full reconstruction of these roads.
Here are some of the affected streets for reference:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1040624349/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/222087274/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/624531373/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/903284498/history
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1033971671/history
Could you please provide the sources or reasoning behind these edits and correct them if necessary?
Best regards,
Eslam Elsayed
willkmis (2025-12-20 05:09:37+00:00): Hey Yushclay, I was looking at this and some other changes around (see also https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176153902) and I have to say it seems to me like many of these streets are overclassified. Walking around this area, most of these roads you've upgraded to tertiary seem like they're not really for through traffic: you'd only use them if you were accessing the direct area. Not every road in a business district should be tertiary, that makes the road classifications too flat and obscures which roads are actually used for through traffic IMO. What was your rationale for upgrading these?
Yushclay (2025-12-20 17:35:09+00:00): Hi Willkmis. I have since removed some of the overclassified since after someone let me know. My rationale (or impression I had) at the time was that roads with non-residential traffic usage should be up to tertiary or down to minor/unclassified road. I was also using (and still using) painted street median markings as a major factor in whether I upgrade it to tertiary as that is one of the explicit indicators of a collector/tertiary road in many of the cities in San Diego County, with roads without street median paint markings are implied minor roads that drivers would need to consider traffic from the other direction. At the same time, another editor was removing spurs of secondary or tertiary roads, so I tried to be more vigilant about connecting them to leave no spurs. And hence, it resulted in a flatter road-hierarchy. Same thing with the other changeset, except I did not consider median paint at the time.
Yushclay (2025-12-20 17:38:04+00:00): It look like I forgot to revert a couple of these streets back to residential a couple weeks ago. I'll go revert Wall St, Silverado St, and Exchange Pl.
willkmis (2025-12-22 18:44:31+00:00): That makes sense! Yeah like in the diary piece from the changeset comment, I think painted centerlines are generally a good metric in CA, because the standard is to add one if the road gets a certain level of traffic. But they tend to be less good in a few edge cases: they often get painted on curvy or especially wide roads regardless of traffic count, or in areas where there's a lot of local traffic but little through traffic. I think all three might apply here and in other parts of SD too. Thanks for addressing these issues when people raise them, it can be tricky stuff!
NeisBot (2025-12-13 21:51:31+00:00): Hello, welcome and thank you for your contribution to OSM!

Your changeset was commented because your added description or slogan contains detailed text that may be interpreted as promotional or SEO-related. To ensure OSM remains neutral and focused on map data, I recommend keeping descriptions concise, factual, and free from marketing or promotional language.

Could you please revise your description accordingly?

For example, a more neutral and factual version of your description could be: "Crown Gold Exchange in Duarte buys dental gold"

#MapWithoutSpam #Tags #Description
NeisReview (2025-12-13 22:03:18+00:00): ✅ Corrected by https://osm.org/changeset/175266183
Zatigem (2025-11-29 07:07:29+00:00): source: verified on the field
pavvv (2025-12-04 21:51:19+00:00): Minęło 6 dni i wciąż nie ma tu trunka.
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-04 21:59:50+00:00): i?
pavvv (2025-12-05 07:15:51+00:00): Edycja została zaopiniowania pozytywnie. Jaką masz teraz wymówkę?
Mateusz Konieczny (2025-12-05 07:21:10+00:00): Nie wiem czemu sądzisz że mam obowiązek zrobić każdą edycję która byłaby sensowna.

Edycja była zrobiona na podstawie gmapsa, miejsca nigdy nie widziałem więc nie ma źródeł.

Dodatkowo dalej po Temat-Droga sprzątam gdzie indziej więc przywracanie jego edycji ma dla mnie najmniejszy możliwy priorytet
pavvv (2025-12-05 07:30:55+00:00): To samo wynika z tagów na drodze. Pisałem też, że droga jest na mojej liście. I inni też napisali, że trunk jest słuszny. Zdaje się, że Ty też mówiłeś, że tranzyt ciężarowy jest szczególnie ważny, może nawet ważniejszy od osobowego.
A jednak bardziej Cię obchodzi stanie z zegarkiem w ręku czy minęło ileś godzin od napisania na forum (ile? no właśnie nie ma takiej zasady).
Kovoschiz (2025-11-29 11:47:27+00:00): `access=` is interpreted for all modes. Can pedestrians walk there?
vectorial8192 (2025-11-29 14:17:38+00:00): They can do so, but may not do so:

- fully packed with parked emergency vehicles
- nearby already has sidewalks; use those
- streets are cordoned off; not expecting short-term reopening (e.g. DVIU will be staying here for approx a month)

You may interpret that the roads are closed off and reserved for various government service vehicles until god knows when. The sheer number of expected government service vehicles that will access this area / will station in this area strongly justifies `access=no` and not simply `motor_vehicles=no`, the tag `motor_vehicles=no` which I understand is something you may be proposing to adopt.
Kovoschiz (2025-11-30 09:06:06+00:00): A congested or crowded road doesn't mean you are not allowed to walk on it. The presence of `footway=sidewalk` doesn't determine what its `highway=` road should be, which can be `=use_sidepath` if pedestrian are legally prohibited from the roadway.
Kovoschiz (2025-11-30 09:24:05+00:00): Some applications may not process `footway=sidewalk` in a simplified view. Snapping may snap to the roadway, causing them not to be used.
vectorial8192 (2025-11-30 11:00:13+00:00): Precedent see Yiu Tung Estate landslide.

I have no appetite to continue this discussion.