piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
TheSwavu (2024-02-24 10:10:28+00:00): Hi,

I am assuming that this is some organised mapping being carried out by Meta.

What is the feedback mechanism to explain that these relations do not need to be "fixed".

This is the third time I have had to revert a Meta "fix" to these relations and I am starting to become annoyed.

Thank you.
fortera_au (2024-02-26 01:30:21+00:00): There's an osm@meta.com email address on their wiki page, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing/Activities/Meta
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147837284
VLD190 (2024-02-26 21:00:51+00:00): Hello @TheSwavu,

I will no longer make edits to either of these relations moving forward (r16308779 and r16308787). When I initially ran a validator for these relations in JOSM. I received over 20 warnings for ’Self-Intersecting Polygon rings.’ The relations broke as I was fixing this warning message, which posed a greater challenge since there are multiple relations overlapping. Thanks for this feedback and reverting the issue.
TheSwavu (2024-02-28 07:36:15+00:00): Hi @VLD190 

The problem is that JOSM throws false warnings if a multipolygon has touching rings and the ways are split at the common node. If one of the ways continues through the common node then JOSM only gives an info message of ring share node.
France Trotter (2024-02-23 23:09:04+00:00): ajout de la zone de sports d'hiver en lien avec le plan des pistes officiels et le mapping des pistes déjà référencé sur OSM
vasony (2024-02-24 16:55:26+00:00): Szia!
Nem volt nyoma Beller Imre utcának? 1-est megadtad, de nem látok hozzá utcát.
T
BáthoryPéter (2024-02-24 17:24:27+00:00): Én sem láttam, de ez volt kint a házon, és még csak nem is kézzel felírva. 
Egyébként az egész Borbarátok u házszámozása elég kaotikus, mintha átszámozták volna, de még úgy sem mindent értek. Pl egymáshoz közel 63, 103 és 147. Majd vissza kell menni az utca többi részére, az talán megmagyarázza.
vasony (2024-02-24 18:38:32+00:00): Hozta magával a házszám táblát a XV. kerületből :)
Egyébként hivatalosan 2051 BIATORBÁGY  Borbarátok útja 82. az a telek.

A 147 egyezik földhivatallal, de itt véget is ér a jóság.
A 63, 90/b, 102 telkeknek nincs a földhivatalnál címe. a 106 meg 114 kéne legyen.

Vannak kétségeim mennyire jó a nyilvántartás, mert a 147-től 2 házzal tovább a földhivatal szerint 110/B van. Egyik sem felülvizsgálat alatt, szerintem nem fogsz megvilágosodni a terepen sem.
michel60 (2024-03-01 18:03:26+00:00): Bonjour,
C'est bien, mais maintenant la ligne de Bus 276 : La Défense → Les Courtilles (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4646862) est en défaut : plus de continuité.
Cordialement Michel
Jakka (2024-02-24 09:04:32+00:00): old access do not exist anymore ?
user_21082100 (2024-02-24 17:10:59+00:00): No, the old access is now a parking lot (still in construction). I am just not sure how to edit the GR 570 (Hiking path) relation, which has not been updated on "visitluxembourg"
rivermont (2024-02-26 18:40:58+00:00): If it's no longer a hotel, what is it? Appears to still serve food according to the website.
StrikeMind (2024-02-27 02:14:26+00:00): I changed it to pub as it has a restaurant on the bottom floor and an 8 room hotel. The latest version of this node, https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11658381110, has more detail than this changeset lists.
rivermont (2024-02-27 04:01:24+00:00): The Hellbender Bar node looks fine but the New Public House node (this changeset) doesn't have any descriptive tags, but has a wheelchair tag.

I haven't been there in a while so your survey is authoritative, but from their website it appears to still be operating.
StrikeMind (2024-02-28 03:27:45+00:00): Is the New Public House at 239 Sunset? I don't remember seeing "New Public House" but perhaps it's Hellbender Bar now (same address). Years ago I had dinner at this same location but it was called something else. If you compare the two names at Google Images you'll find the same location but with different paint and signage.
GeoAndi (2024-02-24 17:19:11+00:00): Den hier am besten auch noch zu ele=* korrigieren (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11658338624#map=17/49.28260/11.31710). Die anderen wurden ja bereits geändert ;).
HAmap (2024-02-25 15:40:22+00:00): ... ich wußte, dass ich noch einen vergessen hatte, aber nicht mehr welchen ... :-)
GeoAndi (2024-02-25 17:38:48+00:00): Kein Problem...
Andrea Musuruane (2024-02-24 12:03:37+00:00): Ciao. 3 feature con lo stesso tag wikidata? C'è qualcosa che non va in questo tagging... Ciao, Andrea
AwFi (2024-05-03 08:31:56+00:00): Noto ora il changeset, suggerisco di prestare più attenzione ai tag del tipo di linea, indicata come main quando è decisamente branch. Inoltre sarebbe meglio non rimuovere le stazioni ma piuttosto modificare in disused:railway=halt, per non perdere la storia.
Xvtn (2024-02-29 23:04:11+00:00): Hi, and welcome to OpenStreetMap! Since you requested a review, I looked over your changes here. Looks great overall - The only suggestion I'd give is to check the context as far as building outlines. In this case, looking at the roof, it looks like this is all one building structure, containing multiple businesses. Therefore I'd recommend keeping businesses as single nodes placed within the building. (As opposed to overlapping, conflicting building ways - not recommended.)
Everything else, tagging etc. looks great to me. Let me know if you have any questions, and thanks for your contributions!
Richard (2024-02-24 00:35:08+00:00): Including me for keeping big changeset open
CasperGeo (2024-06-18 08:58:40+00:00): this is not 1 building and the geometry needs to be squared (press Q) for good alignment
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147839584
CasperGeo (2024-06-18 08:57:49+00:00): poor mapping
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147839590
Kovoschiz (2024-02-24 16:18:38+00:00): Reverted /changeset/147839592 Kowloon businesses: Random whole building edited for single tenant inside another

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/147861857
CasperGeo (2024-06-18 08:57:08+00:00): poor mapping
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147839614
CasperGeo (2024-06-18 08:59:57+00:00): poorly mapped. Please look at the shape of individual buildings
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147839614
Johnwhelan (2024-06-01 15:58:55+00:00): Real street names from Bing imagery and local knowledge?
CasperGeo (2024-06-18 09:00:30+00:00): very poor mapping. And why are you only mapping random buildings?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147839654
emersonveenstra (2024-02-29 14:01:15+00:00): Hey there,

For the future, just because everything else has a tag doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct. You should always look at the wiki to determine whether the element fits the description of the tag. In this case, it doesn't, because there is no recreation ground in the state game area. The other state game areas were only tagged that way because someone wanted it to look better on the map

Not trying to blame you at all, just letting you know. it's a very common mistake for new mappers to make
szidomingo (2024-03-04 02:06:46+00:00): Thanks for the feedback, I really apreciate you having taken the time to write it up. OSM has grown really sophisticated (i.e. complex) so the barrier of entry is high. I'll keep reading and deciphering the wiki and not just copy other folks' work.
CasperGeo (2024-06-18 09:01:03+00:00): Poor alignment and not squared
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147839672
Theo J Fagundes (2024-02-24 20:50:18+00:00): Erro entrou em Estado Unico
CasperGeo (2024-06-19 11:01:55+00:00): Please note that these are multiple different individual buildings and the geometry doesn't align
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147839955
CasperGeo (2024-06-19 11:02:52+00:00): please square (press q) buildings.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147839965
HellMap (2024-02-24 10:27:22+00:00): Sveiki vēlreiz,

Grāvji mežā šeit visticamāk būs `waterway=ditch` nevis `waterway=drain`. Drain ir ūdens novade ar specializētu izbūvi un parasti izbūvētām apmalēm.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Ddrain / https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dditch
CasperGeo (2024-06-19 11:03:38+00:00): poor buildings alignment.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147840064
CasperGeo (2024-06-19 11:03:54+00:00): square buildings (q)
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147840065
WoodWoseWulf (2024-03-02 21:27:05+00:00): Hi seeshami!
Welcome to OSM!
When you're adding features like residential areas, you don't need to use the name tag to label them this words like "homes" - the name tag should only be used for actual names of things.

Also, make sure you take your time adding areas - some of the locations you mapped could have used a few more points to better match what they look like on the ground.
user_21081943 (2024-03-02 21:32:53+00:00): Thanks but I won’t be wasting my time trying to help map more.
Patrickov (2024-02-27 17:18:30+00:00): Why do you make changes which distort the topology so much?
Wright One (2024-02-29 07:11:19+00:00): 我以政府地圖作準

參照：https://www.mapwarper.net/mosaics/tile/1093/{z}/{x}/{y}.png
Patrickov (2024-02-29 07:24:07+00:00): 1.  I cannot see that link
2.  Isn't it copyrighted?
3.  Why only move some of them but not all?
Wright One (2024-02-29 07:30:07+00:00): 1. 預覽見 https://www.mapwarper.net/layers/1093

2. 我使用出版逾50年（版權已過期）嘅地形圖，應該無版權問題

3. GoMap（掌上app）不能進行大量編輯，除非在家使用JOSM
kurisubrooks (2024-04-16 08:29:16+00:00): Hi Kyle,
I believe the current consensus for adding proposed features is that they shouldn't be added (as proposed) until a project is actually "confirmed" (aka undeniably "will be built"). It seems that despite land being acquired to protect these corridors for future use is currently being undertaken, the project is not yet confirmed to go ahead nor are there concrete plans that this will exist in the future, so I propose we remove these for now.
What are your thoughts?
Kind regards,
Chris.
❤️‍🔥 (2024-04-16 11:40:08+00:00): Sure, I assumed that it was okay to map this, given how many similar proposals are mapped around Sydney

The relation is currently being used on the wikipedia page, so please give me a day or 2 before you delete it, so I can figure out how to retain the map on wikipedia
i2004 (2024-02-24 10:11:39+00:00): ya te hice la linea 31 para que me ordenes porfa
Warin61 (2024-04-22 05:27:35+00:00): Hi,
Welcome to OSM! 

Within OSM afl is called australian_football. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q6816

The 'Oval' is not a 'name' but a 'description' .... 

Hope that helps?
whatqm (2024-04-22 05:40:01+00:00): In Australian schools the field where people play sports and spend lunch is called an oval
Warin61 (2024-04-22 07:24:20+00:00): And a field where sports are played (any where) are also called 'ovals' .. A plant, single trunked growing over 2 meters is called a 'tree' ... 
From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:name

Do not use name=* if: 
    The feature is known by a generic term or description.
tastrax (2024-03-01 09:54:35+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
Udarian (2024-02-25 05:29:19+00:00): This change set comment doesn’t really tell you anything about what was done in this commit. Next time please try to better describe what was done in the change set comment. For more information see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_changeset_comments
Ewrt1 (2024-02-24 05:09:37+00:00): also added covered=yes
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2025-03-11 00:52:13+00:00): more node dragging?
gscholz (2024-02-26 06:24:17+00:00): Hi abaho joshua,
your recent changeset have left behind several errors regarding self intersecting and displaced ways:

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=147843207

I have reverted these changesets to fix those issues. Please watch out what you are doing.
Kind regards
Guido
tekim (2024-03-05 19:47:21+00:00): Hello, Welcome to OpenStreetMap (OSM).  Thanks for the edits.  One should not be using Google Maps, even for "cross-checking" when editing OSM.  Google's terms of service prohibit this.  Continuing to mention Google Maps in changeset comments could have serious consequences for the OpenStreetMap project.
rickmastfan67 (2024-02-25 02:08:10+00:00): Just an FYI, the ref tag on the node should have been left alone here, as it's needed by some routers.

I've gone ahead and restored it. ;)
Tomas_J (2025-09-05 06:39:33+00:00): Ahoj, na priechodoch pre chodcov davas tactile paving = yes po celej ich dlzke. Na ortofoto ziadnu vodiacu liniu na priechode nevidim.Je to chyba? Napr. priechod nizsie ale aj ine v tom meste.
Way: 1254255524
resurvey - overit, ci je po celej dlzke priechodu vodiaca linia (tactile_paving=yes na way)
mapperue (2025-09-05 07:16:33+00:00): Ahoj, máš pravdu. V minulosti som značil tactile paving chybne. Postupne opravujem toto chybné značenie.
Tomas_J (2025-09-05 17:47:22+00:00): Vyborne, dik. T.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-03-10 07:51:42+00:00): source?
gscholz (2024-03-02 08:04:13+00:00): Hi Langenb1,
this changeset has created several errors in the OSM database regarding broken and not valid relations:

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=-0.30005&lat=38.59209&zoom=19&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=147844336

Can you please fix this?
Kind regards
Guido
eggie (2024-02-24 10:39:27+00:00): Welkom bij OSM..

Je info heb ik samengevoegd met de bestaande adresnode.

MVG
eggie
literan (2024-02-24 13:10:44+00:00): нет, это не так делается. Тег restriction ставится только на отношение, в которую включаются три элемента - откуда, куда и через.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction

переделаю
Peter Elderson (2024-03-07 08:08:18+00:00): Beste Op 't rad, 
Een village_green is meer een historische plek, meestal een brink in een dorp. Dus niet een aangelegd stadspark, dat is gewoon een park!
Heb je aanleiding om te denken dat dit park een brink was?
Op'tRad (2024-03-07 09:41:35+00:00): Goedendag mijnheer Elderson,

In zijn algemeenheid zijn al die Engelse tags niet zo eenvoudig. Wat betreft De Geuren (gaarden?). Dit is een parkje dat ontstaan is op een plek waar vroeger waarschijnlijk AGF voor eigen gebruik werd verbouwd. Vanaf de noord, west en zuidzijde liepen er zeer smalle paden tussen heggen naartoe, waarvan er nog drie over zijn. Zie google maps, de verticaal ('portrait') genomen foto's van Guarniero in Casa - een alter ego ... In dat opzicht is dit toch wel een historische open plek in Hellendoorn. Het stoort me zelfs dat er in de loop der tijd steeds meer vanaf is geknabbeld, in de vorm van parkeerplaatsen en een supermarkt, die ook weer een pad heeft doen laten verdwijnen aan de noordwestkant. De grond is volgens mij ook nog steeds van de kerk. De paden tekende ik ook. Eén pad is nu helaas weer afgesloten, zelfs nadat ik die ene foto maakte.
Dus ja, village green, discutabel, actueel is park wellicht een beter woord.

Groet, Op 't Rad
Peter Elderson (2024-03-07 10:51:56+00:00): Bedankt voor de toelichting! Als het vroeger geen gemeenschapsweide of brink was, is het zeker geen village_green. Gewoon een park dus!
Ergens anders heb je een evenemententerrein als village_green getagd. Dat is nog niet zo gek, je zou een evenemententerrein kunnen beschouwen als een moderne vorm van village_green, zeker als het een eigen naam heeft en doorlopend voor allerlei happeningen gebruikt wordt, zoals het Malieveld in Den Haag. Maar de NL OSM gemeenschap vond dat niet zo'n goed idee en ook niet nodig.
Op'tRad (2024-03-08 18:15:46+00:00): De Geuren taggen als park en de Hofmansweide als landuse grass dan maar?
Peter Elderson (2024-03-09 20:43:58+00:00): Nog even over nagedacht. Een evenemententerrein met een eigen naam en in de omtrek algemeen gebruikt voor grote bijeenkomsten, dat lijkt in functie behoorlijk veel op een modern soort brink! Als je het anders tagt dan verlies je de informatie over de functie van het terrein. Dus wat mij betreft blijft de Hofmansweide lekker een village_green! 
Niet omdat het groen op de kaart moet komen, dat kan ook door hem als een grasveld te taggen, maar omdat hij die gemeenschapsfunctie heeft.
Op'tRad (2024-03-10 08:38:03+00:00): O.K. De Evenementenweides in Nijverdal en Luttenberg zijn ook als zodanig getagd.
Op'tRad (2024-11-07 13:16:21+00:00): Hallo Peter, Oké ...
Ik heb beide wat toegevoegd: De Geuren: Hellendoornse Harmonie in de muziektent. En eerder al verdwenen 'Geurenpaechies'. Van de zuidoostelijke ben ik nog maar sinds dit jaar op de hoogte. Overigens: er is wat rumoer in Hellendoorn ontstaan over de teloorgang van De Geuren - de verstening. Ik ben zelf één die aan dat rumoer deel nam met te zeggen: waarom de Halve Maansteeg niet als grasbetonklinkerweg aan trekken aan het park om de weg te vergroenen? Dus wellicht zien we daar nog eens een verandering.

Hofmansweide: toegangsweg en hekken gemapt. Ook daar is rumoer over het versteende midden ...

Groet, Werner - alias 'Op'tRad' wat mijn grootvader zei tegen 'Op de fiets'.
DD1GJ (2024-02-24 14:50:03+00:00): Perfekt! ;-)
burrscurr (2024-02-27 15:02:57+00:00): (Ich habe hier SC als remote-Editor missbraucht, d.h. source ist eigentlich local_knowledge)
aharvey (2026-01-25 05:44:15+00:00): I moved `place=neighbourhood` + `name=Darling Square` to a new way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1470170829 since the name is for the whole precinct, not just the plaza/pedestrian area.
Romwriter (2024-02-24 11:50:45+00:00): Hallo Agirlhasnoname, herzlich willkommen bei Openstreetmap und vielen Dank für Deine Bearbeitungen! Zu diesem Änderungssatz hast Du um Rückmeldung gebeten, deswegen hier von mir: Die Straße ist (oder war jedenfalls vor ein paar Wochen) mit Verkehrszeichen 325 <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_325.1_-_Beginn_eines_verkehrsberuhigten_Bereichs,_StVO_2009.svg> beschildert, das ist im Tag "traffic_sign=DE:325" in den Openstreetmap-Daten abgebildet. Das korrespondiert mit dem Tag "highway=living_street" (verkehrsberuhigter Bereich). Ist die Beschilderung immer noch so? Dann würde ich Deine Änderung rückgängig machen wollen. Ansonsten würde ich auch das Tag "traffic_sign" anpassen. Beste Grüße, Romwriter
Agirlhasnoname (2024-02-24 17:50:07+00:00): Hallo Romwriter, ich bin jetzt grade nicht mehr vor Ort um es nochmal zu überprüfen, insofern sollte es wohl rückgängig gemacht werden.
Romwriter (2024-02-25 16:01:10+00:00): Hallo Agirlhasnoname, vielen Dank für die Rückmeldung! Ich war gestern Abend zufälligerweise in der Gegend, das ist tatsächlich ein verkehrsberuhigter Bereich. Ich habe die Openstreetmap-Daten dementsprechend geändert. Beste Grüße, Romwriter
SekeRob (2024-02-24 10:36:03+00:00): Also sorted members of vrs routes reporting gaps and disconnection. Refined lay of waterway area, move boundary to exclude farm tracks.
Anonix35 (2024-03-03 13:20:45+00:00): Je ne sais pas si rajouter "Domaine skiable" est vraiment utile.
Toutes les stations sur Openstreetmap en Europe possèdent juste le nom du domaine en lui meme.
tastrax (2024-03-01 10:07:17+00:00): Hi folks FYI - Phone numbers in Australia should be added to OSM according to the following format with the country and regional code +61 x xxxx xxxx, (+61 xxx xxx xxx for mobiles) or use the phone:AU key if a 1300 or 1800 number.
For freecall numbers that work whilst overseas (ie 13 13 13) use +61 XX XX XX as per the wiki guidelines https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Australian_features .  I have just updated a recent addition that you made to OSM – Cheers
Narvik2 (2024-03-04 11:41:27+00:00): Szia!

A residential road wiki oldala úgy folytatódik, hogy "Primarily used for access to residential properties but may include access to some non-residential properties (e.g. a corner shop or convenience store).

Az a gyakorlat, hogy ha egy út olyan széles, mint egy lakóutca, de nem lakáscélú épületek vannak mellette, akkor unclassifiednak jelöljük.
hsc666 (2024-02-24 12:25:40+00:00): Hallo kaos67 und willkommen bei OSM!

Du hast hier "height" des Viaduktes auf 4 m geändert und als Begründung die Anpassung der Durchfahrtshöhe angegeben. Das passt so nicht. "height" gibt die tatsächliche Höhe eines Objektes an, was Du meinst ist maxheight, aber das ist seit Jahren an der darunterliegenden Straße korrekt eingetragen, siehe https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/26414145 . Allerdings kann das Viadukt offensichtlich nicht 3,1 m hoch sein, wenn die maximale Durchfahrtshöhe 4 m beträgt. 4 m kann dann aber auch nicht stimmen. wenn ich schätzen müsste, würde ich sagen, das ist bestimmt 8 Meter hoch. Vielleicht findest Du ja eine genauere Angabe oder misst mal vorsichtig vor Ort nach. ;-)

VG
hsc666
kaos67 (2024-02-24 12:50:40+00:00): Hallo hsc666,
vielen Dank für die Hinweise. Die Höhe des Viadukts kann ich nicht messen, aber Du hast recht: es können auch keine 3,1 m sein.

Mein eigentliches Problem ist, dass die Fotos an der Stelle (Aus Mapillary eine falsche Durchfahrtshöhe anzeigen UND dass in den HERE Maps Layern für Verkehrszeichen an der Stelle eine max. Durchfahrtshöhe von 3,3 m angegeben wird. Das ist falsch, es sind 4 m. Und ich bin auf der Suche, wie ich dieses Problem beheben kann. Bin für jede Hilfe dankbar!
VG Kai
DD1GJ (2024-02-24 15:58:21+00:00): Hallo Kai, die Beschilderung der Durchfahrtshöhe an der Brücke war wohl früher fahrtrichtungsabhängig beschildert.. Bei Mapillary waren es z.B. am 04.10.2018 3,1 m in Fahrtrichtung Nord und am 14.01.2018 3,3 m in Fahrtrichtung Süd. Inzwischen sind es wohl 4 m in beide Richtungen.

Hier siehtst Du die Historie der Nierenhofer Straße unter dem Viadukt:

https://osm.mapki.com/history/way/26414145

Am 23.04.2020 wurde die Durchfahrtshöhe von 3,1 auf 4 Meter geändert. Bei OSM ist also alles in Ordnung. HERE zeigt veraltete Daten an. 

Viele Grüße, Joachim
hsc666 (2024-02-24 17:31:36+00:00): Und: HERE benutzt eigene Daten, nicht die von OSM. Du wirst hier also nichts reparieren können, was dort kaputt ist. ;-)
CurlingMan13 (2024-02-28 05:51:21+00:00): Did anyone actually verify they accept XBT?  Putting a check date from 2015 is odd, especially now.  Are you testifying that you checked that they accepted XBT in 2015?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/147851962
CurlingMan13 (2024-02-28 05:55:07+00:00): Especially since the XBT tag was only added 7 months ago, not 2015...

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/139203145
Znaika (2025-04-15 14:38:30+00:00): Hi,
Diese Route gibt es nicht. Oder?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/17261791
https://www.vrr.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Stadtlinienplaene/Grevenbroich.pdf
Gruß, Znaika
Znaika (2025-04-15 14:39:10+00:00): https://cms.static-bahn.de/wmedia/dbregiobus-nrw/kursbuch/BVR_865_2024.pdf
SekeRob (2024-02-25 15:14:24+00:00): All 3 have to have outer, outer outer roles

cheers.