piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
gion274 (2024-07-01 09:45:23+00:00): ciao at 189,
su tuoi changeset vedo "corretti alcuni problemi ai guadi, work in progress"
esempio pratico: ho fatto i sentieri nominati (senza peraltro riscontro in loco) Tap de le Parole e Val Ziolere, di tutti i ford messi ne ho riscontrato forse 1 mappabile come tale (lunghezza superiore al metro in cui ci si bagna la suola degli scarponi) in tutti gli altri casi non c'è nemmeno acqua e se ci fosse, con un passo un po' più lungo lo si supererebbe agevolmente. Josm avverte dell'incrocio tra Stream e Path ciò non significa metterci un ford di default. Opportuno riservare il tag solo dove effettivamente merita. A tal proposito c'è stata anche una discussione su talk-it il 6/9/2023 ad oggetto tag ford=yes su nodo tra "path" e "stream".
at1839 (2024-07-01 14:45:44+00:00): Ciao Gianni.
In questo caso invece non concordo. Conosco la discussione che segnali, non mi pare conclusiva nè in un senso nè nell'altro. 
Io in Val di Zoldo ci abito, vacci adesso su quei path e magari i piedi te li bagni :)
Poi ammetterò anche che i warning dell'editor rompono le scatole ... ma il vero motivo è che io adesso giro prevalentemente in MTB e con la bicicletta non salti, è piuttosto più probabile che vai muso in avanti se finisci su una zona di guado senza aspettartelo. Poi con la bicicletta di solito ai guadi bisogna scendere e spingere, quindi per onestà verso i fruitori cerco di segnalare i passaggi non ciclabili. Ma sarà una mia deformazione ...
Sei sceso dal Coldai per le Ziolere? Se è così hai incrociato Hammer Trail ormai a valle, dove passa promiscuo sui track e sì, temo che a quella quota cartelli che indicano percorso MTB non ce ne siano più. Posso suggerire di aggiungere qualcosa. In alto ci sono. Ora, secondo me, il fatto che cicleway non sia del tutto adatta non dipende (solo) dai cartelli, perchè allora ti confermo che i cartelli ci sono, dipende proprio dall'uso del tag che sembra specifico per percorsi, diciamo così, paved o simil paved, e non per MTB. Manca molto ancora per la descrizione di percorsi MTB.
gion274 (2024-07-01 16:39:25+00:00): Ciao Paolo.
mi pareva evidente che almeno nel percorso che ho fatto alcuni tag ford erano mappati solo perchè incrociavano una waterway senza riscontro nella realtà, come vedi uno l'ho già sostituito con un bridge (1), quelli all'inizio della Val Ziolere sono messi lì solo perchè incrociano la mappatura (errata) del sentiero che passa più a lato (e che andrò  a correggere) quindi desumo taggati perchè segnalati da Josm o iD. Parte del problema sta proprio nel mappare ford in modo generico senza sopralluogo; che andrò ad incrociare un corso d'acqua (in montagna molto spesso sono rivoli ed anche intermittenti) lo posso vedere dalla mappa, non mi serve il tag ford ma, usarlo per evidenziare solo dove necessita prestare attenzione mi sembrerebbe cosa più logica. 
Gianni
(1) https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/153411088
lefuturiste (2024-06-28 13:01:16+00:00): Bah bravo, je te félicite !
ManuelB701 (2024-06-28 14:55:07+00:00): Hallo DB,

ich schreibe Euch an, da ich nicht mit allen Änderungen unbedingt einverstanden bin:
- Der Aufzug ist definitv NICHT layer=1 und der einzige Grund, warum Sie das gemacht hast, ist um einfach so die Warnung einfach so zu entfernen, ohne damit wirklich genauer zu befassen.
- Für mich ist das Mappen von Unterführungen als "highway=corridor" und diese dann explizit als solche zu Beschreiben eher ein Hack anstelle "man_made=tunnel" zu verwenden (zumindest für die einfacheren Unterführungen), da es diese genauer beschreibt (außerdem ist es noch Analog zu "man_made=bridge" für Überführungen).

Grüße
Manuel
dbsus (2024-06-28 15:28:01+00:00): Hallo Manuel,
bei den Aufzugsschächten habe ich den Vorschlag tatsächlich akzeptiert, weil mir nichts besseres eingefallen ist. Das layer-Tag ist ja v.a. für die Steuerung der Darstellung relevant, soweit mir bekannt ist. Da ich zu den Öffnungen in der Aufzugsumhausung keine guten Informationen vorliegen habe, wollte ich auch keine Türen o.ä. hinzufügen. 
Zur Unterführung: da habe ich aus der Perspektive der Unterführung als Gebäudeteil gedacht und die im Bereich der Verkehrsgebäude meines Wissens nach übliche Variante genutzt, die als Ziel die Verbesserung der (Indoor-) Routingfähigkeit hat.
Viele Grüße
dbsus
ManuelB701 (2024-06-28 17:26:25+00:00): Also... m.M.n. ist es manchmal besser, eher harmlose Fehler zu ignorieren anstelle diese zu verschlimmbessern.
In dem Fall habe ich die Wege mit den Gebäude verbunden und dort Eingänge hinzugefügt (zugegebenermaßen hilft es auch nicht, dass es keine gescheite Anleitung für das Mappen von Aufzügen gibt...).

Das mit den Unterführungen kann ich schon verstehen, nur stimme ich eben nicht ganz zu mit der Durchführung. Aber was sollst, zumindest ist es auch ein eher vergleichsweise harmloser unterschied zu mappen. :)
Mevess (2024-06-30 17:00:17+00:00): Bonjour,
Où se trouve l'oeuvre précisemment ? Je ne pense pas que le bâtiment tout entier soit devenu une oeuvre
je corrige le bâtiment, je laisse un noeud pour l'oeuvre avec un fixme
Syl (2024-06-30 19:31:05+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai annulé le déplacement d'une agence immobilière sur une route, ça semble être une erreur.
empty_child (2024-06-28 18:47:31+00:00): Зачем?
Почему?
tastrax (2024-06-30 05:29:50+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
travaudat (2024-08-18 04:35:49+00:00): Hi @griffonboi, thanks for your contributions. I saw you added "ref" to some bus stops, using the numeric identifier of the PTV website link. This is not a unique reference. The unique stop ID (that starts with "ID." at bus stop signs) is a better value for "ref". May I suggest to have a look at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines/Transportation#Stop_numbering (for VIC).

I changed "ref" to the unique stop ID where possible and removed it otherwise. The numeric identifier you added is preserved in "website".

I also changed "operator:wikidata" to "network:wikidata".

Kind regards, travaudat
mcliquid (2024-06-29 11:20:57+00:00): Hi and thank you for your contribution!

Please upload/save changes before moving on to map in a different area.

Thanks for considering, have a nice day and happy mapping.
Syl (2024-06-30 19:44:31+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai annulé le déplacement d'une borne incendie, ça semble être une erreur.
whb_revert (2024-06-28 13:51:04+00:00): This changeset reverts changeset 153208280, 153208281, 153208283, 153208284.
limes11 (2024-07-22 21:15:03+00:00): Hallo Heiner,

das funktioniert so nicht. Dank der foot/bicycle=designated ist das access=no wertlos. 

Ich weiß aber auch nicht, ob es sich lohnt, die tatsächlich zu sperren, wie lange soll die Sache denn dauern ?

Viele Grüße
HeinerSchaefer (2024-07-26 14:39:26+00:00): Hallo Limes,
das mit access=no war mir nicht bewusst.
Dann muss zusätzlich das foot/bicycle=designated gelöscht werden?

Die Baustelle soll bis Jan. 2025 dauern.
Falls es keine Verzögerungen gibt.

Man könnte es als gesperrt eintragen, man kann es aber auch lassen.
Das ist ja bei vielen Baustellen die Frage.

Grüße
Heiner
limes11 (2024-07-26 20:38:20+00:00): Ja, der spezifischere Tag (foot/bicycle) sticht immer den allgemeineren (access). Daher funktionieren Konstruktionen wie vehicle=no+bicycle=yes

Man könnte foot/bicycle einfach löschen. Ich denke, es gibt genug Mapper in der Gegend, die nach Fertigstellung die tags zeitnah korrigieren.

Viele Grüße

Limes
HeinerSchaefer (2024-07-27 14:25:20+00:00): Habe jetzt foot/bicycle gelöscht.
Dann warten wir mal auf die Fertigstellung.

Grüße
Heiner
miluethi (2024-07-03 17:37:26+00:00): Hi Mehdi,

This is clearly not a building. I'm going to delete it.
griffonboi (2024-06-28 13:46:50+00:00): Wow what are the odds that we both decided to add the route at the same time
Ewen Hill (2024-06-28 23:17:52+00:00): Ha Ha !!!- all good - I thought I was going blind - I've removed the duplicated bus stops now
EP_Repair (2024-09-19 16:12:24+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 156828449 where the changeset comment is: Reverting speed limit changes that were not field verified and have never been posted on the beltways
miluethi (2024-06-30 22:10:30+00:00): Hi Mr Chinnam,

I'm going to revert your contributions in Nicaragua. They do not match our standards. All building shapes should be squared out and match exactly the sat imagery. Most of your shapes are far too big.

Please compare to other building shapes in Nicaragua. Thanks.
erickdeoliveiraleal (2024-07-17 14:24:42+00:00): deleted castles
Mevess (2024-06-28 20:34:06+00:00): Hey
J'ai ajouté le point culture y'a quelques mois mais d'après souvenir, donc peu précis
Merci pour tous ces ajouts pendant la cartopartie!
Mevess
Syl (2024-06-30 19:28:04+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai annulé le déplacement de rails de tram sur 300 mètres, ça semble être une erreur.
N'hésitez pas si vous avez des questions.
ManuelB701 (2024-06-28 14:32:58+00:00): Hallo Crisu,

anscheinend hast du ein Stück Autobahnanbindung in Irland ebenfalls als Barriere gemappt:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/871882808

Das ist definitiv unbeabsichtigt, oder?
Crisu (2024-06-28 17:48:10+00:00): Danke für den Hinweis, habe es wieder repariert.
dankarran (2024-06-28 14:33:48+00:00): Thanks for checking - I'll make sure to take Companies Registry changes with a pinch of salt
arkarjun (2024-06-28 14:29:15+00:00): Thank you for mapping #Reviewed_Good #OMGuru
            ---
            #REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153296102
NicaTopo (2024-06-28 17:57:13+00:00): Hi Shashank,

Please narrow down the shapes of your buildings to match exactly the aerial imagery. Do not combine clearly separate buildings into one shape.

Thank you,
Michael
NicaTopo (2024-06-28 15:04:43+00:00): Hi,
I deleted your building shape - it is far bigger than shown on the sat imagery. Please narrow down your shapes.

Thank you
OldManCelli (2024-10-07 22:35:41+00:00): Please be careful about making strange shaped buildings. The wiki describes how to make them. You really only need to trace around the outside of the building. I've converted this into a building relation with parts to not loose the detail that you added with each part, but without more detail on each part it is really overkill.
GrabMY_ainayusof (2024-07-09 07:16:03+00:00): Hi Lake Quilotoa. 

I believe you have make changes on this way id w1195970334 which previously has been classified as path. 

The way id you have selected is not a proper residential road since it is unpaved and has no utilities. Some road user may prefer to pass through the road as it may be shortcut especially for local resident and two wheel ride.

As a local myself, this road may bring more hazard and I'd rather prefer to pass through official paved road as it is rather safer. 

Thanks
LakeQuilotoa (2024-07-10 17:06:09+00:00): Hello GrabMY_ainayusof, I see that the residential road is already re-classified as path (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1195970334). The only thing I would add to your assessment is that the road is potentially serving for a building (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/982215291) that can be identified with ground imagery (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=3.1525573875&lng=101.769218855&z=18.696781467370048&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=272938214523997). Since parked cars can be seen next to the building on this path, would it be more appropriate to re-classify the feature as a service road? Let me know your thoughts on this suggestion.
GrabMY_ainayusof (2024-07-12 02:04:43+00:00): Hello there.

Thanks for highlighting the POV from front of the building. I made my judgement from the back side of the building and I think it is best for us to separate it into two different entity. From the front side classify it as driveway and from the back side, is path. Reason being because it is not the appropriate road for car or motorcycle to pass through. 

Backside POV: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=3.1519036488322314&lng=101.76894900986781&z=18.647511611912876&focus=photo&dateFrom=2017-01-01&pKey=297079098557621&x=0.5375060621922783&y=0.3958656216880091&zoom=0

Thanks!
LakeQuilotoa (2024-07-17 11:34:05+00:00): The latest modification looks great. Thanks for your time and have a great day!
miluethi (2024-06-30 22:30:52+00:00): Szakha, you building shapes are far bigger than the imagery. Also none of the buildings is squared out.
I'm going to revert your changeset. 

Please square out buildings and match exactly the imgagery. thanks.
EP_Repair (2024-09-19 16:12:34+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 156828449 where the changeset comment is: Reverting speed limit changes that were not field verified and have never been posted on the beltways
miluethi (2024-07-08 20:34:36+00:00): Rachita,

Try to square out all buildings in OSM by selecting a shape and pressing the "Q" key.

99% of the buildings are square.

Thank you.
EP_Repair (2024-09-19 16:12:33+00:00): This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset 156828449 where the changeset comment is: Reverting speed limit changes that were not field verified and have never been posted on the beltways
Mateusz Konieczny (2024-06-29 18:44:32+00:00): Hej, niestety z Street view korzystać nie możemy
AgusQui (2024-07-01 00:06:48+00:00): Por favor, si una plataforma no tiene servicio de pasajeros no se debe agregar public_transport=platform
NeisBot (2024-06-29 11:48:24+00:00): Hi gotze, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contribution to the map. I've reviewed your recent edits regarding the addition of a beach and noticed a few inconsistencies with the surrounding environment features. It appears that the location you've labeled as a beach does not match typical geographical characteristics I would expect for such a feature.

Your beach feature:
https://osm.org/way/998466159

Could you please clarify:
- The source about this beach
- Any additional context about this location that might explain the unusual designation.

Looking forward to your response!

#BeachCheck
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-01 12:31:04+00:00): Reverted by https://osm.org/changeset/153319137
marczoutendijk (2024-07-02 19:15:06+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/16348


Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
yrtimiD (2025-04-24 16:17:33+00:00): Hello, I see here two best practices violations: 
1. Mapping for the renderer
2. Including object description into name tag (rendering should explain ways difference, not name) 

My advice is to revert. Or let's discuss on the forum or in our telegram chat.
yrtimiD (2025-06-25 22:17:40+00:00): FYI, the "bus lane" suffixes were removed as agreed by community.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/168114406
luisforte (2024-06-28 15:58:09+00:00): Olá
O que representa landuse=provision?
Pergunta inocente, desconheço essa etiqueta e não encontro documentação relacionada.
flohoff (2024-06-28 21:59:57+00:00): Moin,
nur so als Heads up - die Umgehung ist durch die changesets jetzt so schlecht geworden das jetzt aus Warendorf über Wollbeck gerouted wird.

https://osm.zz.de/routeqa/?rid=793583,794108

Rot alt - Grün neu.
skorasaurus (2024-07-27 16:49:29+00:00): thanks for the adds!
Rodrigo Rega (2024-06-29 19:45:54+00:00): Hola, gracias por tus aportes a OSM. Te agradecería si pudieses echar un ojo a la siguiente página, gracias: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ES:Buenos_comentarios_en_conjuntos_de_cambios
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153299502
Kovoschiz (2024-07-02 05:02:03+00:00): You broke it by merely disconnecting the `=steps`
VLD284 (2024-07-02 15:10:25+00:00): Thank you for reaching out regarding changeset 153300146. My edits were made to resolve some overlapping highway issues and I may have overlooked some things. Thanks for bringing this up and I will take your comments into consideration when making edits in the future
spiregrain (2024-06-28 18:22:18+00:00): Finally!
MacLondon (2024-07-01 13:14:05+00:00): At this rate, Cycleway 2 might eventually get to Ilford by 2054!
Syl (2024-07-01 07:56:29+00:00): Bonjour, je viens de modifier le type, ça semble être un magasin de téléphones plutôt qu'une cabine téléphonique.
josmougn (2024-06-29 13:05:12+00:00): bonjour
Le parc de la Vallée aux Loups n'est pas entièrement interdit aux vélos, uniquement l'Arboretum, l'île Verte et le Parc de Chateaubriand.
a3nm (2024-06-30 09:07:49+00:00): Bonjour,

Malheureusement ce n'est pas l'expérience que j'en ai eu cette semaine.

Cf par exemple https://www.google.com/maps/@48.7759296,2.2673128,3a,75y,205.14h,77.4t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8BDpZt681k3AK4ujw-ZcKA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8BDpZt681k3AK4ujw-ZcKA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D181.90405%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205409&entry=ttu où on peut voir un panneau d'interdiction aux vélos en zoomant (à droite du signe interdiction de fumer), sur cette entrée qui ne concerne ni l'arboretum ni la maison de châteaubriand ni l'île verte
josmougn (2024-10-20 22:27:40+00:00): Une photo Google de 2018 fait moins foi que le règlement du parc.
Photo récente rue J. Jaurès entrée parc boisée, aucune interdiction aux vélos : https://pic.infini.fr/gallery#VEe4M69H/67ab9n1o.JPEG
Règlement dans "infos pratiques" :
https://www.hauts-de-seine.fr/sortir-et-decouvrir/patrimoine-vert/les-espaces-verts-pres-de-chez-vous/les-parcs-departementaux/le-parc-du-domaine-de-la-vallee-aux-loups
a3nm (2024-10-21 11:07:32+00:00): Il y a 4 mois j'ai tenté d'entrer dans le parc par ici geo:48.773421,2.267405?z=19 et l'accès était indiqué comme interdit aux vélos.

Je recommanderais de vérifier sur place s'il y a un doute. Après, je n'habite plus la région moi-même, donc je n'ai pas d'opinion forte !
Jordi MF (2024-06-30 20:06:54+00:00): Hola PC SERRA (Protecció Civil de Serra?),

Moltes gràcies per millorar les dades d'OSM. Però veient el tipus d'informació que heu afegit, pareix que es tracta d'una importació d'informació pròpia que teniu en Protecció Civil. En principi, estes importacions s'han de notificar i revisar per a no introduir informació de manera errònia. I, efectivament, és el que ha ocorregut en este cas.

Per exemple, l'etiqueta "name" no hauria d'estar escrita amb totes les lletres en majúscula (name=CASTELL EXPLANADA > name=Castell Explanada). Això s'hauria de corregir en tots els hidrants que heu afegit.

En segon lloc, heu utiltizant malament l'etiqueta "water_source=*". Els únics valors correctes són els que apareixen en la wiki d'informació de com afegir informació en OpenStreetMap. Mireu els valors ("value") que apareixen en la següent pàgina i corregiu-ho: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water%20source. En aquesta etiqueta heu afegit informació que hauria de formar part de la descripció (etiqueta "description=*").

Per exemple, en el següent hidrant (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12017163955), en lloc de "water_source=solo_si_la_bomba_del_pozo_esta_en_marcha" heu d'afegir eixa informació en "description=En funcionamiento solo si la bomba del pozo está en marcha. Si no realitzeu estos canvis, és molt possible que algun moderador es done compte que heu realitzat una importació de dades amb molts errors i que esborren tot el que heu afegit i seria una llàstima. S'haurien de corregir tots els hidrants.

Si teniu dubtes, per favor, no dubteu en preguntar.
Salutacions,
Jordi
Bartek93ZGL (2024-06-29 22:03:25+00:00): Ostatnio dużo edytujesz w okolicy Goleniowa. Jednak popełniasz sporo błędów. W tej lub innej edycji zmieniłeś granicę miasta Goleniów w polną drogę. Dodatkowo zabrałeś jakikolwiek dostęp do dróg leśnych za cmentarzem. Drogi te są drogami leśnymi i poprzez odpowiednią kategorie "forrest" można szybko określić jej dostępność. Przez Twoją edycje służby leśne korzystające z tej mapy nie mogły by wjechać na tą drogę. Dodatkowo użyłeś do drogi koło oczyszczalni ścieków kategorii drogi "droga czwartorzędna". Ta kategoria w kwestii hierarchii jest wyżej niż droga lokalna.
jhaluska80 (2024-06-28 19:36:03+00:00): We understand your frustration.  OSM runs into this issue routinely.  

Service road is just a classification OSM uses.  Driveways are considered a subset service roads.

This driveway has been tagged "private" to both vehicles and pedestrians, which means any routing engine will not use it.  

Everything was tagged correctly, and removing correctly tagged features is considered vandalism which is why the change has been reverted.

Anybody making the mistake likely is not using OSM or should be reported to program using OSM data cause their program has serious bugs.

I have mapped the woods around the property to help people realize they can't drive/walk through the area.
RossBrewer (2024-06-28 19:43:34+00:00): I don't appreciate being accused of vandalism because this change was made in good faith, but I understand the protocols now that you've explained them.  Since you created this woods polygon and removed the "Worthington Dr" label, I suspect this'll help the property owner's problem.  Thank you
Leo Slager (2024-06-28 22:20:17+00:00): Welkom bij OpenStreetMap. Ik heb een uitgebreid welkomstbericht met wat handige tips en links gestuurd als privebericht.
MVG,
Leo
Namens de OSM Community
Hufkratzer (2024-06-29 17:56:51+00:00): Hi,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1297137918 looks like a riding arena and not like a riding centre/stables. Riding arenas are usually tagged leisure=pitch + sport=equestrian. Here is an example: stables with 2 arenas: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1098376992, compare wiki.
pitscheplatsch (2024-07-02 05:52:01+00:00): Just a test?
battang (2024-07-02 08:50:07+00:00): This was prompted by the appearance of rough plans of wild caves (eg Agen Allwedd) south west of Crickhowell [ https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=1.55502&lon=110.34388#map=15/51.8316/-3.1823 ]. I suspect that they should not be shown, not least as they are not verifiable by 'an ordinary OSM user', but should anyway be distinguishable from surface paths or tracks. This test is for a verifiable cave accessible to all (at a price).
dzidek23 (2024-07-01 10:27:42+00:00): Cześć,
coś chyba poszło nie tak z tą zmianą bo Szpakowa 23a wylądowała na chodniku przy ul. Klonowej. Podejrzewam, że to nie zamierzona zmiana?
zbigniew5309 (2024-07-01 10:35:33+00:00): Jaka Szpakowa i jaka Klonowa? Zmiana dotyczyła sklepiku na Żeromskiego 17.
dzidek23 (2024-07-01 10:44:15+00:00): też mnie zdziwiło :)

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=153302386
Leo Slager (2024-06-28 22:27:36+00:00): feedback:
Dat vierkantje op de kaart doet helemaal niets.
De juiste tag is leisure=picnic_table.

ik pas het even aan.
Abel van Hulst (2024-06-29 10:49:30+00:00): Oké, bedankt
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-06-29 22:12:40+00:00): This changeset removed the highway tag from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/432718071/history/8
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/153302591
Roydon Olive (2024-07-08 10:26:57+00:00): Did you go right up to the fence? I was just there last night and the gap remains the same as before. It's hidden though behind a small section of fence that is a few feet offset, so unless you are right next to the fence it looks like one complete fence.
TheDukePassout (2024-07-10 03:08:50+00:00): Hi Timothy - I went along the sidewalk looking for the path to the fence but did not see any path or desire line in the park to the fence and as the fence appears boarded from that vantage point I took it that the former path was gone as the fence appeared boarded. Apologies for the inconvenience.