piebro/osm-data huggingface dataset:
kuhni74 (2024-12-19 13:03:30+00:00): I'm aware that 1.) sinkholes can be mapped as areas (according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dsinkhole) and 2.) we are not mapping for the renderer, but is there considerable loss of information if they are mapped as nodes? Some maps do render the sinkhole nodes, but not sinkhole areas.
-=|MisterY|=- (2024-12-19 13:13:01+00:00): There is a significant difference in size of different sinkholes. Pol Monster, just a bit to the left, has a diameter of over a hundred meters. A node does not do it justice.
kuhni74 (2024-12-19 13:24:56+00:00): That's true, but in this case, we can use cliffs instead (which was in fact done with Pol-Monster).
-=|MisterY|=- (2024-12-19 13:37:26+00:00): Possibly, but that seems like a work-around for a non-existing problem. I don't see a good reason to avoid mapping a sinkhole as an area.
kuhni74 (2024-12-19 13:41:40+00:00): For me, objects that are not rendered *are* a problem, though probably not the biggest problem. I was just asking, I'm not going to transfer sinkhole areas to nodes.
-=|MisterY|=- (2024-12-19 13:44:57+00:00): Correct, but that's a problem of a renderer, then. In OsmAnd, the sinkholes areas are rendered correctly and that makes a big difference when hiking in a pathless terrain.
kuhni74 (2024-12-19 14:01:23+00:00): Okay, didn't know that OsmAnd is rendering it correctly.
-=|MisterY|=- (2024-12-19 14:09:13+00:00): The same is with OpenAndroMaps and Mapy.cz. The few that don't show the areas (Organic Maps, osmapp), don't show sinkholes at all.
NeisBot (2024-11-15 15:28:38+00:00): Hi M M Tarikul Islam Parag, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 100% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 97 building(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

PS: I have also sent this message through the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=159175480
M M Tarikul Islam Parag (2024-11-15 15:42:41+00:00): As I begin editing in this area, I notice that many agricultural or bare lands have been mistakenly identified as buildings. I was confirmed there with satellite images, and I was deleted from those places.
pitscheplatsch (2024-11-15 16:30:39+00:00): Thanks for your reply, your private message and especially for cleaning up!

#HappyMapping
Supaplex (2025-06-16 06:07:21+00:00): 您好：

你能夠解釋為何改變大甲區的屬性，以及移除台中市公車157線的公車路線屬性？
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159175488
Temat-Droga (2024-11-15 15:33:06+00:00): Na granicy jest ograniczenie tonażowe, więc to u nas było błędnie. Uprzedzam smutnego pana o nicku "Yunkers".
Yunkers (2024-11-15 18:29:43+00:00): Tak, ograniczenie do 7t. Czyli 99% aut przejedzie bez problemu. 
Plus nie ma żadnej zasady dostosowywania do sąsiadów. Oni mają inne zasady
Temat-Droga (2024-11-16 08:46:03+00:00): spójrz na szerokość tej drogi poza tym.
gscscnd (2024-11-15 17:09:10+00:00): Tutaj brakuje crossing=unmarked. Gdyby było, to pozostałe tagi crossing:*=* są zbędne.
TheDDJ (2024-11-15 17:31:21+00:00): Hej, jak mogę to wprowadzić z poziomu Street Complete? "uh." a potem któraś z opcji?
gscscnd (2024-11-15 17:58:01+00:00): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/StreetComplete/Quests
Na Wiki nie widzę odpowiedniej opcji, może w aktualnej wersji się nie da?
martinst (2024-11-15 18:24:30+00:00): Hallo Gabriela Scheierl,
da in OSM die Wirklichkeit abgebildet wird und der gelöschte Weg noch klar im Luftbild sichtbar ist habe ich die Löschung in Changeset 159181833 revertiert.

Erst wenn es keine Spuren eines Weges mehr gibt darf er gelöscht werden. Zuvor kennzeichnet das Lifecycle-Präfix den Zustand des Verfalls.

Ich habe den Weg jetzt in Changeset 159182145 zu disused:highway=path geändert, womit er auf den meisten Karten nicht mehr erscheint und andere Mapper ihn auch nicht wieder falsch einzeichnen.

Gruß Martin
Road–Runner (2024-11-15 19:05:25+00:00): Seltsam ist, dass der ostseitige AV 635 Weg zum einen unten bei der Staumauer beim Schnannerbach unterbrochen ist, und zum anderen der Zugang (access=no) gesperrt wurde. 

Vielleicht weiß von euch noch jemand Bescheid hier und kann das noch korrigieren?
Syl (2024-11-16 08:22:27+00:00): Bonjour, j'ai annulé cette modification, le nom visible sur place contient bien une majuscule.
rempshaener (2024-11-15 19:55:43+00:00): Hallo,

ich hätte noch mal eine Anmerkung.
service=emergency_access ist eine (meist Feuerwehr-)Zufahrt, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:service=emergency%20access?uselang=de
D. h. die Richtung ist falsch ;-)

Um sicherzustellen, dass da nicht jeder reinfährt, passt besser
highway=service
emergency=designated

Viele Grüße
felipeeugenio (2024-11-15 20:37:15+00:00): Hola. Los edificios puedes cuadrarlos con la letra Q. Así te quedan con ángulos rectos.
Saludos
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159177519
theDM (2025-02-21 16:58:29+00:00): Hej, z tego co wiem, to na azylach dla pieszych (Wałowa w Malborku) nie rozdzielamy jezdni.
Marek-M (2025-02-21 17:33:55+00:00): Rozdzielenie przy ul. Wałowej to zasługa Adama Haby w edycji sprzed 7 miesięcy - https://www.osm.org/changeset/154846277
Marek_P (2025-02-21 17:42:26+00:00): Widzę, że Marek-M już odpowiedział, dziękuję. Prawdę mówiąc, na początku trochę zbaraniałem, bo takich rzeczy nie robię, od tego jest `crossing:island`
theDM (2025-02-21 17:46:38+00:00): Wiem, ale jak patrzyłem na historię, to natrafił mi się ten changeset. Te rozdzielenia przy wysepkach do wycofania.
citrula (2024-11-16 00:44:44+00:00): Welcome to OSM, and thanks for your contribution. This looks more like highway=service + service=driveway than a footway. What do you think?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159178769
Derick Rethans (2025-01-17 11:18:57+00:00): Hi,

can you please *not* add separate footpaths for roads where there is no separate footpaths. Normal pavements should *not* be mapped like this.
rskedgell (2025-01-17 13:38:15+00:00): Hi @VLD282

While there are no firm guidelines in the wiki which support @Derick Rethans emphasis here, it might be worth considering when it might be useful to added separate sidewalks and when it might be better to tag them as sidewalk=$side and sidewalk:$side:surface=* on the way representing the road.

If you have a road with reasonably spaced formal crossing points, usually a major road, then adding separate sidewalks *and* crossings can be very useful for pedestrian routing. If care is taken to capture all the accessibility features like kerb height and tactile paving, this is also useful for routing applications for users with mobility and visual impairments. The nearby A404 Harrow Road is a good example of this.

In the case of Bathurst Gardens, which is a quiet residential street, pedestrians can cross safely at any point. It is also a street where the houses are pre-motor car terraces (very common in towns and cities in the UK), so there are few or no driveways intersecting the sidewalks. With separate sidewalks here and no crossing points or intersection driveways, a pedestrian router will make crossing the street from number 90 to number 87 take a "scenic" route adding half a kilometre via the crossing at the Wrottesley Road end ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=51.533842%2C-0.226386%3B51.533575%2C-0.226327 ). This became even worse moving towards the junction with College Road, as the separate sidewalks you added were not connected to the mapped crossing at that end (fixed pro tem in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161455611 ). If you are adding separate sidewalks, please also remember to update the tags on the parent highway.

In this case, I feel that these sidewalks should be removed, however I am not in the habit of deleting the work of other active users without discussion and will not do so unless you or someone else from Meta's mapping team are satisfied that this is reasonable.
VLD282 (2025-01-17 17:13:20+00:00): Hi @rskedgell,

My apologies! Our standard practice is to avoid adding separate sidewalks when a tag is already present on the parent highway (sidewalk=both), I must have overlooked that when working in this area. That proposed edit sounds reasonable and I’ll pay closer attention in the future. Thank you and @Derek Rethans for bringing this to my attention.
rskedgell (2025-01-17 17:42:15+00:00): @VLD282 thanks! I've removed the sidewalks and added a couple of accessibility details in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/161465072
MichS (2024-11-16 15:19:29+00:00): Hallo,

warum wurde der Parkplatz in Surheim gelöscht bitte?

MFG
Markus Hagenauer (2024-11-18 07:20:20+00:00): Der Am Bahnhof? Weil es sich um ein Privatgrundstück handelt und nicht um einen öffentlich zugänglichen Parkplatz.
MichS (2024-11-18 17:59:58+00:00): Ja der.

Der Parkplatz war demnach korrekt  als Privat getaggt. Ein Löschung nicht gerechtfertigt.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property?searchToken=3l723hnyboitq6qdpi8k9dv7r


Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Markus Hagenauer (2024-11-19 06:05:40+00:00): Tut mir leid, das habe ich übersehen.
Ich habe ihn jetzt wieder ergänzt.
Gruß
Markus
JuanCarlos80 (2024-11-18 15:24:10+00:00): Moin,
Das motor_vehicle=yes auf dem Haxthäuserweg muss dahin, ebenso wie vehicle=no. Steht auf https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:traffic%20sign=DE:244.1?uselang=de in der Tabelle bei Kfz frei (das hängt da nämlich unterm Fahrradstraßenschild).
flohoff (2024-11-19 20:52:31+00:00): Das steht das ein vehicle=no da hin muss wenn es denn verboten ist.  Ist es aber nicht.
flohoff (2024-11-19 21:04:48+00:00): Das vehicle=no muss eher runter - und ich meine da ist auch anliefer frei - es müsste also wenn ein vehicle=destination sein   -Aber Bilder mache ich bei nächster gelegenheit. Lichte sowieso gerade in der gegend alles Systematisch ab für Mapillary.
JuanCarlos80 (2024-11-20 17:58:07+00:00): Die Fahrradstraße impliziert das vehicle=no. Anlieger oder Anlieferer (?) sind da nicht frei, da ist allgemein dieses Kfz-frei-Schild, wie hinter dem von mir benannten wiki-Link zu sehen. Ich habe das auf Kamera, falls du es sehen willst, wie geschrieben vom 31.10.
Und die Tabelle ist da recht eindeutig: vehicle=no UND motor_vehicle=yes. Ich finde es auch etwas widersinnig, aber so stehts da.
Spaghetti Monster🍝 (2024-11-21 01:34:30+00:00): Why was the road changed to service?
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159179820
silversurfer83 (2024-11-15 17:12:45+00:00): Thank you.

Still not sure about the name...
Are you sure that's the name?
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159179838
Niederpruem (2024-11-15 17:20:16+00:00): I am sure. I was there 2 days ago.
Patr1k_P (2024-11-19 15:08:11+00:00): tie adresne body, ktore ste vymazali a vytvorili nove napr. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2960339567 tak preco ste preniesli len 3 adresne tagy, ked ich bolo dokopy 6? teraz je adresa nekompletna, to iste ste urobili uz davnejsie v podobnej uprave...takisto neviem naco ste vymazali tuto bytovku https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/58388681 a kreslili novu, stacilo len upravit povodnu a zachovala by sa aj historia zmien
Fifco1 (2024-11-19 17:24:35+00:00): Tagy som opravil, pri pisani adries do adresnych bodov cez editor sa vyplnia iba 3 tagy, nevsimol som si to, ospravedlnujem sa za chybu. Bytovky kopirovat nebudem, aby sa zachovali zmeny.
Patr1k_P (2024-11-20 16:04:54+00:00): dobre uz je to v poriadku...nevadi, len na buduce teda opatrne
Hypsometric (2024-11-15 17:15:39+00:00): Don't forget to resolve the note. https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4520979
Mapiate (2024-11-15 20:23:38+00:00): Thanks for catching that. I didn't have the notes enabled at the time of the changeset but closed it out.
mcliquid (2024-11-17 15:09:46+00:00): > "Siehe ausführliche Beschilderung."
Wo sieht man die ausführliche Beschilderung?
"access" gilt wirklich für restlos alle, wie bereits von mir beschriebe wurde. Einsatzkräfte, Fußgänger, Müllabfuhr, und so weiter. "permissive" heißt, dass hier nur Personen mit Berechtigung verkehren dürfen. Die benötigte Berechtigung bekommt man 
 bei "permissive" laut Wiki sehr einfach bei der Gemeinde - und zwar jeder der fragt. Ist das hier so?
tirek (2024-11-17 16:55:51+00:00): Im Wiki steht's für "permissive" umgedreht: Alle dürfen durch, es sei denn es wird ihnen verboten. Was du meinst ist "permit", statt "permissive", oder? 

Auf dem Schild (an beiden "Eingängen") steht aus der Erinnerung zitiert: "Willkommen auf Hof XYZ, bitte nicht die Wege verlassen, Hunde an die Leine, usw".
mcliquid (2024-11-17 18:03:31+00:00): Ich war nicht ganz auf der Höhe. Du hast vollkommen Recht. Mein Hirn ist bei "permit" stehen geblieben.
Temat-Droga (2024-11-15 17:53:52+00:00): Nawet przyjebaniec nie przeczyta.
Bexhill-OSM (2024-11-16 00:38:50+00:00): Nice to put it into Combe Haven into a relation. Glad you put the name back on though, useful to see what it is!
I have traced the waterway back to the Mill Wood area, and thinking about it now, it is more of a stream until it passes under Haven Brook Avenue. I'll fix that.
eggie (2024-11-15 18:28:52+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
NorthCrab_upload (2024-11-15 17:52:06+00:00): Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera niepoprawne adresy. Przygotowałem listę obiektów do poprawy oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Adres jest niekompletny, brakuje informacji o nazwie ulicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, dodaj ją w addr:street. Jeśli nie, zamień addr:city na addr:place - tak oznaczamy adresy bez ulic.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/957510405

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
Szymson (2024-11-15 18:13:55+00:00): Adresy ok, ale po co likwidujesz rozdzielenie jezdni w miejscach gdzie jest ona fizycznie podzielona?
theDM (2024-11-15 19:25:20+00:00): Które miejsca masz na myśli konkretnie? 
W Gościnie rozdzielenie jest jedynie na azylu przejścia dla pieszych, to tam dałem `crossing:island=yes` zgodnie z dokumentacją.
Na skrzyżowaniu między Kłębowem a Luzinem też nie było na takim odcinku rozdziału jezdni, tam są punktowe wysepki i je zmapowałem.
W Nowym Kłębowie ktoś dał dwie jezdnie tam, gdzie kierunki ruchu były rozdzielone jedynie malowaną linią. 
Inna sprawa, że do tematu tagowania wysepek są różne opinie, ale te wysepki uspokajające ruch daję jako `traffic_calming=island`.
stasiu512 (2024-11-16 14:14:15+00:00): Cześć, zgodzę się, dwie linie na tak krótkich fragmentach były całkowicie zbędne także zmiana według mnie na plus. Zaznaczę tutaj że wysepki rozdzielają pasy ruchu a nie jezdnie więc dwie linie są niepotrzebne. Te wysepki raczej ruchu nie uspokajają a rozdzielają właśnie pasy ruchu, więc moim zdaniem tagowanie traffic_calming=island nie jest wskazane. Crossing:island=yes jeśli rozdzielenie występuje tylko na przejściu dla pieszych jest poprawne.
Dodam jeszcze cytat z wiki - "Nie każda wysepka drogowa służy spowolnieniu ruchu! Tym znacznikiem nie powinno się oznaczać fizycznego rozdzielenia pasów ruchu za pomocą wysepki drogowej (przykładowo przed rondem), ani wysepek, które mają na celu rozprowadzić ruch w odpowiednim kierunku." (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:traffic_calming%3Disland)
marczoutendijk (2024-11-27 20:54:11+00:00): Hi,
Does that pond really also has the name "pond"?
Normally natural=water and water=pond is all that is needed.
 
Marc Zoutendijk  
OpenStreetMap Foundation  
Data Working Group
Dawid2849 (2024-11-15 18:11:24+00:00): Nieuzasadnione to są Twoje zmiany i zanim stwierdzisz, że tak nie jest, to pokaż dyskusję na ten temat
NeisBot (2024-11-15 18:02:38+00:00): Hi choferqp, welcome to OSM!

Thank you for your contributions to the map. I have reviewed your recent edits and noticed that 99% of the changes in this set involve deletions, including:
- 38 highway(s)
- 1 building(s)

Could you please confirm if these deletions were intentional or if they occurred by mistake?

Looking forward to your response.

PS: I have also sent this message through the OSM messaging system for your convenience.

#DeletionsCheck
---
https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=159181558
choferqp (2024-11-15 18:13:16+00:00): The deletions were intentional. This parcel is the private property of TSMVPL and only the sanctioned trails - Loki's Lowline Trail and the Powerline Trail are permitted to be used by the public. Additionally there is only 2 crossings over three sisters creek one at the debris pond and one north by the tip of Casale Place. All trails within Three Sisters Village are closed west of Three Sisters Creek due to construction.
pitscheplatsch (2024-11-17 10:48:31+00:00): Thank you for your reply and private message. 

Based on the other discussion/comment  (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/159187829), could you please review your changeset?
choferqp (2024-11-18 16:32:21+00:00): Hello, for the abandoned golf cart tracks, we can alter the user to private however as construction progresses these pathways will be removed. Our clients TSMVPLs preference is that any unsanctioned trail be removed so as not to wrongly convey to the public that there are public trails within the site for use especially as the area to the west side of the creek is a construction site. There is signage up for all sanctioned paths and common entries onto the parcel.
Luzandro (2025-07-18 05:42:40+00:00): https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4861885
Sylvain M (2026-05-21 12:34:20+00:00): Hi @FLCartographer
Are you sure for the species Quercus geminata for "Serenitree" (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12344493920) ?
iNaturalist Observations describe it as Quercus virginiana :
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/144012556
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/180347216
PcMouse1 (2024-11-16 04:15:12+00:00): Hello stephenmp, 
What specifically are you defining?
Cheers, 
PcMouse1
AndyB_66 (2024-11-16 19:43:38+00:00): No i na 10 lat mamy spokój :) Nareszcie, ufff...
Dawid2849 (2024-11-16 19:46:48+00:00): W końcu :D oby nie wrócił z nowym kontem
NorthCrab_upload (2024-11-15 18:41:04+00:00): 🗺️ Witaj na OpenStreetMap!

Zauważyłem, że Twoja zmiana zawiera adresy wymagające dodatkowej uwagi. Przygotowałem listę obiektów oraz dodatkowe informacje:

Nazwa ulicy nie istnieje w okolicy. Jeśli adres ma nazwę ulicy, upewnij się, że jest ona poprawna. Jeśli nie, usuń addr:street, a nazwę miejscowości przekaż w addr:place.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172741039

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

W razie problemów lub pytań, proszę pisać. Chętnie pomogę.
Pozdrawiam! 🦀
cyclist789 (2025-01-07 16:24:32+00:00): According to the SDFI maps, only the part north of *Spangå* is called "Hove Å", and the part south of it is called "Vasbø Å".
Should I change it, or are you sure about the naming?
cyclist789 (2025-01-07 16:25:49+00:00): And by the way, I think you are supposed to make the tunnel segments part of the Waterway too. I have done so for the segments north of Spangå.
Torgau2020 (2025-01-07 16:44:46+00:00): Go ahead and change it. My only comment would be to consider if it is an issue of considering it two different rivers/streams or if it is still considered the same river/stream but by different names depending on location (like for example Yangtze has many local names along the way but is still considered one river). If the latter I would rather add Spangå as (alternative?) name. I think I based the relation on the names of the existing ways (I find it quite hard to understand what has happened during one individual edit here on OSM when looking at history afterwards so might be mistaken about what happened during the edit). Missing the tunnel segments was something unintentional (they are by the nature quite short and easily missed), sorry about that.
cyclist789 (2025-01-07 19:06:48+00:00): Doesn't seem to be the problem in this instance. I have changed it.
But yeah, a river is an abstract concept, one can be part of another, or two rivers might even overlap partially...

As for the tunnel segments, I've realized that the optimal way to make Waterways is to create one river Line object, name it and make it a new relation, and then expand it by rightclicking and using the Continue and/or Split functions. That way, each new Line automatically given the name and relation memberships of the original object.
A Waterway relation is much easier to deal with than 3 Lines, and a Multipolygon relation is handier than an equivalent decagon (10-sided) Area.

(I am going through most of the named waterways I can find on Zealand and putting them into Relations. When this is done, maybe the administrators can use this to study how Waterways work, somehow.)
Torgau2020 (2025-01-07 20:07:22+00:00): Yes that is also my experience - that if possible it is nicest to add the relation first and then sort out all "level" stuff. 

Seems like we are no a similar mission:-) I have added relations to make it easier to visualize the rivers. Like https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hove_%C3%85 for just Hove Å and https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_%C3%B6ver_vattendrag_i_Danmark for the 15 longest rivers in Denmark.
HugoC01 (2024-11-16 12:54:05+00:00): Pourquoi avez vous supprimez le lampadaire 20 ?
Il existe bien sur le terrain
ArthµrC2016 (2025-06-08 16:59:20+00:00): je me souviens pas si je l'ai suprimé en tout cas je me souviens bien est-ce que la lampe fonctionne non
HugoC01 (2025-06-08 17:11:53+00:00): J'ai remarqué que ce lampadaire ne fonctionne pas tout les jours, mais fonctionne quand même durant de nombreuses nuits
HugoC01 (2025-06-08 17:16:36+00:00): Et puis c'est le lampadaire côté ouest
HugoC01 (2025-06-08 17:31:13+00:00): J'ai réglé le problême
bxl-forever (2024-11-15 19:19:47+00:00): Bonjour @Tututuuu et bienvenue sur OSM.

Est-ce un « test » avec des données fausses juste pour tester ou vraiment des données à inclure dans la database, svp ?

Attention : pas de tests sur la DB en production.

Merci de répondre sous ce message car je vais en profiter pour corriger quelques erreurs dans les tags. (p.ex l'info sur le terrain en pente, vous n'utilisez pas le bon champ d'information).
Tututuuuu (2024-11-15 19:29:58+00:00): Bonjour, ce sont de vraies données. Désolé pour les infos sur la table de ping pong je ne savais pas où les mettre à part dans Notes.
bxl-forever (2024-11-15 19:40:47+00:00): OK merci.
Reinhard Müller (2024-11-15 19:22:17+00:00): Der Wanderweg am südwestlichen Achufer wurde 2024 aufgelassen und sowohl Rheintalweg als auch Jakobsweg an das nordöstliche Achufer verlegt. Siehe z.B. den Kommentar auf https://data.vorarlberg.gv.at/raumplanung/wanderweg_standortblatt/34_Hard/34.37.pdf
Rodrigo Rega (2024-11-15 22:43:59+00:00): Buenas, bienvenido a OSM.

Has borrado un "landuse=residential", lo correcto sería dejar "landuse=residential" y añadir además "residential=rural". ¿Puedes revisarlo?

Gracias por tus aportaciones a OSM.
            ---
            
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159184419
Rodrigo Rega (2024-11-22 21:09:04+00:00): Ya que no hubo respuesta, he procedido a arreglarlo.
            ---
            #REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
            Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/159184419
ObscureAngel (2024-12-09 11:13:30+00:00): Bonjour,
A quel réseau correspond cette ligne ? La ligne 35 existe déjà à la Setram mais ne passe pas par ici (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8212302#map=16/47.99516/0.20460). De plus il n'y a aucune trace  visible d'arrêt de bus sur les arrêts que vous avez ajouté.
Ce n'est pas le premier ajout inventé de votre part, avez-vous la source de cet itinéraire ?
Merci d'avance de votre réponse.
eggie (2024-11-15 20:06:40+00:00): Dag Koen..

De tag amenity=school ontbreekt nog.

Mvg
eggie