JaffaKetchup for the last 12 MonthsJaffaKetchup for the last 12 Months| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5331415 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 hours ago | opened | JaffaKetchup ♦11 | This area is no longer mined or contains explosive ordnance as part of the following program: https://civilna-zastita.gov.hr/croatian-safe-steps-cross-ii/8260 Evidence that the area was a military storage facility is still present (faded painted flags, for example) but there is no signage indicating this. The only sign remaining is positioned at the railway entrance (adjacent to signs saying not to cross the railway here) which refers to the aforementioned de-mining program. This area should definitely not have "PAZI MINE" in the name, and maybe it should no longer be designated a military area. |
| 2 | ~ 5 hours ago | closed | Remarkable Events ♦0 | I agree | |
| 3777712 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | Matyjace | Forwarding anonymous report from #Mapy.cz user, please verify: "There is no ladder and the entrance/window is blocked by big metal plate " |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | v_martyanov ♦21 | Ladder is there, window is not blocked | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | JaffaKetchup ♦11 | Ladder is not guaranteed, but is sometimes there, sometimes not. It appears to be unofficial - the Knafelc blazes leading to it suggest it is 'supposed' to be there. But the entrance is otherwise unmarked. | |
| 5042199 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | --- | Unable to locate any marked path up the mountain at this location, signs make no mention. Possible requirement for a climb rather than a hike? Closest available sign reads "Sector D - Magala 7 b". |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | JaffaKetchup ♦11 | Merged into the fixme of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1451207003 | |
| 3836854 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | JaffaKetchup ♦11 | EV9 not mapped through to Pula from here |
| 2 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | JaffaKetchup ♦11 | except somewhat in Italy, although there seems to be something wrong with the relations, as it doesn't appear on all cycling maps. | |
| 3 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | martianfreeloader ♦1,876 | It's mapped as https://www.osm.org/relation/193490 The description on that relations says that it is not signposted. Do you think we should we still tag the relation with ref=D-1;EV9 ? There might be conflict with the ground truth rule. | |
| 4 | ~ 2 years ago | commented | JaffaKetchup ♦11 | I see. That relation through to Maribor is indeed signposted according to the EuroVelo site, so it would make sense that it's all the same relation IMO (although I'm not sure what's generally accepted here). After Maribor, the route is still under development through the rest of Slovenia and Italy, and developed without signage in Croatia - so I'm not sure what's most appropriate here. | |
| 5 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | PPete2 ♦6,791 | Since the EV9 route from AUT-SLO border to Maribor seems to be mapped correctly now, using the underlying "D-1" route, I would close this note here. If some other parts of EV9 within Slovenia are still missing, please open a new Note at these locations, thanks. | |
| 6 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | JaffaKetchup ♦11 | Regarding this section from the border to Maribor, I'm going to opt to add the EV9 ref - the Eurovelo site says it's signed, and I'm going to use that as my source of truth. It's also interesting that this section is mapped "D-1", whereas the rest of the country (and indeed the rest of D(-)1) seems to be mapped without the "-". For some additional context, here's the sign mentioned on https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/193490#map=12/46.6272/15.6580&layers=C: https://maps.app.goo.gl/qgHNmBJ9WpGETdZX6 This is given extra weight by the apparent mapping of EV9 from Maribor to Slovenska Bistrica. I would be interested to know how this route was picked, since it doesn't seem to follow the Eurovelo site (which says that the route is undecided). | |
| 7 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | PPete2 ♦6,791 | I finallly seperated national D1 from international EV9 which is common practice, so they are using 2 different relations although they share the same ways to Maribor. Finally both realtions could be independently entendend reagarding their signing on the ground | |
| 8 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | martianfreeloader ♦1,876 | Well done! Thanks for your effort. Can we close this note now? | |
| 9 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | PPete2 ♦6,791 | Yes, I think one part of the issue is solved with proper mapping of relations. The other one has to comply with OSM-standards: Just map a bicycle relation if it already signposted and not just a virtual, proposed route |