| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5243710 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Hvordan ser der ud nede i cykelstien her? - Er der belysning? - Er der solid mur mod jernbanen mod øst? - Er der åben plads eller døre vest for stien, eller er der bare mur og jord? |
| 2 | ~ 4 hours ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 5254472 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 22 days ago | opened | Vaguinhovps ♦27 | Monte Everest |
| 2 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/164979149 It is already labelled as such, both as name:es=* and name:pt=*. | |
| 5155187 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | --- | エベレスト |
| 2 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | name:ja=エベレスト It is already tagged as such. | |
| 5253066 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 23 days ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | I've noticed that this road could use some adjustments in various places. But before I begin doing that, please tell me: Should highways off the main ways be connected like Stubyvej to the west, where the north-going bike lane has been linked to it, or should it be done like the driveway to the east, without such a cycleway? I hear that some route planners might prefer the former, but I'd like a confirmation before making a lot of changes to this area. |
| 2 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | Do you mean if a small section of cycle path should be added to connect the main road with the cycle path to allow cyclist crossing like there it has been done just north of your note (perhaps after you made then note)? I think so. I tried a rounting test further south at Langagervej and it seems that no cycle routing allow a left turn across the main highway (Næstvedvej) unless it's connected with a cycleway. | |
| 3 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | Linus W Frische ♦1,597 | I agree with Lostmonket. Jjust tag the small segment with cycleway=crossing (if there is crossing infrastructure such as ramp from the carriageway to the cycleway) or cycleway=link (if there isn't any crossing infrastructure or you don't know). Also make sure to put oneway=no, since the crossing allows cycleing in both directions which is atypical for cycleways. | |
| 4 | ~ 10 days ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Okay. Thanks, you two. 👍 | |
| 5 | ~ 6 days ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 5274926 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 days ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | En del bygninger mangler eller er forandrede i Ammendrup og i Allerslev (mod syd). |
| 2 | ~ 8 days ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Fixed in Changeset: 182107617 | |
| 5230286 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Tranebæks Rende https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18530445/history Hvad skal man gøre med Tranebæks Rende? Den består af *to vandløb*, der løber sammen og bliver til Snogebæk. Burde man dele den i to vandløb, og kalde begge for Tranebæks Rende, eller kalde dem "Tranebæks Rende (øst)" og "(vest)"? Er der nogen konvention for dette problem? Indtil videre har jeg ladet den være én Relation af type=site. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Har du lavet et stednavne- opslag? Prøv det, de to vandløb løber ikke sammen. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Jeg har søgt "Tranebæks Rende" på google uden at finde noget. Ifølge højdekortet ligger dette punkt ca. 1m lavere end endepunktet mod øst, hvilket dog kunne være en lille datafejl. Antyder De, at vandet flyder fra Lorup Skov, og deler sig og flyder mod øst og syd? | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Vandløbet betragtes som ét samlet vandløb, uagtet at en del flyder fra øst, en anden del fra vest og nord. | |
| 5 | ~ 12 days ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | (Beklager, jeg troede, jeg havde besvaret dette.) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:waterway Definitionen af waterway-relationer tillader ikke dette. Rollen side_stream gælder kun, hvis de to vandløb både skilles og genforenes i punkter, der er del af Tranebæks Rende. | |
| 6 | ~ 12 days ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Vandløbet er tegnet korrekt, retningen er som den skal være. Kan relationen ikke håndtere det, bare ærgerligt. | |
| 7 | ~ 12 days ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | Jeg er ganske enig. Tranebæks Rende efterlades som det er. | |
| 5246807 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 28 days ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Sønderskovvej er markeret af skiltet som værende "Privat" og "fælles vej". Hvad siger dette om tilladelsen til at bevæge sig på den? |
| 2 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Kun hvis du har ærinde. | |
| 3 | ~ 28 days ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Vi prøver igen: "En privat fællesvej er som udgangspunkt åben for al færdsel, medmindre der er opsat skilte eller bomme der begrænser adgangen eller visse typer færdsel". Så hvis skiltet kun siger at det er en privat fællesvej, så er der ingen begrænsning. | |
| 4 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Og skiltet siger bare "privat". Det siger ikke "Adgang forbudt for uvedkommende" eller "Er kun til privat brug". Så adgang er altså *ikke* begrænset. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/13725331360 Nu hvor jeg har din opmærksomhed: Et skilt som linket her, der siger "uvedkommende færdsel forbudt"; Er *det* så en access=private? Hvad hvis det sagde "kørsel" i stedet for "færdsel"? | |
| 5 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Du kan læse mere om forskellen på definitionerne her: https://sagfoererne.com/nabostrid/veje/?msclkid=211e3e1e102e1f55a08157c5c3dc6fb3&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=P03%20-%20Nabostrid%20-%20Veje&utm_term=Privat%20vej%20definition&utm_content=Privat%20vej Som osmviborg skriver, så er private fællesveje underlagt kommunal lovgivning. "(private fællesveje er) normalt åbne for almindelige færdsel og må benyttes frit af offentligheden" | |
| 6 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Tak skal I begge have. Jeg læser lidt på det. 👍👍 | |
| 7 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | access=destination er måske bedre. Der er regler der overholdes: https://mst.dk/media/zcppm02d/skiltevejledning-august-2019-med-bilag.pdf | |
| 8 | ~ 15 days ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 5262396 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 17 days ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | The fencing and buildings of this power station have obviously been removed. But I don't know what has happened to the underground cables. The cables end just north of the highway and a different set of cables pass just west of here, so is it safe to remove all parts of this substation from OSM? |
| 2 | ~ 17 days ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Transformatorstationen blev nedlagt i 2018. Slettet. | |
| 4751529 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Walking on top of the levee is forbidden, but walking *across* it is allowed in places. How to tag this? |
| 2 | ~ 17 days ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 5257510 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 20 days ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Big, new complex building. |
| 2 | ~ 20 days ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,597 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1501214422 | |
| 5253060 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 23 days ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Mange bygninger mangler at placeres i Stuby. |
| 2 | ~ 23 days ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Changeset: 181442508 | |
| 5252453 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 24 days ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | https://skraafoto.dataforsyningen.dk/?center=682326.53%2C6103191.08&item=2023_85_49_2_0016_00004017&year=2023&orientation=north Der sidder et par røde kugler om de øverste tråde på højspændingsledningerne. De er formentligt bare til at gøre trådene mere synlige for flyvemaskiner, men hvad hedder sådanne kugler, og hvordan bør de markeres på OSM? Hverken marker=* eller power=line siger noget om dette. PS: På ESRI-kortet kan man se, at der engang var en bygning her. |
| 5234604 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Rød Kløversti https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12928798 Ifølge markørerne på stedet, er følgende nyplacerede spor er nu del af ruten: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1496265485 De blå, grønne og sorte ruter er måske også omlagt til en vis grad? Ved nogen, hvor man finder ruten officielt (uden at vandre den og kigge efter markørerne)? Jeg kan ikke finde den på: https://udinaturen.dk/kort |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | https://friluftsraadet.dk/oplev-danmarks-vilde-skoenne-forunderlige-natur/aktiviteter-naturen/kloeversti-fire-fine-gaature | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | Dog må man jo nok i princippet ikke bare trace efter deres GPX-filer, men skal selv have været ude og registrere ruten. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Tak for linket. Næh, men jeg bruger jo ikke deres GPX-filer, jeg aflæser bare hvilke OSM-veje der svarer til, så det går nok. Grøn, Blå og Sort sti fejlede ikke noget. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Order_matters Forresten, jeg læser at visse programmer har brug for at elementerne står i *rækkefølge*. Er der et bestemt program eller app, der er nyttig til at sætte dem i rækkefølge? I tilfælde af Rød Kløversti burde det kunne gøres automatisk, og i tilfælde af Sort burde det heller ikke kræve meget menneskelig interaktion. (Sort Kløversti løber med uret.) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12928825 | |
| 5 | ~ 26 days ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 5248243 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 27 days ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | This farmyard is missing its buildings for some reason. (Perhaps the buildings and their OSM representations were removed so recently that they haven't disappeared from SDFI Aerial Imagery yet. When erasing building that quickly, consider setting them as removed:building=yes instead of just deleting them.) |
| 2 | ~ 27 days ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Alle bygninger er der stadig, så læg dem blot ind igen: https://nyt.ois.dk/search/8270061/sfe/bbr/jordstykke/2115097 | |
| 3 | ~ 27 days ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 5240795 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Herfra og mod øst, tager Langerøds Bæk nu en helt anden vej mod vandet. Den skal vel bare rettes, som efter enhver forandring, og den hedder vel stadig "Langerøds Bæk" selvom den løber en anden vej. Er der noget, som jeg bør være opmærksom på, før jeg retter den? (PS: Beklager de ufuldførte hegn i nærheden - der var en iD-editor-fejl, der forhindrede mig i at indsætte detaljer, før jeg glemte dem.) |
| 5240086 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Der er nogle bygninger på Masnedø, der ikke er placeret på OSM. Deriblandt den ved noten her, og det nye hus ved 50B mod sydøst. (Forresten, bruger man nogle værktøjer til at *importere* bygninger? Hvis ikke, kunne jeg bare optegne dem selv.) |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | Jeg ved ikke om der findes nogen form for bygningsimport, men mht at selve tegne dem er anbefalingen vist at indtegne efter bygningens omrids, som det ses med SDFI Skærmkort. | |
| 5229226 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | https://spangsbergchokolade.dk/fabriksudsalg/ Efter sigende skulle der også findes en Vestergårdsvej 24. Måske mangler der endnu flere adresser? |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Hvis adressen ikke findes i DAR, findes den ikke. Det er ikke første gang en virksomhed opfinder sin egen adresse. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Hvor ofte opdateres OSM fra denne DAR? | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Mandag-fredag, året rundt. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | https://lgms.nl/p/osm/cached-wiki/?search=autoaws&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | Så behøver jeg ikke bekymre mig om det. Det virker godt nok fjollet at opfinde en adresse. Folk kan jo ikke finde den i søgninger. | |
| 5221591 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/536904319 This Service Road looks completely out of place. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | reopened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Sorry, I did a brain fart. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 5220540 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | This road segment seems to have been removed, with a large berm covering it now. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | Niels GM ♦253 | Road changed from aerial photos and oblique phtos. | |
| 5216420 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 1 month ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Vejene her i Klosterskov er tegnet for længe siden, og trænger til at efterses. Det er måske bedst at slette de fleste og tegne forfra. Stier bør desuden tegnes ind ved brug af SDFI Terrain Shadow Map (f.eks. i iD-editoren), så de kan placeres mere præcist end ved kun at bruge GPS-spor. Jeg har selv lavet nogle mere åbenlyse rettelser, men de større rettelser skal laves af folk, der besøger skoven. |
| 2 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Inden du sletter alt for meget, så tag lige et kig i denne del https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Keep_the_history | |
| 3 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Jeg tror ikke disse veje har meget historie, men god pointe. Man skal hellere prøve at tilrette de gamle objekter, hvis vejene stadig eksisterer. (Jeg havde heller ikke tænkt mig at slette noget selv. Jeg ville overlade det til dem, der ville tegne de nye veje.) | |
| 4 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | Linus W Frische ♦1,597 | Højdemodellen er i dette område sidst opdateret d. 29 februar 2024 jf. DHM-oprindelse: https://dataforsyningen.dk/map/3571 Det er sikkert fint at tegne efter, men jeg ville altid tjekke hvor gammel højdemodellen er i det område man arbejder i, idet den potentielt kan være 5 år gammel. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Det samme gælder skyggekortet, kan være fem år gammel. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 month ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Det er derfor jeg skriver at man nok skal besøge skoven for at rette yderligere. Terrænskyggekortet hjælper bare til at forøge præcisionen, når man tegner. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 month ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,597 | ||
| 5171540 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | A few buildings are missing around here, in Urup, and its surroundings. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | 5R-MFT ♦5,937 | added + highway alignment | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 4 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | (According to SDFI Screenmap there are still missing a few buildings in Urup and Birkede Skov, but fine enough.) (PS: If you ever need to align highways in a forest, know that SDFI Terrain Shadow Map is useful for that purpose.) | |
| 5 | ~ 2 months ago | reopened | osmviborg ♦1,597 | ||
| 6 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,597 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/178728246 | |
| 5170420 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 2 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | A few buildings are missing within 60 m of this note. |
| 2 | ~ 2 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Actually, there are also missing buildings a bit to the east, at Valorevej 52 and 50B | |
| 3 | ~ 2 months ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Tilføjet | |
| 5145964 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Some buildings are missing here. More are missing near the addresses a bit to the north. (Is there somebody in particular who handles such imports in Zealand (Sjælland)?) |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Tilføjet | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 5147477 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | What is this object? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Skal vi gætte på en gylletank https://skraafoto.dataforsyningen.dk/?center=691724.15%2C6144785.32&orientation=nadir&item=2023_85_47_1_0006_00000359&year=2023 | |
| 3 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,597 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1472617041 | |
| 5096167 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Der køres med grove køretøjer på Kulsbjerg Øvelsesplads, så der er et stort antal spor, der hverken har grus eller asfalt, og som er for grove til, at almindelige biler kan køre på dem. (Se bare på terrænskyggekortet.) surface=dirt smoothness=very_bad Jeg tænker, at jeg vil nedgradere disse til disused:highway=track, så man bedre kan identificere de mere egnede veje. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 5142942 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | There's a building missing from OSM here, as well as two nearby sheds. |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | added | |
| 5122995 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/469784566 Does this path through the forest still exist? If so, it should be adjusted using SDFI Terrain Shadow Map. Does this path cross the ditches using bridges or culverts? |
| 4560353 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | There is a weird construction here. Presumably, it aids in sea navigation, but what is it and what is it called? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Det ligner en markering af et søkabel. En båke. https://www.soesport.dk/sejlerskolen/farvandsafmaerkninger Den består af to dele, hvor den forreste på ca 5 m står ved stien og den anden på ca. 10 m står inde i haven bagved. Kan man se de to cirkler på linje ude fra vandet, så er man lige over søkablet og må ikke kaste anker. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Kalvehave Kabel Bagfyr. (Dansk Fyrliste) | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | https://www.soefartsstyrelsen.dk/Media/638090273557711196/Dansk%20Fyrliste%202022.pdf Er "overet i pejling 331°". Jeg har ikke de præcise positioner af de to båker, og PDFens koordinater ser ikke så præcise ud, heller. (Og jeg bor ikke i nærheden, så jeg ved ikke hvornår, jeg kommer derud igen.) Er der en side, hvor man læse sig til kablets position? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:seamark:beacon_special_purpose:category%3Dcable https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:seamark:type%3Dcable_submarine | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Burde man egentlig ikke importere den slags data automatisk? (Og eventuelt rette dem til bagefter.) De har både danske og internationale numre stående, så det burde sågar kunne lade sig gøre automatisk at undlade at indsætte de punkter, der allerede er sat i OSM. | |
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Selve positionen af de to båker kan nok bedst ses i Skråfoto. Om man må importere data fra Søfartsstyrelsen liste ved jeg ikke, men det er lidt specielt at man kun kan få listen som PDF. Der er allerede nu nogle steder, hvor fyrtårnet er nedtaget eller nedlagt. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176904307 Jeg har placeret kabelbåkerne vba. skraafoto.dataforsyningen.dk Jeg kan ikke finde de modstående båker. | |
| 4717423 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Der er et antal lokaliteter på Bogø, der er navngivet på f.eks. SDFI DTK Map25, men ikke på OSM: - Gammelby (NØ-enden af byen) - Nyby (S-enden af byen) - Skåningegårde (NV) - Vesterskov (V) - Vinkælderen (NV) (different from Vinkældergård) - Husmandsmose (V; vestfor Vestergård) - Bredemade Eng (SV) (sydfor Enggård and Bredemadegård) - Galgebanke (S) Jeg ville placere dem selv, men jeg kan ikke helt regne deres placeringer ud. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Hvis du går ind på https://kortoverblik.dk/ og søger på de forskellige navne (Stednavne), så dukker deres placeringer op, som de vil optræde i Map25. Skåningegårde er et lidt udefineret område, spredt bebyggelse, som jeg ikke kan finde et tag for i OSM. Nyby er angivet, men som quarter, da det er angivet som bydel https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11276739505 Vinkælderen er en dal, som godt kan angives i OSM. Bliver ikke renderet i default tiles. Gammelby er også angivet som quarter med node https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11276739506 Vesterskov er også spredt bebyggelse, som jeg ikke kan finde et tag for. Så det er bare ind på kortsiden og se om ikke tingene allerede er der, og se om det er noget der kan/bør/skal lægges ind i OSM. Det er helt op til dig. Happy mapping | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Jeg beklager, at jeg ikke så Gammelby og Nyby. 😅 Det er formentligt bedst at lade dem forblive punkter, fremfor at lave dem til Arealer. Jeg *har* fundet stederne på kortet. Jeg redigerer gerne på iD-editoren, hvor både Map25 og skyggekort kan bruges som baggrundskort, men jeg er ikke sikker på deres natur, præcise placering, eller udstrækning. Der er for eksempel to vande nær etiketten "Husmandsmose", så jeg ved ikke om den ene, begge, eller området omkring udgør mosen. Jeg ville måske lave en place=locality Multipolygon for Skåningegårdene, hvis jeg vidste hvilke der talte med, og hvis jeg vidste, hvordan det ville se ud på kortet. Jeg har nu forsøgt at placere Vinkælderen. Jeg håber, der er det rigtige sted: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12769049912 Jeg havde kort forinden sat et punkt for "Nyhave": https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12768441285 Men hvad er Nyhave egentlig? Skyggekortet viser en lille vold omkring det, men er det en park eller gammel have eller hvad? | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Tag lige et kig på denne artikel https://trap.lex.dk/Borg/Voldsted,_Nyhave_Voldsted | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Fedt! Jeg har placeret den bedre, nu. Jeg sætter dog ikke volden eller voldgraven, da de er for flade til at dukke op på højdekort (og da jeg ikke ved, hvordan en jordvold burde markeres). Jeg gik ind på kulturarv.dk og fandt samme tekst, samt nogle manglende punkter på Bogø. Nogle punkter er blot for undersøgte steder, hvor der intet var at finde, men der mangler også et antal rigtige fund inde i Østerskov. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/165209886 Jeg har dog undladt at sætte *skåltegnet*, da jeg synes, det lyder for ringe, til at sætte på OSM. https://www.kulturarv.dk/fundogfortidsminder/Lokalitet/241856/ Endnu uplacerede: - Skåningegårde (NV) - Vesterskov (V) - Husmandsmose (V; vestfor Vestergård) - Bredemade Eng (SV) (sydfor Enggård and Bredemadegård) - Galgebanke (S) | |
| 6 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Jeg kan ikke finde ud af mere om de sidste steder. Burde man placere dem som "localities" ca. hvor de står på kortene, så de kan ses? Så kan andre, der ved mere, rette dem til. | |
| 7 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/176900871 | |
| 4607411 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Niels GM ♦253 | Could also be tagged as: ----- ele=75 name=Flagstangsbakken natural=hill ----- though there seems to be no consensus in DK about this. Nice to have the elevation though. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | I found the peaks on the "SDFI DTK Map25" map here on OSM, but forgot to add the elevations... I've added them now. natural=hill isn't even really supported, it is just labelled "Natural Feature". Also, the *peak* is a 3D point located 75m above sea level, but the *hill* extends in every direction and should theoretically be tagged height=7 & ele=68 or something like that. | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | BTW, is there an overview of different feature types somewhere, in Danish or English? I find that looking through e.g. "Key:natural" on the wiki is an inconvenient way to go about it. The keys aren't very descriptive anyway. Both barrier=retaining_wall, man_made=embankment and natural=cliff are lines marking a sudden drop in height, but all have different keys. | |
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Niels GM ♦253 | The "hill" is described in the OSM wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dhill. To me, Flagstangsbakken is a hill with a spot height or spot elevation of 75 m. | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Right, it's a hill, but hills are difficult to represent on OSM, since they don't have sharp edges. Hills are better displayed using height contours (højdekurver) or the SDFI Terrain Shadow Map, rather than represented with any OSM objects. It is much easier to pinpoint the peak of a hill, and label *it* with the name of the actual hill. On the other hand, a hill with a well-defined edge and/or with multiple peaks would be best described with a natural=hill Area with peaks inside of it. On OSM, *elevation* is the altitude of the *base* of an object. If the peak is 75m above sea level, and the hill is 7m tall, then the hill's "elevation" is only 75-7 = 68. And a hill might not even have a well-defined base or height. If you represented Flagstangsbakken with an Area, the name would obviously go on that area, but the ele=75 should go on a separate peak Point inside the area. In most cases, it may be best not to put any vertical coordinates on the Area itself. https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/162006985 I've turned Mellemste Kulsbjerg and Store Kulsbjerg into areas for examples. Consider looking at each Kulsbjerg to see if you find these representations respectable. 1) I find Lille Kulsbjerg too small and irregular, so I've left it as just a peak. 2) Mellemste Kulsbjerg is very regular, so I made the Area match the 65m height contour, thus giving it both an elevation (65) and a height (28), with the "93m" staying on the peak Point. 3) Store Kulsbjerg is somewhat irregular, so while it has a rather obvious edge, I haven't given it any vertical coordinates - only its peak Point has one. Oh, and thank you for the conversation so far. 👍 | |
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Hmm... The names have disappeared from the peaks of Mellemste and Store Kulsbjerg, but the hills and their names remain invisible... I don't know if other sites support natural=hill, but OSM itself doesn't seem to. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Niels GM ♦253 | Standard OSM does not show hills at all, you must ask for them (overpass turbo). I'll answer your messages asap. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Du har placeret en masse 'natural=wetland' som noder/punkter i området, det er forkert kortlægning. Wetland er altid områder. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Jeg har svaret dig her, omkring natural=wetland: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4612280 (natural=hill er rigeligt for én note.) | |
| 10 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,597 | ||
| 11 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 12 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Mht natural=hill, så er rendering af den blevet afvist i 2023: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4877 | |
| 13 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Niels GM ♦253 | Undskyld forsinkelsen; her er mit korte svar på nogle af de ting der er rejst her: https://bit.ly/4gEhw76. | |
| 14 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | > Unauthenticated Jeg kan ikke tilgå den. | |
| 15 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Niels GM ♦253 | Ok, jeg prøver at maile den | |
| 16 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Jeg ved ikke, hvad adresse du sendte den til, men jeg har ikke set nogen mail. (Beklager det sene svar.) PS til I andre: Man kan følge dette link og trykke "Unsubscribe", hvis man ikke vil høre mere om dette emne: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/4607411 | |
| 17 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 18 | ~ 4 months ago | reopened | Niels GM ♦253 | ||
| 19 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | Niels GM ♦253 | For god ordens skyld vil jeg gentage, at jeg ikke er enig i denne praksis; vi har ikke nogen 'peaks' i DK, men mange 'hills' (som navnet antyder). | |
| 5066539 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | This forest should have its highways rearranged using SDFI Terrain Shadow Map. |
| 2 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | Linus W Frische ♦1,597 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/175518948 | |
| 5011440 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Does this short, straight segment of Rødlersbæk really exist? Is it below ground? It is shown on the SDFI Screenmap, but is completely invisible on the SDFI Terrain Shadow Map. (If you remove this Way, remember to also remove the side_stream role from the other Way.) |
| 2 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Enten er der et nedgravet rør her, eller også er det en simpel tegnefejl. De historiske kort viser "omvejen" for å-løbet og med højdekurver slået til, så skal åen løbe 2,5 meter op og ned af en bakke. Jeg vil mene, at man umiddelbart kan slette det lille lige stykke og lade omvejen være det korrekte å-forløb. | |
| 3 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | @cyclist789 Er det noget du selv retter eller venter du på mere information? | |
| 4 | ~ 5 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Nej, du må meget gerne gøre det. | |
| 5 | ~ 5 months ago | closed | b-holdet ♦7,427 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/174920524 | |
| 5058343 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 5 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1451630028/history This waterway flows against gravity, so I don't think Brødebæk has been plotted out well. |
| 4954229 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Løber Munkerods Rende fra vest eller fra sydøst? SDFI påstår, at det er fra vest. |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Den løber fra syd mod nord https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/19583096 | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Mod nord, ja, men vandet samles netop her. Er vandet fra vest eller fra sydøst del af Munkerods Rende? | |
| 4 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | https://vis.dataforsyningen.dk/steder/1233766a-24c2-6b98-e053-d480220a5a3f | |
| 5 | ~ 6 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Tak skal du have. Jeg ser til det på et tidspunkt. | |
| 6 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 4945947 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Det ser ud til, at Østre Ringkanal er blevet modificeret. Jeg ved ikke, om den er flyttet, eller gravet ned. |
| 4943479 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Denne "Lyngbankegård" har ikke ligget her, i hvert fald siden 1953. https://kortoverblik.dk/spatialmap Det ser ud til, at man er kommet til at trække gården væk fra sin sande position. |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Gården er flytter hjem | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | osmviborg ♦1,597 | ||
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Gården er flyttet hjem. | |
| 4943446 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Much of the track is gone. (Compare the SDFI map with the older Esri map.) The hiking routes may need to be updated. |
| 4640992 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Der er en lille alkove her. Hvad formål har den tjent? |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 4537642 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | Korrekt at der er adgang forbudt (access=private) på denne vej? Er markeret som del af relationen Trolderuten. |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Du kan se vejstykkets historie her: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/609180951/history Tryk på tallet for Ændringssæt for at kunne skrive direkte til den, der satte den som privat. Man kan mistænke, at det kun er motorkøretøjer, der er privat for, altså: motor_vehicle=private | |
| 3 | ~ 7 months ago | closed | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | Har skrevet til bruger bag private-tag (som dog ikke har været aktiv de seneste år). Så vidt jeg kan læse mig til, er Jernbanegade 12 omdannet til lejligheder. Vejen fører ind til parkeringspladser på bagsiden. Har fjernet tagget. | |
| 4878068 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Which way does the water flow through here? The water is depicted lower on the eastern side, but the only waterway to the sea that I can find is on the west side through Hunså to the northwest. Hunså begins at 9 m above sea level, and is represented here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18465703 |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Fra vest mod øst: | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | https://ibb.co/MDfCZg7R | |
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Fandt lige denne her om huset: https://arkiv.dk/vis/6709487 Gad vide om pumpestationen stadig er i brug og hvilken vej man mon pumper vandet. | |
| 5 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Den pumper, ser det ud til, øst mod vest; men noget er på vej: https://www.sn.dk/art6338528/guldborgsund-kommune/nyhed/83-millioner-pumpes-i-lokal-natur/ | |
| 6 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Godt fundet 👍 | |
| 7 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | 🦆🦆 Go | |
| 8 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Hmm... Hvis vandet ikke løber af sig selv, bør der måske slet ikke være en retning på vandløbet... 🤔 Jeg ved ikke, hvad man skal gøre her. Et relateret spørgsmål, nu hvor jeg har jeres opmærksomhed: Jeg bruger højdekort fra kortoverblik.dk til at se, hvilket retning vandveje løber, men mange steder er der for fladt til at regne det ud. iD-editoren har et mærkeligt forhold til retningen af vandveje, så min løsning er indtil videre at tilføje det "oneway=no", selvom det egentlig beskriver *tilladt sejle-retning*. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway#On_waterways Har I en mening om det? | |
| 9 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Du kan med fordel slå "Flow Ekstremregn" til i kortoverblik.dk og se hvorhen vandet flyder. Altså beregningsmæssigt. | |
| 4848315 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | These bike routes are not very precise. Consider redrawing them using the SDFI Terrain Shadow Map, e.g. using the iD-editor. |
| 4464619 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | jamesmstone ♦5 | Park bench and bin via StreetComplete 59.1 |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Hmm... There's too much vegetation to see them on the map. Are they on the NW or SE side of the path? | |
| 3 | ~ 10 months ago | commented | arthur-d42 ♦5 | SE side but more on the path | |
| 4 | ~ 10 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | Oh, I see you've placed it. I'll close the note, then. Consider adding the bin also, if you remember where it stands. | |
| 4794663 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Part of the path here has fallen into the sea. Should the path be removed from OSM? |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Hvis man gransker skyggekortet, så kan man ane, at stien går tæt på kanten af skrænten. Udfra historikken så ser det ud til at du selv har rettet skræntkanten, og er stødt på en gammel optegning af en sti fra 2021. Jeg ville slev vurdere, om man kan se stien på skyggekortet og om stien så blot følger skrænten. Eller man kunne tage en tur ud til området og få set det med egne øjne. | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,597 | Jeg har flyttet stien så den ligger overens med Strava sporet | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | b-holdet ♦7,427 | 👍 | |
| 4791505 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 11 months ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Highways have been placed on Møns Klint with rather low precision, and as a result they cross waterways in many places. If someone is familiar with the highways, consider correcting them using the SDFI Terrain Shadow Map which is available in the iD (in-browser) editor. |
| 4743827 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | What do you call this? it's like a manhole cover, but is 1.5m wide; too wide for the wiki definition. It also extrudes ca. 10cm from the ground. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmanhole |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 4606745 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Hvad er dette område? Jeg menes at skiltet siger "drikkevand invindes her", men jeg ved ikke om dette punkt skal markeres som man_made=water_works, man_made=pumping_station, eller noget tredje. Jeg har markeret Stensved Vandværk mod syd som man_made=water_works. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18626842 |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 4578857 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Meget ser ud til at have ændret sig her. * Nye bygninger. * Vej mod syd ind i Ulveskoven er muligvis forsvundet. * Vejstykket mod nordøst - der nu går gennem hegnet - findes måske ikke længere. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | ||
| 4319279 | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | --- | About here is a rail crossing for pedestrians without lights or barriers to get to building 8a which is a shed of the train museum, housing some rail vehicles |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | To get to 8A from where? From the nearby platform? Or from the opposite side of the three rails? | |
| 4633099 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | julyshkura ♦6 | mamba ligger ikke her, men inde i selve parken og bør rettes. |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | This note seems pointless, so I'm closing it. | |
| 4651370 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | julyshkura ♦6 | der ligger kun circle k her, derfor bør den anden rettes til eller slettes |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | This note seems pointless, so I'll close it. | |
| 4586425 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Vandløbet her mellem [Egedebæk](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/303870580) og [Viverup Vandløb](https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18506715)... [Lex.dk](https://trap.lex.dk/Tryggev%C3%A6lde_%C3%85) påstår, at det er del af Tryggevælde Å, men SDFI-kortene kalder det del af Freerslev Å. Hvilket er korrekt? Er stykket her del af begge? (Indtil videre har jeg her på OSM ladet det være del af Freerslev Å.) |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | UDEN HYPERLINKS: Vandløbet her mellem Egedebæk og Viverup Vandløb... Lex.dk påstår, at det er del af Tryggevælde Å, men SDFI-kortene kalder det del af Freerslev Å. Hvilket er korrekt? Er stykket her del af begge? (Indtil videre har jeg her på OSM ladet det være del af Freerslev Å.) | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | Jeg antager, at det er del af Tryggevælde Å. | |
| 4738525 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Kan nogen fortælle mig, hvor Fladbæk og Vintersbølle bæk løber? Er Fladbæk del af Vintersbølle Bæk? Så vidt jeg forstår, ender *Fladbæk* lige her, men begynder den helt ovre på den anden side af motorvejen? *Vintersbølle Bæk* løber ud i havet, men løber den vest eller øst om Hulemosegården? Og hvor begynder den egentlig? |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Vintersbølle Bæk (Bemærk at det er i to ord) https://vis.dataforsyningen.dk/steder/1233766a-26ca-6b98-e053-d480220a5a3f Fladbæk kan jeg ikke finde noget på. Hvor har du det navn fra? Du kan søge i Stednavneregistret med denne type kald: https://api.dataforsyningen.dk/stednavne2?q=Vintersbølle Bæk&fuzzy I retursvaret kan du finde ID'et som kan bruges i kaldet til vis.dataforsyningen.dk | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Dit kort siger, at Vintersbølle Bæk begynder ved Munksgård, følger gangbroen et stykke ud i Hulemosesøen, og går *øst* om Hulemosegården. Jeg kan dog ikke se på terrænskyggekortet, *hvor* det løber ud i søen, og ud af søen igen. Måske siver det bare langsomt gennem vådområdet og jorden? Der er allerede nogen, der har sat navnet "Fladbækken" på et stykke af vandløbet syd for hulemosesøen. Desuden har jeg set det her: https://gisportal.vordingborg.dk/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b27a8b46896448e898bbcd25fc2f4bc4 https://api.dataforsyningen.dk/stednavne2?q=fladb%C3%A6kken&fuzzy Dataforsyningen kender "Fladbakke" og "Ålebækken", men ingen Fladbæk... | |
| 4 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | https://danmarksarealinformation.miljoeportal.dk/detail/datasets/urn:dmp:ds:naturlige-kunstige-eller-staerkt-modificerede-vandloeb-vandomraadeplaner-2021-2027/features/vp3e2022_vandloeb_samlet.3008/attributes På dette kort (se under Attributter) står hele vandløbet som "Fladbæk"... Måske er Fladbæk synonym for Vintersbølle Bæk? | |
| 4582027 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | cyclist789 ♦99 | Ifølge SDFI-kortene hedder begge vandløbene "Grønholt Å". Kan dette bekræftes? Hvis man laver en Waterway relation skal der være ét startpunkt og ét slutpunkt, så den struktur kan ikke bruges, i såfald. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Eller er det monstro retningen af vandløbene, den er gal med? | |
| 3 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | cyclist789 ♦99 | https://danmarksarealinformation.miljoeportal.dk/ antyder, at det er vandet fra vest. | |
| 4662958 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Tilfældig-bruger ♦3 | Der er en cykkel Bom men den står altid åben via StreetComplete 60.2 |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Mens den står åben, er den ikke en cykel-bom, så den skal ikke markeres som "barrier=cycle_barrier". Jeg foreslår at enten undlade at sætte den på kortet, eller sætte et punkt med begge disse Tags: disused:barrier=cycle_barrier cycle_barrier:installation=openable (Disse betyder "dette er ikke i øjeblikket en cykel-bom" og "denne bom kan åbnes". | |
| 4380136 Category: StreetComplete | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Kristian Grønfeldt Sørensen ♦9 | Unable to answer "What height limit is indicated below the bridge?" – Brogårdsvej (Tertiary Road) – https://osm.org/way/29553576 via StreetComplete 58.2: Der er ikke en bro |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | Måske menes der broen mod nordøst, der bærer Helsingørmotorvejen over Brogårdsvej. Jeg ved det dog ikke. | |
| 3 | ~ 6 months ago | closed | b-holdet ♦7,427 | Streetcomplete spørge ind til om man kan passere under broen på dette vejstykke. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29553576 Det er derfor højden under broen, den vil have med på vejstykket I dette tilfælde er der ikke nogen højde angivet på stedet. | |
| 4725881 Category: unknown | 1 | ~ 1 year ago | opened | Jones57 ♦1 | This is a private area belonging to a homeowners' association, and parking is only permitted for residents and their guests. The parking markings must therefore be removed. |
| 2 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | Ændret til privat parkering | |
| 3 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | Jones57 ♦1 | ||
| 4 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | This is not a parking area, and is not to be show as it parking | |
| 5 | ~ 1 year ago | closed | Jones57 ♦1 | ||
| 6 | ~ 1 year ago | reopened | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | Clearly it is a parking area, as you also mentioned in the your comment. Perhaps 'parking=street_side'. That parking is exclusively for residents is what the 'access=private' tagging is for. | |
| 7 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | Agreed on both points. However, the issue is that when the area is shown as a parking zone on the map, it is used by people who have no affiliation with the area, thereby occupying spaces that residents are then unable to use. Therefore, it would be preferable if the area was not marked as a parking zone — similar to how a private residence with a driveway and several parking spaces is not marked as public parking. | |
| 8 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | Additionally, the spaces are, according to the statutes of the homeowners' association, allocated to the individual houses — meaning that each house has two designated parking spaces assigned to it. which, in principle, are not intended for use by others, although this has not been actively enforced. | |
| 9 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | Personally I am not going to engange in a "mapping war" over this but just want to reiterate that this is (in my opinion) already covered by the private tag. That some map renderers perhaps dont make use of the available data to make the distinction between private and public parking clear is not an issue with OSM. | |
| 10 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | No intention of starting a "mapping war" here either 😄 Just to clarify where I'm coming from: the homeowners' association is dealing with an ongoing issue where residents are regularly finding their designated spots taken by non-residents. When confronted, these drivers often refer to their GPS saying it’s a public parking area. So while I fully appreciate that the "private" tag is in place (and agree it's the correct way to do it in OSM), the challenge seems to be that some apps don’t interpret that data clearly — and the end result is confusion on the ground. I realise that's not something OSM can directly fix, but just wanted to share the background, so you know it’s not about map politics — just about trying to make everyday life a bit easier for the folks living there. | |
| 11 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | Maybe try to wait a little longer to see if setting the private-tag makes a difference. It has been less than a week since I set it and apps and other maps often dont update their OSM-data that quickly. It can take several weeks or even months. | |
| 12 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | That’s a fair point – I’ll definitely give it some more time to see if the update makes a difference in practice. That said, I still believe it might be better if the area isn’t marked as parking at all. Since the spaces are strictly reserved for residents, and not relevant for general public use, it seems more accurate (and perhaps less confusing) to leave it untagged as parking altogether. But I appreciate the effort you’ve already put into tagging it correctly – and happy to go with what the wider community considers best practice | |
| 13 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | I can of course understand your argument and sympathize with the residents. And perhaps removing it entirely would help to keep some people from parking there. On the other hand I think you will find that most experienced OSM-mappers will tell you it's a very slippery slope if you start tagging objects differently in OSM than they are in reality (or delete them) just to compensate for shortcomings in other apps (or people ignoring the info in the data). Also, regarding the "wider community": According to the OSM-wiki about mapping private information, "Mapping private buildings, private roads (including driveways), and private parking is completely acceptable. Add access=private as appropriate to roads, parking lots, etc." ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_private_information ) | |
| 14 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | Thanks for the detailed response – and fair point regarding OSM’s approach to representing real-world features accurately. I’ve read the wiki on Mapping private information, and I fully understand that mapping private parking is acceptable and even encouraged when tagged correctly with access=private. That said, the real issue we’re facing locally isn’t about tagging as such, but the practical consequence: these resident-only spots are showing up as general parking in various apps that don’t interpret the access restrictions. This leads to regular confusion and unwanted parking — and it’s becoming a real frustration for the people who actually live there. From that perspective, I’m simply trying to find a pragmatic way to reduce the misuse. I do realise removing the parking tag may go against general OSM practice, but since the parking is not intended for general use anyway, I still believe that omitting it entirely might more accurately reflect its functional availability to the public. I’m definitely open to alternative tagging suggestions that would achieve the same effect — keeping it invisible to most navigation apps while staying within OSM guidelines. Let me know if there’s a better route to that goal! | |
| 15 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Linus W Frische ♦1,597 | The thing is, that even if we remove it, nothing is stopping someone else from just readding it to the osm-database again in a year's time. You should contact the "various apps" and complain that they are showing private parking as publically accessable; urge them to parse the access key. | |
| 16 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | That’s a valid point — and I understand that there’s always a chance someone might re-add it later. Still, I’d argue that we could just try removing the parking indication for now and see if that helps reduce the misuse. If it doesn’t stick long term, then at least we’ve tested it in practice rather than assuming in advance that it won’t last. Of course, I agree that apps should interpret the access key properly, and I’ll look into contacting a few of them. But from a resident’s perspective, even a temporary improvement would be a step in the right direction. Thanks again for the discussion — really appreciate the open exchang | |
| 17 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Lostmonkey ♦1,097 | From what I can see on streetview there is already a clear no entry sign (except for residents) for your street from the main road. In addition your street is also tagged 'private' in OSM. Perhaps blaming their map app is simply a bad excuse people come up with when confronted? In any case, I would still suggest giving it some time with the 'private' tag and then take it from there (complain to the app makers). | |
| 18 | ~ 1 year ago | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | You’re absolutely right — there is a sign at the entrance stating no entry except for residents, and the street is correctly tagged as ‘private’ in OSM. But in practice, that sign isn’t always respected, especially since parking is in high demand due to the hospital across the road. I agree that the GPS excuse might sometimes just be a convenient justification when people are confronted. Still, that’s exactly the kind of excuse I’d like to eliminate by ensuring the area doesn’t appear as publicly accessible parking in the first place. In short, while the intention behind the current mapping might be good, the result is that it causes frustration for a number of residents — without adding real value to the broader public. That’s why I still believe it would be more appropriate to remove the parking indication entirely in this case. Thanks again for the ongoing dialogue — it’s genuinely appreciated. | |
| 19 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/55.737226/12.547547&layers=N On osm.org itself, the 🅿️ for this parking lot is almost invisible, unlike those on the other side of Kildegårdsvej. (But maybe it was better to not display private areas *at all* on the main map.) As I understand it, the policy of OSM is to tag things *as they are*, and leave to the app-designers the responsibility of how to *display* them. But perhaps OSM should provide some best-practice guide for this (assuming that it doesn't already) to those that make the map apps and editor apps. I say the displaying of parking spaces should depend on both the *access*, *fee*, and *maxstay* tags. Maybe display "2:00h 🅿️💲" for 2-hour paid parking, and "🛍️🅿️" for customer parking, and hide any parking lots without recognized *access* tags. I also feel like the access values should be far more visible on maps than e.g. the difference between an unpaved footpath and an asphalt motorhighway. Do you happen to know which apps display parking lots poorly? There is also a chance that the ones who steal your parking spaces never used a map at all, but saw the parking lot through their car windows and thought: "If I get caught, I'll just lie and say that my GPS told me to park here." And besides, "my GPS told me" wouldn't hold in court. Tell the police to make them stop. | |
| 20 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | Jones57 ♦1 | Thanks for the thoughtful input — I agree with much of what you’re saying, especially the idea that app developers should be encouraged to factor in access, fee, and maxstay more actively in their visual design. And yes, the current 🅿️ indication on osm.org is quite subtle — but unfortunately, that’s not the case across all platforms. You’re absolutely right that “my GPS told me” wouldn’t hold in court — but the point is: why should that even be an excuse people can reach for, when we have the option of removing the cause of the confusion altogether? I still firmly believe that if the parking area is not intended for public use — and, in fact, is privately owned and allocated to specific residents — then the community of owners should reasonably have a say in whether it appears as a public amenity on the map. If other residents in similar situations suddenly saw their private driveway marked as a parking lot, I imagine they’d be equally frustrated — especially in a high-pressure area where parking is already a serious problem due to the nearby hospital. So while I appreciate the general OSM principle of mapping what exists physically, I think this is a clear example where displaying something brings more harm than benefit — and removing the parking tag would, in this case, reflect its actual availability better than its mere physical presence. Thanks again for taking the time to engage — I really value the constructive tone in this discussion. | |
| 21 | ~ 11 months ago | closed | Linus W Frische ♦1,597 | As has been stated multiple times now, it is on the app developers to represent data correctly. Now that the parking lot has been marked as private, there is nothing more that can/should be done in osm. The parking lot will not be deleted. I highly doubt your problem is caused by osm in the first place. They passed a physical, visible sign. They are just coming up with excuses. We should not let these bad people force us to make our map worse. I think you should call the police/other relevant authorities if people park illegally. If you are aware of an app that shows the parking as publically accessable, reach out to the app developers. I am going to close the note now. | |
| 3905968 | 1 | ~ 2 years ago | opened | mbudde ♦34 | steps |
| 2 | ~ 11 months ago | commented | cyclist789 ♦99 | They are visible on the Esri World Imagery background map, making it easy to place them. But both your note and that map are rather old, so please confirm that the stairs are still there. (And consider telling us the number of steps, wether there's a handrail, and how the stairs are constructed. | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | closed | b-holdet ♦7,427 | https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/169714786 |