karussell for the last 12 Monthskarussell for the last 12 Months| Note | # | ⏱️ Last updated | Event | Contributor | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5563718 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 19 hours ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | Nicht motorisierte Boote sind zwischen dem 1. August und dem 31. Dezember erlaubt. Siehe http://www.biosphaerenreservat-oberlausitz.de/sites/default/files/anhaenge/oht-biosphaerenreservatsverordnung_ohtbrvo_2026-02-16_0.pdf Aber wie tagged man das :) ? canoe:conditional=yes @ (Aug-Dec) |
| 2 | ~ 19 hours ago | commented | karussell ♦56 | Also § 7 Absatz 2 Nummer 9 | |
| 3 | ~ 19 hours ago | commented | karussell ♦56 | motorboat=no und canoe=no und canoe:conditional=yes @ (Aug 1-Dec 31) | |
| 4 | ~ 19 hours ago | commented | karussell ♦56 | nee, boat=no und canoe:conditional=yes @ (Aug-Dec) ist einfacher. Sorry | |
| 5545090 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 11 days ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | Hier muss maxheight=default stehen. Laut mapillary gibt es hier keine Höhenbegrenzung, d.h. es ist höher als 4.5 also maxheight=default und nicht 4 meter. |
| 2 | ~ 11 days ago | commented | karussell ♦56 | Hab mir mal erlaubt das zu fixen: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/189716915 | |
| 3 | ~ 3 days ago | closed | 0xb7767000 ♦2,908 | na dann kann der Hinweis ja auch zu gemacht werden | |
| 5519643 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | Ist maxheight wirklich below_default hier? da ist kein Zeichen und das heißt es müsste default gemappt werden: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=49.952737517877&lng=11.598297429486&z=17&trafficSign%5B%5D=all&pKey=881584639237020&x=0.4999999999999998&y=0.5205529155970602&zoom=0.21455022891485434 |
| 2 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | qugeb ♦8,112 | default vs. below_default wird nicht durch ein Zeichen bzw. desssen Abwesenheit definiert sondern in Abhängigkeit von der landesüblichen Standard-Durchfahrtshöhe von 4,50m. Ich kann es aus dem Bild schlecht abschätzen, aber ist die Durchfahrtshöhe kleiner als 4,50m oder nicht? | |
| 3 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | limes11 ♦9,461 | Sie wurde mal angehoben: https://www.kurier.de/inhalt.mehr-luft-unter-riedelsberger-bruecke.63ea8583-b2db-41d5-9ca3-c77becf3e6bd.html Allerdings wird die Gesamthöhe nicht genannt. Sieht auf den Mapillary-Bilder nach 4m - 5m aus, schwer zu schätzen. "maxheight:pyhsical=unkown" wäre geeignet. | |
| 4 | ~ 20 days ago | commented | karussell ♦56 | below_default ist es doch nur wenn es eindeutig zu niedrig ist? Außerdem gibt es m.M. in Dtl. Pflicht Brücken unter 4.5m zu kennzeichnen, d.h. IMO maxheight=default | |
| 5524298 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 23 days ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | The surface is not asphalt: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.5021443&lng=8.477451299999984&z=17&trafficSign%5B%5D=all&pKey=223446462915343&focus=photo&x=0.499999999999996&y=0.5108528066193685&zoom=0.09683119926160062 Instead of highway=unclassified I suggest highway=residential/track or highway=service + service=driveway. See the wiki for unclassified: "which serve a purpose other than access to properties. (Often link villages and hamlets.) " Additionally maxspeed should be removed (as there is none). |
| 2 | ~ 23 days ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,790 | Ændret til servicevej & grusunderlag | |
| 5523817 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 23 days ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | Instead of motorcar the "vehicle=no" tagging should be used. Otherwise hgv would be able to pass. With vehicle=no then no motorcycle tag is necessary and still bus=yes + psv=yes can be marked as exceptions. |
| 2 | ~ 2 days ago | closed | Linus W Frische ♦2,179 | Rettet: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/190192844 | |
| 5520636 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | Gibt es hier maxweight Beschränkung? |
| 5519678 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 25 days ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | Die Brückendurchfahrt hat vor kein Verkehrszeichen was starkes Indiz dafür ist, dass maxheight=default und nicht below_default. |
| 2 | ~ 25 days ago | closed | karussell ♦56 | vor -> vorher (in beide Richtungen laut mapillary) | |
| 3 | ~ 25 days ago | reopened | karussell ♦56 | ||
| 4 | ~ 15 days ago | closed | czubi ♦7,275 | erl. | |
| 5339562 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 3 months ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | "Freigabe der Brücke" aber wieso dann closed=yes? |
| 2 | ~ 3 months ago | closed | Rhoon ♦5,782 | wurde offensichtlich vergessen | |
| 5288161 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 4 months ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | access=no but part of the official hiking route? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/73183#map=10/50.9041/10.5237&layers=N |
| 2 | ~ 22 days ago | closed | scai ♦1,965 | Already fixed. | |
| 5204900 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 6 months ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | Secondary mapped as bike route. At the same time it is mapped as "use_sidepath". |
| 2 | ~ 4 months ago | closed | geo-d ♦875 | The sidewalk is on both sides a designated footway with bicycle=yes (traffic_sign=DE:239,1022-10). Therefore I removed "bicycle=use_sidepath" with Changeset https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/183789410. | |
| 5164112 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 7 months ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | is the direction of this oneway correct? |
| 5154481 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | Could it be that there is a missing turn restriction at this junction? https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_valhalla_car&route=40.750549%2C-73.943726%3B40.750589%2C-73.943503 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | jhaluska80 ♦3,675 | Based off street-side that looks like you'll hit barriers. I have added the missing turn restrictions. | |
| 5130711 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | Should oneway=yes be added to clarify that most of the mapped ferry routes here are just in one direction? I understand that this is because of the significant difference of the duration and a different operator (?) |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | osmviborg ♦1,790 | No: The oneway tag is used to indicate the access restriction on highways and other linear features for vehicles as appropriate. | |
| 3 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | karussell ♦56 | So oneway=yes is not appropriate for ferries? Why? See e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/611994760 | |
| 4 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,790 | Select the line, there are two routes, forwards and backwards, in connection with it. | |
| 5 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | osmviborg ♦1,790 | ||
| 6 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | osmviborg ♦1,790 | ||
| 7 | ~ 8 months ago | reopened | karussell ♦56 | ||
| 8 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | karussell ♦56 | I'm unsure what you mean. Can you have a look into https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230310229 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/61215714 Both ways describe the same ferry but different directions with different duration. | |
| 9 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,645 | There are two different ferry lines that serves the route between Hirtshals and Kristiansand. They are managed by seperate companies and have routing back and forward. You can by tickets both ways and properly have some rebate if you prefere one o the companies. Why should this now be oneway=yes? | |
| 10 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | b-holdet ♦7,645 | You have the same setup here: operator=Öresundslinjen https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4066778 operator=Sundbusserne https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/150208446 | |
| 11 | ~ 8 months ago | closed | karussell ♦56 | Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification! I was confused because the name of them made it look like one is for the forward direction and the other only for the backward direction. | |
| 5128962 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 8 months ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | There seems to be two shuttle_train route relations: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11749967 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6377345 And although relation 6377345 is reusing existing ways which is nice it is likely not considered from routing engines as the member ways are not tagged route=shuttle_way like they are (correctly?) done for the relation 11749967 |
| 2 | ~ 8 months ago | commented | karussell ♦56 | Should we use https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11749967 and change it to route=shuttle_train and remove the other relation? | |
| 5098064 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | Hier ist mit hoher Wahrscheintlichkeit eine barrier mit access=no oder permit o.ä. Wenn nicht, würde man sonst ohne Kontrolle ins Sperrgebiet kommen wie die GraphHopper Route zeigt; https://graphhopper.com/maps/?point=49.629149%2C11.783645&point=49.636099%2C11.786451&profile=car |
| 5087556 Category: Unknown | 1 | ~ 9 months ago | opened | karussell ♦56 | Is "access" really "no" for this way or just e.g. "private"? |
| 2 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | ICT_maps ♦16,175 | it's a military installation, I don't think private is acceptable | |
| 3 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | karussell ♦56 | Well, access=military is good too but not "no" IMO. Also why is the access from east unrestricted? https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/935530267 | |
| 4 | ~ 9 months ago | commented | karussell ♦56 | btw: it seems that the consensus is that access=private is a subset of military https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/107283 | |
| 5 | ~ 7 months ago | commented | terminator-t-800 ♦1 | this gate is closed, the main gate has been moved to the intersection of division street and forrest ave |