thx

Sorry images of 2020, not very sharp, Regards, Joris

Hi Dave, thank you for you question, What is the source of your public footpath? Is it ground trouth? Does it really crosses building roofs and golf greens? On july 2025 microsoft streetview images show no such connection or path. It would not be nice if all kinds of routing apps suggest you shortcuts through highways that don't exists. Kind regards Joris

Hi rskedgell, thanks for your message. I'm not familiar to the area. I tried to figure out the changes over the past years. My change 4 years ago was bicycle=unsuitable to common tagging bicycle=no. I don't have more info. kind regards, Joris

Hallo SilverSurfer
It's a reminder to easily find access restrictions which are temporary and very often forgotten to be removed afterwords. Kind regards, Joris

Dag Marc!, bedankt voor je berichtje. de wat onhandige tagging voor building en name zijn 8 jaar geleden aangemaakt door Nathan. Ik weet niet wat voor shop het is, misschien weet nathan het, Groetjes Joris

Hallo Hungerburg, i reverted the change back to multivalue customers;forestry. However i don't see the real difference between forestry=yes and vehicle=forestry, unless forestry access by bicycle/foot is forbidden. Hoffe es ist wieder richtig fur dich. grussen Joris

Hi voschix
Feel free to ignore my edit . Kind regards , Joris

Thank you very much, kind regards, Joris

Hi Pink Duck, thank your for your reply. 'desire line' is a non standaard value for access. Difficult for routing apps to understand wat you mean. Would it be oke for you if changed to bicycle=dismount then?

np, gr Joris

Hi matmat , I actually regret it, de Id editor made the proposal and I accepted it. But later on it turned out not to be a single issue. It is a very nice mapped area, no problem to reverse it. Kind regards, joris

Hi, no specific reason, kind regards Joris

Hi Luzandro, thank you for helping improving our map. Kind regards and happy mapping, joris

merci

Dag Thibault, weet jij wat de huidige situatie is hier? Staat die bloembak/paaltjes er nog steeds. Voor de moment is het paaltje getagged als 'motor_vehicle=yes' maar de weg zelf is motor_vehicle=no. Dat zou tegenstrijdig zijn. Groeten Joris

Hallo rempshaener, das unterschied ist mich nicht genau klar, habe es geändert da die mehrfachige werten (im besonderes the agriculutrral/forestry) nicht immer richtig zu interpretieren sind fur routing. Aber habe es zuruck genadert, grusse Joris

Hi Riiga, thanks for your reply. I actualy don't see the difference between the two? maxweight is the easiest and most common way to describe restrictions for vehicle weight, allowing all others. Using conditional 'legal access rights' is not wrong but makes it much more difficult for all kinds of Apps for making routing choices, because the syntax is rarely consistent enough. If you have a problem with it motor_vehicle:conditional would then fit better in my opinion . Kind regards, Joris

Thx for improving , kind regards, joris

np, i walk into my own typo's as well, gr Joris