haha

I saw that's a shop, but could not determine a type, so I left it TBC. Thank you for reminding me! I've googled around, and decided to go with office=company, since I still have no idea :)

Hmmm. "five digit number => tertiary" is a fun rule that's easy to implement and validate, but what are you expecting to achieve with it, other than theoretical correctness (which in carthography is useless, as you might have experienced).

I made it secondary, because of its heightened importance to transit traffic, as I wrote on the comment. So that routing engines prefer it when routing to e.g. Kloogaranna, and not fall back on local roads like 11193, 11410, 11412 etc.

And even visual inspection would send people on it — e.g. cyclist might look at this and prefer roads with less traffic to this one, that is marked as a national cycling route and - theoretically - should be the best to route on.

So, what would be the intention on changing it back?

(source: my wife sometimes works shifts there)

Hi Mateusz! The shop is there, it sells edible oils, cold-pressed from seeds. Just not olive oil :)

Basically like this osm.wiki/Tag:craft%3Doil_mill but with an oil-pressing machine instead of a mill.

Yeah I guess that makes sense. I've seen the other links there, but outside of that nothing gave up it's not a single shop. I obviously didn't do an online check.

Nice idea, but 26 usages, and I believe, all by Matija, who wrote the article. "Status: in use" is a bit of overstatement.

I share this sentiment, and decided that albeit not enitrely correct, bicycle=no is the best way to reflect you cannot cycle there.

Okay maybe the part between those approaches is more ridable. But the part to the west is just a narrow path in the grass, ridable maybe on extremely dry days, and even then you would have to dismount a couple times (and once a tree fell there). Right now it's probably all flooded over and not even walkable. That's what I wanted to convey: I often include footways in my cycling routes, but that is not for cycling at all. No surface or smotthness value would mark that, and using mtb scale on a non-cyclable path is super weird and feels like trolling, change for the sake of change, to demonstrate a mapper that one cannot make tagging decisions without consulting the two chief mappers.

Come on, it's a bog. Nothing is forbidden. This is a very narrow and wobbly path with wooden planks, you can't physically cycle there.

Huh. Okay, sorry for having you go there :)

Sorry, I was testing whether changesets or changeset comments have the reporting button :)

sdfsdf

What I don't like in this discussion is that it's essentially a "but I see it on the imagery" vs a person who's been there two days ago. Now I'm getting a feeling I need to go back and study the area closer, because last year's data (and Strava traces of people who's been there who knows when) suggests otherwise.

I have been there, did not see a path. Period. If that's not convincing, feel free to restore the path.

Like this but there were no gaps, and no traces of a path along the fence: https://www.google.com/maps/@59.45454,25.1782723,3a,24.3y,234.1h,82.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scAEJ4jf_yEB--9QoVh5yVQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DcAEJ4jf_yEB--9QoVh5yVQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D56.133137%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

Nope, no gaps. I planned a bicycle route through that path and examined the barrier very thoroughly. Had to use the cycleway instead.

Idk about strava, but there is a fence along the cycleway, so it isn't possible to turn from it along the channel. Also the path a little to the north (which I kept) is barely visible, so I doubt people use it.

Huh, weird. Thanks.

I don't think these are duplicates. There are indeed 3 parking spaces and 1 bicycle rental.

Thanks!