Outdoorrookie's Notes
Notes submitted or commented on by Outdoorrookie
| Id | Creator | Description | Created at | Last changed | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5117007 | Outdoorrookie | Treppe macht einen Bogen
via StreetComplete 62.1 Attached photo(s):
|
|||
| 5116997 | Outdoorrookie | Infotafel via StreetComplete 62.1 Attached photo(s):
|
|||
| 5116979 | Outdoorrookie | Luft und Strom Furt Velos via StreetComplete 62.1 Attached photo(s):
|
|||
| 5116975 | Outdoorrookie | Velunterstand via StreetComplete 62.1 Attached photo(s):
|
|||
| 5116973 | Outdoorrookie | Wartsaal via StreetComplete 62.1 |
|||
| 5116972 | Outdoorrookie | KIS via StreetComplete 62.1 Attached photo(s):
|
|||
| 5116971 | Outdoorrookie | Diverses via StreetComplete 62.1 Attached photo(s):
|
|||
| 5116799 | Outdoorrookie | Picnic Platz Grillstelle mit Hütte via StreetComplete 62.1 Attached photo(s):
|
|||
| 5116225 | Taktaal | The "place=village" here is named with a combined name. In other towns in Switzerland this isn't done, like in Illnau-Effretikon or Arth-Goldau we still label the two population centers separately even if they share a train station. I'm not that familiar with the situation in this area of the country but is there a reason why the town names are combined here? Does anyone disagree with splitting the town labels into the two population centers similar to how this is done in other places? I'd of course leave the municipal boundaries as they are, and only change the village nodes. |
|||
| 5114585 | Outdoorrookie | BAUSTELLE via StreetComplete 62.1 |