Reverted this changeset in changeset/104167833

Hi and thanks for your efforts to map in Savadkuh,
I cannot find any traces of the double carriageway trunk road in Shir Dar Kola on the satellite imagery of Mapbox. Also no construction visible. Is this a recent doubling of roads that you mapped there? Also I don't think the road going South qualifies as a primary given its low importance in the road network and how it is built out. I would suggest reverting it to a secondary road classification

Hi Farhad,
Some of the boundaries - particularly with protected areas and admin boundariers overlapping - have invalid geometry after your edits. See the validation here: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=geometry&lon=47.44786&lat=36.09909&zoom=15

Are you able to correct these or do you want help?

Also it looks like this is a completely made up area. I couldn't find any of the map features you added (or even construction for that) on the Mapbox imagery that you put in as source.
Please do not use OpenStreetMap for fantasy data. There are other projects like https://opengeofiction.net where you can do this.

Source was actually Maxar imagery.

Source for this changeset is actually: Maxar Premium imagery

Hi Tony,
Can you help me understand based on which criteria you changed the classification of Seoul Street? Both the built as well as the importance as a connector of Northern Tehran to the city's business center deem its classification as a primary road.
Best,
Claudius

Hi,
Thanks for your work to improve the map. You have stated that you traced some elements from Bing, but I cannot find any trace of those ways on the Bing satellite imagery in the West of Babol:
way/892186002
way/892186003
Also a secondary dual carriage way would be at a very odd location here. Can you validate that these ways exist?

I am terribly sorry for that. I was comparing Bing and Maxar in some parts and wrongly identified Bing as the newer imagery. I did revert the trunk road changes in changeset/96764761
I would appreciate if you would find the time to validate if it is correct again now.
Sorry once more for causing additional work.

I just reverted tagging at Spilve to follow the proposal.

Danke highflyer74 für deine PN. Ich bin gerade dabei, für mehr Konsistenz und vor allem Dokumentation der Tags für Flughafeninfrastruktur zu sorgen. Dazu Besuche ich virtuell zahlreiche Flughäfen global, um das Tagging besser zu verstehen und Korrekturen vorzunehmen. Ich habe meine Änderung in Bremen evertiert, da ich vor einigen Wochen noch nach einem anderen Schema angepasst habe. Ich freue mich über Input zu dem Proposal hier: osm.wiki/Proposed_features/runway%3Ddisplaced_threshold

I have just started a draft for a tagging proposal to tag both stopways/blast pads and displaced thresholds. I would appreciate if you would find the time to review and share your feedback:
osm.wiki/Proposed_features/aeroway%3Dstopway
osm.wiki/Proposed_features/aeroway%3Ddisplaced_threshold

On the stopway proposal discussion page there's already a discussion around whether to use the runway=* sub-tag scheme: osm.wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/aeroway%3Dstopway

Looking forward to hear your point of view and work towards creating a good proposal to present the wider OSM mapper audience.

Hi Jeroen,
I think the existing use of aeroway=runway is ambiguous and have therefor created proposals for two extensions to the airport infrastructure tagging:
osm.wiki/Proposed_features/aeroway%3Dstopway
osm.wiki/Proposed_features/aeroway%3Ddisplaced_threshold

On the stopway proposal discussion page there's already a discussion around whether to use the runway=* sub-tag scheme: osm.wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/aeroway%3Dstopway

Looking forward to hear your point of view and work towards creating a good proposal to present the wider OSM mapper audience.

Indeed stopways and runway displaced threshold elements are currently not rendered.

I am about to submit a tagging proposal around stopways and displaced_thresholds and based on that will work on getting the carto style on openstreetmap.org updated. The previous data tagging was incorrect as it suggested stopways were parts of the runway which they are not. This leads to misinterpretations e.g. about runway lengths.

Thanks for your understanding. I've updated the tagging in changeset changeset/91965792

Some good news: There is a relatively new tagging that allows to specify that this is a rubber tyres monorail by adding monorail=rubber_tyres - I have added this information to the infrastructure.

Hi,
In OpenStreetMap so far the consensus has been to use railway=monorail for most automated people movers also like the APM100 model used in Guangzhou: See also this quote osm.wiki/Railways#Types_of_railway_line
"railway=monorail - A railway with only a single rail, often inner city and above street level. Also used for monorail-like automated people-mover systems"

The thinking is that APMs have more in common with monorails (because there is one [==mono] central guiding rail on the track and rubber tires are just running on a road like surface) than light rail infrastructure (which is usually iron/steel tracks). I would therefor recommend to revert your tagging change and use monorail tagging instead.

Ouch. Thanks for pointing this out and sorry for my wrong tagging.

You're welcome. This Subway validator is a great tool to ensure the tagging is correct and complete: http://osm-subway.maps.me/portugal.html
I used that to spot that this was incomplete before.

Thanks. I've changed the tagging to emergency exit here: changeset/89777262

Please see my response at changeset/82826905