Moin.
Du hast hier wohl versehentlich den
Knoten
node/4126268585
verschoben. Mir ist allerdings nicht klar, was Du tatsächlich ändern wolltest.
Ich habe daher erstmal die komplette Änderung revertiert:
changeset/50934251

It was version 1 at that time, so you created it. Maybe you split an existing way. Anyway, good to know that you did not use the tag by intention :-)

Oops, sorry, I meant why did you add the way to the relation Saimaa:
relation/404644

Please review:
Why did you add this way:
way/171864997

thanks, Gerd

Hallo Jan,

siehe diese CS-Diskussion: changeset/7372351#map=11/49.8861/9.7954

Hi,
please review:
you added the barrier=hampshire_gate
on a new node node/3950113088
which has the same position as
node/2590484720
I've modified the mapping so that the barrier is close to but not on the end, see
changeset/45366023#map=18/44.62172/1.87552
OK?

Please check oneway osm.org/?mlat=53.164634&mlon=-3.125412&zoom=17
It seems to be in the wrong direction.

Good catch, see note/536952

Andy, I tried hard to understand what you are trying to teach me here, but I failed.
Besides the fact that I still think that rest_area matches much better than passing_place I think that I follow the first rule in "Good practice":
osm.wiki/Good_practice#Do_correct_errors
You seem to claim that this rule is wrong ?

sure, but the aerial image shows a two lane road with a rest_area, while a passing_place is a "Location of a widening on a road allowing oncoming vehicles to pass each other"
So please review your change.

I did not visit the place. My understanding is that the longer part of the road was tagged with both (I don't see that in Bing), while the new part used right;none. This new part (at the beginning) seems to show sidewalks on both sides, that's why I decided to go for it. Feel free to correct it.

Prima, danke für die Rückmeldung :-)

Hallo Roland,
mich interessiert vor allem das Routing mit den OSM Daten. Da ist es immer problematisch, wenn man neue highway Typen erfindet bzw. sehr selten benutzte verwendet, weil das Risiko gross ist, dass Routing-Programme die Wege ignorieren, die nicht im Wiki dokumentiert sind.

Hi there!
You've changed a few highway=footway to highway=undefined. Please note that now some other footways are not connected, e.g.this bridge:
way/372224055
I am not a local, so I don't know if the ways exist or not, if not I suggest to remove the ways and correct the connection of the correct ways.

Moin!
Mir ist aufgefallen, dass Du das seltene highway=ramp verwendest.
Ich fürchte, die wenigsten Programme kennen das, besser wäre wohl so was wie
highway=footway + incline=x%
und vielleicht noch wheelchair=yes/no.

Hi there and welcome to OSM!
I've noticed that you use
highway=residental instead of
highway=residential. I've corrected this typo, see changeset/37815647

Hi there and welcome to OSM!
I've noticed that you use
highway=residental instead of
highway=residential. I've corrected this typo, see changeset/37815626

Hi there!
You have changed a few roads from highway=unclassified to highway=minor.
This tag should no longer be used, why do you think that highway=unclassified is not good ?
See e.g. here:
way/173995846

Hi there!
You have used the unusual tag highway=minor for three residential roads here. If changed them, see
changeset/37815260

Hi there and welcome to OSM!
You have mapped a few ways with highway=cattle_way
here. This is an unusual tag.. Are these ways only usable by cattle? If yes, I think highway is not useful here, else you can probably use highway=path in combination with surface, tracktype or smootness, see
smoothness=*