Bitte nicht einfach Sachen löschen, du hast ja nicht einmal eine Quelle für deine Änderungen. Falls du dir absolut sicher bist, dass ein Feature nicht mehr existiert, dann haben wir dafür Lifecycle-Präfixe.

changeset/179550398

Your changesets are missing a source. Some items can not be quickly verified. For example, HIT-HOT does not exist according to the official documentation: https://ethz.ch/en/campus/getting-to-know/cafes-restaurants-shops/gastronomy/restaurants-and-cafeterias/hoenggerberg.html

didn't find the changeset that deleted this section, so I mapped it again

don't delete ways, they have to be kept as disused or similar for future reuse, history etc.

changeset/179204081

The tagging as track or path does not imply any access rights. Relevant for the tagging as track is the suitability for the use by forestial or agricultural vehicles. Often tracktypes 4 and 5 have never been intended as ways and were only created by the use by such a vehicle.

The mentioned part of Talrainstrasse may qualify as Rückegasse according to the KWaV in the current state. The purpose of a way may change over time, so even the fact that it has a name does not mean anything (see Gratstrasse which is hardly existing anymore or Alte Allmendstrasse which has degraded to a path).

Besides, according to Art. 43 Abs. 1 SVG, ways inappropriate for bicycles may not be accessed by such. Inappropriate would likely include cases where the way (incl. ground and vegetation) would take damage from an access which would be applicable here.

However, there must have been a national law explicitly mentioning natural forest surfaces and unprepared ways. A quote of it was included in some extensive information sheets for mountain bikers that have been hung up on some hills to explain why driving there is forbidden. This is what originally made me aware of the issue and legal situation, I just can't find the respective legal text anymore with a quick web research.

In Switzerland, driving any vehicle on natural forest ground is forbidden (except forestry within limits). The end part of Talrainstrasse towards Obere Tannholzbodenstrasse is made of slightly compacted soft earth with plants growing on it. I'm pretty sure that this qualifies as natural ground which would also be consistent with explicitly formulated bans on other hills. Therefore, because the more solid part of Talrainstrasse doesn't lead to any POI either, the whole way should consequently be tagged with bicycle=no
The same would apply to any other vehicle but since they have no legal way to access the area, I'm not adding those everywhere.

Thank you very much for the hint. I'm afraid that this was a tagging mistake.

Don't blindly delete important parts of relations without respecting notes and instructions about the current local situation if you don't have any local knowledge!

Hi, I just reverted a maleficient edit concerning busline 38 of a user before you. Since your changeset also edits this line, please check that your edits aren't affected. Thanks!

Don't blindly delete important parts of relations without respecting notes and instructions about the current local situation if you don't have any local knowledge!

changeset/175560464

Don't blindly delete important parts of relations without respecting notes and instructions about the current local situation if you don't have any local knowledge!

changeset/175560209

Actual changes in SE quarter of frame

This is the correct tagging. The wiki cited in this discussion says that ways that are ALSO used as biketrails should be tagged as paths. This is not applicable to any segment I retagged: They are to be used EXCLUSIVELY as biketrails, any other access including foot is forbidden.

There is more: Currently, there is a discussion going on whether biketrails should rather be tagged as leisure=track or with a new leisure tag: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mountain-bike-downhill-pistes/132329
The discussion is not yet finished, so I would wait before using this.

What is clear, is that highway=path is wrong for any of these segments. And besides, it is also essential for safety that it is clearly visible that these ways are different from the rest, so they are not accessed by unsuspecting pedestrians.

Es geht hier nur beispielhaft um die Treppe zur Bank am Waldrand, die ich oben verlinkt habe:
way/1421693465

Dies ist way/1421693465. Die Message ist, dass access=yes auch auf spezifischen Wegarten grundsätzlich Zutritt für alle Verkehrsmittel bedeutet. Auch für solche, die vor Ort vielleicht nicht sinnvoll scheinen, wie bspw. Pferd, Velo oder Auto.

Ich glaube auch nicht, dass hier abgesperrt ist, nur sagtest du vorher, es sei Privatgelände. Sonst ist alles okay.

Soweit okay, aber b) Die Treppe ist abgezäunt und trotzdem access=yes für alle Verkehrsmittel? Wie gesagt, hier nicht schlimm, aber woanders dann vielleicht schon.

Genau, grade 1 ohne Belag ist mir aufgefallen, aus der Ferne kann ich nicht mehr sagen. Deshalb wollte ich da nochmals sicher sein, dass du das gesehen hast.

Zutritt ist mir hier aufgefallen:
way/1421693465#map=16/47.41777/8.45488&layers=N
In diesem Fall nicht besonders schlimm, aber in einem anderen Fall dann vielleicht wichtig.

Deskriptive Namen heisst, wenn die Eigenschaften eines Objekts, die mit Feature-Tags beschrieben werden, nochmals als Name eingetragen werden, wie bspw. Sitzbank oder Feuerstelle. Das wollen wir in OSM möglichst vermeiden.

Bitte schau dir mal das hier an: tracktype=*
Beachte ausserdem, dass der Tag access auf Wegen den Zutritt für alle Verkehrsmittel beschreibt.

Gut dass du die deskriptiven Namen schon selbst entfernt hast.

Ich hab nur gesehen, dass das vorübergehende Tagging als disused nicht konsistent war und hier noch ein Name angezeigt worden ist. Eigentlich nicht so wichtig.

And also sorry for the weirdly deformed tracks, apparently something with the upload went wrong, working on it

Sorry for the many incomplete ways. Vespucci is having a fail and i cant do a selective upload right now. Im going to complete the ways soon, please dont delete.