Klar, Danke.

M.E stimmt es so nicht. Prinzipiell wird dieser Gehweg mit bicycle=yes und oneway=yes beschrieben. S.a.: osm.wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren#Eigenst%C3%A4ndige_Wege .
“oneway=yes” lese ich Zusatztag zur Einschränkung der generellen Erlaubnis mit „bicycle=yes“ (somit wäre oneway=no auch kein Ersatz für bicycle=yes). Nur in hw=cycleway kann es entfallen, in hw=footway und hw=path sollte es aber verwendet werden.

M.M.n sollte „bicycle=designated/yes” wieder hinzugefügt werden, um die Raderlaubnis auszudrücken.

Bist du sicher? Der grüne Radstreifen scheint mir nur von Osten nach Westen befahrbar zu sein (so ist er auch getaggt). Sonst müsste hier ein Gegenverkehr-Zeichen angebracht sein: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=911218733445048
Und wo fahren jetzt die Radfahrer von West nach Ost???

Es dürfte sich dabei um einen Marienweg (= Mariazellerwege und deren Zubringer) handeln, der aus Slowenien nach Graz zum 06er führt:
https://www.steiermark.com/de/Thermen-Vulkanland/Urlaub-planen/Tourenportal/Mariazeller-Weg-Anbindung-von-Slowenien-ueber-Mureck_tour_854299

Ja, ich war auf dem 791er zwischen Lipsch und Mureck unterwegs. Schilder vom Marienweg/Jakobsweg habe ich nur 2 gesehen. Eines hast du verlinkt, das andere ist hier: https://kartaview.org/details/8031753/1/track-info .
LG Robert

Done

Comment "adding guideposts" and in reality ALL ways of relation/16478126 have disappeared. Very strange. Please stop editing until you check your tool chain and fix the problems.
I will revert this CS.

I sent you a PM on 15 October 2023 at 20:37. Please check your OSM mailbox

OK, I'll send you an OSM message with a more detailed description of my process.
I have already mentioned the source for the main route.
The 2 or more differently documented I1-routes are irrelevant to the cleanup.
Agreed, we both stop inserting data until we have a common understanding.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you were editing the I1 object now. Where did I read over that?
The reasoning "Please stop with that intervention, until we have a better picture of what is on the ground" is still not comprehensible to me. On the contrary, if you want to adjust the route to the signposting on the ground, the clean-up should be awaited because a) I don't change ways and b) afterwards corrections based on the signposting on the ground are easier and more reliable to make.
I assumed you accepted my argument, obviously a mistake, sorry.
I think a common point is that we should not edit the same object at the same time. I need one more day. Can you wait that long? Or how long do you need?

It is rather unkind to intervene in an ongoing clean-up process without discussion. I will revert your change to relation/1607435. When I'm done, I'll share it here.

Don't worry, all guideposts are preserved and unchanged. I am aware of the unreliability of the official sources, in summer I cycled parts of I1 and I2. The confusion was not inconsiderable :-)
Changing the structure of the relations is laborious, but it will make it much easier to maintain and correct the route in the future.
I am with you, what counts is what is signposted.
Robert

Hi Volker, the basis of my change is the relation/1607435 as of 10 Oct. 2023. I have divided this network of ways into 2 relations: Rel 1607435 now only contains the main route, the new relation/16478126 all other ways. Both together should be 99% identical to the status before my change. The 1% are corrections of obvious errors.
The definition of the main route has http://archivio.venetostrade.it/venetoinbicicletta/src/pdf/rivista.pdf as its source.
If the relations now contain ways that are not signposted with I1, they were already there before my change.
Robert

Thanks for your fixme „this route carries a number of JOSM warnings …”
The I1 relation was very chaotic, I divided it into main route and alternatives. The main route is still too big, I will divide it into stages.

Hi,
Der Arbeitsname „Weststeiermark“ ist offiziell, der Diskussionsstand fluide, spätestens zur Eröffnung werden wir das Ergebnis wissen. Bis dahin macht „Weststeiermark“ mehr Sinn. Bitte ändere es dahingehend.
LG Robert

Hi,
Du hast bereits 2x den Namen vom Bahnhofsgebäude way/233095803 von Bhf „Weststeiermark“ auf Bhf „Deutschlandsberg“ zurückgeändert.
Was ist deine Quelle für diesen Namen?
Ich war heute vor Ort und habe den Namen „Weststeiermark“ gelesen …

Hi,
I'm not sure I understand your answer correctly.
I see the following issues in your changes:

A) Object hotel complex 1085451485.
A1) Addition building=yes
The campus-like complex consists of buildings, roads, car parks, forest, sports facilities ... Tagging the whole thing as a building is nonsense.
A2) Deletion of leisure=resort and replacement with tourism=hotel
This is not correct, as Domes Aulus Zante is a resort and not a hotel. See leisure=resort for the distinction.

B) building 289523874 and 10 other buildings
B1) Changing building=hotel to building=yes
What is the point of replacing a correct specific tag with an unspecific one?
B2) Deletion of tourism=hotel
This would mean that it is no longer used to accommodate hotel guests. Do the guests all sleep on the beach?

Resume
Only the change of the brand is correct. All other changes do not make sense. I will revert changeset/135555547 soon. Is there anything against it?

Why did you delete the hotel tags?

Done

Hello Joško Horvat,
After this CS the relation/10928832 "Dreiländer Radweg" has only 8 members. The version before (V #15) still had 180 members. What happened there?