visto che non è un import, hai rilevato i confini on the ground? Mi potresti indicare le fonti?

whenever I encounter this import it makes me sad. Why did you import this (btw. at the time of import not compatible data, licensewise) without any discussion, and you do not respond to changeset comments and most sadly, not have tried to perform any kind of cleanup. Do you read these comments? Can you please answer so we can find a way to fix this mess?

hi, why did you put an English value in both, the name and name:it tag?

FL3 Vigna Clara - Ostiense, ma esiste attualmente? Non è disused?

FL3 Vigna Clara - Ostiense, ma esiste attualmente? Non è disused?

This is an automated edit without checking the objects to which the tags have been applied. E.g. node/382011048 is a train station but this edit added the (wrong) wikidata ID that corresponds to the (wrong) wikipedia link at the station.
Please check the objects. It is pointless to automatically add wikidata numbers from wikipedia links, this could be done by the enduser as well.

you’re welcome.
I have not performed any fixes in Spain as I don’t know the situation, I only searched for some example connections on the national railway website. It would be good to inform the local community that they should check their stations.
In Rome in the meantime I’ve found regular regional train routes retagged in error as light rail routes 8 months ago by an armchair mapper.

looks like an automated edit to me, not discussed and not based on facts. For me, these are trains and not light rail. There are proper locomotives, nothing light about them, have a look at this picture of one of the vehicles for the routes you have changed here: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servizi_ferroviari_suburbani_di_Roma#/media/File:Roma-Capranica-Viterbo.JPG

Basically, most railway routes are missing in OSM (although most light rail routes are mapped), so you cannot rely on OSM data to check whether it is a railway station or a light rail station.

forget the part about the "discussed announced", as you checked them individually it is not a requirement of course.

Hello Zverik, thank you for replying so fast.
Was this an announced / discussed edit? Your approach seems broken, because with station=light_rail you define the railway=station to be a light rail station, but you should take into account that some/many of the stations are light_rail AND normal rail stations at the same time (same OSM object).
On the stations I have checked and fixed in Rome I have changed "station=light_rail" to "station=train" and added light_rail=yes if they were also served by light rail.

Hello, this seems to be a remote edit, can you please disclose your sources? I have found some problems with your edit, e.g. here node/251083102/history
This was an object representing both, a Metro Station and a Train Station, and became effectively a metro station by adding station=subway in this changeset

This seems to be an automated or semi-automatic remote edit. Can you please disclose your sources? I have found some problems with railway stations flagged as light rail while they seem to be real train stations.

geht auch auf deutsch ;-)

Hi, You have changed here some trains from train to light rail. Can please you explain what makes these regional trains "light" rail? Thank you

CIAO carths81, HO VISTO CHE HAI INSERITO TUTTI I NOMI IN MAIUSCOLO, TI CHIEDO GENTILMENTE DI NON FARLO, perché si può fare in automatico se si vuole (durante la visualizzazione), mentre è impossibile di fare il contrario (passare da maiuscolo a ortografia normale).

Roma Tiburtina, Orte, ...
I'm fixing the problems as I find them, many main stations which are part of the highspeed network have been downgraded to light rail stations in this changeset. No answer so far...

Can you please explain, what your sources are?

or Roma Termini? I believe this is an automated edit, there is no factual background.

Ciao, ho visto che hai aggiunto un bridge=yes (proprietà che indica in oggetto si trova su un ponte) ad un ponte (man_made=bridge). (Ponte Cavour). Non ha molto senso, in quanto Ponte Cavour è un ponte, ma non si trova su un ponte.