Ciao Michele,
ho visto che hai modificato il Bar di Montebello (stazione) da amenity=bar in amenity=cafe, ma non mi sembra ci siano tavoli da sedersi o servizio, ma forse ricordo male?
Un saluto,
Martin

There are additional services like printing and cd-burning (which maybe also are old fashioned now) which they used to offer. This one also sold public transport tickets (but not signs that it did), and maybe more, as I wrote, I'm gonna check if it still exists and what their main business is.

Hi, you cannot sign up for internet service, may "internet cafe" is ok, although it is not a cafe, they have some pcs where you can connect to the internet based on minutely billing (IIRR), and they offer some additional services such as sending and receiving fax and photocopying on a fax machine (i.e. it is not a copyshop). They also offer long distance phone calls. Next time I am in the area I'll try to have a look if it still exists and which services are offered.
Cheers,
Martin

Hi, du hast den ERP auf circular umgetaggt allerdings ist die Vorfahrtsregelung wie ein Kreisverkehr (abgesehen davon dass es Ampeln gibt). So eindeutig ist es nicht, dass junction=roundabout ein Kreisverkehrszeichen erfordert, wenn es eins gibt ist es sicher zwingend, aber wenn es keins gibt könnte der tag trotzdem passen.

Ciao, ho notato che uno dei fix era la rimozione dell’indirizzo del punto ristoro. Ti chiedo gentilmente di stare attento non tutte le segnalazioni degli editori sono errori, grazie
buona mappatura,
Martin

Grazie della risposta, ho corretto: changeset/133711183
(spero di aver capito bene).

saluti,
Martin

Buongiorno Dino,

guardando Monte Santa Caterina mi chiedo da dove viene l'altezza, node/5976615274/history
confrontando con le curve di livello (e anche stando alla riva opposta del lago) non sembra sia così alto. Ti riccordi dove l'hai presa ("Toponimi Martignano" non dice niente)? Potrebbe essere un errore di battitura?
Saluti,
Martin

Ciao,
ho notato che hai rimosso landcover=trees e sostituito landuse=forest con natural=wood. Non mi interessa la seconda modifica, perché si tratta effettivamente di sinonimi, ma perché hai rimosso il tag "landcover"?

Saluti,
Martin

forgot, thank you for fixing the issue. Have a nice day,
Cheers,
Martin

Hi sanganh,

thank you for replying, my suggestion would be to tag only those ways with access tags where you have checked it on the ground, and otherwise you just map the driveway without adding acccess tags.

Hi, I noticed you added this way with access=private: way/681450489
Can you confirm this is from survey, or were you just guessing? It doesn't look as if all of it is just a driveway.
Cheers,
Martin

Hi Luschi, thank you for checking and sorry for replying late. It seems the access restriction should be removed, and I have partially done so where the hiking route runs, but there are more (results of way splits) where I am not sure and just added a fixme for the moment. If you are sure they should be removed then please do it, thank you.
Cheers,
Martin

I think this particular one isn’t seeded since many years, in general I think we should distinguish between the structure (flowerbed as a countable feature) and eventually what is growing there, and we should use different values and not just different keys (to avoid confusion)

actually I do mind, there is already a different landcover, while it is physically a flowerbed construction, there is currently only grass in it, your proposal would lead to information loss in this case. Generally I would see flower beds as part of the countable items, hence I would prefer something like “ornamental_planting” or “cultivated_flowers” or something like this in landcover, not flowerbed because this would be ambiguous.

Anyway, thank you for reaching out,

Cheers Martin

Hello, I noticed you added foot=no to the SS48 way/175581384/history
This is a legal access restriction, and it also extents to implicit sidewalks in villages etc., so it is usually wrong unless it is explicitly signposted or a motorway. There are hiking relations on some pieces (which originate from way splits after your edit here). Do you remember where you have seen a traffic sign like this along this road?
osm.wiki/File:RomanianTrafficSign_C10-NoPedestrians_2011.svg

Cheers,
Martin

it is strange, because the from the history of the nodes it is clear that you not only created the way (as it would be possible e.g. by splitting an existing way), but you actually drew this way and added the access-tags, likely you did so after a ground survey.
Cheers,
Martin

Hi, habe gerade durch Zufall diese Relation entdeckt: relation/5699948
das ist die Art von Multipolygon die m.E. die Karte unnötig kompliziert macht. Das ist keine zusammengehörige Fläche sondern einfach alle Fußgängerflächen in der Gegend. Man könnte besser ohne Relation die einzelnen Teile einzeln mappen und evtl. jeweils den Namen ergänzen, jedenfalls nicht so ein zusammenhängendes und ausgedehntes Konstrukt aus Gehwegen um Gebäude rum und anderen Flächen.

Gruß,
Martin

PS: Ja, ich weiß dass das schon 7 Jahre her ist, habe halt versucht, zur Wurzel vorzudringen ;-)

fertig, danke nochmal für das fruchtbare Gespräch.

ja, habe ich auch gesehen, allerdings bin ich mir nicht ganz sicher ob track oder path. Wenn Du einverstanden bist würde ich die Beweislage vom Schreibtisch aus hier ausreichend bewerten (Luftbild und Strava heatmap und Nähe zu Bebauung) um davon auszugehen, dass die Wege mittlerweile wieder hergestellt wurden. Ich werde das jetzt so umsetzen, ok?

Gruß,
Martin

Hi, I noticed you have created ways with access=private, for example here: way/418338778
This tag means that the way is not generally accessible. But these ways (some of them) are part of hiking relations, so the tag seems likely to be in error, do you remember why you set it?
Cheers,
Martin