Ti chiedo di non inserire civici con tag come historic=castle e name. Il tag è addr:housenumber.
Grazie

Hi, there is no castle here.

In Germany the usual situation is clear signage. Also there is much less two-wheeled non-bicycle traffic (very narrow streets in Germany would also usually forbid bicycles)

> In historical parts of cities, similar to Fabriano, such areas tend to be officially pedestrian.

I somehow agree that it many European countries this is the case, but the Fabriano example as well as many other towns in central Italy demonstrate, it does not have to be like this. If there isn't a sign for footway or a pedestrian area on a narrow street in an urban setting in Italy, it means it isn't reserved to pedestrians and you can legally ride your motorbike there (unless it is in a ZTL area, which may have their own rules for a whole area, but are signed at the entrances).

Hi Eric,

thank you for your reply, and sorry for bothering you with stuff from 2009 (I also have been around by that time and am aware how few we had settled and defined compared to now). Yes, we are currently discussing about alleys, because there is no ideal tagging (the combination with service is disputed because these are not seen as service roads). I think it is relevant to correctly tag them because even if cars don’t pass (regular sized ones), motorcycles regularly use them (residents), and it is legal.

Do similar situations occur in rural France as well (narrow roads in settlements where motorcycles can legally drive)?

Cheers
Martin

Hi, I know this is a long time ago, just noticed visiting Fabriano that there are no signs at the vicoli like way/37918958 so I don’t think they can be considered pedestrian, do you remember or know the area?

Benvenuto in OpenStreetMap, ti vorrei segnalare che non è logico il tuo commento, perché se è tombinato sotto terra significa che esiste. Dovresti ripristinare il tutto con un revert (per non perdere lo storico).

solche detaillierten Informationen zu löschen mit dem Kommentar weniger detailliert ist ausreichend, das ist nicht ok. Jeder kann selbst entscheiden wie detailliert er Dinge einträgt, aber die Details der anderen zu löschen weil man sie für unnötig erachtet geht nicht.

Hi, I noticed you have added amenity=marketplace to the christmas market POI on Piazza Navona. I have removed it because it is not a market usually and was quite misleading.

Cheers
dieterdreist

just saw you changed barrier=entrance to barrier=sally_port for porta Metronia, this is just plain wrong, there is no barrier whatsoever at Porta Metronia

Ciao, ho visto che hai inserito questo deposito, ammetto che non ne ero a conoscenza, interessante.
Credo che possiamo migliorare il tagging però, il "nome" mi sembra una descrizione, e forse "locality" non è il tag migliore? Di tratta di un deposito strutturato (archivio) oppure sono stato "gettate" i resti lì? Quest'ultima situazione forse sarebbe mappabile come landuse=landfill, disused=yes?
Saluti
Martin

Ciao Maurizio, grazie della risposta, lo so che alle volte non è possibile capire la situazione da remoto, ti avevo scritto per darti un feedback dove ho notato problemi, ma ti vorrei anche ringraziare per tutti i contributi che dai!
Saluti
Martin

Ciao Mau, ti volevo segnalare che crossing=zebra si usa solo quando non esiste un semaforo per pedoni, altrimenti il tag è crossing=traffic_signals.

Saluti
Martin

Ciao mau59, questo percorso way/124643469 non esiste proprio più, è stato cambiata la disposizione delle strade.

Saluti
Martin

welcher der angegebenen Gründe? Forstwirtschaftliche Anlagen werden nicht gelöscht sofern es sie gibt, bei den anderen ist nicht grundsätzlich von einem Betretungsverbot auszugehen und wenn es ein solches gibt ist “access” der richtige Weg.

Gibt es eine Quelle dafür dass dort das Betreten verboten ist? Nach meiner Recherche bedeutet es dass dort keine forstwirtschaftliche Nutzung möglich ist, aber zum Betreten habe ich nichts gefunden: par.29) https://www.revosax.sachsen.de/vorschrift/5405-SaechsWaldG#x34

Laut sächsischer Landesregierung können Prozessschutzflächen weiterhin betreten werden: https://www.wald.sachsen.de/prozessschutz-im-wald-9436.html?_cp=%7B%22accordion-content-9441%22%3A%7B%2214%22%3Atrue%2C%2217%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22previousOpen%22%3A%7B%22group%22%3A%22accordion-content-9441%22%2C%22idx%22%3A17%7D%7D

Laut sächsischer Landesregierung können Prozessschutzflächen weiterhin betreten werden: https://www.wald.sachsen.de/prozessschutz-im-wald-9436.html?_cp=%7B%22accordion-content-9441%22%3A%7B%2214%22%3Atrue%2C%2217%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22previousOpen%22%3A%7B%22group%22%3A%22accordion-content-9441%22%2C%22idx%22%3A17%7D%7D

Laut sächsischer Landesregierung können Prozessschutzflächen weiterhin betreten werden: https://www.wald.sachsen.de/prozessschutz-im-wald-9436.html?_cp=%7B%22accordion-content-9441%22%3A%7B%2214%22%3Atrue%2C%2217%22%3Atrue%7D%2C%22previousOpen%22%3A%7B%22group%22%3A%22accordion-content-9441%22%2C%22idx%22%3A17%7D%7D

Das wäre ähnlich wie zu behaupten die Darstellung von Banken und Polizeistationen sei hilfreich bei der Planung von Banküberfällen. Es stimmt zwar vielleicht, ist aber kein Kriterium für das Löschen, Betretungsverbote können mit access-tags abgebildet werden