non conosco cosí bene la zona, vedo soltanto la chiesa nella foto aerea, ma confermo la Parrocchia in Piazza Asti...

non mi sembra giusto. C'è una chiesa qui vicino (adiacente ad ovest), ma non mi sembra la chiesa "Sant'Antonio da Padova", vicino a Piazza Asti c'è la Parocchia dei Santi Antonio di Padova e Annibale Maria, forse c'è una confusione qui?

Hi,
I noticed you have changed the way from footway to pedestrian, can you please explain why? In my opinion, this edit isn't consistent with the wiki definition of a highway=pedestrian. If you come to the same conclusion, please fix your edit by reinstating the correct highway tag, thank you.

You're right, you didn't put the attraction tags here (you could have removed them, but that wouldn't justify a changeset comment probably). Excuse me.

this edit adds the "tourism=attraction" tag to every single hall in the auditorio, which doesn't seem reasonable. Maybe the Parco della Musica as a whole might be considered an attraction (but within the Roman setting I am not even sure if it is).

gefixt

Danke, sieht schon viel besser aus. Jetzt sind allerdings die Gebäude nicht mehr im Park: relation/7268074
Die buildings würde ich nicht in die relation stecken, sonst werden sie aus dem Park entfernt, sie sind ja aber im Park.

Hallo Marco,
danke für die Antwort, 3 Tage ist nun wirklich nicht so lange, das finde ich noch ziemlich zeitnah. Was ich eigentlich kommunizieren wollte: wenn der Park in der Realität bis an die Mauer rangeht (von ihr begrenzt wird), dann sollte das auch in OSM so gezeichnet werden: anstatt einen Abstand zu lassen, sollte derselbe Weg (oder ein überlappender der dieselben Nodes verwendet) für beides verwendet werden (aus topologischen Gründen). Andererseits sollte man natürlich unterschiedliche Objekte für einen Park (Polygon) und eine Mauer (in OSM Linie) verwenden, d.h. hier böte sich m.E. ein Multipolygon an, dessen Begrenzung die (als solche getaggte) Mauer ist (ggf. unter anderem, falls nicht nur Mauer die Grenze ist, sondern z.B. auch Gebäude, Zäune, etc.). Alternativ kann man auch ways überlagern, aber das ist später eher nervig beim Ändern.
Gruß, Martin

There are some topological problems in this edit: If the fence is the limit of the park, it should be mapped like this. My suggestion would be a multipolygon for the park and the barrier=fence ways as outer members.
There is a difference of meaning between putting objects "very close" and actually connecting them. When there is a connection in reality, it should be connected in OSM, when there isn't in reality, it shouldn't be in OSM.

this edit adds a housenumber to a big building polygon, but in Italy housenumbers are for single entrances, this building has many numbers, not just one, can you please specify where the number applies to? Thank you.

Scusa, ma perché hai cancellato Piazza Teodosio come area?

Ciao Oleks, hai cancellato 4 ways, per esempio way/81756171/history
Puoi vedere una visualizzazione qui (in rosso le cancellazioni): http://osmhv.openstreetmap.de/changeset.jsp?id=32994098

Ho già ricreato gli elementi cancellati, volevo soltanto chiederti di stare attento con le cancellazioni...

sorry, just saw you were a newbie and do not contribute any more, please ignore my previous message.

really suspicious edit on node/530718006: was tagged as a cliff (on a node?) and you changed the name and added an istat_id, a place tag and more information, including a drinking_water tag? What is it? Please fix

please use more explicit changeset comments, for a hint how a good changeset comment might look like, see here:
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

you did remove the amenity tag and added an aeroway tag. There wasn't an aeroway tag before and after you added it there is still the same amount of tags, so clearly you have removed a tag. There is no "switching", a tag modification would be to change the value for a given key, not remove a key and add another one

You have inserted every hall as its own philharmonic theatre and tourism attraction. Both does not seem corresponding to reality. Maybe the Parco della Musica can be considered a tourist attraction as a whole, certainly not every single stage as its own. Please fix.

this is an undiscussed automatic edit and should be reverted

why did you remove some tags from here? Looks like an undiscussed semiautomatic edit...

Please let's not mix tagging and a specific rendering style (like red dots for footways), but rather focus on the meaning of the tags. The "standard style" rendering is just one rendering of many, and not even the one most people are using (if you look at mobile apps based on OSM data with millions of users, like maps.me).
It is true that there aren't any landbased vehicles like cars in most of the city, but there are handdrawn/pushed pushcarts and barrows, and maybe there are some emergency vehicles besides waterbased ones? I would like to keep the tagging as consistent with the rest of the map as possible (as it is an Italian city I believe it should before all be consistent with other Italian places. Not admitting cars into the historic city is not so special as it might sound, there are other places which have similar limitations, due to spatial constraints).
I suggest we leave this particular changeset discussion and move to the wiki or a mailing list, e.g. tagging or talk-it. In the wiki there is already the Venice page, which is practically dead currently:
osm.wiki/Talk:Venezia
If things get too long there, we might later move it to a subpage.