Anyway, if you did not find official information about the station status, and all you got was a different statement in wikidata compared to OpenStreetMap, what made you believe wikidata was right and OpenStreetMap was wrong?

in Italy at least, this is the significant difference which I am aware of. Actually, there could be switches, but for a halt they have to be “permanently” blocked with appropriate devices.

If you want to learn about the license problems with wikidata you can find the information here: osm.wiki/Wikidata
For wikipedia, the problem is incompatible licenses (also found in the osm wiki)

Generally, you should check the aerial imagery and usually you can already see whether it is a station or a halt. Did you retag more halts? Did you do it systematically?

The source for the claim is the Italian wikipedia, but there it is writtten that it is a halt: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stazione_di_La_Giustiniana
basically an error in wikidata. Generally the OSMF-policy does not allow taking information from Wikidata / Wikipedia.

Ciao Davide, ti segnalo che hai introdotto un doppione di railway=station qui:
node/12912681097
L'ho appena sistemato.

Hi, I noticed you retagged the train halt La Giustiniano from railway=halt to railway=station, your comment is misleading and I beliebe the edit is wrong, because it is not a train station, it is a halt (no possibility to change from one rail to another). Can you explain your sources?

Anscheinend gibt es den Weg doch: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/unbefestigten-pfad-im-nsg-furs-betreten-im-tagging-auf-no-setzen/117903/37

Do you know the automated editing guidelines? You can find them in the wiki

Yes, this is one of the uses: compare official length and length in OpenStreetMap. You wrote “deleted redundant length tags…” in the changeset comment. Please answer the question whether you know the automated editing guidelines.

the length was referring to the tunnel, not to the way, it would be pointless to tag the length of the way because it is already in the geometry. Have you heard about the automated editing guidelines?

undiscussed mechanical edit, not useful, potentially removing useful information for no benefit

Kommen die multiplen motorroad Werte hier:
way/838172117/history/1#map=10/14.7742/74.2243&layers=N evtl. vom mergen von highways mit inkompatiblen Eigenschaften?

Hi, absolutely, I didn’t question this was a good faith edit, just wanted to tell you it’s better to keep traffic signs on the side of the highway.

Happy mapping

fixed it

Hi, I noticed that you have moved a traffic sign from it's actual position to the middle of the road (part of a highway), this is not helpful, as it would loose the implicit information of direction. Case is this: node/1389062964

yes, this is the same as implicit, maybe 14 years ago it wasn’t clear which tag to use? Can be changed to implicit

thank you for reporting, indeed I only corrected the tag but did not check the geometry, so now these are tested in osmi and fail, will look into it asap,
thank you

Hi, I just noticed that you deleted the relation for Eataly here and recreated it as a node. Please do not do such operations, they are loosing information about shape, size and extent of the feature as well as the history of the object. I will restore the deleted relation when I am on a pc.

Cheers
Martin

sì, l’articolo si riferisce alla stazione acilia sud, ma io parlo della relazione per il ritorno da Colombo a Porta San Paolo, in versione 48 non aveva disused relation/1721156/history/48 e in 49 lo hai aggiunto. Succede, comunque non mi sembra avevi fatto appositamente quindi l’ho tolto, giusto?

Avevo guardato lo storico, hai aggiunto disused=yes nella versione 49, nella 48 non c'era. Io abito vicino e penso che funzioni. Ora tolgo il disused. relation/1721156/history/49