Ciao, ho visto che hai corretto il maxspeed della colombo (giustamente) a 30, grazie. Ti vorrei segnalare che ci sarebbero anche da aggiustare i tags source maxspeed dal default a sign.

ich habe Dir ausführlich im Thread widersprochen, mindestes Richtung Figarostraße muss man definitiv Gehwege befahren, Richtung Parsifalstraße kann man ggf. ein kleines Stück fahren, muss aber jeweils um auf die Straße zu kommen ein bisschen über den Gehweg schieben.

you have deleted a lot of ways in this edit. What did you try to achieve? Please be more explicit than “edits” in your comments.

@Peilscheibe es gibt hier eine verbotsbegründende Rechtsverordnung, paragraph 2 der StVO ist der Grund, warum Fahrzeuge keine Gehwege befahren dürfen.

ich frage mal auf talk-de nach anderen Meinungen. Es ist ja nett, dass Du mich darauf hinweist, dass du es wieder geändert hast, aber in der Sache bin ich immer noch der Auffassung dass es sich um einen Gehweg handelt und Gehwege nie mit Fahrrädern befahren werden dürfen, außer es ist eine Ausnahme ausgeschildert oder man ist ein Kind.
Bordsteine gibt es ja nicht zwischen dem kurzen Stück neben der Rasenfläche und dem Gehweg, es ist derselbe (Geh)Weg, die Bordsteine gibt es zwischen der Straße und dem Gehweg, wie allgemein üblich.

I don't know what was going on here, but it might be a Vespucci problem. You have added a lot of objects with strange tags: they have boundary=a, building=<some strange number>, natural=<undocumented abbreviation>, place=<some number>, route (for a node this does usually not make sense), shop=a
I have not looked through all of this, but is seems a revert might be useful.

I don't know what was going on here, but it might be a Vespucci problem. You have added a lot of objects with strange tags: they have boundary=a, building=<some strange number>, natural=<undocumented abbreviation>, place=<some number>, route (for a node this does usually not make sense), shop=a
I have not looked through all of this, but is seems a revert would be best.

I do not know what was going on, but there are useless tags in this changeset, like shop=a, landuse=a, route=a
node/4960903985
There are more than 2000 shop=a in the area

thank you!

was there a particular reason to remove and recreate objects for Villa Pamphilij and Parco delle Scipioni? When you act like this it effectively hides the true history of these objects in the planet.

Hier gibt es auch einen aktuellen Thread dazu: https://lists.openstreetmap.de/pipermail/tuebingen/2018-April/000025.html

Hallo Wayne, mir ist aufgefallen dass du beim Namen der Bushaltestelle Hechinger Eck ein ‚Tübingen‘ vorangestellt hast. Vor Ort steht das soweit ich weiss nicht so dran, wo kommt der Name her? Es gibt noch ein paar Bushaltestellen mehr bei denen das auch so ist.

Restriction relations are also used to represent restrictions from road markings. I'd bet there are road markings in these places which prevent you from turning.
You cannot deduct turn restrictions from looking at the angle, there are plenty of places with sharp bends.

this edit is vandalism and should be reverted. Please do not upload test data, you are vandalizing the public database.

I agree it is an undiscussed massedit and should get reverted

the way was a “hole” in the trees

You are right that there was a different problem with the map there, because the relation is about tree cover, but someone else had made it a park shortly before your edit. I have now recreated the original situation, but it can take some time for the changes to show up in the rendered map

and don't take the iD one word descriptions too literally. You can find the definitions in the wiki. Traditionally, landuse=forest is used for any managed area covered by trees (have a look on any well mapped area in the world and you'll probably find places which are too small to develop a real forest ecosystem). If you want to find "true" forests, there is not even a clear definition what a forest is, but for OSM you have to exclude at least the small or narrow areas with this tag.

You could also look at the date, if something has been there undisputed in the centre of Rome for many years, it is likely there is some agreement. If you don't agree you should try to discuss with the user who has put the tag, or engage with the local community, e.g. on talk-it-lazio or talk-it.
Have fun mapping,
ciao,
Martin

This is the second time you are modifying the tree cover in Villa Borghese. There is already an object for the park itself. Please study the situation before continuing editing there.

I don't know why, but you have removed a way which didn't have tags but was part of a relation (and had its sense). Please take care when removing features, especially when using the iD editor, which might not always show in an evident way the purpose of a feature (have a look at relation memberships, not only tags, and have a look at "all tags", not only the ones highlighted by iD).