why did you add “Uscita 3” to the name of the motorway exit and put the actual name in parentheses? In my opinion if there is a prominent object like this which exists for 10 years and more, which is currently in version 28, it would be more sensible to discuss name changes with the local community rather than simply doing it.

Hi, I have seen you added the Aranciera di San Sisto as locality. This seems weird, maybe it could be better added as "garden" (maybe with the garden:type and garden:style attributes)?

@mateusz I am not aware. I agree the tag does not seem to make a lot of sense.

AFAIR it was confirmed retroactively by the Italian community that the import was OK (source was OK, it would have helped no one to revert it, it was agreed the information was sufficiently good for importing). https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/2017-March/057524.html
I had also written to active local contributors and the reply I got was that quality is ok.
Furthermore, there was an import of 2016: osm.wiki/IT:Emilia_Romagna_import_numeri_civici_2016
but not exactly the same data (because those imported here are supposed to be in CC0 from the municipality).

According to the recent discussion, there is not a clear winner between man_made=tower with tower:type=cooling and the tag man_made=cooling_tower, they are both used in similar numbers.
If you tag these as man_made=tower you will not create more consistency (there are already other objects with "tower" in the name which are established, e.g. man_made=water_tower (84000 uses) and power=tower. The definition of man_made=tower is in conflict with cooling towers for several reasons (not accessible, no platforms, not a building), so IMHO this is not a good solution. What are the advantages of requiring looking at the tower:type tag to see if it is an actual tower, or some other structure like a cooling tower?

I propose you fix the Russian translation of the wiki definition for man_made=cooling_tower
The tag is not deprecated, although there is some discussion because of the 2 alternative ways to tag them

Hi iLaw,
I just noticed by coincidence that you have changed the object for the valle dell'Aniene nature reserve to "park". There is already a park object for the Valle dell'Aniene since 2008, but with this modification we loose the nature reserve. Just wanted to let you know I have now re-instated the nature reserve. Cheers,
Martin

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.