Actually, I used Digital Globe Standard imagery. Premium and Esri have snow here...

Maybe a tip for the track definition. The state of the track is defined by the track_type tag [1]. The tracks on this mountain also had this tag, for example [2] and [3] were tagged as grade4 and grade3, which is clearly not the right tagging, since they both have a decent gravel surface. A grade2 would fit much better. Maybe this is also the crux at the discussion about 'unmaintained' part of a track.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel
[1] tracktype=*
[2] way/151190293
[3] way/612219676

Hi Stretch Longfellow
I was also a bit puzzled what you mean by 'unmaintained track road', but after some searching on wiki.openstreetmap.org it seems that this is a term used by iD editor. I even found a request to change the name on iD's github [1], but apparently there is some interpretation difference regarding this. The wiki page on track [2], however, does not mention at all whether there should be maintenance or not. Additionally, this 'unmaintained' does not mean that nothing is done to maintain the track, but that maintenance may take a while because there is no-one explicitly responsible for the maintenance. So basically the person bothered (most?) by the fallen tree lying on the track gets rid of that three. The others, by foot or bike probably, will just step over. That there was no tree on this road does not mean, that if a tree would fall, it would be immediately cleared.
Anyway, in Switzerland it is common to tag these mainly agricultural/forestry roads in the mountains as highway=track. I will therefore change them back to track, based on my survey last Sunday and the imagery that is available.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel
[1] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/4092
[2] highway=track

One other hint I just though of. It seems like this route is a round-trip, starting and finishing at the aerialway station. I would suggest to add the starting leg also to the end, because that part would also need to be walked. In that way also the statistics on distances and elevation match better to the actual situation.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Your welcome! Always happy to help out and share the knowledge that I gained, since it may be a steep learning curve for new contributors. At least that's how I experienced my own start with OSM, and I still learn new stuff regularly by viewing how others approach challenges and by asking questions, and reading the wiki.openstreetmap.org.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hi danzhch,
This zigzag of the elevation profile is caused because the segments of the relation are not ordered correctly. Waymarkedtrails also shows this message "Route is potentially unordered or incomplete. Elevation information might be inaccurate." to give you this hint :-).
The route should be in the exact order as you would walk it. You also see this if you move over the elevation profile with your mouse. The respective location is also shown on the map, but suddenly it jumps to a completely different position. This is because the next segment in the list is not geographically connected to the previous.
Does this help you understand what is going on?
I'm not familiar with ordering segments in iD editor, as I always use JOSM editor (where it is pretty easy), so I cannot help you with the exact approach there.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hi Stretch Longfellow,
Thanks for the quick reply. I think you might need to read a bit on the wiki about the difference between a track [1] and a footway [2]. I was there Sunday and hiked [3], [4] and [5]. All these highways were about 4 m wide and on [3] and [4] there were even cars parked (I assume from the owners of the small pastures/farms along it) and at [5] there is a sign that motorized traffic is not permitted, but that doesn't make it a footway.
Hence also my doubts about the other highways you changed, but which I did not visit Sunday.
Could you explain your rationale for changing these highways?
Cheers,
dikkeknodel
[1] highway=track
[2] highway=footway
[3] way/151190292
[4] way/151190293
[5] way/120925051

Source is incorrectly defined, forgot to change. Actual source is "Survey on location"

Source is incorrectly defined, forgot to change. Actual source is "Survey on location"

Danke für die Erklärung. Ich habe es geändert.
changeset/61192202

Hi Stretch Longfellow,
Thank you for contributing to OpenStreetMap in Switzerland. I notice you changed quite a few tracks to footway and a via ferrata to a path. Could you please share your source for these edits?
Kind regards,
dikkeknodel

Ich glaube hier ist nicht Obwalden aber Graubünden... Hier ist auch kein Campingplatz wenn ich [1] glauben muss.
Camping Chapella war schon 2 Jahre früher eingezeichnet etwa 400 m nördlich [2].
Wenn ich mich jedoch die DigitalGlobe Standard bilder anschaue seht es aus ob es dort auch Zelten gibt und auch im Wald zwisschen die zwei Wiesen steht etwas. Weisst du vieleich ob das alles zu den selben Campingplatz gehört? Wenn ja, dann kann es zusammengefügt werden.
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel
[1] note/1448152
[2] way/227965797

Hallo mkkz,
Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap.
Diese erste Änderung seht gut aus!
Viel Spass bei der Kartographie.
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel

Hi Josh,
I noticed the Co-working Space has conflicting naming tags.
The native 'name' tag contains "Pura Worka" while the English 'name:en' tag contains "Co-Working Space". The latter seems more like a description of what it is.
Instead, I would advice the tag amenity=coworking_space.
Kind regards,
dikkeknodel

Hallo Jan,
Ist diese ein persönliches Notiz, oder versuchst du die folgende Firma einzutragen?
http://zellweger-comestibles.ch/

Wenn ich mich die Website anschaue, dann ist das kein Restaurant. Vielleicht würde eine andere Kategorie besser sein.

Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel

Hi WomoMap,
Thanks a lot for clearing up. I am happy to help, because OSM only exists because we work together :-).
Don't worry about making mistakes (also in your future contributions), we all make those. What only matter is how you deal with those mistakes when they are noticed, and you did that perfectly.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Please do so in the following Changesets:
- changeset/60341561
- changeset/60277847
- changeset/60166584
- changeset/60135162
- changeset/60125215
- changeset/60118831
- changeset/60115740

Hi WomoMap,
Happy to help, and good to hear that your entries were surveyed on location. Please be more careful with what you write as the source in the future.
I have already sent an e-mail to the Data Working Group which handles the copyright violations (might have been too early though). I will update them on the discussion and see if they can do anything to correct the source.
What you in the meantime can do it add comments to all these changesets that you have made a mistake in adding the source, and state what is actually your source.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hi WomoMap,
It basically means that anything you find on the website is copyrighted, and are thus not allowed to copy to, for example, OpenStreetMap.
You are allowed to use it for your personal hike. And if then during that hike you see that the hike is guideposted, you are allowed to record it's route and then put it on OpenStreetMap. So again, they don't own the reality of the route being signposted, but they do own their representation of that reality (a gpx, a route description, a drawn map).
If you look at the map displayed on their website it says "Reproduziert mit Bewilligung van Swisstopo (BA140107)" so they have a written consent from Swisstopo to put re-distribute the data, but that is only for 'Stiftung Urwaldreservat Bödmeren', not for anybody else to reproduce the data.
So if this indeed means that you used the map from the website or brochure to add in on OpenStreetMap, then it is a copyright violation. A copyright violation means dat redaction is required.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hi WomoMap,
No it does not only mean downloading data from Swisstopo. If you check the Swisstopo map and see that something is marked as a mountain hiking route, you are not allowed to USE that information to update OpenStreetMap.
The Swisstopo maps are their 'representation of reality', which is through copyright owned by Swisstopo and not allowed for re-use in OpenStreetMap.
The reality itself is not copyrighted. If you go out into the field and check out how a specific stretch is marked by the guideposts, that is allowed because then you checked the reality.
Do you understand the difference that I try to explain?
Cheers,
dikkeknodel