Hoi Eric,

Ik snap je verhaal maar mijn interpretatie is anders,
* way/6964573
* way/147427317
* way/147427329
* way/692051345

zijn geen doorgaande wegen (dat zijn de tertiary's ernaast) en het grootste deel van deze wegen is ligt onder amenity=parking. Volgens mij past service=parking_aisle hier prima.

"Bijna ieder parkeervak was (...) daar een zelfstandige POI." --> Als ik eens dingen nalees dan is het eerste wat ik zou hebben veranderd amenity=parking (dat het nu is) naar amenity=parking_space en dan evt. een relatie toevoegen voor het geheel. Daarmee gaat het aantal "amenity=parking's naar nul ;-)

Wat betreft problematische renderings: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Groeten,

Martin.

Hoi,

"Remove {service=parking_aisle} ON (amenity=parking)" ken ik nog niet ik lees er niets van op service=parking_aisle, zelfs het tegendeel.

Groeten,

Martin.

Yes, these unused ways are not a big problem but they pop up on my Osmose list which I try to keep clean.

I am still surprised about your action, using https://ohsome.org/apps/dashboard/ I found this area of Finland got from 687 ㎢ of forest on 2020-01-01 to 328 ㎢ right now more than half of the forest (-52.2 %) is lost. Sounds like a good headline, half of the forest (320 ㎢) is lost ;-)

Yes, the quality of the data can be low but as long as you can not replace it with better data on short hand I do not see the reason for doing this.

Greetings,

Martin.

Removed, see changeset/107015036

Thanks for the feedback.

I do not really see how you removed a relation because of low-quality but then leave part of it because it can be useful to other mappers, are these parts then of higher quality?

I would opt to remove them also or undo this change. You can find a list of the ways here: http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#zoom=11&lat=61.8572&lon=27.3995&item=1140&level=1%2C2%2C3

On the greenness: I did compare the area with Google Earth and Google Earth looks much greener to me. Good luck replacing the data, do you have more accurate data at hand? I do not see mapper fixing all landuse by hand.

Greetings,

Martin.

Hi Larmax,

In this changeset you removed a big relation and that triggered Osmose warnings as there are now ways left without a tag that were first part of the relation, see for instance http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#item=1140&zoom=15&lat=61.97305&lon=27.46099&level=3

It is also visible that this area has become much more white than it was before.

So was this indeed a correct change? What was bad on the import?

Thanks,

Martin.

Let me remove "cycleway:right=shared_lane", any objections?

Changed, see changeset/106245643

Ja, bedankt voor de correctie, dat was inderdaad niet goed gegaan.

Helemaal eens met bicycle:backward=use_sidepath.

ping

Hi Rob,

3 month ago I think there were more, the only one I could find now is way/13305896

Martin.

Hi Bobby,

I would appreciate to get a reaction on this.

Thanks,

Martin.

Ja, dat in inderdaad een knap onlogisch kruispunt voor fietsers, niet gezien toen ik de wijzigen maakte.

Prima dat je die mapper hebt geholpen en prima oplossing,

Bedankt!

> Sorry I’m not sure what specific segment of the road you are referring to

You can see that using the achavi link I gave, here you can find them:

http://osmose.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/#item=3032&zoom=17&lat=-43.558548&lon=172.547847&level=2

Okay, I missed the oneway:bicycle=yes because the "cycleway" is mapped as highway=path as is normal in Germany.

I am used to map these paths as highway=cycleway and then the map will show an arrow indicating the direction, so yes that is something I missed.

Hi Cody,

Why did you add "bicycle=no" to Awatea Road in this changeset? The road has also cycleway=lane

See also https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=96406391

Hi Antoine,

Pourquoi avez-vous ajouté "bicycle=no" et "foot=no" et "horse=no" sur la D 957 ?

Il y a "cycleway=lane"

https://imgur.com/a/K3JM7Vn

https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=94270826

NB: I prefer communicating in English ;-)

Hi Strubbl,

I am never blindly following a Osmose warning and correcting them, I always look into the details as there is always the choice to either correct the bicycle or the cycleway tags and if you see my commit history that differs per problem.

With the knowledge we have now you are right and I understand why you think a note would be better.

I correct a lot of these issues, but if I do not trust things I typically make a note in the commit that caused the problem and this did not look suspect like I said because on the other side of the road there is a bidirectional cycleway and CreCrePL did not look like a beginner to me.

Naar mijn idee is er in ieder geval iets te veel weg gehaald, alleen het brugdeel is weg, niet de aanbruggen en daar is wel een deel van verwijderd.

Hi Strubbl,

I see there is also a discussion on this on changeset/102796204#map=14/48.1339/11.6174 and I think that is the better place.

I did document the reason for my changes in the description and checked bicycle access is still possible as there is a bi-directional cycleway on the other side of the road.