Ar you paying attention to these notes?

Hi, you seem to have imported a new way (1149668029) into OSM, regardless of the fact that the ski trail follows ways that already exist in the database. The result is, we have now parallel ways all the way down from Donovaly to Sachticky. Could you explain please?

dik. Myslim, ze si to tam nejaky perohryz vymyslel, ale co s tym uz my narobime...

Ahoj. Mam podozrenie, ze nazov "Neresnicka cesta" nie je spravny pre usek cesty od krizovatky pri (potoku) Neresnici po Michalkovu. Stiahol som si ten cestarsky zip, ale neviem, v ktorom subore najst tuto informaciu. Mozes poradit? way/682746673 nie je spravne

you might need to click into the highlighted areas to see the tags

I agree, it would be ideal to unify the geomorphological areas on both (all) sides of the border - their boundaries and their names - but I am afraid it is not going to be easy in all cases. AFAIK boundaries of these units do not nicely meet at the borders, as there does not seem to be a standard that would allow scientists in different countries to arrive at a consensus. Maybe I am wrong, but that was the case years ago, when I was interested in this issue. There seems to be also differences in tagging (not surprising though). Compare boundaries and tagging here https://www.freemap.sk/#map=10/49.566309/19.665527&layers=O&osm-relation=1757596 and here https://www.freemap.sk/#map=11/49.521648/19.479446&layers=O&osm-relation=1934507

I did not add the "natural" tag, maybe ask the person who did. I would note though that the tag value falls into the "custom defined" category, and there are plenty of instances of the "mountain_range" value in the db. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=mountain_range

... and the name of the area is called Tatry in Slovakia, so am not sure what are you asking for.

bol som pri tom ked som to editoval? :-) malo by to byt opravene

Hi, I will fix this. Thanks for heads up.

Diskusia na tuto temu (presnost zdrojov ako su kataster a Ortofotomozaika) prebehla v minulosti na fore OSM Slovensko. Myslim, ze to bola tato: https://groups.google.com/g/osm_sk/c/kj0whFgqnZ0/m/CS8A4wGkAQAJ

neviem odkial je ta informacia, ze polohy budov su v katastri presnejsie ako obkreslovanim z Ortofotomozaiky, kedze moje skusenosti su presne opacne. Mam na mysli tu verziu, ktoru pripravil frremap: tms:https://ofmozaika.tiles.freemap.sk/{zoom}/{x}/{y}.jpg
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124424759

mas pravdu, ref je iny, nie len symbol, takze nova relacia je ok. Asi by bolo vhodne este dat tie dve relacie do jednej spolocnej superrlacie, alebo ako sa ten koncept vola. Nikdy som to vsak nerobil.

aha, to je pravda ze na vyhliadku je 5729 znacena inym symbolom, ale pochybujem ze je vhodne len kvoli tomu robit novu relaciu. Mozes otvorit temu na fore - ak bude konsenzus ako to znacit, tak to mozme zmenit

tri znacene tur. chodniky vedu k rozhladni. Pre vsetky existuju zvlast relacie a maju spravny osmc:symbol, takze stale nechapem.

Trosku konkretnejsie by to neslo Filip? Nechapem

Hi. This changeset contains buildings drawn on top of existing ones. See for example here:

way/1063976725

Can you explain this issue?

Ahoj. Nevylucujem, ze sa nestalo, ze som niekde nespravne aplikoval tag pedestrian, ale podla mna na tej komunikacii, ktorej link si uviedol je to spravne. Auto tam prejde (vozi truhly), ale inak je to pre pesich.

opravene. Dakujem za upozornenie

dakujem za upozornenie. Nevedel som, ze je to problem. Mate link kde je ozrejmene preco je lepsie v tomto pripade nepouzivat relaciu? Myslel som ze je to jedno.

Dakujem za upozornenie. Smernik som presunul (skopiroval) z cesty na oddedely nod, ale tagy som zabudol vymazat. Opravene.