Thanks for the response. No apologies needed, mapping contributions like yours are obviously a big help for the project.

About big changesets:
If everything is mapped correctly, then there is no problem, I guess.

However, if mistakes are made (which we're unfortunately prone to as humans), then smaller changesets certainly make it easier to isolate and understand these mistakes and potentially perform rollbacks without destroying a lot of correct mapping as a side effect.

----

I would think that -- ideally -- one changeset should be not more than a few buildings, each in the same block or neighbourhood. In practice, this is often not the case (including my own changesets), but that's what I have in mind when i try to map "cleanly".

Great!

Thanks for clarifying.

How about bicycle=yes instead? (unless there is a bicycle sign)

Hi,
Thanks for your contribution.

This changeset spans the entire city.

Could you try to create smaller changesets in order to make it easier for others to understand what you're doing?

Cheers

Hi,
highway=steps + bicycle=designated appears a bit odd. Perhaps a tagging mistake?

way/940435513

I'd rather not add the address tags, but by no means am I sure about that. I've hence started a poll to ask the community for their opinion: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/address-tags-on-bike-rental-stations-that-are-only-shown-in-app/

My considerations (in descending order of importance):
1) The address cannot be verified on the ground.
2) The wiki intends the addr:* tags to be used for buildings only (but this can be changed, obviously).
3) To "give a sense of location", data consumers can easily check the address of the building closest to the station.

Hi,
I noticed that you add address tags to car sharing stations. I'm wondering: Is this verifiable in some way (i. e. can it be demonstrated to be true or false)? For example, is the address written on an information board at the station or something?

Hi,
Could you help with this note?
note/3720678

Hi,
Could you help with this note?
note/3720678

This seems to be a clear case for grade4. I don't see a good reason for using an undocumented tag in this case.

Interesting. What's grade3-5 supposed to mean?

Hi,

Thanks a lot for resolving this note.

I've noticed that you added the undocumented value grade4-5 for tracktype. I'm pretty sure that no data consumer (e. g. routing engines) will be able to handle this. I think it's much better to decide for a documented value (either tracktype=grade4 or tracktype=grade5).

...in response to note/2513378

Hi,
Thanks for resolving this note: note/3693696

Just remember to close notes when you solve them; this way you prevent others from having to play Sherlock Holmes ;-)

Happy mapping!

Hi Hammler,

Hello from OSM. In case you read this, can you comment on this note? note/2737885

Ah, sorry for that!

Hi,
The note tag you've added in v1 of way/815796273/history looks like advertisement, which is not wanted on osm. Hence, I removed it.

Hi,
The note tag you've added in v3 of way/815796273/history looks like advertisement, which is not wanted on osm. Hence, I removed it.

Hi,
welcome to Openstreetmap! If you decide to map sidewalks separately, like here: way/1148513999, then it's good practice make sure to tag the carriageway with sidewalk=separate + foot=use_sidepath

Happy mapping!

Hi,
welcome to OSM. When you decide to map sidewalks separately from the carriageway, then please make sure they are connected to crossing roads at intersections wherever pedestrians can cross.

Otherwise, routing engines won't be able to use the sidewalks you've mapped