Ok, I've reverted my change.

Hello and a belated welcome to openstreetmap!

It's nice towards other mappers if you comment your changesets in a way that others can understand what you are doing.
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Happy mapping!

No response; I hence moved name -> description.

Hey,

I've reverted this edit.

If there is a single-carriageway in reality, then we map it as such in OSM.
osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

If access varies by direction, then we use directional keys (like motor_vehicle:forward).
osm.wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_right

A lot of public transport routes go along here. When we make changes to the map, we need to be sure not to break these routes. To this end, we use appropriate access keys like psv=yes.
osm.wiki/Public_service_vehicles

OSM is made for everybody and people use it in many many different ways. When we make edits to the map, we can't tune/hack it to our personal specific needs in a way that renders it unusable to others.

Reverted. Use smoothness=* instead.

Hi, I've reverted your edited as access=no seems wrong to me. I believe that:
- Pedestrians and cyclists can pass here
- Motor vehicles of Lek employees can also pass.

I hence added lift gates with a motor_vehicle=private tag

Hello,
When you tag roads as under construction, please remember to add the construction=* tag.

For example, on the section of Verovoška ulica that you've tagged as under construction, there should be a construction=tertiary tag.

Sorry for that. It's not always easy to get every driveway correct from aerial imagery.

Thanks for correcting it!

Ok thanks.

But this node is not a *network node*, is it? (a bit unfortunate that the terminology is confusing here, but not every OSM node is a lcn node, right?)

Hi,

There are concerns about the verifiability of way/323041450

Do you know if this path still exists?

Feel free to leave a note here. However, in my experience, almost all "question notes" remain unresolved forever.

I personally therefore adopted the approach documented in the wiki, which is using notes only to *provide* information, not to *seek* information.

Hi,
Thanks for your edit!

Is "Muzej na prostem Mrzli vrh" really the *name* of this museum or merely a description?

node/11818755987

Hi, can you help with this note?

note/4433084

Hi,
Do you think this is restored now?
way/1303421854

Hi,

You've added the undocumented tag `expected_lcn_route_relations=2` onto node/772756601

What does this tag mean? And what did you want to achieve with this changeset?

Hi, in case you aren't aware: For Ljubljana, there is an orthophoto with higher resolution available in JOSM.

Happy mapping!

Hi,
Thanks for your edit. You left the tracktype tag on way/193609802 which I believe is redundant on highway=service + surface=asphalt

Happy mapping!

I'm pretty sure there is no point in having two OSM cycleways in the same place which both refer to the same unique real-world object.

I think if routing was broken, then we should repair tagging and connectivity of the previously existing cycle path instead of painting a new one above it.

Ok, let's remove
way/1314338186
way/1314338187
way/1198338337

as they are clearly historical features which don't exist anymore then, if you agree..?

Hi,

Seems you've created a duplicate of this already existing cycleway: way/754031495