Hi, bicycle=designated is implied on a highway=cycleway, so I'm removing the tag from www.way/669235159

Hi, thanks for detailing the area. Ways like this are probably better tagged highway=unclassified as it is clearly not in a residential area: way/1418759801

Hi, you added the proposed highway way/584156177 seven years ago. It seems it hasn't materialized yet. Is it still map-worthy?

Hi, you added the proposed highway way/585221411 seven years ago. It seems it hasn't materialized yet. Is it still map-worthy?

Hi, you added the proposed highway way/660881100 six years ago. It seems it hasn't materialized yet. Is it still map-worthy?

Hi,
Can you help with this note? note/4854980

It seems you've mapped a tourism=guest_house which another user can't find on the ground.

Hi, Thanks for your contribution. Is this a building OR just a roof?

relation/19107141

Hello,

Thanks for keeping an eye on on keeping up the quality of the map!

I don't recall the exact reason in this particular case but I usually do this when there are adjacent landuses/landcovers that should share a common boundary but are mapped in a way that they don't, for example here: osm.org/?mlat=48.078883&mlon=9.028535#map=19/48.078883/9.028535

In cases like that, I find mapping much easier, quicker and also more comprehensible when you deal with multipolygons: You don't have to redraw lines multiple times which have dozens or hundreds of nodes. Also by selecting a boundary line, you instantly see which objects share this boundary (can be more than two, e. g. a bike parking nested inside a park, nested inside a city boundary).

I guess, it comes down to a matter of taste, probably depending on which editor you use. When I substantially improve the mapping accuracy in a certain area, I usually take the liberty to represent areas as multipolygons when it's more efficient for my mapping workflow.

I hope, this helps. :-)

Hi!

Thanks for you contributions!

Please not that we do not map individual lanes of roads in OSM. We map a road as only *one* object in OSM (not one for each lane). Exception: When there is a physical separation between the carriageways (more than just paint), then they can be mapped separately.
osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

Happy mapping!

Hi,
Can you help with this question?
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/126402

Removed.
changeset/160835932

Ich nahm an, dass man auch ohne Schilder nicht von way/1274423440 nach way/1274423438 einbiegen darf.

Ausserdem stelle ich es mir schwer vor, zu erraten, dass man hier nicht "links abbiegen" darf, wenn man ein Router ist. Deswegen habe ich die Relation gemappt.

Aber ich bin kein Router und habe keine Ahnung von so was; wahrscheinlich kennst du dich besser damit aus.

What is the complaint about?

Hello!

Was war denn falsch an den turn restrictions?

Hi!

That must've been an attempt to resolve
note/916910 and
note/914681

Sorry for documenting this properly at the time.

I've never surveyed this place myself or verified it in any other way.

Hi,
Can you explain what you mean by the fixme? Kopališče Kolezija does not appear to be encolosed by relation/14962643

Excellent! Thank you very much!

Sorry for the long list, but it's important for routing apps to work correctly. :-)

Happy mapping!

Thanks for the quick reply!

That's interesting. I've added it as source:name.

Happy mapping!

Hi!
Is "hrib" really the *name* of this hill or is it just a description?

Hi,

I’ve just discovered that a number of things went severely wrong here:
- The footpath way/1327573462 has the wrong accesss tag access=no.
- The same footpath is crossing the cycleway way/1327574306 but they are not connected by a common node.
- This cycleway way/1310997762 does not seem to be physically separated from the footpath way/1310997764 but you mapped them separately.
- The car carriageway way/1305674489 (and others) should have the tags sidewalk=separate + foot=use_sidepath + bicycle=use_sidepath if the foot and cycle path are mapped separately.
- The crossing way/1327573463 is not connected to node/5818757615 nor to the cycle paths, but should be.
- In reality, the street can be cross at osm.org/go/0IkZ3CMBp?m= using a crosswalk. This must be mapped in order to routers to work correctly.

It seems that your editor issued 4 warnings before uploading which it seems you ignored.