Did you want to map this as a tourism/holiday appartment intentionally? Or did you rather mean building=apparments ?

Hi!

Two things:
(1) Are you sure these are vacation/tourism apartments? Or did you rather want to tag the houses as building=apartment (regular residential houses where people live)? If these are actually tourism apartments, do they have a name or a website or a physical sign in front of the house?

(2) Can I mark your notes as resolved? (they seem to be addressed by your edit).
e. g. note/3107908

Wiki pages for residential apartment buildings and tourism apartments:
building=apartments

tourism=apartment

"definitiv" würde ich nicht sagen. Es ist schon ein Grenzfall.

Ein sportlicher Mensch auf einem Fixie hat hier keine Probleme,
aber ein normal-fitter Mensch auf einer langen Tour mit zwei oder vier Satteltaschen hat schon ganz schön zu kämpfen und eine Oma mit E-Bike, die mit OSM-Daten ihre Route plant, wird hier eine böse Überraschung erleben.

Ok, I've fixed this. (user seems inactive)

True! I've added them.

I understand your preferred style is to map sidewalks separately, while I prefer only doing if there is a cycle track involved. My reasoning is that for a cyclist it is a big pain to cross a raised kerb, while for pedestrians it's no effort at all, but I acknowledge that there is no community consensus.

I now did the change my style (obviously) :-), but please feel free to change to your style if you wish. :-)
(just a reminder: keep in mind to change sidewalk=right to sidewalk=separate on the main road in that case)

Oh, no troubles caused!
Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.

Understand. :-)

I imagine Vespucci might be the Android app of choice for cases like this. (in case you haven't come across that)

Cleanest solution seemed to be to remove it, sorry. (I didn't get any response, so I took the liberty to just do it)

Hi!
You removed all tags from node/4171822038/
which was previously tagged as restaurant "Loving Hut". It is now a standalone tag-less node.

Was this on purpose?

Hi oliverix,
Welcome to openstreetmap! Thanks for your contribution.

One point to help you get started:
When you add new highways (that is roads, footways, cycletracks, etc.), make sure they're connected to existing ones at locations where they cross or end. This means, if it is possible to change from one to another in the real world, then both ways should have a common node in openstreetmap (and only then). Otherwise, routing software doesn't know that there is a connecting (you can change from one to another).

You may have noticed that iD (the editor that you used) gave you some warnings when you uploaded your changes. They were for this exact reason.

Happy mapping!

Good spot! Thanks

Hi!

Thank you for adding the sidewalk way/984390923 to Njegoševa.

You may be aware of this, but just in case you aren't: it is not really necessary to map sidewalks explicitly, if there is not continuous physical separation to the road itself (like, for example, a strip of grass). A sidewalk=* tag on the main road is enough. However, your style of mapping the sidewalk separately is also considered acceptable by some; so no harm done.

However, the sidewalk should be connected to Prisojna ulica. Otherwise, routing apps will not be able to use the sidewalk that you've added in a correct way.
It's important to always connect highways to other highways if they are accessible from each other. Paths that end on other paths in reality should therefore not mapped as dead ends.
In fact, the sidewalk should be connected to the road wherever it's possible to cross the road. (which is the reason most people prefer not mapping it separately). Otherwise there is no way for routing engines to figure out where the road can be crossed.

If you do decide to map the sidewalk separately, it's nice towards other mappers to make sure to change sidewalk=both tag on the main carriageway (Njegoševa) to sidewalk=left, for example on this section: way/931184574
Otherwise, we end up in a situation, where the same sidewalk is mapped once on the road itself and once explicitly from your addition. (which is considered incorrect by the community, see here osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element)

I hope this is not confusing. In case of questions, feel free to ask!

...and the sidewalk=right tag should be removed along sections like this way/933614459

Hi! You've added this footway sidewalk to Tržaška way/180893454
although a separated cycle and footway already exists:
way/652880804

This seems to be redundant. If we argue that the little kerb between the cycle track and the footway counts as physical barrier, then we should remove the footway tags (foot=designated, footway:surface=asphalt, segregated=yes) from the cycleway.

Excellent, thank you! In fact, the P+R appears to be already mapped: way/661376172

I've removed the wrongs P+R tags. Thanks for the quick and clear response!

Thanks!
Then I suppose the name of the parking is incorrect?
Do you know where the actual P+R parking is located? (if it exists at all)

Hi!

Thanks for you contribution to the map!

You've tagged this parking as private. This seems contradictory for a P+R parking. Are you sure this is correct? Or did you perhaps mean that everyone can access but a fee is charged?

Absolutely fantastic!
That's what I call committed mapping! :-)

Very nice! Happy mapping!

Oh great! Thanks a lot for your edit!

No, I have no recent on-ground information, so I wanted to make sure it wasn't an accident.

Just a minor issue: The driveway way/927801230 is now disconnected from other roads. Do you know whether the path way/983014205 can be used by cars? Should we convert this to a driveway?