Hi, is landuse=village_green really the correct tag here? See also landuse=village_green

I’m worried that if we just leave it as highway=path with no other tags, outdoor apps will show it to people as a normal path that anyone can walk when you actually need experience and equipment and lots of preparation. At the very least we should put an appropriate sac_scale value, but I don’t know what would be the right value because I haven’t been there!

Or maybe a tag like route=mountaineering would be more appropriate, instead of highway=path?

Thanks. I still have my GPX file from when I walked to Langshisa Kharka so I know how far I mapped it as sac_scale=hiking at the time. But what tags should go on the new section over the pass? Looking at a walk report (https://www.thetrekblog.com/blog/2018/11/13/tillman-pass-nepal-langtang) I’m not sure that all of it can even be called a path. Have you been there?

Hi, you have tagged Tilman's pass as sac_scale=hiking, trail_visibility=excellent. This was an accident I presume? Looking at the history of the way way/342432187/history, you added the whole length of Tilman’s pass to an existing path segment that previously only covered a small length of path in Langshisha Kharka (which I tagged as sac_scale=hiking).

Welcome to Edinburgh. It's meant to be two way now, but they forgot to burn off the no entry markings and to remove the sign that tells cyclists to cross and rejoin the carriageway. The Council are "continuing to investigate the safest and most practical way to remove" the no entry markings.

It used to look like this, with a left turn to cross and rejoin the carriageway:
https://twitter.com/CyclingAndyC/status/1684967512297938944

Now it looks like this, with a kerb blocking the left turn:
https://twitter.com/LeithFeederRide/status/1752633287141392647/photo/4

See also https://twitter.com/oldscotbooks/status/1752658019387687037

You changed landuse=construction to amenity=school, am I right that the construction is finished so construction=school can also be removed?

For more background see here: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/should-coastlines-create-a-closed-polygon/109239

Oops thanks for spotting that!

Also for Victoria island: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1GQO

Hi
I've noticed there are now quite a few island nodes on the map with name = "Banks Island".
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1GQM
For example
node/11403743851
node/11419607063
node/11416514405

Do you agree that these are redundant and should be removed? Since the island is already tagged as relation/5345940

I've reopened them!

Thanks for confirming!

Thanks! I'm nowhere near Bristol unfortunately. Just browsing the map for notes where the thing they're asking to be mapped has already been mapped, which is surprisingly common!

Hi thanks for adding way/1018683647. Do you think it's sufficiently accurate that the following notes should be closed?
note/2998613
note/2998618

And possibly
note/2996034

There's more notes in the area that are older than recent surveys.

You've recently modified this way (note/566039), do you have anything to add about this note?
note/566039

If the cycling infrastructure is now mapped correctly here it could be closed?

Thanks! The Wiki page has since been improved to make clear it isn't just about airports.

We can change this object to amenity=bar then, with bar:type=sports_bar, following a suggestion on the old help site, unless you have a better idea?

Not sure, you know the hotel. Personally I would probably use the tag for an exclusive lounge (executive lounge/club lounge) that offers things not offered to ordinary guests but not if the hotel just calls its lobby a "lounge", or the area in front of the bar

Thanks! That looks great.

Bonjour et merci pour la mise à jour des données.

J'ai remarqué que tu as ajouté barrier=kerb à ce "node":
node/5537335953

Certains moteurs d'itinéraires supposent que barrier=kerb sur un objet "highway" signifie qu'il faut traverser la bordure pour continuer le long de l'autoroute, donc ils l'évitent :
osm.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=43.3161%2C-1.4031%3B43.3171%2C-1.4039#map=13/43.3189/-1.3774

Est-ce bien ce que tu voulais dire ? Ou bien y a-t-il une bordure à traverser pour accéder au "passing_place", mais pas pour continuer sur la route ?

Désolé si ce n'est pas clair, je ne suis pas français.

Thanks for confirming!