Thanks @rezemika

Sie finden Ihren Eintrag hier: node/13523785789

Ja, er ist veröffentlicht und sollte von Ihnen noch angepasst werden. Sollte dies nicht in den kommenden Tagen passieren, wird er wohl gelöscht werden ...

Bitte ändern Sie die Beschreibung in Ihren Eintrag (der erstellten Node): node/13523785789

Hier in diesem Bereich können Sie nur Texte als Diskussion und Hinweise hinterlassen. Ihr erstellter Eintrag des Spa's wird dadurch nicht angepasst.

Hoffe das hilft Ihnen weiter.

Grüße
Pascal

I think the following created relation may has introduced some issues: relation/20173719

Best regards,
Pascal

Hallo,

es bringt meiner persönlichen Meinung nach nichts, die Spammy-SEO Beschreibung hier als Kommentar nochmal zu posten.

Danke und Grüße
Pascal

In this case, it seems the reported issues are false positives. The geometries were not changed in a way that would introduce crossings, and the tagging adjustments did not create any new conflicts.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks again for your map edits.

Regards,
Pascal

Thanks for your reply.

Reverted by changeset/178050914

Reverted by changeset/178050925

Hallo, willkommen bei OSM.

Ist das ein Revert vom eigenen (Import?) Changeset: changeset/174555726

Grüße
Pascal

Hallo, willkommen bei OSM.

Ist das ein Revert vom eigenen (Import?) Changeset: changeset/174555726

Grüße
Pascal

Please see comments here: changeset/178019059

Same again, please see my comment here: changeset/177994345#c1550029

Hi nilloc29, thank you for your reply.

I’ve reviewed some of the ways you removed, and it seems that several (possibly many?) of them were tagged quite well, including the use of abandoned:* tags. In my opinion, these ways should not have been deleted.

I understand that removing unusable ways may simplify navigation for your application. However, I believe it would be better if the navigation software respected and interpreted the existing OSM tagging instead of removing mapped features that are still valid as abandoned objects.

Best regards,
Pascal

Hi DwightTee and thank you for your reply.

I think in your case, it seems the reported issues are false positives. The geometries were not changed in a way that would introduce new crossings, and the tagging adjustments did not create any new conflicts.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks again for your map edits.

Regards,
Pascal

Found also some spammy entries or descriptions within this changeset ...

You're welcome.

Ein paar der Änderungen (Wege) dieses Changesets wurden in einem Bereich auf Basis der Kommentare aufgeräumt.

changeset/177800556

In this case, it seems the reported issues are false positives. The geometries were not changed in a way that would introduce crossings, and the tagging adjustments did not create any new conflicts.

Sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks again for your map edits.

Regards,
Pascal

Thanks for the detailed explanation and for taking the time to respond, much appreciated.

Cheers,
Pascal