Hi,
please check your modification on way/1234533146#map=18/9.926974/78.149884 and way/1234533147. This modification (brigde Apollo Sandhippu Maempalam) looks weird and is definitely wrong in the west, as the end-nodes are not connected with another road. Please rework this.

Hello and welcome to OSM!

Your new trunk highways way/1484624386#map=16/36.28036/1.99157 and way/1484624389 look unrealistic. Are you sure the classification as highway=trunk is correct? Shouldn't these be highway=track only?

Way way/1484624392#map=19/36.268454/1.984361 is definitely wrong as it is not connected to the trunk road in the south.

Please check and improve your edit!

You uploaded duplicated infrastructure! Please stop doing so!
I fixed it manually.

Hi,

You duplicated a lots of ways just for creating this questionable relation. Please stop this!

Due to duplication of the ways you broke routing. I fixed this manually. As a consequence the relation is probably destroyed. I'm sorry for this, but I consider this a much better compromise compared to having the mess with the duplicated ways.

regards,

ratrun

Thank you for the confirmation. Removed.

Hi,
to me the edit of user Planalkol seems unrealistic. I found you already commented the same here: changeset/177944692

Given his useless changeset comments and 8 days without response I would remove these two new tertiary ways.

What do you think?

If you look closely you will see that I only deleted ways which for some reason were overlapping/duplicated.

Stop adding crap to the data! Deleted!

Der Feldweg way/1468556219#map=17/46.808682/11.926120 sieht laut Luftbild Bing/Südtirol2020 total unrealistisch aus. Ausserdem geht er mitten durch ein Haus und endet auf beiden Enden im nirgendwo. Bitte überprüfe das nochmals!

Why didn't you use the prepared construction ways in this area? These even contain names. Please fix this!

Could you please check the new ways way/1467690451, way/1467690452 and way/1467690454. It is very unlikely that their tagging as secondary with the high maxspeed is correct given the bing imaginary in the area an and the nearby way topology.

Now I moved the cycle route relation to
way/1465429402

This is the changeset:
changeset/177035869#map=14/46.24162/9.41226

This way way/1465429400#map=19/46.243007/9.407730 currently just ends without connectivity, something need to be done here.

I hope that I understood everything right, please check everything again.

Hello, I usually just fix OSMI routing view errors. For the tagging issue you need to contact the original author.

Now I moved via dell'Agricoltura inlcuding the relation to the east as requested. See changeset/177009350#map=14/46.26337/9.39216.

Please check especially way/1465503108#map=19/46.244186/9.405848 where the way crosses the SP2 Var. Is this a tunnel? Or is it a crossing?

Sorry, I'm also not familiar with the "embarkment" tag. Anyway, as the value "two_sided" is not contained in the wiki description I would change its value "yes", see embankment=*. If there two separated tracks run in parallel on this embarkment then the current mapping as separate ways is correct.

What about this way: way/1465429402. Given its name "Pista ciclabile Cristoforo Colombo" and its tagging this way should be better part of the relation relation/6588150#map=16/46.25786/9.39903 . This currently looks strange. Can you please check?

Thank you for your elaborate answer. I tried to guess what you intended in the north in a small changeset. Could you please check the new data which I created in way/1464378117#map=19/46.263592/9.391992.
Here I created the new roundabout and put it into the road relation.

I intentionally didn't touch way/293960024#map=19/46.263594/9.391995 yet as I cannot guess from remote how the real connectivity situation is now.

Edit: Sorry, I meant: Shall this route relation now run along the new road?

I just found your GPX file here @Eros93/traces.

Unfortunately in the north the new roundabout is not contained.

I suggest that you improve the connectivity as far a you can. I will care about the route relation afterwards from remote. I think you are talking about this relation: relation/3876395#map=13/46.26564/9.40838

Right?

Shall this route relation new run along the new road?

I would like to support you and give you instructions, but I do not have any experience with the ID editor. I do all my editing in JOSM. It is more intuitive and faster for me.
You are talking about a GPX file, can you point me to it? What mode of transport did you use to create it? Via car? Via bicycle? What does it contain? Only the new road or also existing ones? I would like to have a look at the GPX to decide how I can support you best. Maybe we should ask in the Italian Forum, I'm sure you will get better help there.

Hello,

the new road way/1464116090 currently looks unrealistic. It is not connected to the rest of the road network in the north and you didn't consider existing crossing ways like way/1047395508#map=18/46.259371/9.396183 for example. Pleases rework and improve this edit!
Thank you!

Hello!
I fixed the edit from here: changeset/175075789#map=18/8.392229/48.473480&layers=V

I didn't notice the issue about the bad source.