Done in changeset/41719525.

Hi. Did you really want to add names in the Judaeo-Spanish ("Ladino") language (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaeo-Spanish) to these localities?

To me, those names look rather more like names in the local dialect, which (probably) can be classified as a Ladin language, but Ladin has a different language code ("name:lld" instead of "name:lad" which you used here)!

If that's the case, and if you want, I can quickly fix the wrong language code for you.

Danke für deine schnelle Rückmeldung!
Ok, dann passt statt "alpine_hut" wohl besser ein "shelter" als Tag. Ist schon angepasst.

Hallo. Was für eine "Touristen-Attraktion" befindet sich denn hier? Hat diese auch einen Namen? Ist diese ganz neu, denn am Luftbild ist hier nichts auser einer Wiese zu erkennen.

Hallo! Ist das hier wirklich ein Rastplatz wie (hier beschrieben: osm.wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Drest_area )? Am Luftbild sieht man hier nur eine Wiese. Auch wäre der Ort für einen Rastplatz ziemlich ungewöhnlich. Handelt es sich stattdessen evtl. um einen Picnic-Platz (siehe osm.wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Dpicnic_site)?

Thanks for your answer! Yes, adding segregated=yes makes sense in this case. Don't forget to add foot=yes or foot=designated if pedestrians are allowed on the cycleway – by default they are for-cyclists-only in OSM.

And, if you want, you can split the cycleway and add the tag "cycleway=sidewalk" where it runs on the actual sidewalk.

Analogously you can also split and add "cycleway=crossing" where it crosses a street via zebra-crossings (e.g. here: node/2396669945).

Hi. Please don't add descriptions as names to points. Thank you!

Was für eine Schutzhütte ist denn node/1831343285? Am Luftbild sieht man keinen Anhaltspunkt für eine Hütte in der Gegend.

Hi. Are you sure, "demanding_alpine_hiking" is the correct "sac_scale" value for the hiking path you added in this changeset: way/51012159 ?

Hi. Why did you merge the roads at the motorway intersections? There are some bus-route relations that rely on the roads being split at those points (e.g. relation/6089575#map=17/46.49425/11.40592) which are now broken at those points. :-(

Thanks, but the Hotel was already on the map since at least 2 years ago: see way/88059884

I've removed the duplicate now.

FYI: note/676114

Hi,

I'm quite sure that the outline broke in exactly this changeset. But there's no need for a revert, as I've already fixed the data yesterday.

It's possible that something went wrong while uploading the changeset data, maybe.

Esatto!

PS: There's no reason to put name:it tags on objects that only have one name alone (which the majority of places, roads, shops, etc). The above mentioned ambiguity-issues are only present when an object is named in at least two different languages.

Excuse me for writing in English ;)

It's common practice to include the local language also in the name:* tags. Just take a look around how similar objects are tagged, for example Praha has a name that's the same as name:cs: relation/439840

There's a reason for having the local name also in its own separate name:* tag when also other name:* tags exist. This is how keepright.at puts it: “To help applications choose the best matching language they should know the language used for the name tag. It is therefore necessary to provide a name:XX tag with the same content as found in the name tag where XX specifies the language used for the name tag.”

For example, let's assume there's a place node with only name=Roma and name:en=Rome set, and an Italian-speaking citizen comes along, whose navigation device is set to prefer languages in the following order: 1) Italian 2) English 3) Whatever the local language is. If there's no name:it=Roma, the navigation software can't know that "Roma" is actually an Italian name and would falsely fall back to English.

A similar problem occurs if one would try to produce a worldwide map in a specific language with fallbacks (e.g. an Italian map with English as fallback).

Hi!
I think this changeset accidentally broke the outline of Italy ("Penisola italiana")! There are a couple of pieces missing between Fano and Pesaro, see https://imgur.com/a/CuM4e

PS: What editor did you use to make these edits? There is no indication in the changeset metadata (which is usually set by all other major editors such as JOSM, iD, etc.). Furthermore, it looks like as if this changeset introduced multiple new versions of the relation which is quite odd and looks almost like a bug in the software you're using.

Oops, I think my first comment went to the wrong changeset (the boundary actually got broken in another changeset: changeset/41453004). Sorry for the confusion.

Also, did you discuss this large-scale edit with the community (I didn't see anything on talk-it lately, but that doesn't have to mean anything ^^).

More to the point: I don't think that removing "name:it" tags, e.g. from boundaries (e.g. of "Pompei" or "Trento") was a good idea. What was the rationale behind it?

Hi!

I think this changeset accidentally broke the outline of Italy! There are a couple of pieces missing between Fano and Pesaro, see https://imgur.com/a/CuM4e