The change finally finished conversation in changeset/164651727

And… finally fixed!
changeset/175774384

Marek,

Why I've asked about the rule from community, which forbids this ^^^ changes:

If there is a change to the OSM, which reverts something, which is not forbidden, and removes information about smoothness, removes check_date tags, removes objects which are exist in the real world but were absent in OSM, adds object which is absent in the real world, adds wrong information about pedestrian access (maybe it is even dangerous for people's health) — is it okay to call such a change "vandalism"?

Marek, could you please share a link to "the local community's decision" which **forbids** me to draw 2 roads with different surface as 2 ways?

Just a note for myself: I see you're okay with reverting someone's huge job osm.wiki/?diff=2821415 without even say "sorry" osm.wiki/User_talk:Mateusz_Konieczny/Archive_2#Why_did_you_remove_my_translation,_which_I_worked_on_for_a_week?

+ one more long thread to read (for me): https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mapping-separated-footways-or-cycleways-along-central-street-as-one-tagged-line-versus-mutiple-lines/126766

Hello, Marek!

1. "mogą być rysowane" is not a "must be tagged only this way", right?
2. I see you're actively writing these "rules" osm.wiki/w/?diff=2821515 but is there any Polish OSM community decision behind it? Or is it some personal opinion written into the wiki page?

I remember I've read thread https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/tagging-of-adjacent-cycleway-footway-sidewalk/108404 and I found there is no strict rule about such tagging.

Sorry, what does "addr:floor=G" mean here node/12085160968 ?

I think that entrance node/12844762288 is placed at level=0. Fixed in changeset/171745578.
Please let me know if you think that level should stay = 1.

In this change you've deleted "smoothness=intermediate" tag for way/153342297. For this one road, I restored the tag: changeset/171582737

Please don't delete any information in OSM :)

It looks like someone mixed up "building:flats" and "building:levels".

Please see a note note/4794040

Yes, the building is Marszałka Józefa Piłsudskiego **28-30**, but the store address is just 28.

Got it, thanks!
I recommend you to read this page ramp=*

And in common, please use the wiki as a source of truth if you're planning to edit OSM a lot. I see you're very active, it is good, we need more active mappers!

Thank you for contributing!

@Myshor, but it has a ramp, right? This one: way/1391379192

@maro21, please write better description of your changes, see osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Partially reverted in changeset/166365173

@Poprawiłem, why did you remove tag "smoothness" from way/52026589 ?

@maro21, why did you remove some tags in node/4347953448 ?

crossing* tags — fixed in changeset/165779386

> please don't map check_date:surface … The surface won't change

Probably I'm too old, because for me a surface changes are quite often.

> Only use uncontrolled/traffic_signals as values for the crossing=* tag

I will probably forget this pretty soon, sorry. crossing=zebra is too obvious and human-writible. It would be nice to have your suggestion in JOSM linter, so it will remind me (and not only me).

> - Yes, you should probably use footway=crossing for a footway crossing a cycleway but it's just a form of micromapping and you don't need to split the footway in every place like this.

Got it, thanks!

> In context of some more general path tagging, try to always use the footway=* tag with highway=footway. The values are, as written on the wiki, sidewalk, crossing, traffic_island and path.

Normally I add footway=sidewalk when remember and when it is obvious (in a city, in villages). But here on a parking it is less obvious, so my neural network do not recognize it.

> For another general tip for segregated cycle- and footways I recommend making it so that the cycleway is on the left side of the direction of the way. It will then be rendered correctly by CyclOSM.

Not clear for me: is it about a case when both footway and cycleway are marked with one way in OSM? I'm trying to avoid this, it is too complicated. When it is possible, please let's use 2 separate ways for it.

Thank you for advices!

Pawix99, I don't think it is good idea to remove data which has history, for example this way/579228607/history and draw new roads over deleted roads…