Hi,
a railway=station object is still needed for a complete metro station relation. the stop positions on the track alone are not sufficient.
I've reverted the deletion of the station in changeset/174859464

Hi,
I still think the correct tagging for the SkyShuttle should be monorail because it does not run on actual iron rails. In fact it is running on rubber wheels and the concrete guiderails serve just as that: guiding the rubber tyred vehicle on the concrete track. See the video here: https://youtu.be/lsh2rcEvBPk?si=ak8vrAVNKLpJxs22&t=132
So I would suggest to revert the tagging from light_rail to monorail
WDYT?

Changeset comment should have said:
"Neue Vorfahrt vor Universitätsklinikum Haus 7"
Source:
Local survey

Hi there, What's your reason for deleting the separate stop areas for the metro and tram stations at Wilhelminaplein? According to the definition of a stop area in OSM I would expect those to be compromised of separate stop areas. One hint is that on Wikidata there's separate items for both:
Metro station: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2169211
Tram stop: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q111430313

I would suggest to revert this change, restore the separate stop areas on the surface (tram+bus) and underground (metro).

Hi,
You have removed the majority of track members for multiple routes as part of this changeset. E.g.
relation/17271811
and
relation/17271812
which are now almost empty. Any chance you can fix that or should I go ahead and revert?

Best,
Claudius

Sorry for inadvertently having moved that polygon and thanks for fixing it again.

Changeset comment should state:
"Fixed railway station tagging #QA"

Thanks for clarification. The different route reference numbers per direction are definitely an oddity which I haven't seen anywhere else. This makes capturing it via OSM data consistenly quite tricky. I would suggest to merge the two route masters for lines 2 and 8 into one because the operation is so intertwined. The route master then would either have no reference or ref=2;8

What do you think?

Hi,
What's the reasons that you removed so much station and stop details information for the metro routes by merging them? The current combination of interchange station stops as one object removes a lot of details.

Very good argument. I cleaned up the combined stop area then to consolidate the station node object into just one for the stop area: changeset/161705148

Hi Alex,
Even though these two stations share their entrances they are physically quite apart and travellers need to walk a bit to change platforms. That's why I think they should be mapped as two separate stop_area relations which are linked as an interchange station via the parent stop_area_group. I would suggest reverting your edit therefor.
What do you think?

I removed the duplicate information from the polygon which was already present in the place=village node at node/303814147

Thanks for pointing out the duplication with the more granular landuse=residential already present. I've now removed the duplicate outer residential landuse: changeset/161163523

Hi,
I haven't touched the name of this stop area but simply inherited from a former OSM contributor. Names for stop area relations are currently not rendered anywhere which is why often they are descriptive to help telling them apart. This seems to be the case here as well to easily differentiate in OSM editors which stop area belongs to the upper or lower portion of Stratford. All stop position and station elements in this stop area bear the correct name "Stratford". So not sure if the stop area's name needs amending.

Gern geschehen. Je nach verwendetem Editor ist die Sortierung von Routenmitgliedern leider auch etwas frickeliger. Gut, dass du den Subway Validator schon im Blick hattest. Darüber habe ich es auch gefunden.

The main argument speaking against tagging it as a light rail is that commonly light rail infrastructure and rolling stock is somewhere between trams and heavy rail which is very visible in all the example images in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail
If you look at "Cairo LRT" though you can see that it's heavy rail infrastructure (high top speed curve radii, high speed catenaries, cross free separate right of way) and heavy rail rolling stock (high capacity with 5+ carriages per train set, much higher speed than trams or even Stadtbahns, larger structure gauge as visibile in the inner carriage width)

Hi Anna Catarina,
Thanks for updating Cairo LRT. I was initially considering tagging the infrastructure as railway=light_rail, too, but decided against it. Because different than the name suggests more elements of the infrastructure actually are S-Bahn like train infrastructure. Primarily the station infrastructure, top speed and train capacity speak against light rail categorization. See also the first paragraph in the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Light_Rail_Transit and the comment from an established urban rail expert on https://www.urbanrail.net/af/cairo/cairo.htm
I would suggest to keep the tagging as railway=train therefor. Let me know if you are okay with reverting the tagging

This changeset comment ofc should have said "Completed motorway relation tagging in IRELAND #QA"

Danke für die Korrektur. Ich hatte mich auf die Baustelleninfo auf www.hvv.de verlassen, bei der nichts von der Verkürzung der U4 zu lesen war. Nachdem ich das Bautagebuch hier gelesen habe, verstehe ich diesen U2/U4 Hybridbetrieb bis Horner Rennbahn und den U2 Shuttle bis Billstedt jetzt besser: https://schneller-durch-hamburg.de/u2-u4-sperrung-beendet gelesen

Thanks for fixing that. No idea how that slipped through as JOSM would normally flag these duplicate unconnected nodes on upload.

Hallo Max,
Der Building-Tag sollte wiedergeben, wie das Gebäude gebaut wurde, nicht wie es genutzt wird. Kann ich von aussen schwer einschätzen, inwieweit der Bau substantiell umgebaut werde. Wenn du mehr weisst, kann es Sinn machen building=apartments zu taggen.
Viele Grüsse,
Claudius