Hallo Andreas,
Wie im Wiki Artikel ( osm.wiki/DE:Tag:highway=motorway%20junction?uselang=de ) gehen die Meinungen auseinander. Insofern halte ich die Einleitung der Notiz "name-tag ist laut wiki falsch!" nicht ganz richtig. Soweit ich das verstehe, besteht einfach kein Konsens.

Ich gehöre zu der Fraktion, die dafür ist, den Namen der Raststätte am highway=motorway_junction zu erfassen. Mein Argument ist, dass es eben wohl eine über ein Schild benannte Ausfahrt ist. Siehe auch das Beispielbild eines Schildes im Wikipedia-Artikel: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahnparkplatz
In dem Sinne ist es eine Ausfahrt, aber keine Anschlussstelle. Diese Tatsache ist in meinen Augen ausreichend durch noref=yes dokumentiert.

Du kannst den Namen entfernen :) Ob es dadurch richtiger oder falscher wird ist Ansichtssache.

Hallo Andreas,
Wie im Wiki Artikel ( osm.wiki/DE:Tag:highway=motorway%20junction?uselang=de ) gehen die Meinungen auseinander. Insofern halte ich die Einleitung der Notiz "name-tag ist laut wiki falsch!" nicht ganz richtig. Soweit ich das verstehe, besteht einfach kein Konsens.

Ich gehöre zu der Fraktion, die dafür ist, den Namen der Raststätte am highway=motorway_junction zu erfassen. Mein Argument ist, dass es eben wohl eine über ein Schild benannte Ausfahrt ist. Siehe auch das Beispielbild eines Schildes im Wikipedia-Artikel: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahnparkplatz
In dem Sinne ist es eine Ausfahrt, aber keine Anschlussstelle. Diese Tatsache ist in meinen Augen ausreichend durch noref=yes dokumentiert.

Du kannst den Namen entfernen :) Ob es dadurch richtiger oder falscher wird ist Ansichtssache.

Part of this changeset you create an untagged veeery long way across the atlantic: way/557466480

I have deleted this already: changeset/56216548

Please review the JOSM review notifications before commiting your changeset as they are helpful to prevent such errors.

Happy mapping!

Acetheface954: You can find all your contributions listed in your changeset history. Click on your profile name on top right and then on the changeset link which should take you to @Acetheface954/history

Island Human: I'm trying to avoid it as often as possible. I know the pain when reviewing changes in a small area. You can use the OpenStreetMap Changeset Analyzer to review changesets in your area only: https://osmcha.mapbox.com

Hi,

It seems with this changeset you accidentally added a few very long untagged ways that encompass the whole globe. I removed those four in these two changesets:
changeset/55888507
changeset/55888571
Would be good if you could review that the other items you added in this changeset are okay.

Hi there, seems detaching the path from the peak that you moved didn't really work out.
I fixed this in my changeset changeset/55860192#map=14/33.8656/49.4512
Would be good if you could verify this makes sense now

Hi Chee Aun,
There's a difference between the public_transport=stop_position and the railway=station nodes. In a complete mapping for a subway station both exist and describe different features. The stop position is the location on one of the multiple tracks that a train in a certain direction stops. This is very useful information as when you use trains on the same line but in opposite directions you need to go to different stop positions in the station. As you see for a normal subway line station with two tracks for each direction you would already have two stop position nodes. Sometimes these stop positions have ref-tags as well, e.g. track 1 and track 2, but they differ from the station ref.

Additionally you would have either a node or an area for the building outline of the station. This is the OSM object that bears the station reference, e.g. ref=NS15 in case of Yio Chu Kang station.

These three nodes are combined using a public_transport=stop_area which you can find here: relation/7695977

So in fact 9 tags became 15 if you combine all the node and relation information. And as you can see the station reference is still left intact in the station node: node/206529415
btw. Maybe you can clear up if the amenity=bakery tag should remain on the station node. It looks like a tagging error.

Thanks

This was converting a previous tag "Bauausführung=Holz"

Sorry for that removal and thanks for fixing my "fix".

I'm very familiar with the multilingual tagging, thanks a lot for pointing this out.
If a name:* tag value is identical to the value already in the name tag than it's redundant. A name:* tag needs only be added if it differs. Do you agree?

Just to close the loop: I've meanwhile received updated imagery from apm-wa and am using this in combination with Mapillary and OSC imagery.

That section around Numaniyah is not a separated carriageway with two directional lanes. That's why I downgraded to primary.

Hi JaLooNz,
I hadn't finished reviewing the CCL line that's why it's station at Dhoby Ghaut was missing. Added this just today and you can see it part of the interchange relation stop_area_group here: relation/7695989

Hi Michael,
You added bakery tag to the Yio Chu Kang station via the Maps.ME app. Was this intential? I'd recommend to add a separate node at the location of the bakery inside the station grounds instead of adding it to the station node.

Hi Chee Aun,
I did preserve the ref-tag at the railway=station node. It won't be at the public_transport=stop_position node though. E.g. for Yio Chu Kang MRT station you will find it still intact here: node/206529415
Let me know if you find a station where I accidentially removed it. I couldn't find any while reviewing today.

Hallo Michael,
Soweit ich das weiss fahren dort ab und an noch Sonderzüge und die ÖPV-Infrastruktur wird noch gepflegt und vorgehalten. Siehe auch http://www.ris-sachsen.eu/CMS/index.php/strecken/nossen-freiberg
Da also dort noch ein Haltepunkt besteht würde ich public_transport=* weiter behalten.
Viele Grüsse,
Claudius

Thanks for the kind word. There's a few more stations that I need to review, but it already validates in most part here: http://osmz.ru/subways/brazil.html
This should mean that soon it will be routable in the Maps.ME app. Yay!

Indeed. This was already fixed meanwhile. Thanks for checking.

Why did you remove "Chitgar" station from the relation for Metro line 5?