Hehe, danke für den Link - war mir so nicht bewusst. Aber wenn man sich anschaut, was es alles an europäischen Namen nach Nordamerika geschafft hat finde ich das eine nette Hommage.
Ich würds lassen.
(Und ja, das Problem mit Flurnamen und ihrem Ursprung ist mir bekannt, hat es vor Jahren auf der OSM-AT Mailing List grosse Diskussionen gegeben um einen Mapper, der ständig irgendwelche Namen im Wienerwald erfunden oder noch schlimmer: verändert hat.)

Wurde mir damals von einem Einheimischen erzählt, dass der Platz so genannt wird. Habe die Ethymologie nicht weiter hinterfragt.

oh, okay. I have never seen that tag been used for anything but roads and railways.
I'd still go with "barrier=retaining_wall" because the description matches exactly what a terrace is - a wall retaining the earth from sliding down. The flat ground is just a side-effect. I would expect an embankment to have one step and then have reached the highest level of whatever it intends to bank up. Also embankments usually have two sides, the one-sided being an exception.

Hello,
may I ask why you mapped the small terraces as cliffs? I think the tag is not suitable here, it does not fit the criteria and gives a rather wrong impression in a map. I would suggest that "barrier=retaining_wall"
is a much better fit.

Ja. Die Box hat den Namen auch weiterhin. Ist ein blauer Container, der als Sprecherkabine usw verwendet werden kann.

Ja. Das Bachbett führt nur bei starkem Regen Wasser, sonst ist es (oberirdisch) ausgetrocknet.

i think these nodes can be deleted without a problem..

why were all the buildings deleted? did they demolition the whole farm?

hi.. nice work. just one note: keeping the history of objects is considered the highest form of editing - instead of delete & new drawing you can try to reshape the existing object. this even works when creating a building from a single node. most of the time it is even faster.
changeset with deletes trigger warnings in quality control tools.
cheers, grubernd

hi, thank you for the update - ah, keepright, the "we know better" dictator of mapping.

well, i did the floating tracks because i didnt have a GPS with me at the time in the 90ies, but as some parts are well visible, the path is still there. and part of the way from Königreichalm to Landfriedalm goes across the little meadows where it is not visible in the aerial images.
i was hesitant to just draw a "random" straight line there, but i guess that is the best solution.

Hi gerhard81, may i ask why you deleted the paths in this area? they are clearly visible in the aerial images and i have walked them. i did not have a GPS back than.

i think deleting things by algorithm is the most wrong thing one can to do to the OSM database. especially at this scale. it's the same as an import: automated changes of HUGE amounts of data.

things like these should always run through individual inspection on a case-by-case basis. cue map-roulette etc.

just sayin'.

jup, so ist es. danke, ist korrigiert =)

oh, i just realised - i _thought_ i had made it a bare_rock, but it was an empty way. so you were absolutely right to delete it.
i will just draw it anew.

i am a bit confused why a deletion of a bare rock area is titled "building update" and why it was deleted at all - the rocks are clearly visible in the aerial images.

hi Lukas! thank you for the contribution .. but the node placed by maps.me is in the middle of the road and not on one of the buildings. which one is it?

thank you very much! the problem with the values "winter" and "summer" is that they have a seasonal meaning. for example some amenity=drinking_water will be shut down some time between September/October until March/April. but the dates are not really clear.
in some cases (toilets in skiing areas) the "winter" just means "as long as the skiing area is in active use.

so reverting those values would be very helpful - for precision and also to not hide this problem in the opening_hours scheme.

looking through some of those edits: how come "Winter" should equal "Dec-Feb" and "Summer" was changed to "Jun-Aug"?
both assumptions do not reflect reality.
so.. why the change?

thx for the reminder. the circumstances: no building to see on the aerial images, this being a typical harvest-forest area, no mention of "Latschenalm" in this area on any other map, the user having only done two edits.
i will now delete the node.

wäre super wenn das eingetragen ist.. dort oben sind Quellen rar. und mittlerweile werden sie ja auch in Karten angezeigt. Danke!