Questa modifica mi lascia leggermente confuso e perplesso: Se è questo un tratto della ciclovia, come mai non è bicycle=designated? E se non bicycle=designated, non ci vorrebbe almeno bicycle=yes? O si tratta davvero di una "ciclovia" non ciclabile? Per alcune applicazioni (almeno per il navigatore OSRM), un highway=path senza altre precisazioni risulta non ciclabile e perciò le rotte per biciclette non possono utilizzare questo tratto della ciclovia, che non mi pare essere quello che vogliamo quì.

Address should be Währinger Straße 52. It is correct in the tags, just the commit message was wrong.

But therefore we are not removing the information that their is a sign board at that position. What is not useful in the long run is the text that happened to be written on the board when you passed by, because, e.g., the poster advertising the Easter market is very likely to be removed soon after Easter, less than 1 month from now.

Sorry, see: changeset/164129990 for the revert commit.

I have reverted this changeset, see: node/12702212278

OpenStreetMap is pretty strict in what should go into a name= tag. Not everything written on an object is a name. The text on an ad poster is definitely NOT a name.

And as other local community members have already mentioned, we do not normally tag changing ads at all (not even in a more suitable tag such as board:title= or osm.wiki/Tag:inscription=). They change way too frequently for that (so they are useless as landmarks for orientation, because by the time one gets there, the text is likely to already have changed), and we also do not want OpenStreetMap to become an advertising platform by reproducing advertisements.

Mir ging es vor allem um das oneway:bicycle in dem Verbindungsstück zwischen Argentinierstraße und Karlsgasse, das Straße ist ("Olga-Wisinger-Florian-Platz"). Und ich war seitdem ein paar Mal an der Ecke und alle Einbahnen in dem Eck sind "ausgen. 🚲", also oneway:bicycle=no. Getrennten Radweg gibt es in dem Eck (wie in allen fertig umgebauten Abschnitten der Argentinierstraße) keinen mehr, sollte aber eigentlich alles Fahrradstraße sein. Vielleicht fehlt an einigen Ecken die Beschilderung.

Bei den Nicht-Straßen-Flächen direkt vor der Kirche denke ich, highway=footway mit bicycle=yes dürfte schon OK sein. Meines Wissens nach darf man da durchradeln, ein ordentlicher Radweg (cycleway) sieht aber anders aus.

Der Radweg in Nord-Süd-Richtung am östlichen Rand des Resselparks wurde ja bekanntlich zum Geh-und-Radweg verschlimmbessert, das dürfte aber eh schon richtig getaggt sein.

Ist die Karlsgasse in diesem Abschnitt jetzt echt oneway:bicycle=yes? (Also laut Beschilderung vor Ort. Denn laut der Pläne der Stadt Wien sollte es wohl eigentlich nicht so sein, da waren auch schon vor der Baustelle Fahrräder von der Einbahn ausgenommen.) Oder ist das bloß ein Tagging-Irrtum?

I have mostly reverted this in changeset/150638993 – in Austria, "Wohnstraßen", i.e. living streets according to StVO §76b and with traffic sign AT:53.9c, are always implicitly oneway:bicycle=no by law. So if this is really a §76b/53.9c living street (and you did not change those tags), there is no way this can be oneway:bicycle=yes.

Note that this does not apply to "Begegnungszonen", i.e., shared spaces according to §76c and with traffic sign AT:53.9e. Those are often but not always marked explicitly with the appropriate signage for oneway:bicycle=no, but if not marked implicitly, they are oneway:bicycle=yes. So you need to be careful about which kind of living street or shared space we are talking about.

Um den Stollen vor "Wandalismus" (sic) zu schützen, vandalisierst du also gleich einmal die OSM mit einer Löschung korrekter Daten?

> You will understand the need for any route list to have every part with a name.

Unfortunately, that is not how reality works in Austria. There are many unnamed foot paths here, even (or even especially) if they are part of an official hiking route. The way description if you want someone to follow the path is then usually "walk along hiking route Foo" (where "Foo" is the name or number of the hiking route). Or you have to describe the path in some way (that usually requires local knowledge), but that cannot be done by routing software (only by a human walking guide author) and also does not belong in the OpenStreetMap name= tag. You cannot describe a hiking route in Austria with path names alone.

In this changeset, you have added the cycleway=no tag to a few streets with oneway=yes, oneway:bicycle=no tags. Unfortunately, in the OpenCycleMap (the Thunderforest one), this results in the oneway:bicycle=no exemption no longer being rendered, because cycleway=no appears to take precedence. I would also argue that cycleway=no (i.e., no bicycle infrastructure whatsoever) is not actually true if cycling against the one-way is allowed (which normally also comes with some kind of floor marking, even if it is not a true cycleway:opposite).

(revert #5 by fkv: changeset/138391703 )

This is the 5th consecutive revert from fkv. @SomeoneElse: I am afraid I think the only way to stop this revert war is to block fkv from editing.

PPS: A well-meaning edit is NOT an edit war. It only becomes a war when people revert each other's edits. Which is why I prefer the term "revert war" to "edit war".

PS: And objects in OSM are NOT "owned". It is a fundamental part of any community editing project, be it a wiki or a database like OSM, that existing data can be improved, no matter who has originally created it. If you look at the history of pretty much any object in OSM, you are likely to see edits from several users other than the original creator.

In this case, a contributor has added a tag that in that contributor's view was missing, and the community consensus is that we tend to agree with that contributor. The first one to revert the addition, and hence the one who started the revert war, was you.

@fkv:

> I hate to do all that work while those who started the edit war will have a good time on the beach

LOL. YOU started the edit war. A well-meaning user (who has not even participated in the discussion so far) has added a tunnel=culvert tag. You have reverted the addition (removing valid information). This is the start of the revert war.

And how has it turned into a revert war? The community has discussed your revert on IRC/Matrix and decided that the tag should be readded, and has done so. You have repeatedly reverted the addition. I count 4 consecutive reverts from the same user (you) of edits by 3 different users, all on the exact same issue.

And then you have the nerves to accuse others of having started an edit war? You cannot be serious!

> The tunnel=* tag in your example was set by an armchair mapper who had never been there.

Even disregarding the fact that this accusation is probably not accurate in that case, you need to get rid of your pathological disdain for "armchair mappers". A lot of useful work in OSM is done by armchair mappers, considering all the freely licensed data sources out there nowadays (OGD etc.). I would even guess that MOST useful contributions to OSM come from "armchair mappers" nowadays. It does not scale to go personally to every object whose tagging needs to be completed and/or corrected. All the more if it is not necessary, because the disagreement is about how a feature whose appearance is NOT disputed should be tagged.

PS: And the current tagging is much more misleading because it makes it look like the canal is not covered (and that is also how the renderers will render it, but even interpreting the tags manually will give this false impression).

Neither tunnel=culvert nor tunnel=flooded implies that you can walk through the object, that is your major misunderstanding. I would say that "flooded" even pretty much implies that you can NOT walk through the object because it is flooded with water. But even with "culvert", that follows from the tagging as a waterway.

The water surely enters somewhere and exits somewhere, but nothing in the tunnel tag implies that those entrances are usable by humans.

People doing dangerous things due to OSM tagging is an issue we have in the mountains with "footways" that are really alpine climbing paths. I have never heard of it ever having been an issue with tunneled water canals, at least here in Austria.

@SomeoneElse: I hope you can see from the above discussion that it is impossible to reason with fkv and that the only thing that will work is sanctions.

And water necessarily enters somewhere and exits somewhere else, whether you can see the entrance/exit or not. That is just basic physics.