Når du tagger cykelstien separat så skal den fjernes fra vejen. Og det betyder også at man skal opdatere cykelruterne, der bruger vejen til at bruge cykelstierne. Det har jeg nu gjort.

How can the caravan site have caravans=no ?

How can a caravan site have caravans=no ?

On the aerial images there can be seen man caravans.

How can a caravan site have caravans=no ?

On the aerial images there can be seen man caravans.

How can a caravan_site have caravans=no ?

On the aerial images there are caravans.

Og der er et problem i praksis.
Jeg var engang ude for, at jeg kørte i bil og OsmAnd prøvede at rute mig gennem et lille sti (footway) forbi den var tagget med access=yes.

For veje er problemet, hvem det gælder for. Og det gælder som default for all mulige klasser af køretøjer (foot,motor_vehicle, horse, bus osv), medmindre de eksplicit er omfattet af et andet tag på samme object.

Se: access=*
under "Transport mode restrictions".

Der står:

==
Use the access=* key to describe a general access restriction that applies to all transport modes.

In theory, adding access=yes to highway=footway could be read as changing default restrictions (which usually are foot=yes and vehicle=no for highway=footway) to yes, highway=footway + access=yes means "road, which is open for all pedestrians and vehicles".

In practice, this combination is often used by mappers to modify (rather than enlarge) default values: for example, access=permissive with highway=steps is very unlikely to be traversable by a truck, whatever the tags may say.

To avoid ambiguity, you may therefore want to avoid general tags access=yes and access=permissive, and use more specific transport modes where appropriate. For example, to distinguish a footway with open access from one with private access, use tags like foot=yes instead of access=yes.
==

Jeg har flyttet navnet Stubberup Skov til relationen som repræsenterer skoven.

Jeg tror ikke access=yes kan være korrekt. Det tillader biler, busser osv.

Yes, thank you.

Der mangler nogle elementer i den turn-restriction:
15268770

Jeg fik det fra
https://silkeborg.dk/Kommunen/Her-bygger-vi/Veje-og-stier/Fredeliggoerelse-af-Skoletorvet
som skriver:

==
Hostrupsgade ensrettes mod syd fra indkørslen til Bios Gård til Drewsensvej,
==
og viser en pil på kortet og har indikerer det i videoen. Så kommunen har tænkt det som ensretning.

Men hvis du har checket, "on the ground", så er det jo det, der gælder.

Men der er to veje fra Bindslev plads (unclassified og living_street) og 3 service veje, hvor man kan køre ind på den del af Hostrupsgade og dreje mod nord.
Men kan man faktisk det? Er der skiltning på de 5 veje, der forbyder det?

Read the sign, including the text.

On the sign it says "Ved Ørbækvej" ("At Ørbækvej" in English)

Ørbækvej is tagged as two one-way streets in OSM, so there is no need to add a turn-restriction.

The sign is just there to inform drivers that it is not possible to turn left at Ørbækvej, so that they can decide to follow Jens Juels Vej instead.

In general these no-turn signs should not always become turn restrictions in OSM.

https://scontent-cph2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/m1/v/t6/An9AnyIRuqOBh-M2apGvdhB5Ow6g4TH6BOypapgWdxcerPv5v__Yl6U5HHfOVTvikOej0GAYXWKhfdWb0KaAZq283m-PX7zh6IdfoAIH5AckCIsPOZ_YBoqnC5vWo2jwXoLzkyuEAkDyeF7-wjO6NA?stp=s2048x1536&ccb=10-5&oh=00_AfDr93xDTLjS8NQcdF8Al1EHjMHuLsLNMjSq6Tc6HRQxPg&oe=63EA0EE7&_nc_sid=122ab1

Where on Blågårdsvej, did you see that sign?

I have checket mapillary and kartaview and cannot find it.

I did see a sign on Mosede Landevej, that fits, but then the sign relation is wrong.

The are very complicated turn restrictions. And in one of them the to and from way intersect but not at a via node.

I suggest that you replace them both with a single no-left or a straight-on restriction

Please read the signs before creating turn restrictions.

This is the wrong "to" way.

There is no point in adding a turn-restriction here so have deleted id.

The to street is temporarely a cycleway during the metro construction. And cyclists can make a left turn.

Please fix these relations.
It maskes no sense to have that node as the intersection and there is only one way you go in each direction.

The to way also makes no sense. It should be one connected to the roundabout

I fixed it.

Har fjernet access=yes,

Det tror jeg ikke er rigtigt.