You're absolutely correct. I have restored the situation in changeset/173360790

I kept the changeset open just in case you have further immediate comments

היי קובי, אשמח אם תוסיפו את המסלולים כ-path ולא כ-cycleway

cycleway זה מסלול אופניים יעודי ולרוב סלול לדוגמה נתיבי אופניים עירוניים בגוש דן

I've reverted some leftovers in changeset/173359197

(A node was clipped into a way)

תודה על התרומה! שתי הערות.
א. לא מדובר באטרקציה תירותית.
ב. נא לא להשתמש בשמות תאוריים

הנחיות מלאות:

osm.wiki/HE:Israel

טופל ב:

changeset/173273116

שלום, אין להוסיף שמות תאוריים כגון "מערה". או "ברז מים". הנחיות מלאות:

osm.wiki/HE:Israel

טופל ב-changeset/173270233

מצטרף לשאלה

היי צור, שינית את "יער עופר" ל-"כרמל". האם זה בכוונה?

שלום! לתשומת לבכם אתם עושים שימוש לא תקין בתגית Cycle Path (cycleway) .

הדבר הזה שמור לנתיבי אופניים יעודיים, למשל מסלול אופניים ליד כביש ראשי בתל אביב.

אתם אמורים להוסיף Path רגיל עבור סינגלים או מסלולי שטח.

מומלץ גם לעיין בהנחיות לישראל כאן:

osm.wiki/HE:Israel

שלום וברוכים הבאים ל-OSM! תודה על התרומה.

שלום וברוכים הבאים ל-OSM! בהערה דיברת על "רחוב אביר יעקב", אבל העריכה עצמה לא נגעה ברחוב בשם כזה. אני חושב שהתכוונתם להוסיף שם לרחוב הזה וההוספה התפספסה:

way/1254821802

All bicycle singles in the area are practically the same - de facto heavily used by bicycles. The distinctions on the map were all arbitrary and have nothing to do with any ground truth. I have normalized it all to `highway=path, bicycle=designated`. I have not touched `foot=` access tags wherever they are present. I have removed `access=destination` since it makes no sense in this context.

It is possible to argue that `bicycle=yes` is more proper since there is no official legal signage the designates this to cyclers, but I think it's slightly safer for pedestrian routing to go for `bicycle=designated`. I do not mind it either way if anyone would prefer that, but I do mind the arbitrary inconsistencies that were present

Please note that you sometimes accidentally touch the larger polygons. In this edit, you've touched a transmission line while editing buildings

For example, you added this node to it: node/13042644382

This taints the edit history, and sometimes introduces errors

Thank you for your contributions! Overall the changes look good.

On a few occasions, you marked several buildings as one building.
Here's one example: way/1418854621

These are in fact 3 buildings if you look closely.

It's sometimes hard to tell them apart in the densest areas, and the contribution is useful even if not fully accurate. So you don't need to fix it unless you're willing to. This is only for your information.

Happy mapping and thank you!

To illustrate: The southern street which connects isn't any different than the east-west streets, so it's a bit arbitrary to map the east-west streets differently from the southern one.

Hello, I fixed 2 things in the newly added roundabout:

1. It was missing the roundabout tag.

2. You mapped the lanes separately but only for a few meters, and then they converge. In my opinion, you should either stick to mapping the two lanes as one line, or map the two lanes separately for a larger portion (ending at some junction)

Here is the roundabout after the update:

way/1418854573

Here is a nearby example with two lanes mapped separately.

way/77355813

Thank you for switching to ESRI! It's more up to date.

Another critical important point: Please do not move streets or buildings just because they are misaligned with the aerial. The aerial itself is misaligned. For example, see this street: way/77355996

You've moved it slightly south, but the previous position is a lot more accurate. You can tell this by enabling the GPS Trace layer in the id editor.

You should align your aerial maps to the GPS traces, this should be done whenever you move substantially to a new area (Since this is a mountainous region, aligning properly for one place will move another place out of alignment)

Info on alignment here:

osm.wiki/Using_aerial_imagery

Again, I'd like to thank you for the initiative! The buildings here have been out of date for quite a while.

In summary, please consider these notes:

1. Right angles with Q
2. Use ESRI World Imagery rather than bing
3. Avoid snapping buildings to polygons

Please be advised that you're not using the most up to date aerial maps. ESRI World imagery is more up to date than Bing maps in this town. For example, have a look here: way/1413123757#map=19/32.698005/35.034738&layers=N

If you switch to ESRI, you'll notice you've missed quite a few recent buildings. This is particularly visible on the outskirts of both Isfiya and Daliat el carmel, where there's rapid residential houses growth