Hi,

Could you please revisit the relation of this building as member of the island outline, If at all it has to have the 'inner' role, but it being a building I think it should not be part of the Relation: Korčula (6114785) relation.

ciao

Va bene, grazie. Ho trovato solo un'immagine su Wikipedia della SS656 dir, ma questa source non è adeguata. Credo che quando si trova in autostrada debba essere indicato il riferimento, ref=A25, in questa sezione poiché ora non ha nome, né riferimento, ma indica solo che fa parte delle strade europee E 80.

Ciao

Ciao,

Qual è stata la motivazione per cui hai rimosso il nome e la designazione di riferimento SS656 in questo insieme di modifiche e l'hai cambiato in un collegamento autostradale senza nome con solo un riferimento E80 non italiano? Documento di origine per favore.

Grazie.

Hi,

Was corrected, a node drag somehow during the edit session but knew there were several rows in that street to prevent parking near the church. Unfortunately editors don't warn for this when it's new item.

On your trip around the country changing arabic and roman numerals to words: You have to preserve the original names as appear on the signs in alt_name. Now the 'signed' names are no longer searchable! Who in the world is looking for Vico quarantatreesimo... Only (some) OSM mappers. Total overshoot.

And there I thought that 'proposed' in mapping was frowned upon and following the news, I'd say most very iffy. OTOH, since it's 'proposed' can't see how this would affect any aerial routing planning as seems to be argued. There's physically nothing there to avoid.

Hi,

Please note, again, ANNCSU is STILL an illegal source PLUS. There's a corner sign that says Via per Popoli which is used also by addresses along that road. Will be reverted!

ciao

Ciao Simone,
I nome del strads tra I fonte e sul segna...
https://d2exd72xrrp1s7.cloudfront.net/www/16/16tozw31jxb2sdwpmoy0z622v5id5pcjl-p637526392-full/1991fc3b5ae?width=3072&height=2304&crop=false&q=70

Buona Mappatura

Ciao, felice di vedere un nuovo mappatore nell'area di Chieti/Pescara. Ho dovuto annullare alcune modifiche che hai fatto, ma soprattutto è necessario prestare attenzione ai nomi delle strade che inserisci negli indirizzi. Devono corrispondere al nome di una strada nel vicinato immediato. In questo caso, hai inserito alcune con addr:street=Lenzetta node/13146083182 ma non c'è nessuna strada con quel nome nella zona. Frontalmente è chiamato Fosso dei Lupi, che hai sostituito con Via San Pietro. C'è un'altra strada con Fosso dei Lupi e ricordo di aver visto quel segnale all'angolo più vicino a Filetto, ma non ho trovato segnali per quella che era Via San Pietro.

Comunque, non indichi la fonte se non riferendoti all'immagine aerea di Bing. Spero che tu non abbia utilizzato il sito web ANNCSU poiché la loro licenza CC-BY 4.0 è incompatibile con l'ODBL di OSM. Non possiamo utilizzare le loro informazioni né quelle di Poste Italiane o Google, per citare alcuni esempi.

Hi

Could you please check this version 1 way which has no tags and correct or remove.

way/1423811576#map=19/42.449322/13.881823

thanks

Hi,

Bad news: ANNCSU has an incompatible license with OSM called CC-BY 4.0, so you will have to revert the name changes you applied using this resource as base. Same goes for the addresses, to note that the positioning of the addresses is off such as is very visible in Bolignano and Mutignano.

Sorry, but the rule 'ground truth' and 'on the ground' continues to apply for OSM, meaning that if a wall sign in Pescara which says the street is named Via Giuseppe Maltese 6, that's the one we enter as name in OSM and there are more I found u used ANNCSU to base street name changes on. All needs reverting.

Cheers.

Quote "L’ANNCSU ha licenza CC-BY 4.0, non compatibile per l’import su OSM a meno che non ci sia un waiver e per quanto ne so io non mi risulta che ci sia nessun waiver. Motivo in più per fare revert di eventuali dati su OSM importati da ANNCSU (tantopiù se sovrascrivendo i nomi reali rilevati sul campo)."

It also was discussed multiple times on the telegram group such as here https://t.me/c/1124175268/114638

Hi and welcome to OSM,

You say in your changeset that your source is Bing aerial imagery and nothing else, yet you map buildings that are only visible in Google - WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN. Were there other sources such as on-the-ground surveying?
The shape is poor of the Torre Zembra. It looks perfectly square for which there is an ID Editor function in the right click menu. I've square the building but you still need to clarify the source of these building additions.

Also you say your edit is in/around Villamagna, but you too changed the Corso Mazzine in Vasto from Secondary to Tertiary. By what measure is that change correct? Why this in the same edit?

Please let me know.

Hi,

Not seen the discussion, time to move it to the community category forums, but my general observation is that hardly ever the 'length/width' of a drawn object is *exactly* as what is signed at bridges and tunnels and in many cases significantly off. So I'm a length/width tagger when I see (take picture of sign for documentation) and will add as supplemental source:length=*. In JOSM have a measuring tool so can get close, but not exact.

cheers

Hi CCCGGG,

It's overdue to start using JOSM as there are several forest outline parts that should be outer, not inner. JOSM would warn before saving. Also at 1807 members way overdue to split this MP relation. The OSM recommended maximum members for any MP relation is 300. If you need help doing that, in JOSM that's substantially a piece of cake.

Happe mapping.

SekeRob

Hi Stefano,

In 2021 you mapped several areas seaward from the coast near Silvi Marina which according to the history of e.g. this node. changeset/170401369#map=18/42.540044/14.136824 were mapped by you with the rather meaningless 'aggiornamento'. You say your source was Bing+gpx. The problem is, there's nothing in Esri, Esri Clarity, Bing to confirm these coastal outcrops are real, no groyne, no breakwater (frangiflutti), no revetments. This suggests your mapping per GPX data file drawing was faulty. Can you confirm as then these outcrops from the coast need removal.

Thanks for your prompt response.
SekeRob

Hi,

You added a footway way/1418937946 which was made part of the BI-6 route but you did not specify bicycle=yes or bicycle=dismount. For the tunnel, does that have to be =yes or dismount? What is the maxheight/width for that tunnel? Is it save to cycle through or is walking (dismount) recommended)?

For now I've added bicycle=yes to the new footway piece north of the road as this got flagged by Quality Control.

Let me know.
Buongiorno.

Provisionally mapped based on circled cycle trace and photos. Could soon be better positioned as the area has high visit grade of Strava riders.

Hi,

This CS appears with flagged items in OSM Inspector of broken boundaries, likely present before but coming to the fore because of the type change. The gaps are small and guessable, which would not be right on my. https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=areas&lon=12.54333&lat=41.87851&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&opacity=0.50&overlays=duplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways%2Cduplicate_node%2Csingle_node_in_way%2Cduplicate_segment%2Cway_in_multiple_rings%2Cintersection%2Cintersecting_segments%2Cring_not_closed%2Ctouching_rings%2Crole_should_be_inner%2Crole_should_be_outer%2Cinner_with_same_tags%2Cways

cheers

6, BI-6, and in my region it's signed as Ciclovia Adriatica 6. If you click on the relation link in your change set you'll see what I mean. Your 2 meter edit shows up for every along the adriatic coast, from Venezia to Brindisi, which it would not have if the relation was split up in segment and then combined in a super route. This single route relation is now in version 487 with 1993 parts. The SS16 is much worse, 4355 parts and version 1892. Every meter added/subtracted adds a new version long as its a single route relation rather than split in subs per region or province. The Appennino Bike Tour I mapped over a year ago is at v30, the first 29 were for building all the stages, i.e. rarely highlighted as the members are a constant 44.

Hi,

this is another candidate same as the SS16 that I think we better had split in sections per region, in fact strongly think of *per province*, thus e.g. 3 sections for the Abruzzi and combine these in a super route.. It's too xxx that I'm mapping in Vasto and see this CS show up there in my JOSM CS history when the change was made near Ancona. Yesterday got flagged, also in Vasto for something that got broken in the SS16 near Padova, nearly 700km away from me. There's dozens of breaks in that route but wont fix until there is consensus to go ahead.
Changing 'tappa' does noot effect the super route.... those are fair constants needs little or never any maintenance.
Any thoughts?

cheers

'Unfortunately', this edit set did not cause a huge BBox so it would pop into many editors CS history view.

For the attentive reader. There's many gaps in SS16 route relation now almost 45000 members. My thinking is to split the relation per region, better stiil per province and combine these in a superroute same as the Appennino Bike Tour is split in 45 stages, so an edit to a stage does not need to load the whole to find the gaps, nor breaks the whole when something goes wrong.

I'd be happy to start along the Abruzzo coast which would constitute about 3 sub-routes for Teramo, Pescara and Chieti (don't think any dir touches on L'Aquila..

Just a thought....(not holding me breath).