Ciao, ho notato che hai cambiato la fermata Stella Polare da railway=halt in railway=station, mi sembra che era giusto prima.
Ciao,
Martin

keimo, are you going to revert your undiscussed mass edit?

Hi, I also noticed the altitude tags. What is the unit, is it meters? Are these things levitating above the ground or did you intend to map the elevation of the ground where they stand on?
If these are thought to be meters, e.g. 818.9404396, the indicated precision is between micrometers and nanometers, very small stuff that is, I would encourage you to reflect about measurement accuracy as well as the reference height (e.g. if there is a grain of sand below your measuring device it will already change the number, unevenness of the ground etc.), and eventually round these numbers.

jedenfalls war es damals ein Eingang für Behinderte und nicht ein ungenutzter Eingang

Habe es doch gefunden, war gar nicht so schwer ;-)
node/3588048319
damit ist wheelchair=yes gemeint, bzw. dürfen da glaube ich nur Menschen mit Gehbehinderung den Aufzug benutzen, war da aber schon Jahre nicht mehr und kann es nicht genau sagen ob das noch aktuell ist und der Aufzug noch funktioniert.

gute Frage nach 9 Jahren, könntest Du evtl. einen Link auf das Objekt posten bzw. sagen, wo genau, dann muss ich es nicht raussuchen?

Ciao fb552,
sì, per ogni stazione ci dovrebbe essere solo un railway=station (o nel caso della fermata railway=halt), e questo può essere un area oppure un nodo (l'area è meglio secondome). Invece per l'edificio della stazione è sufficiente essere incluso nell'area della stazione, e secondo il tipo normalmente ha il tag building=train_station.
Ciao,
Martin

Ciao fb552, ho notato che hai creato una serie di doppioni delle stazioni, perché hai aggiunto all'edificio della stazione il tag per la stazione ferroviaria (railway=station), ma questo già era presente sulla stazione (tutto il perimetro dove si trova la stazione, la banchina, i binari etc.). Ti chiedo gentilmente di togliere i doppioni, perché altrimenti le stazioni sono contenuti due volte.

Grazie,
Martin

I don't think we should continue to pretend it is ok to use addr:unit for staircases, because these are quite different things, an addr:unit is typically referring to an individual address, while addr:staircase is usually referring to many addresses (everybody who has access through this staircase).
The claim that addr:unit would be a suitable replacement was introduced just 2 years ago, and I am going to revert it: osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaddr%3Astaircase&type=revision&diff=2321398&oldid=2290621 because it creates inconsistency with the definition of addr:unit

There is no time limit to complain about undiscussed mass edits, or is there?

please revert the (undiscussed, global) retagging of addr:staircase to addr:unit, they are different things

please revert the (undiscussed, global) retagging of addr:staircase to addr:unit, they are different things

please revert the (undiscussed, global) retagging of addr:staircase to addr:unit, they are different things

please revert the (undiscussed, global) retagging of addr:staircase to addr:unit, they are different things

please revert the (undiscussed, global) retagging of addr:staircase to addr:unit, they are different things

please revert the (undiscussed, global) retagging of addr:staircase to addr:unit, they are different things

please revert the (undiscussed, global) retagging of addr:staircase to addr:unit, they are different things

please revert the (undiscussed, global) retagging of addr:staircase to addr:unit, they are different things

please revert the (undiscussed, global) retagging of addr:staircase to addr:unit, they are different things

please revert the (undiscussed, global) retagging of addr:staircase to addr:unit, they are different things

please revert the (undiscussed, global) retagging of addr:staircase to addr:unit, they are different things