I certainly wouldn't have objected to bridge=<something>, although I believe we need at least 2-3 attributes to state the kind of bridge (load bearing concept / structure, material, amount of sections, ...). I have been adding wikidata and wikipedia references to a few bridges (to the man made bridge objects / outlines) as well as the start_date and structural engineers.

Hi, I have noticed you added bridge=yes to a man_made=bridge at Ponte della Magliana, but these objects are actually bridges. The tag bridge=yes is a property that says something is _on_ a bridge

Oh no, you must not use Google Street View, see the legal [FAQ](osm.wiki/Legal_FAQ#2a._Can_I_trace_data_from_Google_Maps.2FNokia_Maps.2F....3F), this means your edits based on StreetView must be redacted (wiped without trace from the db). Can you provide a list of edits based on StreetView?

Marcello, can you please comment on the changeset? Which sources have been used?

If the official dataset still has the old brand, months after the luschi has detected a different brand on the ground, it is just another piece in the MISE puzzle which seems to show their data doesn’t comply with the OSM quality expectations. Not only have we imported April data in August, we also know now for sure that April data can be much older than April.

Looking at this node, it seems somehow the audit tool doesn’t show the current data: http://audit.osmz.ru/map/IFS#15/46.6446/11.6746

Do I interpret this correctly that the node was manually checked and set to ok?

Can you please point me to the discussion on the import mailing list about this import? Where and when was concluded to perform the import of this data?

This is an undiscussed and automated edit and should be reverted.

You should not remove all things of a category, this is (particularly together with the other changesets) an automated edit and must have been discussed before executing it. If you can see that your edit will likely be disputed (e.g. you remove a certain typology of things for which others had opted to map them), you should discuss your edit _before_ you do it.
@Nakaner-repair thank you for reverting.

You should not remove all things of a category, this is (particularly together with the other changesets) an automated edit and must have been discussed before executing it. If you can see that your edit will likely be disputed (e.g. you remove a certain typology of things for which others had opted to map them), you should discuss your edit _before_ you do it.
@Nakaner-repair thank you for reverting.

You should not remove all things of a category, this is (particularly together with the other changesets) an automated edit and must have been discussed before executing it. If you can see that your edit will likely be disputed (e.g. you remove a certain typology of things for which others had opted to map them), you should discuss your edit _before_ you do it.
@Nakaner-repair thank you for reverting.

You should not remove all things of a category, this is (particularly together with the other changesets) an automated edit and must have been discussed before executing it. If you can see that your edit will likely be disputed (e.g. you remove a certain typology of things for which others had opted to map them), you should discuss your edit _before_ you do it.
@Nakaner-repair thank you for reverting.

You should not remove all things of a category, this is (particularly together with the other changesets) an automated edit and must have been discussed before executing it. If you can see that your edit will likely be disputed (e.g. you remove a certain typology of things for which others had opted to map them), you should discuss your edit _before_ you do it.
@Nakaner-repair thank you for reverting.

You should not remove all things of a category, this is (particularly together with the other changesets) an automated edit and must have been discussed before executing it. If you can see that your edit will likely be disputed (e.g. you remove a certain typology of things for which others had opted to map them), you should discuss your edit _before_ you do it.

anche a me non risulta esistente. Cancello...

please do not abuse the name tag for descriptions

IMHO YES, either spam or an error by accident, I’d tend to the former, but let’s see if the author replies

why did you add “Uscita 3” to the name of the motorway exit and put the actual name in parentheses? In my opinion if there is a prominent object like this which exists for 10 years and more, which is currently in version 28, it would be more sensible to discuss name changes with the local community rather than simply doing it.

Hi, I have seen you added the Aranciera di San Sisto as locality. This seems weird, maybe it could be better added as "garden" (maybe with the garden:type and garden:style attributes)?

@mateusz I am not aware. I agree the tag does not seem to make a lot of sense.