Hi schmandr,
Thank you for your extensive reply. I already understood from reading somewhere that national route 5 is supposed to be the main part of E4 in Switzerland. Since I hiked the first three stages from Dielsdorf to Hauenstein and never saw a marking for E4, my doubts started. After cyling east of Dielsdorf on Friday, to capture some lwn relations :), also did not deliver any proof I thought is was time to figure out what was going on.
I may have missed the additional signs you refer to though, since there are often more non-hiking signs on the poles I generally ignore any non-yellow signs. So I may have missed them.
I guess we should leave the E4 on OSM then. I've added a note to the relation about this discussion.
And I doublechecked, you created v1 of E4 Schweiz here [1].
Cheers,
dikkeknodel
[1] changeset/4996431

Hi schmandr,
By now I have passed along quite a few places where the E4 is mapped in Switzerland [1] here at OSM, but so far I have not found the E4 to be signposted anywhere in the real world.
This seems to violate the principle: Verifiable - means that others can go there and see for themselves if your data is correct (see [2]).
Since you started this relation and added at least a few of the stretches which I passed along and could not find any signposting, could you please enlighten me about the source of your information?
Cheers,
dikkeknodel
[1] relation/963212
[2] osm.wiki/How_We_Map

Hallo skorbut,
Vielleicht kannst du die Route Relation anreicheren mit mehr Details. Sehe folgende Wiki Seite für relevante Tags:
osm.wiki/Switzerland/HikingNetwork#Recommended_tagging_2
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel

changeset comment is incorrect copy from previous CS. I adapted routing here to gpx and added a track

Could you please inform us what is the attraction here? Isn't this just the name of a hamlet and wouldn't place=hamlet be a better tag than tourism=attraction?
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

So, I am curious on what source you based the religion tag of this mountain shelter:
way/30708117

Hey Stefan,
I think you accidentally messed up highway 32446434. You can see the zigzag you created very clearly here on achavi:
https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=57968219
Be aware when working with iD editor that everytime you click in the window, you may accidentally drag a node or way.
I've corrected this in the following changeset:
changeset/62987083
Keep up the happy mapping!
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hallo BAK365,
Genau, ein blöder Fehler :-). Ich habs korrigiert und den Sattel ungefähr positioniert mit fixme Markierung:
changeset/62345232
Vielen Dank für die Aufmerksamkeit.
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel

Hi Gianfranco2014,
You state a survey as source for this edit, and following edits of the Tappa D09 relation [1].
I traced your 'steps' on 24 September 2018, but did not see a single trail blazing or signpost that marked the Sentiero Italia.
Could you please elaborate on what you actually surveyed?
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

[1] relation/7690606

Incorrect changeset description. Highways were aligned, waterways created and some place nodes added

Nope, not a tourism=alpine_hut either... You cannot sleep here, the building is farm. I've changed it to place=farm.
I spotted a lot of tourism=alpine_hut nodes with name "Alp X" in Engiadina Bassa which I think most are just farm. With Alp typically and alpine meadow is meant, most of the time with some kind of building. The farmer takes the animals up the mountain in the summer months. Some of them have rooms/beds for guests, most of them don't though. It seems the tourism=alpine_hut tag is not always well understood by some.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

`Hmm, the DigitalGlobe Standard Vintage layer shows 2012-08-15 at this spot in JOSM. The Mapilarry imagery seems to match with the areal imagery though. Apparently the DigitalGlobe Standard Vintage layer is not updated... Sorry for making a fuss.

Hi Krake User,
These changes also look good. Nice to have such recent imagery. Here in Kanton Zürich we still struggle with 2014/5 imagery...
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hi Krake User,
You tickmarked the review option, so I had a look. I think you did a good job.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hi Krake User,
Could you please respond to the question.
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hallo steamtrain25,
Diese Änderungen sehen gut aus!
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel

Hallo steamtrain 25,
Da bin ich wieder :-). Seht gut aus, nur nog die Frage ob Track hier nicht Path sein soll?
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel

Hallo steamtrain25
Danke für deine Beitrage an OpenStreetmap. Ich habe mir das mal angeschaut und habe ein paar Tipps und Fragen.
--------------------
TIPP 1
Die Bing Bilder haben hier Schnee, so das ist für Wegen oft nicht hilfreich. Glücklich haben wir mehrere Bilder zur Verfügung. Recht im Bild kannst du die Layers selektieren. Die Esri World Imagery (Clarity Beta) Bilder sind viel besser hier.
Es lohnt sich oft erstmals zu schauen welche Bilder die besten sind für das zu erarbeiten Gebiet.
TIPP 2
Versuche die Luftbilder dann auch zu nützen, sicher wenn du kein GPX gemacht hast, aber eigentlich immer hilft das. Mit der GPX kann man dann die Bilder ausrichten, und die Bilder sind danach hilfreich für die kurvendetails usw. In die Berge muss man die Bilder für jede Teilstrecke neu ausrichten, weil der Aufnahmewinkel ein grosse Einfluss hat, und der Winkel ist oft nicht recht von oben.
TIPP 3
Versuche Elementen im Realität nicht verbunden sind auch nicht auf die Karte zu verbinden.
Hier hast du ein Knot der Brücke verbunden mit dem Fluss [1], im Realität berührt das Wasser die Brücke nicht, so auf die Karte soll das auch nicht verbunden sein.
Wenn es ein Furt wäre, dann wurden der Fluss und der Weg eine Knote gemeinsam haben, mit die Markierung ford=yes.
Dasselbe gilt hier [2] wo du den Waldrand verbunden hast mit der Weg.
-----------
Ist Track wirklich das beste? Wenn ich mich die Esri World Imagery (Clarity Beta) Luftbilder anschaue, dann seht es aus ob es vielleicht kein Track [3] ist aber ein Path [4]. Rechts unter, bei die Verbindung mit detr 417 ist es klar das es ein Track ist, aber das andere Teil ist nicht so klar.
Schau dir mal die beide Wiki Seiten an und entscheide was besser ist.
----------------
Ist es klar was ich meine?
Viel Spass bei der Kartografie.
Liebe Grüsse,
dikkeknodel
[1] node/5820414558
[2] node/5820411944
[3] highway=track
[4] highway=path

Hi zwis,
If I understand correctly, the buildings drawn on the map by you are not the actual buildings.
The point is that I have no clue what the actual buildings look like, and I have not planned going to Mollis any time soon to check. Therefore I cannot draw these buildings. I can only remove what is not there and mark the area as construction and for a survey, or at some point for drawing based on new imagery. This way it is at least clear to other mappers that the imagery currently available is outdated, and we can prevent the same thing happening over again :-).
If you are in the position to check them out, that would of course also be a good solution.
What do you think?
Cheers,
dikkeknodel

Hi zwis,
Thanks for getting back. No worries about that. I did some checking in between and found a photograph where it looked like the greenhouses were placed in an area where previous buildings were razed, as a temporary use of the are. Also the typical swiss 'Bauprofile' were visible for something new to be build at some point.
I propose to remove the buildings you added, and replace them by an area tagged as landuse=construction with a note and fixme tag explaining that construction has finished by now, but that a survey on location is required because the imagery is too old. What do you think about that solution?
Cheers,
dikkeknodel