I don't know about the state of the abandoned railway. I just noticed that there is no relation yet for this former railway line, so I created on. I also connected it with Wikidata. Feel free to add or remove tags to the relation. I did not change things for the tracks.
I don't know why the layer went wrong. I removed it now.

Yes, I meant uic_ref. Thanks for your fix.

> it can hide the StreetComplete address quest for the building

I am an "excessive" StreetComplete user (was once even #1 user in Albania :-) ) and don't see this. However, SC is just one app, there are many more. I also reported already several bugs to SC to help improving it.

You have not replied to my main point: I map to:
* benefit personally to later find addresses, routes and info (I now live here)
* to help the shop owners

For both it is important that the info is available and there is no reason why the house a shop is in should be used to provide info. This info: house address is also shop address might be true for Sofia, or maybe not or maybe not for all Bulgarian municipalities and what about in general? No app in the world can find out that local rules might apply (house numbers, PO-box numbers). Therefore mappers should be encouraged to collect as much info as possible.

And again, if a shop closes, the node can simply be removed or changed to the successor. If a shop moves, of course a node must then be updated - updated location is logically also an updated address.

> Once address data is duplicated, future mappers need to keep it consistent - and in practice, this often doesn’t happen. For example, if a notary moves to another location, the node might be moved, but in many cases the address tags remain unchanged,

This cannot be an excuse not to add addresses. It is simple wrongdoing to move a node and not updating it. This contradicts the idea of OSM in my opinion.

> An address is a property of the building (or more correctly for Bulgaria

But some of my business partners use post boxes, thus the official address (the one in the trade register) is on that post box, thus independent of e.g. the main office's location.

However, the main issue remains - independent of a city an its particular cadastre rules, web crawlers should get info about shops. The shop owners want to get found and the apps want to provide users e.g. how to route to a location. It is impossible for a crawler to know in advance that Sofia has the rule that if a node is inside an OSM area having a house number, the shop always has the same number, while in Shumen it might not be the case. Or take Berlin where on some areas shops with entrance at the backside of the house gets the suffix "b" while shops with entrances to the main street get "a". Or in Tirana (I lived there) the official address is the number of the entrance of a building. So the house has e.g. number "53" but the official address of my company there is "53/1" (and as funny as it is, there is no "53/2" only a 52/3.

Should apps like OSMAnd~ learn all cadastre rules of all countries? (and in e.g. Germany even every municipality has its own numbering rules)

To osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element:
there is nothing written that one should not also add the address to shop nodes.

By the way, I only add the address if I know it for sure. I most cases I take the one given at the website of a shop because (in others I take the one from business cards I got) this is the only way to get it right.

Many thanks for your replies.
Regarding the reply from @Fraxi: this is no argument not to add for all shop nodes the address. Sure, if there is e..g an office building where you have 10 different offices, 2 per floor, the building is cluttered with nodes and visually only few will be displayed. However, important is that the data is there, that Apps and data crawlers can get the info about that there is the particular shop.

My practical experience is that it is often impossible to divide a building into shapes to match house numbers. For example a shopping mall can house dozens of shops and for example in Germany these shops will have different house numbers, depending what street is the nearest to their location in the building. So the mall building can have a different street address than the shops inside. Then some areas have strange numbering history, like some cities use e.g. 7, 7A, 7B, while other use 7, 7B (so there is no 7A), some use 7A, 7B (there is no plain 7), some use "7" for the main building, but the shops inside all have numbers like "7/1" etc. There are so many different possibilities to number a shop. Some shops use for example post boxes, thus have a completely different address than their location would imply. So the most save and clear is to add the house number and also street to the shop. It does not harm but assures the data are available. I mean, no mapper is forced to add the address, but it makes sense to do so and instead of informing mappers about possible doubling of data, one should inform mappers that having the address for the shop is an advantage.

Can you please point me to the page where the Bulgarian community came to the consensus?

I think we have a misunderstanding: I don't change adresses of houses, only add shops and state it the shop nodes the complete address. This does not harm, but has the advantage that any web-crawler get the full info for a shop - and this is what not only shop owners but also users like me need. For example in OSMAnd~ I tap on a shop node and get all info. And there are many apps around offering info from OSM. If the shop later closes, the node can be deleted and that's it.

I got this already as on almost every change I got this info. But it is not wrong to add the address explicitly. I am not stubborn, have my reasons to use the address. As a former business owner I know well how search engines work - they evaluate the node and it helps a lot if the node of the shop has the address.

I don't get why nobody takes my argument. So here again:
* what is wrong to add an address to a shop node?
* how is it assured that AI crawlers get the address when they found the node of a shop?

Many thanks! The other change is correct, because you labeled it as a halt, therefore it belongs to the category "railway stop" and this is what the other person did.
By the way, I just found out that there is a second railway halt in Rome with the same name:
node/1313285443

Let's please be constructive. You are an experienced mapper and our common goal is to collect and distribute information. Therefore please help to improve Wikidata. Its aim is exactly this - collect there all information and distribute it. And that is why I for example connect in Wikidata the OSM nodes/ways/relation.
If you have knowledge, please share it, just fix bugs you see.
Regarding the license, it is simple: also only data publicly available can legally be added to the Wikidata. So the legal status of the sources matters. And of course, if you have e.g. the official FS station classification, you can distribute this info to Wikidata and OSM. If they don't offer such info publicly, then you are of course not allowed to distribute this info.
many thanks and regard, donovaly

> you should check the aerial imagery

When I map I always have the satellite as underlay. But how does that help? It is up to the railway infratructure companies to declare a station type. For example for Germany I have the official station index of the company "DB InfraGO" and map accordingly and their classifications are, well kind of random. In some OSM stations I saw explanations like "if there is no railway switch, it is a halt", but this does not match the classification.

> Generally the OSMF-policy does not allow taking information from Wikidata / Wikipedia.
Really? That is strange. But be it.

I took the info from the Wikidata:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3969884
Feel free to revert. I had a quick look but I could not find the official station register of the FS. And
https://www.rfi.it/en/stations.html
does not provide enough info.

When I remember correctly iD told me that I should add "network:wikidata" as well as "train=yes".
I read here:
train=*
"This tag is mainly used for trains which are not a tram=*, subway=* or monorail=* train. It may overlap with light_rail=* in some cases."

I don't have strong feelings about this. Feel free to change it or I change it.

Danke dir. Das mit den ÖBB habe ich bisher genommen. Nur verstehe ich nicht, warum ein Bahnhof wie Skopje dort nicht drin ist. Überhaupt finde ich keine IBNRs für Nordmazedonien.

This was a mistake. I remember I had to split the path and then maybe forgot to check the level settings. I fixed it now

Hmm, ich denke ich weiß nun was du meinst: bei den Nodes für die HPs, die ich erstellt habe, willst du das diese Node nicht Mitglied der Relation ist sondern die Node der halteposition. OK, kann ich machen. Wäre aber gut zu wissen, wo das definiert ist, dass man das so machen muss.
Ich habe es für Rodewisch wie von dir gewünscht geändert.

Ich verstehe noch nicht das Problem. Was genau habe ich falsch gemacht und wo ist definiert, dass es falsch ist und wie es richtig ist?

Der Haltepunkt war nicht als solcher vorhanden, nur die Position, an der die Züge halten. Aber die Position, an der der Zug hält ist nicht gleich der Haltepunkt. Der haltepunkt ist das komplette Betriebsgelände. Dieser Node ist daher fast immer nicht mit dem Gleis verbunden, sondern irgendwo auf dem Bahnsteig, den Unterstand/Gebäude etc.

Also alles was ich gemacht habe, ist eine Node für den Haltepunkt erstellt. Der Node für die Halteposition ist unverändert.

Der Node für den HP bekommt Wikidata, Wipipedia, Website etc., nicht die Halteposition.

> Nun haben wir viele Route-Relationen, die einen public_transport=station abseits des Gleises als member haben, während der neue public_transport=stop_position nicht member der Route-Relationen ist.

OK, die Relation kann ich fix anpassen. Ich mappe auch auf dem Balkan, wo ich auch wohne und dort ist immer der Bhf/Hp teil der Relation, nicht die Halteposition.
In D ist es recht inkonsistent. Ich schaue eigentlich, dass ich nur den Bahnsteig zur Relation hinzufüge, ansonsten die Relationen nicht ändere, also den Bhf/Hp nicht hinzufüge, wenn es die Halteposition bereits ist.

Wieso löschst du die Relation? Mir geht es um die Verknüpfung von Wissen. Es gibt einen Wikipedia-Artikel, also ist es relevant. Leute wohnen in der gegend, wollen wissen, wo eine bahnlinie mal lang ging.
Und überhaupt, warum stört dich das? Du kannst ja die Teile, die nicht mehr sichtbar sind als solche kennzeichnen. Die werden dann ja nicht mehr auf der normalen Karte angezeigt. Aber Informationen zu vernichten, das leuchtet mir nicht ein.