Was soll denn dieser Name bedeuten? Ein Amt für Weihnachtsdekoration, ist das ein Tippfehler?

Ok, nachgeholt. Lage immer noch ziemlich ungenau.

Nein, ich hab das noch nicht erledigt, wollte erst mal deine Antwort abwarten. Die Tags lassen sich leicht wiederherstellen, und die Ersetzung des einen Nodes am Steinbruchrand ist wahrscheinlich unbedeutend. Mittlerweile sehe ich, was du mit dem Friedhof gemeint hast: node/4584124723 war irrtümlich als Friedhof getaggt (node/4584124723/history). Aber da wärs einfacher gewesen, diesen falschen Node zu löschen oder den User (walter100) auf sein Versehen aufmerksam zu machen.

2 Editierfehler (soeben hoffentlich behoben). Beim ersten hab ich versehentlich den Weg mit dem vor Ort gesetzten Wegpunkt statt mit dem in OSM existierenden Node verbunden. Dadurch wurde der Wegpunkt mitsamt seinem Namen (Abkürzung für track/grade4 - path/intermediate - track/grade4) in OSM hochgeladen. Beim zweiten Fehler weiß ich nicht mehr, ob ich die 2 bestehenden Wege übersehen habe (vielleicht Bereich nicht heruntergeladen) oder ob ich vorhatte, sie zu verbinden, und dann drauf vergessen habe.

Da muss ich mich verlesen haben, ist jetzt korrigiert.

sollte heißen: ...und Name korrigiert

If you ever touch this multipolygon (or any of my other multipolygons) again, I will file a complaint to the DWG.

sorry, sollte heißen: Gelände (Graben, Dolinen)

I already told you that this is due to a bug in OSMI and I filed a bug report.

What problems are you talking about? There were no problems before you started your edits, and there are no more problems since I reverted them. Renderers handle such a case with ease. You can see that the forest spots reappeared in the standard map after I did the revert.

These in-between areas are not "unspecified". They specified as part of the forest by being within the outer ring and not within any inner ring.

I studied that page 12 years ago. You don't need to copy&paste dozens of lines from it. As I've already explained, the forest spots here are technically NOT holes in holes. If they were, you'd need to assign them the "outer" role, not the "inner" role as you did.

No, you didn't specify that they are forest. You did exactly the opposite by chosing the "inner" role for them, thereby exempting them from the forest.

By the way, the "outer" role would also be wrong, because they are not "holes in a hole" in a technical sense. They are areas between inner members, not inside inner members.

This is an OSMI bug. I've now reported it at: https://github.com/geofabrik/osmi_simple_views/issues/49

You should never trust validators blindly, but always use your own brain to determine what is wrong and what is right. First of all, when you edit landuse, you should check with recent aerial images. In this case, you would immediately see that there are forest areas between the scree and the bare_rock, and therefore it can't be right to add them as inner members to the forest multipolygon.

When you add inner members to a forest multipolygon, thus specifiying that these areas are not forest, you should also ask yourself what landuse there is instead. If you don't know, don't edit it. Create a map note or ask/tell the original mappers.

Austria is a country with a high density of competent mappers. Many of us check for errors regularly. So you don't need to do this, particularly if you don't speak the local language and don't know the specifics of alpine regions. You better focus on countries with a low density of mappers, or the area(s) where you live and have local knowledge.

Please write in English or German. I don't understand Italian, and this area is not in Italy.

This changeset has been reverted fully or in part by changeset/123773269 where the changeset comment is: 113231318 revertiert, weil falsche inner-Members hinzugefuegt wurden; siehe auch meinen Kommentar zu changeset/84477499

Die Changesetbeschreibung stimmt nicht mit dem überein, was bei dem Edit passiert ist. Da wurde der Name des Steinbruchs verändert (2 Werte mit Strichpunkt zusammengestückelt statt alt_name) und ein tagloser Node gelöscht, vielleicht Teil des Steinbruchrandes.

Oops. Thanks. I'm going to fix that.

I already wrote in my first comment that baryte is the normal spelling. Google reports 6.930.000 of baryte vs. 4.800.000 of barite. Of course I hope that my preferred spelling will outnumber the other spelling variant one day, but that only works if people like you don't attempt to "correct" the "typo", thereby reversing the normal course of tagging evolution. Words can hardly describe how evil your interference is.

I already explained to you why it's not a wrong value.

I have no time for edit wars in the Wiki, and I've never said that "barite" was wrong. I just said that I had a good reason to spell it with "y", and that it wasn't a typo.