The address data `source` is not in the building.
It has been suggested that tagging the `source` on the changeset is a more "modern" approach than tagging it on each object: source=*#How_to_use_on_changesets

I have set up JOSM in such a way and try to go as far as listing the relevant ZIP file from Simons GWR extracts, as seen here: changeset/141544795

Happy mapping,
habi

Oder, wenn in Geleisenähe eher railway=milestone

highway=milestone wäre evtl. ein sinnvolles Tagging.

Ciao dpolovinkin

The part of the path that you've deleted here is visible on Bing imagery and lights up quite a bit on the Strava Heatmap.

According to this it seems to me that this parth might actually connect way/29264314/ and node/5481161347/, where there's also a guidepost mapped.

Cuold not be that the (informal) path is just currently not visible?

Greetings,
habi

Ciao SG550-1

According to note/3899631 (and the aerial imagery) it seems that the waterfall is not in the middle of the industrial landuse here.

From looking at the map data and a cursory search on the internet the waterfall should probably be closer to node/360918123/
Can you confirm that with your 'local knowledge'?

Greetings,
habi

I'm here in the region because of note/3900622

I'm here in the region because of note/3900622

I'm here in the region because of note/3900622

"Duplicated node without tag"

Sorry for the large changeset, I've missed some stuff lingering in JOSM while I wanted to solve the notes mentioned in the comment.

Danke für die Antwort, und sorry für die späte Rück-Antwort :)
Bei der Geschichte ging's schlussendlich um Löschung einiger Bunker und @Eagleeye_ZRH
Dessen Account ist leider mittlerweile gesperrt, so dass keine weiter Kommunikation in dieser Sache möglich ist.
Gruss,
Habi

Ciao Beat
Du hast dem "Fussweg mit Naturtreppe" keine sog. Tags mitgegeben, sondern nur die Geometrie eingezeichnet.
Zusätzlich war der Weg auc nicht mit dem Stengeli und dem Lagenwilweg verbunden, und wurde dadurch auch nicht fürs Routing verwendet.
Ich habe das Problem in changeset/141417872 gelöst, evtl. müssten noch die Zugangsbeschränkungen erfasst werden, da es für mich 'aus der Luft' so aussieht, als würde der Weg über Privatgelände führen.
E Gruess usem Liebifäud,
habi

I've been made aware of this user note/3887585, linking to fictious data they have added in Switzerland. The original user already has some reverted changesets where they added fictious data to OpenStreetMap, hence I'm reverting the most improbable changesets until they can cite some proper sources.

changeset/141410209

I've been made aware of this user note/3887585, linking to fictious data they have added in Switzerland. The original user already has some reverted changesets where they added fictious data to OpenStreetMap, hence I'm reverting the most improbable changesets until they can cite some proper sources.

changeset/141410140

I've been made aware of this user note/3887585, linking to fictious data they have added in Switzerland. The original user already has some reverted changesets where they added fictious data to OpenStreetMap, hence I'm reverting the most improbable changesets until they can cite some proper sources.

changeset/141410125

As @Magoto has been adding a lot of fictious data to OpenStreetMap I think a revert of *this* addition is in order, too.
Until they can cite some credible sources, of course.

Ciao Magoto
Can you list an additional source for this change, as no installation nor a 'censoring' of aerial imagery hints to a military installation here.
Greetings,
habi

I've been made aware of this changeset by note/3887585. The original user already has some reverted changesets where they added fictious data to OpenStreetMap.

changeset/141409875

Magoto seems to add "weird" things to OpenStreetMap: changeset/140941091 and changeset/140940194
I've reported them to the DWG

I've tried even better tagging, since I think that a ticket shop at the entrance is implied here.
There's also a souvenir shop in the Papiliorama, which I've changed this to: changeset/141192706