Hier wegen note/3590229 :)

Ciao Balz
Du hast hier way/170353967/ mit `access=no` versehen, und mit `bicycle/foot=yes`.
Laut Wiki ist das für `hw=path` sowieso so, deshalb habe ich dieses überexplizite Tagging entfernt.
Gruss aus Bern,
habi

PS: Ich bin hier wegen note/2691502

That pool is probably not really named like this…

Daten bei https://pfisternbeck.ch/#Kontakt abgeschaut

Hallo Kerstin

Willkommen bei OpenStreetMap, schön machst du hier mit und hilfst die Kartendaten zu pflegen.
Ich habe deine Änderung ergänzt, indem ich die Internetadresse *mit* https erfasst habe, dann wird diese in vielen Programmen die OpenStreetMap verwenden auch korrekt angezeigt.

E Gruess us Bärn,
habi

@d_berger; also die Belagsrosetten in Zürich, nicht die in Bern hast du vereinheitlicht?
Weil im Weissenbühl hat's noch node/443983607, der nicht als Rosette getaggt ist.

I've stumbled over this changeset while trying to fix note/3574244

As an avid user of cycle.travel I'm quite keen on having 'correct' bicycle-tagging, corrected the changes from Tursiops33 and improved both the alignment of the primary highway and it's bicycle-tagging in changeset/133130031

Ciao Tursiops33
You've added `lanes=2` to way/37323359/ in this changeset and specified that there's a lane-marked cycleway.
But you've also added the cycleway as separate way (way/1149145824/) in changeset changeset/132967424

This does *not* make sense and I corrected it by removing the cycleway-tagging on the main road.

Sorry für das grosse Changeset, da hat mir JOSM einen Streich gespielt...

Ciao Frans
Thanks for the note; I'm well aware of this.
Greetings from Switzerland,
habi

> Well I'm the owner of the data and the one who is responsible for it and I have the right to redistribute it

Cool, then you can easily document this on the OSM Wiki officially, which is the first step for an import!

Da liegst hier völlig richtig.
Der `mini_roundabout` node/283213096/history wurde aber vor +10 Jahren von jemand anderem erfasst, ich habe den vor 9 Monaten bei einer Ausrichtungsaktion nur chli bewegt.
Auf https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/mini-roundabout/7524 gab es letzthin eine seeeehr lange Diskussion dazu, fokussiert auf Deutschland (wenn ich richtig liege, habe nicht alles gelesen ;) )

Du erwähnst 'Verkehrberuhigungsmassnahme', was meinst du, den Kreuzungs-Knoten als `traffic_calming=hump` taggen ( traffic_calming=hump )?

> the source of data is an official website for postal codes and building from the ministry of telecommunication in Palestine

- Are you allowed to import this data in OSM? Freely available data is not necessarily data that OpenStreetMap is allowed to redistribute globally.
- Did you follow the import guidelines specified here: osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=Import
- Did you document this import somewhere?
- Did you discuss this with the (local) community?
- Are you taking care to conflate this data with already present buildings?

If all these questions are answered with yes, then we would not have this discussion *here*.

Super, Mersi!

Rawad, as I’m living in middle Europe I know far to less to comment anything about politics; I just saw that your import here is completely wrong in regards to how the complete OSM community everywhere maps buildings.
You introduce undocumented key/value combinations like status=P, type=V, model= connect.building.
Other keys like number_of_apartments are modeled as `building:flats` in OSM.
area_m2 Is completely useless, as it can be calculated from the data.
Additionally you simply dumped your data over already existing data, essentially duplicating already present data (albeit with worse geometry).

What’s the source of your data; is OpenStreetMap legally allowed to globally provide it under the ODBL?

It is these things that struck my eye, not where on the globe they happened!

As zstadler said, you need to follow the process outlined in osm.wiki/Import, namely discussing it with the local community.

Once the tiles are rendered, you clean your cache and you reload them map.
It’s visible for me.

Move was done in changeset/132694292

Because of discussion in changeset/132668659

It seems that the exact position of the peak node/5523504160 is not correct.

I moved it to the exact position of the 'x' on https://map.geo.admin.ch/?lang=en&topic=ech&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.pixelkarte-farbe&layers=ch.swisstopo.zeitreihen,ch.bfs.gebaeude_wohnungs_register,ch.bav.haltestellen-oev,ch.swisstopo.swisstlm3d-wanderwege,ch.astra.wanderland-sperrungen_umleitungen&layers_opacity=1,1,1,0.8,0.8&layers_visibility=false,false,false,false,false&layers_timestamp=18641231,,,,&E=2577028.14&N=1158300.74&zoom=11.63192809488736