Tror jag fixade det mesta med:
changeset/136882083#map=15/59.3143/18.2235

Okej, visste inte det! Då är det fel även på de gamla delarna (i.e. västerut). Jag kan gå igenom dem vid tillfälle. Tack för tipset!

Jag förstår inte riktigt vad du menar. Jag har bara använt default-värdena på access. highway=primary har väl inte gång/cykel?

Gamla bron är fortfarande öppen för gång och cykel. Där har jag inte ändrat något.

Hej!

Snyggt jobb med max speed!
Jag råkade förstöra det du gjorde på väg
way/575085733
när jag skulle fixa buss-relationen. Såg inte att det var olika max speed så jag slog ihop vägarna igen. Går det att göra om enstaka vägar med ditt script?

Btw så blir det hål i buss-rutterna när du har klippt isär vägar eftersom det är en ny väg. Kanske skulle kolla om det automatiskt går att lägga in nya vägen i route-relationerna? De flesta editors gör redan det om man använder inbyggda split-funtionktionen.

MVH Johan Tidén

Hello!

Nice work on Gamla Stan!
I think you may have been a little eager though in converting all the roads from pedestrian to residential. Gamla Stan is typically not accessible to cars wherefore it's mapped as pedestrian (which means motor vehicles _might_ go there but should not generally do so.

Residential roads are mainly used by cars and may have sidewalks and/or mixed foot access. I think pedestrian fits much better here, especially on the small streets where a car wouldn't even fit.

There are larger roads around the island, they will be harder to spot now when all the streets look the same.
Would you consider reverting the streets you changed back to pedestrian? Do you need any help with that?

BR Johan Tidén

Thanks for sharing! I read through it with Google translate. I suppose it's kind of compatible with v2.

"If possible" is a very vague basis for definition though. I'd say adding the stop positions is definitely _possible_ so in that case the scheme has been broken, right?

I'd say the "stops first" (or last) is just a coincidence on that route. There is nothing mentioning that on the Swedish wiki anyway.

While I'm not sold about the "version 3" per se, since it is a very bold statement that this scheme would supersede version 2, Stockholm has opted for a simplified mapping scheme for buses described i Swedish here:
osm.wiki/Sweden/Public_transport#F.C3.B6renklad_PT-taggning_f.C3.B6r_bussar

In short, it should be enough to just add a single node as a stop close to the road, routing algorithms are smart enough to not need the stop_position anyway so that has been omitted.

Hej! Bra att du håller koll!

Jag märkte att mitt program fick "konflikt" i datat och tyckte set såg bra ut. Jag tycker det ser bra ut nu också!

Det är svårt med de här enormt stora skogspolygonerna, de har en tendens att gå sönder eftersom man inte kan överblicka hela lätt. Jag försöker dela upp dem så det blir mindre problem framöver

Jag kommer nog fortsätt med just relation/7307206#map=12/60.9802/16.1087 ett tag till då det också finns en massa detaljwr i som saknas.

Fint! Råkade se den tomma vägen i min editor.

Kul när någon märker vad man gör :)

Är det Glasmästargatan eller Glasmästaregatan?
way/566115392#map=18/56.79018/14.44480

Byt namn på endera väg så att bpda får samma namn!

Vad är detta?
way/813903892/history

Början på en man_made=bridge kanske?

Okej. Jag var inte helt säker. Det ser rätt annorlunda ut på olika flygbilder. På maxar ser det ut som gräs i fina rader så jag tänkte att någon hade börjat med typ halm där.

I think it woul dbe pretty much impossible to implement general routing like that given the state of the current data. Many landuses are drawn straight through impassable objects.

It's a good argument for _allowing_ merging of tags though.

Osm is hard to change. People talk of consensus but in my opinion it seems more like "we keep doing it like some people in the past chose to do".

As a pragmatist, I support stronger standardization because it takes the responsibility away from mappers, and frees us (i. e. gives us mandate to change things). OSM doesn't do this. Instead you are urged to create some kind of community that can agree on guidelines. What defines a community is unclear though. Is it enough that you and me spoke about it? Let's merge all landuse and highway nodes! Yay!

It's a bit harder than that. Work on real change should be done on a higher level. It kind of is too late to just choose your own style, as mappers of the past could. We might not agree with their style but trying to change it will take some hard politics work.

Good luck! :)

I'd say there is a consensus globally to try to avoid merging landuse with "highways". I don't really understand why though. The main argument seems to be that it is harder to edit them separately, making it an argument about time spent. We do spend a lot of time being careful not to merge them though, so that argument is shaky...

Landuses are not used for routing, pretty much only for rendering, searching (if they are named), etc.

I agree about the voids. Adjacent landuse can be merged together even if the highway nodes are not, so the "seam" between two landuses moves along a way but is not connected per se.

I think you are talking about highway _areas_ like the pedestrian area you are working on. They should _definitely_ be merged with adjacent highways fir routing purposes! Notice there is a highway tag there, and probably an "area=yes", which is default for multipolygon relations. You could, however create a highway=pedestrian that is not an area, just a pedestrian street.

Nice work on Finn Malmgrens Plan!

I think, however, you have misunderstood the real value of multipolygons. You have "added" a bunch of polygons together but you can also subtract from the area by marking a member as an "inner" polygon.

You could draw a simpler outline around the whole square and then add the grass areas as inner, thus excluding them from the square.

The wiki page describes it well with images:
osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

That is weird. I've seen the same from other mappers. Layers seem to be added when the software is trying to avoid collisions. There should be a (few) warnings before saving the changes.

I'd say there should be no need for a layer tag at all here so yes, you could just remove it!

That new footway looks great!

What I'm talking about is you added the tag "layer=1" to the existing cycleway just north of there. Layer should only really be used when things are above or below each other, like in tunnels or bridges.

Both the cycleway and the playground is on the ground, so in my opinion, you should avoid using layering there. They are on the same layer.

Extra layers are not a problem per se but in this case not needed and would probably just lead to future confusion.

You are doing a great job! Keep at it!

Why do you add layer all over the place?

This way is not off the ground and isn't overlapping anything conflicting:
way/188745712/history#map=19/59.29441/18.10024

Is this a path? There is no tag:
way/967578962/history

I guessed cliff since the terrain is already very steep there. The planning map has even tighter looking height lines converging here. We can change it to cliff later when it's more clear how it will look!