Wow, this is a HUGE changeset! (We try to keep them much smaller whenever possible).

Are you sure way/49782685 is called "Wurzenpass" on the Slovene side?

Closes note/4881922

Hi, can you help with this note?
note/4526273

It seems you've mapped a gondola a part of a "site" relation. I have no expertise with this kind of relations, but it seems a bit odd to me on first glance. Would it perhaps be more appropriate to remove the gondola from the site relation and potentially create a public transport relation for the gondola instead?

Thanks!

Seems enough evidence that this was a simple mapping mistake. I've removed the guest house.

Thanks for the swift reply.

Ok, I guess some of them can be considered residential buildings. I've added them on the map.

Ich habe incline=100% hinzugefügt.

Thanks for the swift reply! I've just corrected it.

Hi, you've changed the maxspeed from 30 to 20 on way/669235159.

However, this sign seems to indicate 30. Can you help?
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.7406623,13.8236223,3a,22.9y,338.15h,84.84t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s__hjC_Xcw_jyjLFqCAxvmQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D5.160230088217389%26panoid%3D__hjC_Xcw_jyjLFqCAxvmQ%26yaw%3D338.1489044919778!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQyMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

Hi, bicycle=designated is implied on a highway=cycleway, so I'm removing the tag from www.way/669235159

Hi, thanks for detailing the area. Ways like this are probably better tagged highway=unclassified as it is clearly not in a residential area: way/1418759801

Hi, you added the proposed highway way/584156177 seven years ago. It seems it hasn't materialized yet. Is it still map-worthy?

Hi, you added the proposed highway way/585221411 seven years ago. It seems it hasn't materialized yet. Is it still map-worthy?

Hi, you added the proposed highway way/660881100 six years ago. It seems it hasn't materialized yet. Is it still map-worthy?

Hi,
Can you help with this note? note/4854980

It seems you've mapped a tourism=guest_house which another user can't find on the ground.

Hi, Thanks for your contribution. Is this a building OR just a roof?

relation/19107141

Hello,

Thanks for keeping an eye on on keeping up the quality of the map!

I don't recall the exact reason in this particular case but I usually do this when there are adjacent landuses/landcovers that should share a common boundary but are mapped in a way that they don't, for example here: osm.org/?mlat=48.078883&mlon=9.028535#map=19/48.078883/9.028535

In cases like that, I find mapping much easier, quicker and also more comprehensible when you deal with multipolygons: You don't have to redraw lines multiple times which have dozens or hundreds of nodes. Also by selecting a boundary line, you instantly see which objects share this boundary (can be more than two, e. g. a bike parking nested inside a park, nested inside a city boundary).

I guess, it comes down to a matter of taste, probably depending on which editor you use. When I substantially improve the mapping accuracy in a certain area, I usually take the liberty to represent areas as multipolygons when it's more efficient for my mapping workflow.

I hope, this helps. :-)

Hi!

Thanks for you contributions!

Please not that we do not map individual lanes of roads in OSM. We map a road as only *one* object in OSM (not one for each lane). Exception: When there is a physical separation between the carriageways (more than just paint), then they can be mapped separately.
osm.wiki/Dual_carriageway

Happy mapping!

Hi,
Can you help with this question?
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/126402

Removed.
changeset/160835932