Good spot! Thanks

Hi!

Thank you for adding the sidewalk way/984390923 to Njegoševa.

You may be aware of this, but just in case you aren't: it is not really necessary to map sidewalks explicitly, if there is not continuous physical separation to the road itself (like, for example, a strip of grass). A sidewalk=* tag on the main road is enough. However, your style of mapping the sidewalk separately is also considered acceptable by some; so no harm done.

However, the sidewalk should be connected to Prisojna ulica. Otherwise, routing apps will not be able to use the sidewalk that you've added in a correct way.
It's important to always connect highways to other highways if they are accessible from each other. Paths that end on other paths in reality should therefore not mapped as dead ends.
In fact, the sidewalk should be connected to the road wherever it's possible to cross the road. (which is the reason most people prefer not mapping it separately). Otherwise there is no way for routing engines to figure out where the road can be crossed.

If you do decide to map the sidewalk separately, it's nice towards other mappers to make sure to change sidewalk=both tag on the main carriageway (Njegoševa) to sidewalk=left, for example on this section: way/931184574
Otherwise, we end up in a situation, where the same sidewalk is mapped once on the road itself and once explicitly from your addition. (which is considered incorrect by the community, see here osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element)

I hope this is not confusing. In case of questions, feel free to ask!

...and the sidewalk=right tag should be removed along sections like this way/933614459

Hi! You've added this footway sidewalk to Tržaška way/180893454
although a separated cycle and footway already exists:
way/652880804

This seems to be redundant. If we argue that the little kerb between the cycle track and the footway counts as physical barrier, then we should remove the footway tags (foot=designated, footway:surface=asphalt, segregated=yes) from the cycleway.

Excellent, thank you! In fact, the P+R appears to be already mapped: way/661376172

I've removed the wrongs P+R tags. Thanks for the quick and clear response!

Thanks!
Then I suppose the name of the parking is incorrect?
Do you know where the actual P+R parking is located? (if it exists at all)

Hi!

Thanks for you contribution to the map!

You've tagged this parking as private. This seems contradictory for a P+R parking. Are you sure this is correct? Or did you perhaps mean that everyone can access but a fee is charged?

Absolutely fantastic!
That's what I call committed mapping! :-)

Very nice! Happy mapping!

Oh great! Thanks a lot for your edit!

No, I have no recent on-ground information, so I wanted to make sure it wasn't an accident.

Just a minor issue: The driveway way/927801230 is now disconnected from other roads. Do you know whether the path way/983014205 can be used by cars? Should we convert this to a driveway?

Hello!
You've deleted a whole lot of objects here: a parking lot, an access aisle, a vegetated area + a number of trees.

One of the results is that way/927801230 is now disconnected from other roads, but more importantly, I'm wondering why you deleted all these objects. Was this by accident?

https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-change-viz?c=111859762#19/46.04758/14.49576

Thanks a lot for the clarification. I agree, this should be reported to SC. Yes, if both cycleway and footway have the same surface, surface=* should be sufficient (any sane data consumer will assume that they both have this surface).

I'm not going to revert your edits as I don't think they are dangerously "wrong"; but I do think they are unnecessary and mildly bothering for future editors. So best is to ask SC to change this behaviour.

Thanks a lot again!

Thanks a lot for your edit. For the future, if you can:
(a) Add oneway=yes (if applicable), so that routing apps won't direct cyclist on the path in the opposite (wrong) wrong way.
(b) Adjust the cycleway tags of the adjacent road accordingly.

Hi jetomit,
Not to critisize your effort, but may I ask, why you add footway:surface and cycleway:surface although surface=* is already set. If they all have the same value (e. g. asphalt), there is no need to be extra-specific (footway:surface is already implied by surface). There is only need to be this specific if footway:surface and cycleway:surface are different. Otherwise, this only leads to overtagging with no gain in information; which unnecessarily makes features harder to understand and to maintain.

Some of these buildings seem not to exist anymore. They are visible on the older GURS but not on the newer Ljubljana Orthophoto (2020).

Done.

Sorry the above comment was my alter ego :-)

Hi village,
ich weiß, dass es da verschiedene Auffassungen gibt. Es waren schon viele Fußwege da, die aber nicht verbunden waren. Ich stand vor der Wahl, entweder die bereits bestehenden zu löschen, oder den vorgefundenen Mapping-Stil in der Nachbarschaft zu übernehmen.

Von mir aus kannst du die gerne wieder löschen; kann gut mit beiden Lösungen leben.

Erledigt.

Done. Happy if someone can check!

Sorry kartler; kann verstehen, dass du verärgert bist. Es steckte keine böse Absicht dahinter. Werde mich die Tage darum kümmern. Danke fürs Bescheid geben.

Sorry, I'll take care of this in the coming days. Thanks for pointing this out.