Ich nahm an, dass man auch ohne Schilder nicht von way/1274423440 nach way/1274423438 einbiegen darf.

Ausserdem stelle ich es mir schwer vor, zu erraten, dass man hier nicht "links abbiegen" darf, wenn man ein Router ist. Deswegen habe ich die Relation gemappt.

Aber ich bin kein Router und habe keine Ahnung von so was; wahrscheinlich kennst du dich besser damit aus.

What is the complaint about?

Hello!

Was war denn falsch an den turn restrictions?

Hi!

That must've been an attempt to resolve
note/916910 and
note/914681

Sorry for documenting this properly at the time.

I've never surveyed this place myself or verified it in any other way.

Hi,
Can you explain what you mean by the fixme? Kopališče Kolezija does not appear to be encolosed by relation/14962643

Excellent! Thank you very much!

Sorry for the long list, but it's important for routing apps to work correctly. :-)

Happy mapping!

Thanks for the quick reply!

That's interesting. I've added it as source:name.

Happy mapping!

Hi!
Is "hrib" really the *name* of this hill or is it just a description?

Hi,

I’ve just discovered that a number of things went severely wrong here:
- The footpath way/1327573462 has the wrong accesss tag access=no.
- The same footpath is crossing the cycleway way/1327574306 but they are not connected by a common node.
- This cycleway way/1310997762 does not seem to be physically separated from the footpath way/1310997764 but you mapped them separately.
- The car carriageway way/1305674489 (and others) should have the tags sidewalk=separate + foot=use_sidepath + bicycle=use_sidepath if the foot and cycle path are mapped separately.
- The crossing way/1327573463 is not connected to node/5818757615 nor to the cycle paths, but should be.
- In reality, the street can be cross at osm.org/go/0IkZ3CMBp?m= using a crosswalk. This must be mapped in order to routers to work correctly.

It seems that your editor issued 4 warnings before uploading which it seems you ignored.

Hi,

The wiki describes a place=square as "a town square or village square [...], generally of architectural significance"

I have doubts, this is the case here. What do you think?

Ah great! I've seen this mapped wrong many times, so I have become suspicious.

Thanks for the quick reply!

Hi,

You've mapped footway and cycleway separately, but there is no physical barrier between them.

However, when things are not physically separated, we map them as only one way in OSM.

Great, thanks for the quick reply!

Hi,
has this cycle lane been added recently? It doesn't show up on aerial imagery.

Thanks! In cases like this, some mappers (including myself) simply comment the changeset with "Alignment" or similarly.

When we make "real" changes, it's good to comment it in a way such that others have a chance to understand what's being done. This page gives a rough guide:
osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Happy mapping!

Hi,

Please try to be more specific in your changeset comments, so other mappers can understand your intentions.
What exactly has been fixed?

Hi mate,

Thanks for you joining OSM.

We don't map individual lanes of roads if they are not physically separated. I'll therefore revert your edits.

See osm.wiki/Highways#Carriageways

Hi,

Welcome to Openstreetmap. Note that we do not map steps as areas (closed ways).
highway=steps

Happy mapping!

Hi,
You forgot to set the construction=tertiary tag. This led to the next mappers setting the road type incorrectly after the road had reopened. They set it to highway=residential, whereas highway=tertriary would have been correct.

Please set the construction=* key when you tag a road as under construction. You can find documentation on how to do this here:
highway=construction?uselang=en

Happy mapping!

Ok, I've reverted my change.