Hello!
I fixed the edit from here: changeset/175075789#map=18/8.392229/48.473480&layers=V

I didn't notice the issue about the bad source.

OK, what do you want me to say with this?

Hello and welcome to OSM

Please note that we are not allowed to use Google maps because of their licensing.

But as you indicated in your changeset comment that you have local knowledge, I will did not revert the new data you entered.

Instead, I fixed it. Please connect the nodes at junctions, this is important for routing. Additionally I deleted the name=Residential as this is not a proper name. Please see osm.wiki/Names

Hallo!

Der Weg way/1456019850 ist nun Teil von zwei Wanderwegrelatioinen, allerdings mit access=no getagged. Das macht keinen Sinn, daher bitte ich um Korrektur.

Hi,

you created a lot of new unconnected ways. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-111.38348&lat=46.38349&zoom=11&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1

Please connect them
thanks
ratrun

Hi,

I noticed that you are adding superfluous new streets with names, although there are already existing roads mapped. Please stop with continuing using this method. You are creating a lot of unconnected new ways! The correct method is to put the name tag onto the existing roads.

Thank you,
ratrun

This changeset just duplicated existing features. Please stop uploading such crap data!

Reverted in changeset/174631793#map=14/45.83518/-0.78679&layers=VN

Hallo!

Eine Buslinie auf bestehenden Straßen muss in der Relation die bestehenden Straßen einbinden und darf nicht auf einer neuen, parallen gezeichneten Straße verlaufen!
Ich habe daher die neue, überflüssige Straße way/1449462668 gelöscht und die Segmente in die Buslinienrelation aufgenommen. Siehe relation/19827369

Hi,

can you please explain your adding of highway=secondary to this way: way/1378356248#map=21/45.2265870/8.6779468&layers=VN ?

It does not make sense given the road topology in that area.

thanks

Sorry, my request wasn't clear enough. I wanted to know how you found out that some surface tag are missing now. The website you provided probably was for the original closer investigation you made.

Hi,

you created a way without tags: way/1447881388#map=18/14.337654/120.850291&layers=VN

can you please check?

Hi,
why did you remove all tags from this way: way/307294654#map=13/20.55747/77.85964&layers=VN

This probably needs to be reverted, please check

I'm sorry if I overlooked surface tags which were not copied to the new ways. I checked the first one and it was there in the copy. Didn't check that strict for the further cases, therefore I might have overlooked some.

May I ask how you found this out that mistake that quickly? Maybe I can use your method to repair the missing tags.

I deleted a lot of ways because they were duplicated.

Please check this changeset: changeset/174198655#map=17/14.751470/-17.439272&layers=VN

Here user kaariim added names to roads, but for some reason the new ways became duplicates. I removed the old ways which didn't have the names.

Hello and welcome to OSM,

why did you delete the prior roundabout here: node/3082453095#map=21/45.5893237/5.2778729&layers=VN

Looks to be an accident. Please check and correct.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. In this changeset, I fixed an obviously wrong edit. Way way/171146756#map=18/35.178579/-106.543897&layers=VN was connected with this node: node/140912845#map=18/35.182876/-106.543128&layers=VN

Hi,
can you please check the highway classification of your new way way/1417856545#map=19/43.173348/13.684269&layers=VN ?

From the topology of the roundabout I believe that it is not connected to the roundabout on its west end. If this is the case, please add the tag "noexit=yes" on that node and classify the highway type down to "residential".

In the unlikely case that it is connected with the roundabout, please connect it.

thanks

ratrun

Thank you for pointing me on your proposal on the forum on that matter.
I think that I understood most of it, but probably not well enough to explain how the combination of the tags area:highway / (area+highway) make sense according to your definition in this case here. Either most people follow the addition way or they stroll around in a probably larger area.

As discussions here are tedious, and this is relevant for a broader audience, I will add a post in the community forum in the afternoon pointing to this case here and ask you to answer my question there.

I think that you fixed the unconnected_open_ends issues OSMI detected by adding of the noexit=yes tags, but in order to be sure we need to wait for a new run with the actualized data.

Please show me how this is common practice and accepted. This is not the case. If you still insist on your view I suggest to open a discussion on the forum and I'm sure that the result is that this not widely accepted.

In a tag combination

area:highway=service
area=yes
highway=service

the "area" tag and the "highway=service" are superfluous. I forgot to delete the redundant area tag in my changeset. The "highway=service" is already explicitly mapped as additional way in between of this area, therefore the OSMI routing validator detects unconnected nodes.

As I see that you reverted my change again, I ask you to revert back to my version and additionally remove the area tag as otherwise the error will appear again in about 12 hours on https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=-99.48934&lat=38.77357&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1