Ich habe keine Ahnung was du mir damit sagen willst!

Hi,

you have executed a mass import. Where did you discuss this import before?
From where is the data coming from and under which license is this data? Do you have the permission for this import?

I'm going to report this to the data working group. For me this looks as if it needs to be reverted.

Hallo!

Der neue Verlauf dieser Strasse
way/1110240088#map=21/48.0189390/9.2386844&layers=VN
erschien mir unrealistisch, da er durch Häuser verlief. Draufgestossen bin ich, da der Endknoten nicht verbunden war. Ich habe den Weg laut Luftbild geändert. Bitte überprüfe diese Änderung auf Richtigkeit.

Danke

ratrun

Hallo Senihtu,

bitte überprüfe diese Änderungen. Die neu angelegten Strassen fügen sich überhaupt nicht ins bestehende Strassennetz ein und sind völlig unrealistisch
danke

ratrun

Hello yoann_immergis,

can you please look at changeset/169984646 and comment there? User Patchi has a question to a change you made and where I appeared as last author because I made a fix on your change.
thanks
ratrun

Hello Patchi,

The reason is that user yoann_immergis created a duplicated way with these tags before. See

way/1419959614/history/1

In my change I deleted this superfluous parallel duplicated way and merged the new tags which this user had added in changeset changeset/169952769#map=16/44.65934/6.63488&layers=VN.

So I'm sorry, I'm not able to answer your question. If you really like to know we need to ask user @yoann_immergis

I asked him in his changeset to comment here.

Hallo!

Mir ist bei diesem Changeset folgendes aufgefallen:
1) Bitte verbinde die neuen Wege. Normalerweise warnt JOSM dich unverbunde Wege hochzuladen. Bitte beachte diese Warnungen! Siehe https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=12.11828&lat=53.47479&zoom=12&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1
2) Das Tagging

bicycle no
car no
foot yes

auf einem highway=footway ist dreifach redundant und im Falle von Bicycle falsch, weil man sicher auch in Deutschland sein Rad dort schieben darf.

ratrun

Hello JB_72,
as you seem to have local knowledge about this area, I would ask you to cross check if the access modification from access=permissive to access=private for the ways way/96214114 and way/96214112#map=19/60.221502/25.189176&layers=VN was really correct. I believe that it should be access=customer just like way/96214117. The private access tag on these two way prevents routers from finding the ferry to Travemünde.

Another option would be that customers are supposed to take these segments: way/261108165#map=19/60.220281/25.192435&layers=VN and way/261108164#map=20/60.2211108/25.1933786&layers=VN

thanks
ratrun

Hello, I have no idea. I just modified this way and now I appear as most recent author. You need to ask user @cyganka in changeset changeset/169720879#map=16/53.47920/14.52370&layers=VN , see way/1418666848/history/1

Thank you,

I probably should have reverted changeset/168947623#map=14/43.26884/0.85187 completely, because these changes left a mess behind. It also created the gap in the relation, which I didn't check in my edit!

Yes, I do argue that these gates are noexits and I do not see the benefit of such extensive micromapping.
Anyway, I would ask to keep the noexit tag as I do respect your micromaping style even tough I don't see any use in it.

I had to revert a second changeset of yours: changeset/169430027

Please stop duplicating existing ways. See https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=109.39215&lat=20.10485&zoom=8&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1 with fake changeset comments. "Add communes of Nguyen Binh district" is not what you did here.
For this reason I reverted this in changeset/169429858

Hello,

the new livingstreet ways which you added (See this example: way/1416777858#map=19/41.959814/14.945067) were simply not correct. A way in OSM needs to connect to other ways and you created unconnected ways in 90 degrees angles to what we consider the way in OSM.

Consequently the edit prominently appeared as error in OSM routing view, see https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=14.94479&lat=41.96018&zoom=18&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=unconnected_open_ends_1

As it would have been too complicated to explain what I exactly mean, I tried to apply fixes based on Bing images in changeset/169374195#map=16/41.96117/14.94456, and you intentions. Please check.

Hi,
the reason was that OSMI routing view (osm.wiki/OSM_Inspector/Views/Routing) detected the end nodes of these 0.5 meter short ways as unconnected ways and classified this as priority 1 error.

So it appears as a prominent error.

You might argue that this is a false positive, but OSMI routing view detects these errors for a reason: It cannot know that the way ends with the tagged gate.

It would not detect the error if you continue the super short way behind the gate as in this case: way/1416131842

Thank you for correcting this location. I could swear that in the morning when I made the change there were no barriers mapped, but probably I just overlooked them.

Hallo!

Vor meiner Änderung gab es den Knoten doppelt an der selben Stelle.

Daher habe ich Knoten
node/12989346224 gemerged mit node/43641823#map=19/52.025266/8.513235, wodurch einer der Knoten gelöscht wurde.

OSMI Routing View meckert nicht verbundene "ways" an, dadurch bin ich auf den Fehler aufmerksam gemacht worden.

Ein kleiner Trick von einem JOSM Benutzer an einen ander JOSM Nutzer: Um herauszufinden wie der Zustand vor einer Änderung war. kann man im JOSM mittels Reverter Plugin den Changeset revertieren. Das erleichter in solchen Fällen die Analyse was wirklich gemacht wurde.

Thank you, adopted in @ratrun/history#map=2/16.3/-101.2

Reverted with changeset/167908743#map=10/31.9063/-9.2689

I'm not familiar with this areas, but this most likely is just fake. Shall I revert it?