Hello, I notice you removed foot=use_sidepath tags I'd recently added. I'm not precious about them but I thought it was the correct tagging. My reading of foot=use_sidepath is that since the pavements are drawn separately here, pedestrians should be routed to the pavements, not the main carriageway? But maybe I'm misunderstanding something, curious to hear your thoughts.

Whoops meant to say from note/2423096

Hi, I've marked it as open, thanks!

Hello, I think the boulevard was just recently re-opened actually. Is this change based on satellite imagary? If so I suspect the imagery might be a bit out of date.

Fixed, thanks!

Cool, thanks! Keep up the good work

Hello, you removed the oneway tag but Mapillary clearly shows the street as one-way: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&lat=42.725349376&lng=23.3018597122&z=17&pKey=RWKIfzrKLzNAtdjeok8MfQ

I think there's probably just a lot of cars parked the wrong way on the satellite image.

Looks good to me! Keep adding!

Hello, welcome to the project and thanks for your contribution!

OK, if you're not sure it's better to leave it out. Feel free to add the neighbouring building's addresses if you'd like.

Hello, thanks for adding the address number, do you know the street or ж.к. of the address?

Great work, thanks for the correction! Keep adding to the map anything that you think is wrong or missing.

Уау, чудесна работа! 👍

But how can you tell from satellite imagery that a street is not one-way?

Hi,

Mapillary clearly shows this as a one-way: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&lat=42.69967217&lng=23.2956726942&z=17&pKey=xwlZqXO_Zge8rZX3UtTDEg&x=0.609051443225836&y=0.34440389864204274&zoom=0

But the Mapillary image is over a year old, maybe it's outdated. What source are you using that contradicts this?

Hello, the road is visible as one-way in Mapillary imagery (which is now over a year old), are you sure it's no longer the case?

Seems fixed now.

Hm, I'm not sure actually. I thought it was just the rendering being slow, but it's been 2 days now, that's not usual. I'm puzzled. I'll make a tiny change to "nudge" it, although that's not usually needed. Let's see what happens.

Hello!

It's because the building has a hole in it, and so it's defined as a multipolygon relation: relation/9323805

The relation groups together the lines that define the polygon outlines. Then the information about the building goes on the relation itself. There's some documentation here: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

I've restored the missing building tag.

Happy mapping!
saintam1

Hello,

Bulgarian names are not usually capitalised like this. I think you're applying the English standard, but that doesn't apply here.

Cheers
saintam1