Also zusammengefasst, sagst du:
1. Dass der Fahrradweg Amnsinckstraße/Högerdamm benutzungspflichtig ist, ist richtig
2. Rechtlich gesehen ist Punkt 1 kein Hindernis dafür, an der Abzweigung Amnsinckstraße/Nordkanalbrücke (genau hier: node/29547265) vom Radweg herunterzufahren um auf die Nordkanalbrücke abzubiegen
3. Die Nordkanalbrücke ist eine eigene von der Amsinckstraße unabhängige Straße und daher verpflichtet ein Fahrradweg auf der Amsinckstraße nicht dazu, dort statt auf der Nordkanalbrücke zu fahren.

Stimmt das so? Dann dazu folgendes:

A. Das Manöver des Abbiegens an dem verlinkten Punkt hört sich ziemlich unrealistisch an wenn man bedenkt wie dicht befahren diese Straße ist. Ich sagte ja, dass Straßen auf denen es praktisch nicht möglich ist, Fahrrad zu fahren (und nicht nur solche bei denen es explizit verboten ist) auch als bicycle=no getaggt werden sollten. Das ist natürlich subjektiv.
B. Ist "Nordkanalbrücke" wirklich der Name dieser Straße oder bloß der Name der Brücke? Ich vermute, dass in Wahrheit diese Brücke nur eine von vielen Fahrbahnen der Amsinckstraße/Nordkanalstraße ist. Dies ließe sich feststellen indem man vor Ort nach einem Straßenschild sucht.

Moin Wulf4096, ich hatte nach dem OSM Stammtisch noch einen Freund gefragt der da jeden Morgen längs fährt. Er meinte, da steht zwar kein Fahrräder-Verboten-Schild, aber es sei für Fahrradfahrer trotzdem verboten über die Brücke zu fahren, weil es einen benutzungspflichtigen Fahrradweg bei Amsinckstraße/Högerdamm gibt, weswegen es nicht möglich ist, legal dort von der Amsinckstraße, Abzweigung Högerdamm abzubiegen und heraufzufahren.
Was sagst du dazu?

(I corrected it now, no action required from you, just so you know for the future)

Please note that the language in Myanmar is Burmese and thus the name-tag should be in Burmese.
Or, to be specific, the name on OpenStreetMap should be the same as primarily given on the street sign. This will usually be Burmese in Myanmar.

For the English name, name:en can be used.

ich meine rechts, also Osten

Ja, ich war da. Steht doch in der Changeset source: "photos from Zwegabin", das ist der Berg da links.

Hi Khin Muyar Kyaw
I have some suggestions how to improve the quality of your changeset(s):

- Single trees are mapped as nodes only, but only trees that are a point of interest should be mapped, i.e. that Bodhi Tree in the Shwedagon Pagoda and so on
- Do not use the name-tag as a label. Most buildings do not have names but are simply buildings. building=yes is enough.
- In general, if you are a map addict like me, then I would like to suggest you to learn how to use JOSM, you will be able to be more productive and make better changesets. If you like more casual mapping and have an Android Smartphone, I can recommend you my app StreetComplete.

Ah, but the issue here is that the app asks its users for whether there is a cycleway for the road also on roads which have a sidewalk which is mapped separately, right?
This is definitely not desireable behavior and wil be corrected in the next version. I created an issue here: https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/718

So, it is this:
osm.wiki/File:Z239Z1022-10GehwegRadfahrerFrei.jpeg

The discussed case is the tagging put for when the user selected something like "there is no cycleway, but cyclists are (explicitly?) allowed to use the sidewalk" (don't remember the exact wording right now).
If you think there is a problem with this, please report this in the StreetComplete issue tracker and I will have a look.

Are these piers really named "Pier"?

Wow, such detailed, diligent and high-quality work (this and other changesets). Congrats :-)

I am (the guy who is) adding landuses in the Yangon area, feel free to correct me as I am only doing satellite mapping

Moin tklug

Es ist leider schon etwas her, ich bin bloß gerade beim Testen einer App darüber gestolpert:

Es geht um diese Relation: relation/6019995
Was soll sie aussagen? Soweit ich weiß, wird building:part dokumentierterweise nur in Zusammenhang mit building:levels oder height benutzt. ( osm.wiki/DE:Key:building:part )

Stattdessen steht hier levels=0. Soll das bedeuten dass der Gebäudeteil nur im Erdgeschoss existiert (also synonym zu buliding:levels=1)? Wenn das damit gemeint ist, wiese zählen die Bereiche in denen die Treppen sind nicht dazu? Kannst du mir einen Link zur Wiki schicken in dem dokumentiert ist, wie diese Daten zu interpretieren sind?

Meine Vermutung ist, dass das ein Überbleibsel eines veralteten Indoor-Mapping-Schemas ist, aber bevor ich das aufgrund einer bloßen Vermutung entferne, möchte ich lieber sicher gehen indem ich den Autor frage.

That is an interesting. Check my latest commit, I tried to represent what you wrote here. Explanation:
- the clinic is only part of the building, so I put it is a separate node (amenity=clinic or healthcare=clinic as for the new healthcare scheme) with religion=christian
- amenity=events_venue for the building
- highway=service + surface=unpaved for the driveway (highway=track is only for agricultural/forest roads)
- landuse=religious for the area + religion=christian since it is not a church but just "something" christian

You added an alpine hut here. This is clearly wrong. Can you tell what you meant to add here instead?

Cool, thanks for clearing it up!
When you are using JOSM, you can specify explicitly the source of the data you are committing (i.e. "survey"). In iD, this info can go into the normal comment.
By the way, I can really recommend JOSM, it is very useful for power users.

Hi Saturngod

I noticed that you split the Pyay road with oneway=no in two roads with each oneway=yes (and I think others too).

This is correct if and only if the two opposite lanes are physically separate from each other, for example by a grass strip, trees or by a concrete barrier.
The implication is that it is impossible to cross from one lane to the other except where explicitly a connection is made.
To illustrate at the example of Pyay road, coming from Ma Kyee Kyee Street or Mahar Myaing Street, this would mean that you can only turn right, driving south. Same with Ma Po Street or Shan Kone Street.

It is not correct if the separation between these lanes is only a road marking.

This is actually an important detail, as it very much affects the routing for navigation software.

So, to wrap it up: from the Bing satellite imagery, it looks like the separation is only a road marking, which would mean that your change is wrong. If you know for sure from a different source that the lanes are truly separate (i.e. because your surveyed it yourself or saw a current photo), then I'd recommend to write this into your changeset comment in order to keep others from eventually reverting it because they think it is an error.

(For example the U Wisara Road just North East of Pyay Road is correctly split up into two seperate oneway roads because there are tree rows between the lanes.)

Cheers
Tobias

I can help you finding the correct tags for this "Karuna Daw SeKan (Clinic)". Could you tell me what this should be? Is it a churchyard, a church, a clinic or something else still?
The current tags don't seem to be correct.

Are you sure the Kannar Park is at the place you added? From satellite imagery, it looks like the area immediately South of the area you tagged is a park

Oh, that's cool. The "source supreme". If the mentioned way is just a footpath, I think many residential ways I tagged as residential roads in the outskirts of Yangon will turn out to be just footpaths.