fai fai

non mi pare di averlo fatto, guardando le due relazioni del cammino di S Antonio, hanno solo il cammino di S Antonio come relazione della relazione.

per l'area di attesa consiglio di utilizzare la proposta
osm.wiki/Proposal:Civil_Protection_Areas

node/11844616753

It looks like an assembly point, but it isn't. There's nothing official about it at the moment.

The name is based on the symbol and can be seen at the bottom left of the PDF.

hello?

Ciao Francesco, vedo che sei un nuovo Mapper.
Ti ringrazio per aver provato a migliorare la mappa ma devo segnalarti che hai sbagliato (attenzione che le immagini satellitari sono vecchie).
Più tardi sistemerò io.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177726571

Given the discussion with the Venetian community, I ask you to fix your mistake

node/12394712927

why removing the name of 12394712927 ??? Do you know what are you doing??

okok, a posteri forse era meglio evitare un revert puro e farlo a mano
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177644088

Hai rimosso il wiki data, fai revert

Ciao, benvenuto nella community di openstreetmap, ti consiglio di entrare nel gruppo telegram https://t.me/OpenStreetMapItalia (italia) https://t.me/osm_veneto/1 (Veneto)
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/177510159

errato rimosso attraversamento

Perché hai cancellato way/1382088228 ???

io ho usato il preset automatico di iD per "accesso per i veicoli di soccorso/emergenza"

c'è anche la wiki: service=emergency_access

"way/1272431845: I added bicycle=permissive as it is wide enough for bicyles, and is a safer option for cyclists. It's also in continuation from a signed segregetated foot-cycle-way to the West"

I understand your choice, but I don’t agree. Together with the local FIAB, we decided not to add bicycle=permissive on wide sidewalks because it creates confusion both for people cycling and when visualizing the cycle infrastructure of our city, making it harder to understand where bike facilities are missing.

way/1382016928: by convention, the markings seem to be usually mapped only on the crossing node, but not on the crossing way.

This doesn’t make sense to me at all: by tagging the data only on the node, you don’t make the information available to those who actually use the crossing, but only to those who, while traveling along the main road, encounter the crossing.

1459105433 like 176017403 (I suppose you mean way/1459105433):
This looks like a footpath, so it as a fottpath. If your prefer path, no problem. Important that the information like surface, smothness, width is present. In this specific cse the verrtical signin is most likely wrong: coming from the South, there is a sign that motor vehicles to destination. I presume this applies only to the southern, paved part of the way. The northern part is only compaced, and certanly not intened for for motorbikes.

The first section of the road from the south is only for those who need to get there, up to the bollard. (By law, the sign prohibits motor vehicles, meaning three-wheeled motorcycles or quadricycles.) At the end of the path, there is no signage. Therefore, making it pedestrian-only is incorrect.

These sections are shared cycle-pedestrian paths, according to the horizontal and vertical signage recently installed by the municipality. As a iD mapper, I would tag them as:
highway=cycleway
foot=designated
segregated=yes

Just as I had mapped them before and in accordance with osm.wiki/IT:Tag:highway=cycleway

1272431847 and 1272431846 are not path but foot-cycleway, why you edited like path? it was mapped as foot-cycleway with iD standard
osm.wiki/IT:Tag:highway=cycleway

highway=cycleway
foot=designated
segregated=no

1459105433 like 176017403 is a path, no sign saying its only footway

1382016928 why no markings?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/176017403