I created http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/741273 for the first of the other places.

In your example screenshot there seems to all violet label text missing, is this actual an issue or is there another explanation for it?

Under which licence do the generated charts stand?

The turn restriction at Borsigstraße/Heilbronner Str. is now wrong, the road was changed in 2012/2013. Now the restricted area is not in the way of a u-turn, just compare the aerial images 2013/2015 and 2011 (slider right top) here: http://gis6.stuttgart.de/maps/index.html?karte=leben&embedded=true#basemap=3&scale=500&centerX=3512955.1884051105&centerY=5409202.303024176 Comparing with Streetview: even in 2008 when the restricted area was in place there was no sign present.

Unfortunately the view on the restricted area on all Mapillary images is blocked by cars. Since OSM is only [allowed to use the 2011 Stuttgart arial images] (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Luftbilder_Stuttgart) we have a difficult here. In this unclear situation I would create a note and leave to local mappers.

If the situation is more clear (unrestricted recent Mapillary view, edits are older) I would directly delete the restriction. There a quite a view mappers watching changesets in Stuttgart - if you make big mistake it will be noticed.

In Germany turning is not allowed if (refering to http://www.gettingaroundgermany.info/zeichen2.shtml#mark) 1. A sign forbids it 2. A “Intersection arrows” is present and does not point in your direction 3. A “Restricted zone” or a “solid center line” will be crossed

The date namespace is described here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Date_namespace. It’s nowhere approved or recommended but a guideline for a mapper who whishes to integrate this information.

I added a warning to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/turn_lanes

highway=pedestrian/living_street: looks good.

Later rendering: This change looks surpringly obvious. We have landuse and not highway=residential for marking of built-up area. I have not looked into excluding unclassified as well.

Width: As long as they are not narrower on a map than an average street in real life (which i doubt) am supporting the right version. It leaves more space for other features - we are not OpentSTREETMap anymore.

footway/path: Well in Germany we have ways which are equally shared by bicycle+foot (STVO signs 240/241) and neither footway nor cycleway fits. So a highway=path, surface=[paved value], foot=designated, bicycle=designated is recommended tagging. If there is only one “designated” we use footway/cycleway. Many small paved “footways” have no traffic signs and are equally allowed (foot/bicycle=yes). Footway implies foot=designated, foot=yes looks wrong on those ways. I want to promote path more, so i support: “stop differentiating between highway=path and highway=footway, render them differently based on surface tag” with detection of bicycle=designated.