Great, thank you very much for looking into this!

Hi Badojo,
This is a comment on turn restriction in [relation/16286020](https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/16286020). I do not think this is correct.

While the road markings do suggest the most common turn here is to the [way/24960661](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24960661), I can see no indication that the turn to the [way/151952109](https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/151952109) would be forbidden.

On the contrary, judging by the "keep left" sign (or [prometni otok](https://pomocnik.meblosignalizacija.si/produkt/3313-b/prometni-otok) in Slovenian) at the beginning of way/151952109, this is actually a perfectly legal turn. Namely, the sign is rotated towards North East, that is towards the vehicles coming from the ring road, so I think it can be assumed that these vehicles can, in fact, turn left here.

I would therefore suggest to remove the restriction in relation/16286020 ("no right turn" is implied with the one-way road), just as there is no such restriction at the [node/8397664629](https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8397664629).

Hi, I noticed that this traffic light is already mapped on the pedestrian crossing: node/16373938

There, it uses highway=crossing + crossing=traffic_signals in line with the Wiki.

Since the traffic light in question actually serves only pedestrian crossing despite the intersection of Cesta na Brdo and Nanoška, I would suggest to remove the highway=traffic_signals from this node.

To replace this information, I would propose to create a node on Nanoška ulica with traffic_sign=stop.

What do you think?

Great, thank you for that!

Hi, I wanted to take this path recently, but could not do so. This might have changed when the riverbed was rebuilt.

There are now stairs leading all the way down to the river (you can also see them in Google Maps imagery), but I did not dare to actually follow them: there was no hard bank to be seen. It seemed to me that these stairs are leading into the actual riverbed.
(Thinking back now, it would have been useful if I had taken a photo ...)

I am not sure whether this was due to recent rain, but perhaps this path should be deleted or at least its access modified somehow?

When looking at it from the northern side where that footpath bridge is, I also could not figure out where this path was supposed to begin.

What do you think?

Hi, yes, you are correct, sorry about my mistake. It is actually almost the same as the photo under tag:man_made=water_tap. Thank you for correcting this!

Hi, are you sure this is a footway? I haven't seen this in person, but on Google Street View it seems it got rebuilt at some point to now allow for (presumably service) vehicle access.

I realize this is distinct to landuse=basin, I only mentioned this, because basin appears in the Wiki only in this and in the natural=water + water=basin context.

Even when using it as natural=basin, I would then argue that it should follow similar rules as natural=valley. This tag is permitted on ways and nodes, but not areas. So, if we want to map Ljubljanska kotlina as a basin, I would suggest creating a node at its (approximate) center. Ignoring the renderer issues (which you are right are a separate problem), I find it somewhat awkward that a thing like a basin or valley would have such precise boundaries as an area has.

I don't think this is a good solution. It messes up rendering in some renderers (I noticed this in Magic Earth), since the whole basin is blue as if filled with water. I am not sure, but it could be interpreting this as natural=water + water=basin.

Note that the use of landuse=basin (which supposedly is superseded by natural=water + water=basin) is explicitly discouraged to be used for natural form basins in the Wiki.

I also noticed that the tag natural=basin is rarely used for relation (boundary) types. This seems to be a peculiarity in Slovakia and here.

I would therefore suggest either using the broader (if geographically imprecise) valley value or removing this tag altogether.

There is no neighbourhood called London in Ljubljana. Unfortunately, this error propagated even into official sources such as https://zemljevid.ljubljana.si/web/profile.aspx?id=Javni%40LJ_MZ&initialExtent=464024.83%2C99044.55%2C0.26458

https://urbinfo.ljubljana.si/web/profile.aspx?id=Urbinfo%40Ljubljana&initialExtent=464036.77%2C99031.6%2C0.26458

To make matters worse, as opposed to OSM, these sources rendered this name on a hill.

There is indeed a building planned with the name of Vila blok LONDON S10 Ljubljana Rudnik as can be seen here: https://shglobal.si/london/
But as far as I understand, this could only be tagged as a "name=" value for the building tag.

I have just removed addresses in this changeset:
changeset/139258354#map=13/46.0647/14.5193

Hi @martianfreeloader,
Thank you very much for looking into this! I stopped adding address tags on rental stations as I got convinced they are not useful. Do you think I should delete the address values and tags for the rental stations I had previously added?

Hi, thank you for creating a poll and looking into this!
I also noticed that the addresses are on the service provider webpage. So, these data are publicly available, but I am unsure of their license.

Usually, the address of the station is that of the nearest, prominent building. What this building is, is usually also indicated in the name of the station.
Some stations do not have addresses specified neither on the webpage or in the app. See [10811367774](node/10811367774#map=14/46.0436/14.5332) for an example.
If an address does exist, I don't think it is ever unique. After all, these are in essence just parking spaces, which normally don't have any addresses assigned.

Hi,
Indeed, the addresses are sometimes somewhat arbitrary. But they appear in the Avant2Go app, so I thought it might be useful to have them here as well. In the app, the address gives the user a sense of location (if not always completely accurate) and the list of the stations can be filtered by address, for example by a road name.
Do you think it makes sense to add the addresses to OSM, too, or should I stop adding them?