failed verification; ways 240284575, 258385110, 268341861, 268341864 are not accessible at the moment

Thanks for verifying the claim and tagging the ticket machine appropriately.

This is a really long name. Are you sure the building is called like that? I mean the tenants already have their own nodes.

As I wrote “between nodes 257878976 and 257879008.”

The current road block includes ways 38151835, 38151836, 852609862 and 897675219, too.

Is node/8577132369 an accident? There’s no cafeteria in the wing/makeup department/rehearsal stage 1 („DT Studio“).

Do we even map employee-only amenities?

way/627604086: Solar plant has been built.

Whoops, I must’ve inspected the construction _area_ (way/1059037039), not the building.

Meanwhile there is a banner reading “New Kaulfand coming soon”.

Should/Do we add this, or is this _too_ _vague_ of information? I mean, it isn’t really observable on the ground.

Note that I placed the note at an approximate position. It may be best to match the position with Uni-Goettingen.de/lageplan

I have visited the site again. I found only one ⇅ bidirectional sign at the An der Lutter/Am Faßberg intersection. Apparently it hasn’t been removed, presumably by mistake.

Everywhere else paths seem to be oneway as mapped. So there is no change necessary.

What does „FD QTH“ mean?a

This change does not make sense. Ways 195069314, 1273361746 etc. (still) have bidirectional traffic signs. You may in fact cycle in either direction. Sometimes there is the optional ⇅ sign, too.

Concerning way/261284815: Wouldn’t landuse=meadow meadow=wildflower be more appropriate?

And (due to the underground garagae) way/27778351 has a maximum load rating of, erm, 2.5 t (see sign next to node/305008387).

Amendment: Attached to a wall there is a sign „Platz der Begegnung“ in the inner court yard. It is not a street sign proper, but maybe we’ll maybe map it nonetheless.

Thank you for resolving this and many other notes of mine!

Seconded, railway=disused is indeed inappropriate.

Maybe we can call it an art installation or monument instead?

Currently this feature is flagged as “Line has not descriptive tags.” It is just a warning, but still.

Is there a source on the ground confirming this new name?

This appears to be a duplicate of node/1098621675.

Did you mean to _move_ node/1098621675 to the position of the newly created node/11283977670?

Did you mean to connect nodes 9241598605, 9241598608, 9241598606 and 9241598607 with edges to form the outline of a building?