Hallo Senihtu!
Wow, das Auge für Details ehrt Dich. :-)
Tatsächlich steht es auf den Straßenschildern mit Bindestrich, was ja auch sprachlich korrekt ist. Es fehlt allerdings noch der Akzent auf dem letzten E: Kecskemėt-Allee. Ich werde das noch verbessern.
Danke für die Nachfrage!
Schöne Grüße,
Oreg

Sorry I found your message only now.

Good point, fixed. Thanks!

Thank you for your response. I'm glad you found the messages. :-)

Without any cycling infrastructure there is no need for tagging. No tagging implies cycling is allowed but no infrastructure.

It's also OK to use cycleway=no but it's not necessary. I would say such a tag might help on larger roads where one would hope for infrastructure but it's missing. On a small street like this, however, infrastructure would be very unusual.

cycleway=*
osm.wiki/Bicycle

Ah, I just noticed that you're using the StreetComplete app, so you might never see these messages. Hope you won't hold it against me if I make the change myself.

Salut 1ucian0, super, dass Du Dich um fehlende Strassendetails kümmerst. In diesem Fall gibt es vielleicht ein Missverständnis. Auf der Niedelbadstrasse in Kilchberg hast Du "cycleway:both=shoulder" gesetzt. Das würde bedeuten, dass die Strasse einen Seitenstreifen oder Standstreifen aufweist, auf dem Velos fahren können. Tatsächlich gibt es hier keinen Seitenstreifen und auch keinen Velostreifen.

Könntest Du die Tags wieder entfernen? Das impliziert, dass keine Veloinfrastruktur vorhanden ist, was ja hier der Fall ist.

Danke und Grüsse!

Thanks again, MFlamm, for your kind and informative responses. Happy onward mapping. 😊

Hehe, I'm afraid I don't share the optimism that cycle lanes improve motor vehicles' passing distance. 😇 My personal experience suggests the opposite: Drivers think as long as they stay just left of the cycle lane they're good, leading to very close overtaking. Also, 2-minus-1 roads suggest that driving on cycle lanes is okay, which is counterproductive.

Luckily, we don't have to agree on road-marking policy here. 😉 Please forgive me for having taken the discussion a little off topic.

Back on topic, I'm curious: What difference would we expect from bicycle routers for the two lane tags?

Thank you for your response—interesting. That would be something like a 2-minus-1 road ("Kernfahrbahn" in German) which in my understanding, too, would indeed be marked as a shared lane.

These roads usually don't have a center line, though, whereas this one even has a solid one. That prevents vehicles from overtaking with a sufficient passing distance which defeats the basic idea, really.

So the marking here looks like a regular cycle lane but narrower than the law requires. So the idea is to mark them as shared lanes to differentiate them from proper bike lanes, emphasizing that they are not safe? Maybe you have a point.

Thanks again!

Salut MFlamm, your changeset improved some recent edits of mine—thank you, much appreciated.

One thing, however, I'm not quite following. On the Route Suisse you converted the cycleway:left=lane to =shared_lane when it is clearly a regular bike lane, separate from other vehicles. (Luckily, shared lanes are not very common in Switzerland, as far as I can tell.) Can you explain?

The German-language OSM wiki makes it clear, defining addr:street such:
"Name der zur Adresse gehörenden Straße (oder Platz)."
They reserve addr:place for /abstract objects/ such as administrative units.
osm.wiki/DE:Key:addr:*
Any chance you could warm to this approach?

Swisstopo just imports the GWR, right? The GWR list differentiates street, point, and area. For the purpose of an address their guidance treats them all the same.

I guess we aggree that GWR:street = addr:street and GWR:area = addr:place. But GWR doesn't help to assign squares to either.

Streets and squares have in common that both typically have a street sign that helps to find an address. Areas signs are different, if they exist at all. Therefore it seems more meaningful to group squares with streets, no?

Hi Simon, this change set converted Paradeplatz in addresses from addr:street to addr:place. Could this be a misunderstanding?

I understand addr:place=* such that "place" does not refer to a square but to, e.g., a hamlet that has not street names. Paradeplatz, however, is very much a street name – even if it's a square rather than a street in the narrowest sense.

Does this make sense?

Cheers, Oreg.

A month later, I guess because the changeset is so huge the discussion got too complex to keep your attention. To simplify things, here's what I'd suggest:
*1* I don't mind that you deleted the Via Bregaglia that followed the bregaglia.ch website (relation/14414854) as that site is contradictory, unreliable and there is reason to believe their maps are incorrect. Let's delete the remaining segment as well.
*2* I'm fine with leaving your new "Sentiero Panoramico" (relation/14449306). It would be nice to have a source.
*3* Before further changes make that impossible, I've restored the Via Panoramica as signposted, surveyed and confirmed by the official SvizzeraMobile website.
*4* The new "Via Panoramica" (relation/14449302) is actually the first part of Via Bregaglia (relation/14425116), which is not the same. It should be dropped. (It is tagged in the valley and hence not panoramic whereas the actual Via Panoramica leads up the mountain side.)
*5* The correct tags of Via Bregaglia should be restored.
*6* Routes should be named only if an official name is signposted on the ground. Keep the route in any case, just without a name. The oscm:name tag can be used to describe it instead.
Source: survey, signposts on the ground, confirmed by https://www.schweizmobil.ch/it/svizzera-a-piedi/percorsi/route-0796.html

I'm afraid you have not answered my main question:

1) Why did you decide to delete the existing relations (Via Panoramica and Via Bregaglia) rather than modify them? What was wrong with the relations you deleted?

You do say this:

2) >>Two other things: the map comes from the website bregaglia.ch, that is the official tourism website for the Val Bregaglia, so nothing particularly untrustworthy, and, just to be precise, I deleted only one relation.
>>That one relation was the italian Via Bregaglia segment, as there is no such thing as the italian Via Bregaglia segment, there is only the Via Bregaglia as whole and the officially-sanctioned Maloja-Soglio segment.

I didn't notice you deleted an Italian Via Bregaglia segment. But you definitely deleted at least two more relations, as I pointed out in my original post: 14414965 and 14414854. The latter conformed to the map on Outdooractive maintained by the local tourist office, which I don't trust (see below). I was hoping somebody would confirm that this map is wrong and delete the route for that reason but I'm not yet convinced that you have a reliable source to confirm this.

And I do need to understand why you deleted the previous Via Panoramica.

To your other points:

3) <Your source is only a schematic map that doesn't even include the Bondo variant>
>>How is this relevant, I didn't delete the Bondo variant, even if it was not shown on the map.

It strongly suggests that your map is not reliable. It may be incorrect or outdated. The current official web page for the Via Bregaglia is this:
https://www.bregaglia.ch/de/aktivitaeten/sommer/la-via-bregaglia
It does not include your map. However, even the map they show on this page is not consistent with the per-stage maps they link to on Outdooractive.com. It seems that Bregaglia.com is not very reliable.

4) <They were based on surveys, GPS traces and current information from the responsible tourist office.>
>> I changed only the relations, I didn't change any actual segment of the routes, so this point doesn't make sense.

A survey and GPS traces of the actual signage on the ground are certainly a more reliable source than contradictory maps on the web. Given the contradictions of the material on Bregaglia.com, the physical signposts might be the only reliable source.

5) <There are no signposts along the way after Soglio, are there?>
>>Yes there are signposts that have written "Sentiero panoramico" on them, and moreover I followed the map from my first answer that shows that that path goes from Casaccia to Prosto.

If there are signpost for a "sentiero panoramico" then that's not the same as the "Via Panoramica" — even if it means the same in two different languages. According to the official web page (which I take to be much more reliable than Bregaglia.com), route 796 clearly ends in Soglio:
https://www.schweizmobil.ch/de/wanderland/routen/route-0796.html
How about leaving the Via Panoramica as Switzerland Mobility defines it and have a sentiero panoramico start where the Via Panoramica ends?

6) <(The Via Bregaglia actually doesn't have a number on the Swiss side, either. I guess you meant the Via Panoramica.)>
>>Yes it has a number, it is simply not shown on the guideposts, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Bregaglia

I'm afraid the Wikipedia page confuses the Via Panoramica and the Via Bregaglia. The former is defined by Switzerland Mobility as path number 796 whereas the latter, defined by Bregaglia Engadin Turismo, has no number.

7) <The new Via Bregaglia variants you introduced are actually only dotted lines on your source map, indicating that they are not part of the official Via.>
>>Precisely because of that I didn't added them to the official Via, but I added new relations describing that they were variants; I don't know if they have any official status, but if they are shown on that map it doesn't seem too nonsensical to insert them on OpenStreetMap.

I guess there is multiple ways to think about this. My understanding of the OSM philosophy is that we only want to map things that can be visually identified on the ground. If this variant is not signposted it should not be on the map. But I can accept a different view.

Thanks for the quick answer.

From your answer I understand that one of the two "Sentiero Panoramico" is an informal one. Do you have a source for this one? There are no signposts along the way after Soglio, are there?

(The Via Bregaglia actually doesn't have a number on the Swiss side, either. I guess you meant the Via Panoramica.)

The new Via Bregaglia variants you introduced are actually only dotted lines on your source map, indicating that they are not part of the official Via. I'm almost certain that they are not signposted as part of the Via.

More fundamentally, why did you decide to delete the existing relations (Via Panoramica and Via Bregaglia) rather than modify them? What do you mean by "tidied up" – what exactly did you change? What was wrong with the relations you deleted? They were based on surveys, GPS traces and current information from the responsible tourist office. Your source is only a schematic map that doesn't even include the Bondo variant. Can you help me understand how the new relations are an improvement over the deleted ones?

Ciao Martino, this is a huge change set which makes it hard to understand what happened. Among other things you seem to have:

- deleted the existing Via Panoramica / Sentiero Panoramico (relation/14414965) and replaced it with two different ones (relations 14449306 and 14449302);
- reduced the main Via Bregaglia (relation/14414854) from 110 segments to 1, essentially deleting it;
- dropped and changed tags from Via Bregaglia - Variante (relation/14425116) and changed the set of members;
- dropped tags from the Bondo variant of Via Bregaglia (relation/14425264)
- introduced several additional variants of Via Bregaglia;
- modified hundreds of ways and nodes and touched several additional relations.

Can you please comment on what you tried to do here and why? Also, any additional information on your sources would be helpful. Thanks, Oreg2.

Super, danke!

Ich würde das eine Spitzfindigkeit von OSM nennen. ;-) Ich verstehe das Wiki so, dass der Prefix für etwas ist, das wirklich nicht mehr da ist, daher auch nicht mehr dargestellt aber noch z.B. als Orientierungspunkt gefunden werden soll. Das separate Tag ist für etwas, das noch da ist und nur zurzeit nicht genutzt wird – so wie das Gebäude hier.

Das "disused:shop"-Tag wäre zusätzlich möglich (weil der Edeka ja wirklich nicht mehr hier ist), ist nur eventuell redundant, da das Gebäude ja schon als Supermarkt markiert ist – was es nach wie vor ist.

Gruß, Oreg2.

Hallo Geo Dät,
der Key "disused:building" scheint problematisch zu sein: disused:building=* OSM selbst zeigt das Gebäude damit nicht mehr an, obwohl es ja noch steht.

Vielleicht möchtest Du das, wie dort vorgeschlagen, ändern auf "building=* + disused=yes" ?

Gruß, Oreg2.

Hi asdf2, die Wikidata-ID, die Du dem Brunnen auf dem Utoplatz hinzugefügt hast ( node/1995770757 ), scheint sich auf den alten Brunnen zu beziehen, der vor dem Umbau des Platzes dort stand. Jetzt steht dort ein anderer.
Grüsse, Oreg.

Ich bin auch nur unregelmäßig vor Ort. Laut Post ist der Paketshop 691 bis zum 31.8. geschlossen - also wahrscheinlich einfach Sommerferien: https://www.deutschepost.de/de/s/standorte.html
Beste Grüße, Oreg2