Hi notmyproblem1, thank you for your interest in the challenges. It is an internal project that is not publicly discoverable, but I will forward your request to the project manager and discuss.

Meanwhile, I can direct you to similar challenges in South Korea, Indonesia, and Pakistan, if you are interested:

https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/54166

https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/54171

https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/54190

Hi Bernard,

Thank you for the detailed explanation and for sharing the specific way and node IDs — that really helps.

I checked the mentioned features part of the indoor mapping and they are tagged with different feature types (e.g., highway=corridor + indoor=yes vs highway=footway). While they basically describe the same thing, some routing engines are able to process corridors, and some don’t. It is probably the reason for that overlap.

My recommendation would be to keep them for now. It can also be a decision for you after consulting with the user who originally created this duplication.

osm.wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging#Steps and highway=steps#Tags_to_use_in_combination both specify the tagging schema for stairs connecting different levels. But in case the overlaps in different stairs cause validation errors, layer can be used additionally to specify vertical arrangement.

Thanks again for highlighting these. I’ll keep our discussions in mind while reviewing the remaining cases in the area.

Hi BCNorwich,

The other highways relate to indoor mapping and use distinct tags such as highway=corridor and indoor=yes. I’ve seen other mappers recommended to retain tagging for these scenarios if it’s unclear.

Let me know if you think other updates are needed.

Hi dmjab13,
I did the edit following the Wiki (layer=*#Guidelines) where it says: “When ways are passing on different levels apply layer=* only to the way which also has the bridge/tunnel attribute.”
The parts of the link roads outside the bridge section are on the ground and not overlapping with other features so it would imply the default layer value of zero, regardless of differences in ground elevation.
Hope I have given a clear explanation of my edits. Happy to discuss further if you need to.

Hi dmjab13,
I did the edit following the Wiki (layer=*#Guidelines) where it says: “Use the smallest suitable layer value…”
While the waterway is on the ground, the bridge and the highway sections needed to be assigned the next suitable tag of layer=1 according to the guidelines, instead of layer=3.
Hope I was clear in communicating the reasoning behind my edit.

Hi silversurfer83,

Thanks for catching that.

I accidentally moved the barrier=gate when connecting the highways. I restored the gate to the original position.

Hi HellMap,
Thank you for the detailed explanation on the exceptions. This is a valuable learning for me and my teammates.

Hi HellMap,

Thank you for making the corrections. However, I made the edits referring the OSM Wiki on tunnels (tunnel=*) where it states that “it is preferred to either tag the lower way as tunnel or the upper way as a bridge, but not both.” So I don’t think I was wrong removing the tunnel tag. Happy to discuss this matter further

Hello HellMap,

Thank you for feedback. I will analyze situation and come back to you.

No worries, statelyelms! Please let me know if I can be of any help regarding the issue you're mentioning. Have a good day.

Hi statelyelms,

There was a “water inside water” error, bringing the area to our attention. I have removed the polygon belonging to Coys Gut from the Grand Lake relation and separated the water polygons in accordance with the naming. I hope this clarifies my edits to you. Happy to discuss if you’d propose a different solution.

Hi AndersAndersson,
I have realigned the highways and the cycle path back to their previous locations on this changeset:
changeset/170134386#map=19/60.622488/15.652444
I will be more cautious on the alignments of existing features in my future edits. Thank you for getting in touch.

Hi Muralito, Thank you for feedback and making the corrections.

Hi Patchanka, Thank you for feedback and reverting the changeset.

Hi Patchanka, Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi vmicho,

Thank you for checking my corrections and for the feedback.

Hi vmicho,

Indeed there were missing connections. I have made the corrections and added missing connectors. Thank you so much for verification.

Hi vmicho,
I had accidentally missed to correct the tags. I have corrected the data. I will be more cautious while doing further edits.

Hi vmicho,

Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Thank you Pt873 for reverting the changeset. I will be more cautious while performing the edits going further. Happy Mapping!