Hi StantonPfarri25, thanks for adding a lot of winter routes in the Lechtal :)

I noticed there are many duplicate ways created for winter hiking routes. For example: way/1427032371/. On the ground, its not a separated hiking path but a mixed use trail (nordic / hiking).

Given that, it would be better to add winter hiking to the existing way (way/72876063/) rather than adding a duplicate way. This can be done by changing piste:type to "nordic;hike" as an example.

There's also some more info about the principle here: osm.wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element

Hi! I thought they would make repairs to the cable car rather soon. I agree it should be changed if it’s not the case.

That's nice news, thanks for sharing. For now, I marked the pistes as patrolled=no to indicate the lack of safety patrols etc for these pistes.

Where have you found this information? According to the discussion here, based on the newspaper article there is no plan for a ski operation at this time. https://www.alpinforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5471038#p5471038

Hi, what is the source of the ski area addition? I was just there and there is no trace of a ski area. From some searching I think this ski area only existed temporarily in 2008: https://www.merkur.de/lokales/muenchen/keine-pistengaudi-muellberg-2591085.html

Thanks for confirming it was a mistake, I've removed those now.

Likewise for way/1212098664

Hi there, I saw way/1210187378 - the tagging there is problematic as it implies the whole forest area is a proposed chair lift. Please instead tag the approximate path of the chairlift as a way. Thanks!

Hi there, apologies for the delay, I just found out about your comment. I made these edits based on my in person visit + gps traces.

Do you still remember which specific modification you think is incorrect?

One example of my edits is way/199840864 which looks wrong when comparing with imagery, but I can say in this case, the road has been moved and the satellite image is out of date.

Agreed, this was not ideal to have such a large changeset.

The intention of this change was primarily to extend the relation/6940815 to contain all the pistes in the ski resort, quite a few were missing in that. In addition, I did minor edits like combining together several parts of a piste into a single way, etc.

Thank you. Now, I figured out the issue, my account was linked to an old email address which got deactivated at some point in the last few years. I will look through those other changeset comments later :)

Unfortunately I don't receive a notification of these comments either, I only found this thread after randomly noticing the edit on the map.

Back to the original discussion: can we tag the lift as proposed? For example adding the "proposed:" prefix to `aerialway=cable_car` like PRFaschina&Damüls did looks correct. After your change it is appearing as an operational lift.

@mcliquid, if this lift is active (I can’t see any evidence of that), why does it still have „Projekt“ in the name? If it’s a proposed / not constructed lift, the tagging should reflect that so it doesn’t appear on maps as an operational lift.