Partially reverted in changeset id: 180336762

Partially reverted in changeset id: 180336282

Reverted in changeset id:180333846

Reverted in changeset id: 180333715

Revert of 180270683

Reverted in changeset id:180332970

Partially reverted in changeset id: 180300256

Reverted in changeset id: 180290573

Partially reverted in changeset id: 180287582

Partially reverted in changeset id:180284602

Reverted in changeset id: 180283670

Hi infeeeee ,

Thank you for your explanation and for pointing out a similar example. I now understand the situation better and agree that maintaining non-motorized traffic is equally important.

I have made the corrections on the intersection in changeset #179286944 based on the example you shared.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and happy mapping to you too!

Hi uk_mapfan_2025,
Thank you for your feedback. I will analyze the situation and come back to you.

Hi Sammyhawkrad,

My intention was not to remove useful data, but to prevent incorrect tagging from remaining in the database, and I completely understand your point. We are also having ongoing internal discussions on where a revert is preferable and where it is not, and I’ll keep that approach in mind going forward.

Hi pitscheplatsch, thank you very much for your constructive feedback to improvement, much appreciated. We are also discussing the same topic within the team and will make sure to adapt the best practices on our edits.
Always happy to support.

Hi Sammyhawkrad,

Thank you for reverting the changeset and for sharing your local insight regarding the name.

I want to kindly ask for a small clarification about using highway=path and motor_vehicle=yes in conjunction (way/1475246797).

As per OSM Wiki (highway=path) a path is not for use by two-track vehicles, and a path-like way where four-wheeled vehicles are allowed, is likely better tagged as highway=track. Is there a specific reason why that road was tagged as a path? Would you also agree to update that road and others alike as simply track roads?

Thank you so much for this discussion.

Hi pwbriggs,

Thank you for your understanding and for the clarification. I appreciate your support and local insights throughout this discussion.
Happy mapping!

Hi pwbriggs,
My earlier edit was based on the GPS traces available at that time, which made the road appear to be one-way. Later I realized the traces were not fully synchronized due to a technical issue, resulting in an incorrect interpretation on my side.
Thank you for making the corrections and also for reaching out to me sharing reliable sources for clarification. I very much appreciate the open and collaborative approach to maintain accurate and up-to-date map data for all.

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

Hi celmap.
There was an issue with buildings overlapping each other, and while addressing that, I relied on the not-so-clear imagery and altered the geometries as well. Thank you very much for reaching out and informing me about the local context, much appreciated. I will be more cautious in unclear situations like this and will focus on the data issue without altering geometries unless I’m sure.