I understand your point as well as I agree that Organic Maps should better parse points' tags. OsmAnd example is fair enough.

Yet I honestly don't see the logic of having amenity=drinking_water AND drinking_water=no at the same time. If the water there is not drinkable so.. It's not a drinking water point, I suppose? A kind of fountain, maybe? Or some other category?

I was there in september and it was exactly like this your photo. I assume this thing was like this forever.
But the maps I use (Organic Maps) are showing me that there's a water tap i.e. drinkable water source.
I assume it's because the amenity=drinking_water tag. What do you think? Maybe we should remove it?

Hey
Are you sure about that node's tags? How is it possible that amenity is drinking water but the following tag says that drinking water is no here?
I've been there and I saw no signs saying this water is allowed to drink.
Please check it

node/3352546172/history/5

>> Perhaps a question for the osm forum?
I'm not *that* involved. Yet ;-D

>> I could not found your tag wilt alt_... in the wiki.
Yeah, I did find a couple of mentions to use that tag for such a cases. But I haven't dug deeper.
My concern is that if someone would search for 170 address specifically, they won't find anything. That's why I think this alt_ tag on the 172 node may be not sufficient.

Thank you, Eggie! :)

Hi Eggie!
Thanks for your notes as well as the fixes :)

I noticed you've reverted your own removal here. Why?

Also isn't it possible to link 170 and 172 addresses here somehow? I see there is a thing called "relation".

The old incorrect one was here:
node/1764489848/history/8

The new and correct AH is here:
node/9970460839

The new address for this place is here:
node/2610216276/history

This place actually has two addresses: 170 AND 172 housenumbers. I saw the corresponding wiki article for that but I still don't get it how to make that properly. Ho I've added a field alt_addr:housenumber I found to understand as "alternative address". This may be completely wrong.

Please add the 170 building number to this place somehow. Thanks!

Hello, Leo
Fixed! Thanks for pointing that out and letting me know

Thanks for your attention and help, Eggie! :)

Hello, eggie
I actually don't know. As you can see this change was made by me via the app called StreetComplete which simplifies the process of adding info to OSM by requesting it in form of survey or yes\no questions. I think the question here was whether the foot-way and cycle-way are segregated here and my answer was "yes" because they are indeed segregated there. I suppose that's where this "yes" came from.
Anyways, you're right and sidewalk is indeed on the right there. I'll change this tag accordingly rn. Thanks for the tip! :)

Thank you, eggie! :)