Hello again seichter! This changeset modifies the square way:565089970 to area:highway=pedestrian from the previous highway=pedestrian+area=yes, so please find this comment as a kind reminder that this sort of changes should be fixed, as a follow-up to our discussion in changeset/175205226 .

Regarding the use of virtual:highway=pedestrian:

Since this tag is sparsely used and undocumented, the mapper community cannot be expected to maintain a tag with ambiguous meaning when there are already widely-used and widely-supported alternatives, unless you raise a proposal that attempts to change the current consensus. So, can you kindly modify the tags of such ways to better-supported alternatives, such as highway=footway?

Thank you for your work, and your understanding.

Please do not take the following thoughts personally. I'm told I have a tendency to write in a way that seems passive-aggressive, which is not at all my intention.

Quality of OSM data is kept by mappers, and when there is a dispute the matter may be taken to the DWG, which may issue a ban for vandalism, so there are conflict resolution processes. Tho it is often faster and easier for everyone if we can reach an agreement, as was the case here, without unnecessary escalation.

I did not intend to convey that my opinion is more important than anyone else's, merely that I was asked to contribute to this discussion with my opinion, that I have mapped plenty of this kind of feature, and that I have seen different types of mappings, so I am not talking about a topic I an unfamiliar with.

These are high-visibility areas in the map, that are seen every day by dozens of mappers, and the majority are actively maintained. Although it may happen that such an important feature may stay poorly mapped for quite some time, that is very rare, and most often there have been multiple people involved in discussions on how to map such high-visibility features. Unilaterally changing such high-visibility features, without even consulting with the people that previously touched those features, directly contradicting the use of highway=pedestrian+area=yes in area-routable squares, is not typical of experienced mappers.

These are the pages I reference the most when mapping this sort of features:
area:highway=footway
highway=footway#Areas
highway=pedestrian#Squares_and_plazas
I encourage people mapping those features to refer to those pages. As you mention, the wiki is not a source of truth, but it is a somewhat consistent mix of the opinion of many mappers. Which is a lot better than the opinion of one mapper.

Yet again, thank you for modifying these features.

Hello! I was asked to provide my opinion, as an expert in micromapping.

First of all, thank you for your opinion. There is no such thing as a consensus in the Portuguese community on how to map pedestrian areas/sidewalks, because there is no need for such a consensus. The documented use and the wiki are clear regarding how to tag walkable areas:
- Narrow sidewalks where pedestrian flow is mostly in a single direction: area:highway=footway.
- Wide sidewalks where pedestrian flow can be made in many directions: highway=footway + area=yes.
- Pedestrian streets or walkable squares: highway=pedestrian + area=yes.

So your recent changes to walkable squares in Portugal are highly irregular, and should be fixed/reverted.

Adding to that, the tags virtual=yes and virtual:highway=* are not documented. On the other hand, the use of highway=footway inside routable areas such as highway=pedestrian + area=yes is very common and well-documented.

It is therefore imperative that these changes are fixed.

Since I did not get any answers, I have modified these objects to water tanks.

Hello! Can you confirm these are actually power generators? From satellite imagery, these look like water tanks. If they are indeed generators, what kind of generators are they? Are they diesel-powered backup generators?

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/grupobrisa_grupobrisa-brisaautoestradas-a1coimbra-activity-7431785217519939584-frxL

Agora falta saber onde se encontram os basculamentos. De qualquer forma, se quiseres mudar já, não me parece má ideia, e mete-se os basculamentos num sítio qualquer, desde que entre os nós 12 e 13.

Fixed. Thank you.

Alterei nos casos que consegui detetar. Se encontrares mais algum caso desses, pedia o favor de aplicares esta alteração do frequency=50;0 e voltage=X;0. Talvez só acrescentaria disused=no;yes para ficar ainda mais claro, mas não vou agora alterar as linhas porque dá trabalho.

Um aparte: acho que o mais correto seria utilizar uma convenção semelhante a destination:lanes=* para voltage=* e disused=*, em que se utiliza o separador "|" em vez de ";" para separar os diferentes valores. Quando separados por "|", deduz-se que a ordem importa, e que os valores se referem às lanes/circuitos da esquerda para a direita, enquanto valores separados por ";" se consideram tipicamente como não-ordenados. Mas pronto, é só um aparte.

Era intencional, uma vez que esta linha tem dois circuitos, um deles operado a 130kV, e o outro não se encontra a ser operado. Daí voltage=130000; porque o 2.º circuito não tem voltagem. Mas se calhar seria mais adequado indicar voltage=130000;0, e frequency=50;0, que achas?

Thank you for your feedback. Fixed in changeset/178644768

Let me know what you think.

I do not agree with Spaghettti Monster's "fix" in changeset/178563424. Tho I don't like the original change by topolusitania of just disconnecting the bridge from the highway section over the embankment.

I'd recommend a better way to tag the situation on the ground, by marking the highway section between exits/nodes 12 and 13 with access=no in both motorway directions, and tagging the 10-meter section that was destroyed by the floods with destroyed:highway=motorway, or otherwise construction=highway + highway=motorway since the destroyed section is being subjected to construction works to stabilize the earthworks, and the highway will eventually be rebuilt as it was.

Esta ainda produz. A que foi encerrada foi a Central Termoelétrica do Carregado (a carvão). A que apareceu ao lado, e é nova, é a Central Termoelétrica do Ribatejo (a gás).

E-REDES, in pages 47-71 you'll find the list of all 60kV line sections, including branches: https://www.e-redes.pt/sites/eredes/files/2025-05/E-REDES_Artigo18_RARI2024_Caracterizacao_Redes_Distribuicao_MT_AT_a_31dez2024.pdf

REN, in pages 41-45 you'll find the list of all line sections between 150kV-400kV, including branches ("ramais"): https://mercado.ren.pt/PT/Electr/AcessoRedes/AcessoRNT/CaractRNT/BibRelAno/Caracteriza%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20da%20RNT%2031-12-2024.pdf

As I said previously, I understand the recommendation of not needing a line_section relation if the whole line section is a single way, in which case the way can be added to the circuit with role "section", and I don't need to create the line_section relation. I also understand that line_section relations were proposed as a convenience to make circuits simpler. However, I explicitly chose not to obey that recommendation (although I am following the proposed mapping by the letter), because network operators frequently mention line sections instead of circuits, so I decided that line_section could be not only a convenience to build circuits, but also a relevant type of object per se, because those are the terms in which network operators refer to their power lines.

Also, this does not inconvenience any renderers or data consumers, if those can handle line_sections with more than one way as members, they can also handle a single way as a member.

Hello! Thank you for your suggestions.

I read the new power=circuit and power=line_section specs in great detail before upgrading the existing relations in Portugal, and arrived at the conclusion that the mapping I have done is correct, albeit excessive as the power=line_section page mentions, since a simple power line doesn't require a line_section relation.

This was intentional on my end, for the simple reason that infrastructure reports published by the network operators always mention line sections, not circuits, so it would be useful to have all line sections reported by operators mapped as line_sections instead of some being line_sections and others having their refs straight in the ways and having those ways as direct members of circuits.

All of this is to say: I am aware this mapping does not obey all the recommendations in the power=circuit page, but this mapping fully complies with the spec, and I don't intend to change it. And the reason is that it is more convenient for me to cross-check against power grid operators' reports.

Infelizmente os edifícios no centro do Porto estão frequentemente desalinhados uns com os outros. Tenho usado as imagens Bing para alinhar os edifícios, uma vez que possuem a maior qualidade, e apresentam pouca distorção.

Revertido.

Olá! Eliminaste várias linhas elétricas. Gostaria de perceber porquê, caso contrário será necessário reverter a tua alteração.

Olá Leonor! Podes confirmar se o ponto marcado como "Silopor" é realmente um posto de correios? Se esse ponto corresponder apenas a um escritório da Silopor, seria mais correto indicar esse ponto como o escritório de uma empresa de logística, uma vez que a Silopor não presta serviços postais, tanto quanto sei.

Cumprimentos,
Diogo

Obrigado!