Hi Amerillo, thank you for these updates! For oneway streets where bikes can use both directions, the tag "oneway:bicycle=no" needs to be added as well. Some streets now also have both cycleway:left= and cycleway:both= tags with different values - the latter should only be used when the left and right side is the same. Let me know in case of any questions!
Best, eginhard

Bienvenue chez OSM ! Ici t'as supprimé le préfixe "fr:" du tag "wikipedia". Par contre, il est nécessaire pour indiquer la langue de l'article (voir: osm.wiki/FR:Key:wikipedia). Le nom (dans "name=Plateforme 10") était déjà correct. N'hésite pas à me contacter si t'as des questions. -eginhard

Thank you for the quick fix! I had taken a photo as well, but apparently StreetComplete didn't upload it... Luckily the new crossing layout mostly matches the old imagery, I'll double-check next time I pass by.

Ok. Unfortunately the Schweizmobil website is not a compatible source, their route data is under copyright. The online data also doesn't always correspond to what is signposted on the ground.
So please revert any additions to relations that you copied from their website and didn't survey yourself and in the future add correct source tags to your changesets.

Just to be clear: is the source for the hiking routes you're extending in other changesets also just Schweizmobil or did you survey all of them?

Hi Schnabeltier2,
Thanks for all the hiking route updates. The Grand Tour des Vanils was already tagged correctly though, it doesn't have a reference number. The SuisseMobile route 263 covers only one stage of it and isn't mapped yet. I've fixed this and added a clarifying note to the relation in changeset/122340908

Could you also add relevant source tags to the changeset when you're adding hiking routes?

Thanks,
eginhard

Merci!

@BBMaper: This changeset is being discussed on the mailing list: http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/2022-May/011504.html

Hi imagoiq,
This road has indeed been converted into a cycleway last year, so I just restored it and also removed the parking spaces along it that are no longer there: changeset/121131886
I also connected the EPSIC parking directly to Rue de Sébeillon (approximately, the situation on the ground keeps changing because of the tram roadworks), so there shouldn't be any accessibility issues anymore.

Best,
eginhard

Thanks for reviewing these (and updating many other things), it looks much better now!

Hi BBMaper,

as mentioned by billyonthemountain, this appears to be an undiscussed mechanical import and has created many QA issues that would have been obvious on manual verification of the changes:
- Address nodes were added outside of building outlines [1,5]
- On buildings with multiple addresses assigned to different entrances, you removed the address from the correct entrance and instead created new address nodes at less precise, sometimes overlapping positions [1,2,3]
- You removed (all?) addresses from POIs. While this may be fine if the address is correctly tagged elsewhere, the fact that you placed many address nodes at incorrect positions means that some POIs have incorrect addresses now [4].
- You created an address node on a set of garages that is definitely incorrect [6]
- You removed an address without creating a replacement node [7]
- You created duplicate address nodes [8]

This was just from a brief look at the changes. Could you therefore please revert this changeset and discuss any future imports on the talk-ch mailing list first?

[1] node/9337537414
[2] node/9337536153
[3] node/9337538833
[4] node/3737346863, node/7750123812
[5] node/9337536966
[6] node/9337538890
[7] way/988497750/history
[8] node/9337537471, node/9337538485

Genau, bei St. Margrethen mündet der Kanal in den Alten Rhein, der dann korrekt als waterway=river eingetragen ist. Auch das begradigte Rheinstück bei Diepoldsau ist natürlich kein Kanal. Aber ich habe noch einmal nachgeschaut (https://s.geo.admin.ch/941d2fae63), im ganzen Verlauf des Binnenkanals gab es vor 1890 kein natürliches Gewässer, alles floss quer in den Rhein. Deshalb würde ich vorschlagen den Kanal demnächst in waterway=canal zu ändern.

Der Hauptunterschied in OSM ist, dass canal wie hier künstlich angelegte und stream/river natürliche Wasserläufe sind: osm.wiki/Key%3Awaterway
Die genaue Nutzung ist weniger relevant und kann mit usage= angegeben werden.

Hallo hanskuster,
Ich sehe du hast den Binnenkanal mehrmals als Bach markiert, hat das einen bestimmten Grund? Soweit ich sehe (z.B. Wikipedia oder auf der offiziellen Seite: https://binnenkanal.ch/geschichte/) wurde er Ende 19. Jahrhundert gebaut, somit wäre waterway=canal passender.
Gruss,
eginhard

Bienvenu et merci pour tes contributions ! Est-ce que tu pourrais décrire tes modifications? osm.wiki/FR:Bons_commentaires_de_groupe_de_modifications

I see you added a fixme to this way indicating that it's missing a feature type: way/988638272
As you see at that link it's part of a multipolygon relation (osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon) that forms the boundary of a residential landuse area. You should also see it in the iD editor at the very bottom when clicking on it, although sometimes it might mistakenly say that it's part of zero relations when not enough other parts are visible. For this type of line it's ok to not have any tags, you'll find the relevant tags on the relation when clicking on it.
Feel free to reach out if you have any questions!

Welcome and thanks for the great work! When adding buildings I'd recommend to use the "Square" function (by pressing Q) to straighten the angles so they look nice (only if the buildings are actually rectangular of course). Best, eginhard

Could you add proper changeset comments please? osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Hi pherjung, thanks for your contributions to OSM!

You have tagged several roads as not having sidewalks here and then also answered that the roads are not accessible for pedestrians. This impacts pedestrian routing, leading to long detours like this: osm.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=46.60678%2C6.52289%3B46.60696%2C6.52527

From what I can see on the satellite image, sidewalks actually exist in most cases. Why did you answer the opposite? If only part of a road doesn't have a sidewalk, StreetComplete allows you to split the road and answer separately for each part when you click on "Other answers".

Best,
eginhard

Ich habe deine Ergänzungen zum SSW jetzt in die richtige Relation übertragen (changeset/112984471) und die Basisrouten wiederhergestellt (changeset/112987178). So sind alle Information erhalten.