Great, thanks for the swift clarification!

Hey, are you sure the direction of this road section is ok? way/867880540

Hi,
Thanks for your contribution. On roads where the cycle track is mapped separately, the correct tag on the main carriageway is bicycle=use_sidepath (not bicycle=no). It's advisable to additionally tag the carriageway with sidewalk=separate in this case.

For example on this road: way/218322332

I think it depends on how much verifiability we demand. One could argue that if it is not signed then it doesn't exist. I think it's a grey area, I see arguments both for keeping and for deleting it.
So I'm fine with keeping it.

OK, since D8 is well-signed in this section, is it ok for you if I just delete this D1 section?

Hi,
You've recently mapped this platform: way/1486917641

Now, another user is reporting that it is already out of use after just a few months: note/5420936

Can you help with that report?

Would be great if you could check on the ground!

I think if D1 is not marked in this section, then I would simply delete the "D1: Pečke -> Poljčane" (sub-)relation instead of reparenting it to a different superrelation. As D8 is already mapped, no data will be lost. What do you think?

Anyways, let's wait until you come back with ground information.

Hm... I haven't verified it; just cleaned up the existing route. I'm happy with removing this section.

The currently mapped sections of D1 can be seen here: https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=14063970&type=relation&map=8.0/46.5583/14.5894

Hello, can you help with note/5359098 ?

Hi,

when you tag roads as under construction, then please remember to retain the original highway tag. The correct tagging would be highway=construction + construction=service in this case.

Thank you for collaboration with the community.

Hi, when mapping a sidewalk explicitly, then the tags on the main carriageway need to reflect this: Usually by tagging sidewalk=separate, but this can also be refined with e. g. sidewalk:right=separate, sidewalk:left=no, etc.

Hi, there is an anonymous report conflicting with your map edit: note/5341090

Can you help?

Great thank you!

I agree with you on underground buildings. But I don't know the community consensus on this topic, so I my opinion is not really educated.

Sometimes, iD also issues warnings unrelated to one's own edits, I believe. So it could well be that they're not caused by you. (also, I'm not an expert on iD editor) :-)

Hi,

Thanks for your contribution. I think these changes are less than perfect for at least 3 reasons:

1) As pointed out by an anonymous commenter, the layer tag doesn't have a valid value: note/5331777
(example: way/1006781682)

2) (Mis-)mapping for the renderer is considered bad style: osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

3) It seems you ignored 8 warnings of your editor. Usually these warnings have a good reason and it helps keeping the map in high quality if these warnings are resolved before uploading a changeset.

Happy mapping!

Hi, can you help with this report?
note/5303451

Hi, way/1380106975 is not a highway=bus_station nor a public_transport=station

The correct use of these tags can be found in the wiki. I've corrected it for this object.

Since a way is more detailed than a node I'd prefer a way; otherwise there's a loss of information.

Generally it's considered bad style to (mis)map for the renderer.

osm.wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

Thanks for the quick action there. Happy mapping!

Hi, can you help with this note?
note/5304902

Woooow! This changeset is way too large. Please create *much* smaller changesets.

I've restored the natural=basin tag on relation/11793464 in changeset/182852712

Happy mapping!