Ah OK (yes, one reduncancy should have been removed, yes, the one way (your way) or the other (`sidewalk:both=separate`).

There are areas where sidewalks are mapped separately, and I think Berlin is quite strong in it to provide detailed guidance for people in need for accessibility, even when the sidewalk is like here only separated with a kerb.

Instead of deleting the separately mapped footways, it would have been preferrable to set them with `access=no`, too, so they do not get lost and can be re-activated in case the bridge gets operational again.

Physically, the ways are still there.

Regarding `review_requested=yes`:

If the local source confirms that the house number is 60, then I think it is OK!

This steps do not connect to a highway on the upper side, and probably run through a building.

@Eoltec, can you remember how they connect correctly and if so fix it?

Regards!

This steps do not connect to any way on both sides.

@Eoltec, can you remember how they connect correctly and if so fix it?

Regards!

"tourism=camp_site" is for official campsites only.

I cannot find any here.

Can you provide reference? Add the "operator="-tag and add the name of the operator, and add opening hours/ seasons, and if applicable add a "website=" tag.

If it is not an official camping spot but just your personal bookmark of a place for wild camping, then please remove the item.

Regards!

I see you have added some tags
`railway:signal:fouling_point=DE-BOStrab:sh6`

I don't find any definition of them in the OpenStreetMap-Wiki.

Can you introduce definition? If you "invented" this tagging, this is totally fine, but please document it.

Also, I am thinking, if it is worth to make "fouling points" a relation?: Specifying which tracks it belongs to?

Regards!