Hi Daniele,
thanks for your contributions to OSM!
I had to revert this changeset because it deleted a part of the route and broke three route relations as a result (see details in changeset/175283697), so people couldn't create routes along them anymore.

The last couple of times I rode this (August 2025 in this case), I rode right next to the ex ferrovia, just east of it, basically following the line that comes from the bridge and just going straight south. The track comes from my recorded gpx file.

Have you seen any bigger changes to the situation on the ground lately? If so, we can figure see about how best to map these.

Thanks again for contributing and happy mapping!
Paul

Ah, one more question:
At way/301906082, you added "access=no". That means it impossible for many routers to make a route here now.

Is there construction going on and that's why public access is now forbidden? (If yes, we should tag it as construction.) I was wondering if they would extend the bike route which is paved further south (for example at way/140952383) and also pave the northern part.

Some more info would be appreciated, thanks!

All the best,
Paul

Hi euvanet,
thanks for your contributions to OSM!
In this changeset, you deleted some smoothness values (for example at way/378932928 and way/301906082) and changed the value for "surface" from "compacted" to the less precise "unpaved".

The wiki at surface=* says about "unpaved": "This value gives only a rough description; use a more precise value if possible."

Could you give some background about your changes? At first sight it looks like we should be reverting the changes and going back to the previous version, but I wanted to ask you first. (Also as I see we're both working on the cycling routes in this area this week. :) )

Thanks again for contributing and happy mapping!
Paul

Salut Habi

Ich war grad mal so frei und hab "capacity=100+" nach "note=capacity 100+" verschoben, damit wir für Veloparkplätze im capacity tag nur noch Zahlen haben.

Ich schaue grad, wo es zwischen dem SBB-Datensatz für Veloparkplätze (https://opentransportdata.swiss/de/cookbook/road-traffic-cookbook/bike-parking/) und OSM die grössten Abweichungen gibt, damit man da mal vorbeigehen kann, da ist's schön, wenn capacity nur Zahlen hat.

Die Velostation am Bahnhof in Bern ist z.B. mit capacity=200 getaggt (node/824801815), auf deren Website unter https://www.bern.ch/velostation-bern steht "Velostation Bern: 2'660 Veloabstellplätze mit 24-Stunden-Zugang am Bahnhof Bern und weitere 1'000 Plätze bei der Universität vonRoll.", das inkludiert aber vielleicht auch andere Standorte.

Im SBB-Datensatz wiederum ist es viel genauer aufgeschlüsselt, bräuchte aber eine Sondergenehmigung wegen der Lizenz, wenn man irgendwas in OSM damit als Quelle machen wollen würde. Daher scheinen mir punktuelle Begehungen und anhand dessen Aktualisieren der Daten in OSM erst mal der einfachste nächste Schritt. Wenn Du sonst in dieser Sache Vorschläge oder Ideen hast, immer gerne her damit!

Happy mapping,
Paul

Actually I used Esri World Imagery here (from 2024) because Bing is from 2009 to 2015.

Reverted in changeset/164141096.

Hi notmyproblem1,
thanks for your contributions to OSM!

Since you asked for feedback there are two things I'd like to point out:
1. These two ways are basically the same: way/1359177389 and way/1359944083/. You can just delete one of them.
2. This way way/1359177389 is actually not connected to the road going towards south. In the iD editor that you're using to edit OSM, you should get a warning about this saying something like "street X is very close but not connected to street Y".

Thanks for having a look at those and buona mappatura,
Paul

Hi julcnx,
thanks for all your contributions to OSM! Especially the the Strava heatmap plugin for iD is very useful.

You're using "?" as the value for some keys, for example in way/696211212 which currently has "mtb:scale=?", "sac_scale=?" and "smoothness=?".

If we don't know the value, it's best to just leave the tag empty. That way, someone can look for e.g. "roads that don't have any surface info" and find those to survey them. If they have an unsupported value like "?", those won't show up in the search, e.g. in Overpass.

My suggestion would be to remove any tag that has "?" as the value, but maybe you have some workflow set up to work with this, so I wanted to check with you first.

All the best and happy mapping,
Paul

Reverted it myself due to big bounding box and re-did the changes in separate changesets.

Ciao ross-map,
grazie dei tuoi messaggi in privato, ho guardato adesso, mi sembra che hai già risolto tutto, grazie mille!
Buon fine settimana e buona mappatura,
Paul

Ciao ross-map,
grazie per tutti i tuoi contributi a OSM.

Ci sono alcune cose in questo changeset (https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=161465778) che mi fanno pensare che qualcosa sia andato storto, forse è stato accidentalmente spostato in JOSM prima del caricamento? Non riesco a vedere molti degli oggetti aggiunti qui in nessuna immagine aerea.

Alcuni esempi:
way/1352129589 si sovrappone ma non è collegato a way/84374343.

Questo ford e le highway=unclassified e highway=residential sono davvero lì?
node/12509828271

Questa highway=tertiary passa proprio attraverso alcuni edifici: way/1352129582.

Sto considerando un revert, ma volevo prima verificare con te. Potresti dare un'occhiata?

Grazie e buona mappatura,
Paul

Hi Mateusz,
regarding https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/way/282896411:
when I passed at the location, it was Hess, but I had only changed the "name" tag. The "brand" and "brand:wikidata" tags have then been changed by klaratabaku914 in changeset https://osmcha.org/changesets/161067308, so now name and brand match again.
Happy mapping,
Paul

Correct changeset comment: added disabled parking, adjusted parking to swisstopo imagery.

Hi Catherine,
thanks for all your contributions to OpenStreetMap!

This changeset created a few cases of what I consider "Schrödinger's highways", highways which are tagged as demolished and not demolished at the same time. The following ways currently have both "highway=service" and "demolished:highway=service" as tags:
way/1213136959
way/1213136960
way/906038211
way/1213136967

From what I see, the "highway=service" tag should be removed from them. Could you please have a look at this and make the changes?

If you click on https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1Xnj, move the map to the area you want to check and hit "run" in the top left, you can find all of the highways tagged with these tags. The data is updated pretty much every minute, so once the tagging is corrected, you can use this to double-check. If you have any other questions about OSM, let me know.

All the best and happy mapping,
Paul

Hi Hammaneggs88,
thanks for all your contributions to OpenStreetMap!

I've been fixing "almost connected roads" on OpenStreetMap and came across this one: way/1349859343

Two pointers here:
1. The road leading to the houses east is still not connected to Old Foothill Road. After clicking "Save" in the editor, you should get a warning about this on the left saying "Minor/Unclassified Road is very close but not connected to Old Foothill Road".
This is an older error on the map and it's great to fix these things when you come across them. Connecting the two roads means they can be used for routing, e.g. by firefighters who often use OpenStreetMap.

2. Generally we only map roads as separate if there is a physical separator, so the small part to make the turn south is not needed. You can pretty much connect Old Foothill Road and the road leading east (way/5187891) at a 90 degree angle.

Could you have a look at this and make the changes, i.e. deleting the small part going south and connecting the two roads? If there's any questions you have about OSM, let me know.

All the best and happy mapping,
Paul

How did you come across it, meaning what QA tools do you use to find those?

I just found it because I've been running kind of a "local version" of OSMI (just downloading PBF files and checking stuff in Postgis) to find overlapping ways or almost connected nodes, but I was lucky to find it so quickly after it was created, still in time for a revert.

Hi and welcome to OpenStreetMap!

You created a very long street which duplicates other streets, Via Latina was already added to the map before. I have now changed it back to the way it was before your change.

If you help me understand what change you're trying to make, I can help with the best way to achieve it.

If you're just looking to plan a route for example, https://brouter.de/brouter-web would be a good tool for that.

All the best,
Paul

Ciao Roberto,

it looks perfect now, thanks!

To separate the parking lot from the building, click on the points that they share (they show up grey instead of white), then right-click on that point and select "disconnect". Then you can move the points that mark the parking area independently from the building points.

Have a nice day, too, and buona mappatura!
Paul

The data is now again in the state from before your change. Here are some steps on how to most easily make the change you want:
1. To adjust the shapes, drag the points of each existing shape to where they need to be. To merge to points, simply drag one onto another.
2. Once that's done, you can select multiple buildings by holding the shift key and clicking on them. Then hit the "Q" key, that makes all the angles 90 degrees.
(Many of the buildings in this area don't have 90 degree angles because they come from an import of government data with "imperfect" shapes.)
3. Now select the building that your business is in and add the business data as you did. It's also good to add the website and phone number if the business has these.

As a general hint, hitting the "W" key changes the the display mode of the objects, making it easier to see details in the imagery.

Hope this helps and let me know if you have any questions!

Happy mapping,
Paul

Hi Rob,
welcome to OSM! Good way to start the year with a contribution to open source projects. :)

I see you requested a review for the edit you made, so I had a look into it.
You adjusted the shape of the building and there are three things that could be done a bit better here:
1. You deleted the existing buildings and added new ones. Unless it's a completely newly built building that replaces one that was torn down, it's better to just change the existing building to keep the history of that object.
2. The creation of the new buildings made what OSM calls a "multipolygon". This is only needed for complex building shapes (e.g. a building with a hole in the middle).
3. The building you created is not "squared", meaning the walls are not at 90 degree angles.

I'll do a quick revert on the changes and see if I can walk you through how to do the change easily while keeping the history of the object and making the angles straight, I'll write again in a bit.

All the best,
Paul