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

I have now created this note: note/4575279

Hi datbrahm,

this changeset breaks routing for emergency access, pedestrians, and cyclists. Bing Streetside shows that the streets are connected, but were blocked by a truck in 2015, this might however have been temporary.

I've reverted this changeset in
changeset/160977486 and will now c

I saw that your account is work-related, linked to Amazon Logistics. In case you come back to OSM, happy mapping.

All the best,
Paul

Hi johsin18,
thanks for catching my mistake and fixing it in changeset/160576626.

I looked at my original changeset again with https://overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=150911483 and from what I see, you have corrected everything that was wrong.

Happy mapping,
Paul

Hi rbarrera,
thanks for your contributions to OSM!

You have added a few roads as "Motocross racetracks" but it should be another type of road.

Some of them are also close to a main road, but not connected to it (way/1333219827 for example). Could you please have a look at this and make adjustments?

Thanks again and happy mapping,
Paul

No worries at all and thanks for fixing it so quickly! I just didn't want to do a revert myself without first asking you about it.
Happy mapping,
Paul

Hi yopaseopor,
I started a discussion about this changeset in changeset/158945542, where some of the roads added here were also mapped.
All the best and happy mapping,
Paul

Hi yopaseopor,
thanks for all your contributions to OSM!

I noticed there are some duplications happening from your yopaseopor-catastro (which might be your import account?), for example:
way/1332515297/ (added by yopaseopor-catastro)
is a duplicate of
way/1332466643/history (added by yopaseopor in this changeset)

way/1332515361
is a duplicate of
way/662484226

I had started to clean up in JOSM but kept running into more duplicates, so I didn't upload any changes in the end, maybe a revert of some changesets of yopaseopor-catastro might be the better way, for example changeset/158952555?

Let me know what you think and happy mapping,
Paul

Hi jepee,
thanks for contributing to OSM. A few hopefully helpful comments about this changeset here:

1. You deleted a way and its 4 previous versions (way/827135285) and created it completely new from scratch instead (way/1323428092, now version 1).
To make collaborative mapping easier, it's advised to "keep the history", so to modify the existing ways instead of deleting and creating new ones, see also osm.wiki/Keep_the_history.

2. I see you're refining the geometry in many of your changes. The JOSM editor (osm.wiki/JOSM) has a functionality that could be very useful for you, it's called "Improve Way Accuracy", you can see it in action here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzunbvpVIX4&t=80s

3. The new way you created is not connected to way/827135295 anymore, while the previous way was connected. There are tools that alert both you (as the creator of that one way) and I (as the creater of the other way) about this: If you go to https://hdyc.neis-one.org/?jepee and click on "Osmose issues: Level 1", this shows up as a potential error with the description "Almost junction, join or use noexit tag". Could you please connect those two ways again so that one way isn't looking so lost, being connected to nothing?

Thanks again for contributing and happy mapping!

All the best,
Paul

Ciao Andrea,
grazie per la tua contribuzione. Ho aggiunto qualche dettaglio qua: node/12104023960

Ho anche aggiunto la sede a Milano:
node/12125960600/

Un saluto,
Paul

Hi stillhart,

I mapped this one as access=yes as it says "Öffentlich zugänglich" on the POI's own website: https://www.zfv.ch/de/essen-gehen/swiss-life-restaurant-binz49.

I think that's what you also mean, that is is in fact publicly accessible to everyone, right?

Happy mapping,
Paul

Ah, danke für die Info, dann stimmt es bereits so, wie ich bisher getaggt habe.

Hallo mueschel,
danke für Deinen Hinweis. Ich hatte mich da eher noch das 'cycleway'-Tag im Kopf, welches ja mit left/right benutzt wird, sehe jetzt, dass 'hazard' forward/backward nutzt.

Hab es grad angepasst:
changeset/154962475
und
changeset/154962516

Habe noch das hier im Wiki gefunden: osm.wiki/Forward_%26_backward,_left_%26_right

Dort steht aktuell unter "Forward and backward":
"The third option both_ways is used for the lane in the middle of the road that is used in both directions (e.g. a centre turn lane)."

Und unter "Tagging" steht dann:
"As part of the key
Forward, backward, left and right are often appended as a namespace to a tag's key. This is done by adding a colon and the desired direction or side to the key.
Note: :both as suffix is used to explicitly say it applies to both side (as without it e.g. cycleway=lane might mean that there is a cycleway lane on the right side only, or on a left side only, or on both sides)"

Wenn die Schienen auf beiden Seiten des ways sind, würde man dann bei hazard:bicycle:both_ways oder hazard:bicycle:both landen?

hazard:both_ways und hazard:both (also ohne bicycle) gibt's beides noch nicht, was ich jetzt darauf zurückführen würde, dass ':both' noch nicht überall der default ist. Ich würde schon eher ein Suffix hinzufügen, wenn wirklich beide Seiten/Richtungen betroffen sind, sehe aber, dass das zumindest bezüglich cycleway im Forum gerade zu mehr Diskussion führt, als ich erwartet hatte (wahrscheinlich war ich zu optimistisch in meiner Erwartung): https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proposal-make-cycleway-both-the-default-to-indicate-both-sides/116585/30

Happy mapping,
Paul

Hallo Lezurex

Danke für Deinen Hinweis. Bin grad nochmal vorbeigegangen:
Vor Ort in der Konradstrasse steht https://www.sixseasonsag.com angeschrieben, die funktioniert auch.
https://www.sixseasonsmt.com/ gibt die gleiche Telefonnummer, aber eine andere Adresse an (Limmatstrasse 119). Ich hab jetzt mal die angeschrieben Website getaggt und die andere im note tag dokumentiert. Vielleicht schalten sie ja die eine oder andere Website irgendwann ab.

Happy mapping,
Paul

Alles klar, danke für's Recherchieren und Anpassen.
Happy mapping,
Paul

Restaurant node is here: node/11869866431

Ah right, tree_stump it is, thanks!

"C" is indeed the restaurant's name. The logo outside of it looks more like a copyright sign, so I asked staff and they said it's "C" (pronounced "cee"), from the owner's first name, Charlie. I've a description tag and a little more info to the entry now to make it look less like a tagging mistake.

Danke für den Hinweis, hab die beiden Sachen korrigiert.

changeset/149667454

Stimmt, danke fürs aufräumen. Hab mit Overpass nochmal geschaut, wie die beiden parkings gelegen waren (https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1HGg), das war recht nah aneinander. Solche Duplikate könnte man mit Overpass und dem around-Parameter wohl auch finden, ich probier das bald mal.

Ah, merci für den Hinweis, der verlinkte Way ist kein Taxistand, hab's grad korrigiert. Hab noch die anderen grösseren Taxistände mit Luftbild geprüft, das sind echt welche.

Ansonsten mappe/update ich grad viel alte POI, darunter auch amenity=taxi, trage da aber meist mit Vespucci vor Ort das capacity-Tag nach.