Hm, I'm not sure actually. I thought it was just the rendering being slow, but it's been 2 days now, that's not usual. I'm puzzled. I'll make a tiny change to "nudge" it, although that's not usually needed. Let's see what happens.

Hello!

It's because the building has a hole in it, and so it's defined as a multipolygon relation: relation/9323805

The relation groups together the lines that define the polygon outlines. Then the information about the building goes on the relation itself. There's some documentation here: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon

I've restored the missing building tag.

Happy mapping!
saintam1

Hello,

Bulgarian names are not usually capitalised like this. I think you're applying the English standard, but that doesn't apply here.

Cheers
saintam1

The cycleway was already on the map

Супер

Добре дошли в OSM! Знаете ли адреса на блока на запад от бл.469б?

Hi, I see you selected that you would like someone to review your edit. This looks great to me. The rest of the street still flows to the north, yeah?

Thanks for your contribution!

Hi, I'm not the original contributor, but it seems to be this node does contain valuable information (a shop, and an address), it just needed tag reformatting. I've updated it, let me know if you think I'm mistaken.

Cool! OK I'll keep doing the same then. Happy mapping :)

Hi, I notice you've been working on marking non-walkable segments of road as foot=no, that's great!

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on using foot=use_sidepath for the non-intersection parts of a road. I'm asking because I just recently found out about it and started using it, and here I see you've changed it to foot=no. I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong, I just want to discuss it and maybe try to sync up our tagging schemes.

My idea was to use it for the non-intersection parts of roads where there's a parallel sidewalk drawn on the map. So the little road segments in the middle of the intersection (e.g. way/669833082) would be foot=no (I think that's what you've been doing), but the bulk of the length of a boulevard where the sidewalk has been drawn separately (e.g. way/26538846) would be foot=use_sidepath, which IIUC says "this road is walkable, but in OSM the sidewalk is drawn separately, and that's where you walk".

What do you think?

Anyway sorry for the interruption. Keep up the good work!

Hi! I didn't remember steps being there, but the photo's pretty unambiguous. Thanks!

meant to label this as "duplicate of node/6459559209"

Здрасти, виждам,че си заявил review, всички промени и актуализации са добре дошли!

Само едно нещо искам да спомена: адресът не се слага под "name". Също така във този случай улицата не е част от адреса и заради това не се слага под "street".

Продължавай да внасяш промени, картата има нужда от това!

A bit of context: note/1362988

Hello,

Please don't add non-existent objects to the map. If you would like to run tests, you can use the site at https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/

Thanks and happy mapping!

Thanks!

Здрасти,

You've removed the "tunnel" tag on a podlez (way/220886510), was that intentional?

Anyway thanks for your regular updates & survey work, as always.

Cheers
Hervé

Great!

Keep up the good work
Hervé

Hi Marc,

Thanks for the reply! I'm 100% behind your effort to ensure consistency in road networks, that's a very good thing.

Also I've looked a bit more into your changes and I realise you've done a subtle reclassification, not a blanket retagging -- it's great work I find.

Still, there are some examples where I feel we've lost a useful distinction here. Small roads like the one I pointed to above (or, to pick more examples, ways 70107784, 178663875, or 419388956), although they connect at both ends and do in fact pass right in front of people's doors, aren't ways that you'd drive through on your way somewhere else, they're really just for access to the few buildings they abut. There's many such roads (alleys, really) in the socialist-era neighbourhoods of Sofia, and it feels to me like we should keep them classified as lesser than the residential streets that make up the core of residential neighbourhoods.

Not sure whether you'd agree. Anyway thanks for taking the time to make the road network a consistent data set, that's key to usability.

Hi Marc,

I see you've retagged many service roads to residential, and I'm just wondering what the rationale is behind that.

Many of those are clearly lower-level than the residential road they connect to, e.g. way/157690055 to pick an example at random. It seems to me that by tagging short, local-access roads as residential, we're losing a valid distinction, no?

Just curious what was behind the decision.

Cheers!
Hervé