Grazie per la segnalazione.
Messo apposto.

Ciao Claudio, ho visto la barriera (nodo 8572181513), ma non mi sono fermato. Sai, se si può aprire, o se è chiusa a lucchetto? Grazie

Danke fuer den FehlerFund!

Parli della porticina a destra del cancello?

Sai per caso se questo portone (node/11122896734) è aperto o chiuso a chiave. A vista sembra chiuso, ma la Strava Global Heatmap sembra di indicare che sia apribile.

OK. Non ti preoccupare. Faccio io nei prossimi giorni.

Non capisco la tua risposta.
Per le ciclopedonali ci deve essere la segnaletica, e non la trovo.
La maggior parte gli avevi inseriti inizialmente e correttamente come marciapiedi. Poi hai cambiato tutti in ciclopedonale, ma non c'è traccia di segnaletica.

Vedo che hai cambiato tanti marciapiedi in ciclopedonali.
Perché?

Could you please check way/416679116. This seems to be in conflict with the way/1470045953 that I just created for the Siemens Energy Laboratorio Prove SVEPPI, which seems to take roughly the same space. Could it be that the substation is inside the teste lab?

Thanks for spotting this. My fault.
I fully agree with your observation.

Errore mio - volevo solo cambiare da cycleway a footway, ma ho tolto tutto. Questa stretta striscia di asfalto è presente sul lato est di Via San Pio X fra le due rotonde, é utilizzabile in bici, ma non è una cycleway. Farò il revert in questo senso. Sul lato opposto la mappa mostra una ciclopedonale. E' piu larga, ma anche questa non è segnalata come CICLO-pedonale sul terreno. dovrebbe diventare una footway con bicycle=permissive, se sei d'accordo.

Per la corsia riservata all'accesso al Pronto Soccorso (way/1281451569), forse sarebbe meglio utilizzare vehicle=emergency al posto di access=permit. Inoltre sarebbe anche da considerare l'uso utilizzare lane tagging (vedi osm.wiki/Lane_tagging_comparison)

typo "brifge" corrected. Thanks for spotting this

way/176017403 is in Poland ???

way/1272431845: I added bicycle=permissive as it is wide enough for bicyles, and is a safer option for cyclists. It's also in continuation from a signed segregetated foot-cycle-way to the West

way/1382016928: by convention, the markings seem to be usually mapped only on the crossing node, but not on the crossing way.

1459105433 like 176017403 (I suppose you mean way/1459105433):
This looks like a footpath, so it as a fottpath. If your prefer path, no problem. Important that the information like surface, smothness, width is present. In this specific cse the verrtical signin is most likely wrong: coming from the South, there is a sign that motor vehicles to destination. I presume this applies only to the southern, paved part of the way. The northern part is only compaced, and certanly not intened for for motorbikes.

1272431847 and 1272431846:
when adding/updating additional tags like oneway, segregated, and width I used JOSM and it's presets replaced "cycleway" with "path". In this case path and cycleway are equivalent. BTW this is not the case for not-segregated foot-cycle-ways in ITALY, which are legally "marciapiedi" on which bicycles are tolerated, but pedestrians have priority, and their use is not compulsary for cyclists (if they run parallel to roadways). therefore I woul say it's better not to use the tag highway=cycleway, but highway=path or even highway=footway.

Thanks anyway for checking.

Looks the same to me. I do not remember why I inserted the change.
There seem to be several situations of that kind in Vicenza, i.e. large sidewalks/footways that are used by cyclists, but are not signposted as such. Maybe the best way to reflect the reality on the ground would be highway=footway combined with bicycle=permissive? If you are a local mapper, please feel free to decide. I am an only an occasional visitor.

Hi Hanna. Fedback on way/881221713.
I would not tag it with bicycle=yes. Unless I have overlooked something, on the ground there is no sign indicating bicycle use. If it is used habitually by cyclists despite this, you could tag it with bicycle=permissive.

Hi Fabry, I noticed that in this 15 years old changeset you assigned the tag "sac_scale=mountain_hiking" to a flat 3m wide bridge that is used by vehicles (way/72609237) . This is plainly wrong (see sac_scale=*) and most likely due to confusion on how SAC scale works in comparison with the CAI scale. sac_scale assigns a grade to each individual way (in OSM) based on difficulty of each specific piece of the hiking route, whereas the CAI scale is assigned to the route as a whole. In fact the route relation this case has a cai_scale E. This is a typical error of early OSM tagging. I am mentioning it to you, as you maybe one of the oldest OSM contributors around here, and you are still active. I don't know what the best way of action is, to be honest.

Tanto meglio. Grazie !

Se fai import, in particolare di queste dimensioni, dovresti seguire le procedure (non ho controllato se era annunciato sulla wiki), ma non lasciare ad altri le correzioni dopo.
Quelli che ho visto per caso son su qua: changeset/67699648#map=19/45.601110/11.623341

Potresti controllare questi import, perché vedo sovrapposizioni con edifici inseriti precedentemente.
Grazie

What is the source of this data?
Tagging is not correct: should be highway=proposed + proposed=trunk/motorway/...