Reverted in 168266012, I accidentally applied an offset to the building

Huh, that is some strange tagging by EveryDoor, thanks for highlighting it. I've retagged it as amenity=bureau_de_change in changeset/164345205 since that is what the others in Europe are tagged as. Doesn't feel quite right, but shop=gold_buyer/pawnbroker seem slightly worse.

Reverterte endringen på en del av en vei på østlandet som jeg antar var et uhell i changeset/149880694.

Hei, tok en titt siden du ba om review og det ser veldig bra ut.

Den eneste kommentaren jeg har er på den lille biten med sykkelvei ved Huldreberget [0]. Vanligvis så pleier vi å tegne sykkelvei med fortau med en linje + sidewalk=* tag i stedet for to separate linjer. Hvis du vil tegne fortauet separat burde du bruke sidewalk=separate på sykkelveien eller ta bort sidewalk taggen. Endret til separate i changeset/142368302.

[0] way/253999724

Welcome to OpenStreetMap and thank you for contributing to the map!

I took a look at your changes since you requested a review. When you merged the two sections of road, the tags that used to only apply to the section with a merging lane now applies to the whole junction. For name= this seems reasonable, but turn:lanes= needs a different value for each of the sections of road.

I've changed turn:lanes back to the way it was so it applies to the correct part of the road, but I left the name alone since I don't know where that should start and stop.

Feel free to comment here or send me a message if you have questions or if you think there was something I shouldn't have changed back.

way/1180139497 was one way in the wrong direction. Fixed in changeset/140124089

Yes. Sorry if I accidentally reverted based on memory instead of checking, I don't recall when they took down the signs.

There is some discussion around this on note/3765780 as well, last time I checked they hadn't put up a new name yet.

This should have been source=Kartverket

Welcome to OSM. It looks like you've added some useful information, but it should probably have been added to the existing point instead of to the address so we don't end up with two versions of the same shop.

Uploaded a bit too much here. The building edits were done to make it match what the building looks like on the ground. The parts that were removed are only there from floor two and up.

Changed this to a driveway in 128296851. This appears to apply to a number of other short residential roads your team has added as well, is this something you could discuss internally?

Looks like a bike lane in both aerial images from April 2022, and 360 photos from 2021. The previous edits here were based on Norway Orthophoto, so it doesn't seem likely that this is different because something has happened since then.

I deleted the separate cycleway and fixed the bike lane tagging so it should match what things looked like in April.

Hi,
I'm not convinced that this is correct. While the imagery is bad it seems more likely that the barn has been extended across what used to be a service road and the road has been moved.

A few questions, not specifically aimed at you or this changeset, but for your project:
* The user pages don't say, and I can't find cyient on the wiki, but this appears to be organized editing. Do you have a wiki page or something similar that covers your project?

* The changesets by *_cyient users appear to either have no source tag or Norway Orthophoto, but it looks like you are working from some external list of tasks. Are there other sources you are using?

* Is there a point of contact for your edits in Norway?

Hi, I took a look at your changes since you requested review and they look good. The reason you've changed the road in this case is because you added a node when you connected it with the trail which is perfectly fine.

The explanation for the farmland is the same, it ended up connected to the trail at node/9945714948 . Since these don't need to be connected it is strictly speaking best to avoid this since it can make accidental changes more likely in the future, but the online editor really likes connecting things so it can be hard to avoid. In this case I wouldn't worry about it.

Welcome to Openstreetmap and thank you for making the map better!

Hi, took a quick look at this since you requested review. Mostly it looks good, but there are two things that should probably be fixed:
1: the path loops back on itself at the northern end
2: you've added a marked crossing between the track and the path, which is mostly used for painted road crossings. Did you mean to tag something else here?

I can't check the speed limit itself, but it seems reasonable and you've added it to the road in the right way. Welcome to OpenStreetMap.

Changed vehicle=destination to motor_vehicle=destination since bicycle though traffic is allowed. When it comes to motorized traffic the intent is clearly to reduce traffic, but my impression is that the tagging should reflect what is legal or not and that the only real restriction at the moment is the one way signs.

I don't have strong feelings either way, but I'm curious if there has been a change that I've missed.

Hei, og velkommen til OSM. Siden veiene krysser over/under hverandre burde minst en beholdt en layer tag så man vet hvilken som er øverst. I dette tilfellet ville jeg valgt å la broen ha layer=1, så kan Mosseveien få en implisitt layer=0 siden den går på bakkenivå.

Hei, tok en kjapp titt på endringene og klarer ikke se at du har ødelagt noe. Det at jernbanen du la til er koplet på så mange andre ting (vei, bygning, bydelsgrense) gjør at fremtidige justeringer lett kan endre mer enn det som var planlagt, så i utgangspunktet er det en grei ting unngå, men vet at iD gjør det ganske vanskelig å unngå når ting er nærme hverandre.

Velkommen til OSM.

Reverted to the previous street name in 122683954