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

Hi, it looks like the only real change here is removing periods from the road name. I'm wondering what the source was for that change since it doesn't appear to match the signs visible in Mapillary.

Hei, husker du tilfeldigvis hvor synlige stiene du la til her er? Det hadde vært fint å få gjort om trail_visibility=low til en av verdiene fra trail_visibility=*

Velkommen til OSM og takk for at du bidrar! highway=cycleway blir i utgangspunktet brukt på gang- og sykkelvei. Har ikke vært på stedet selv, men på Norge i Bilder ser det ut som det er en sti som burde merkes med highway=path. Hvis du i tillegg vil si noe om hvordan den er å sykle på kan du bruke mtb:scale (dukker opp som "Mountain Biking Difficulty" når du velger Path som type). Hvis du velger mtb:scale=1 dukker stien opp som blå på mtbmap.no hvis det er den blåfargen du tenkte på i kommentaren din.

- Martin

Hvis du trykker på den gulbrune linja mellom nodene skal du ende opp med noe som ser sånn ut: https://i.imgur.com/ho4ay3N.jpg
Det ligger en gammel toglinje på nesten akkurat samme sted så det er lettest å få tak i riktig linje nederst mot krysset.

Hei,
foot=private burde nok være på veien her i stedet for hver enkelt node. Du kan godt bruke access=private siden det er stengt for f.eks. bil og sykkel også, og som en bonus blir det i tillegg synlig på standardkartet at det er stengt.

This gate could just be access=private right, or are there special rules for pedestrians?

Partial revert of this in 113349961

Accidentally uploaded before finishing the changeset comment/source. Should have said that =advisory doesn't exist in Norway, and that the current wording in StreetComplete leads users to incorrectly tag regular bike lanes as advisory.

In this case I just disconnected the existing grass from the road so I could adjust the road a bit while leaving the grass more or less alone. I agree about trees vs grass though, it just wasn't part of the HOT task this time :)

Hei, ser at jeg tok litt hardt i, spesielt med tanke på historie og søkbarhet, så jeg har revertert endringen. Kommer til å legge inn noe av det igjen så rutingen i hvertfall holder seg unna anleggsområdet og trikketraseen, men legger til access=no eller liknende så veiene blir værende. Takk for kommentaren, bra du følger med på hva som skjer :)