OK, thanks for the info. I agree that both the uphill part as well as the downhill part are too steep, wouldn't be much fun for me. Maybe you can add smoothness?

I wonder if I can travel this path with a trekking bike (downhill).
I looked at the pictures for mtb:scale=2
osm.wiki/Key:mtb:scale#mtb:scale.3D0-6
and the wiki for surface=paving_stones says "A relatively smooth surface ..."

Hi!
You added surface=paving_stones and mtb:scale:uphill=4 to this path. Looks wrong to me, probably this way is not paved at all?

Moin!
Ich versuche gerade zu verstehen, warum hier eine unzusammenhängende Sammlung von Wegen als type=multipolygon erfasst ist.
Kann diese Relation gelöscht werden?

Ich bin nur zufällig drauf gestoßen, weil ich für Tests nach "kaputten" MP gesucht habe.
Bin da nicht heimisch und die Luftbilder zeigen verschiedene "Löcher" in den Wäldern...

Moin!
Ich staune gerade über einige MP mit nur einem Member, z.B. osm.org/relation/7360211 oder osm.org/relation/7367873
War wohl keine Absicht, oder?

Hi!
You changed lots of ways here from area=yes to building=Roof.
Problem 1: the correct spelling would be building=roof
Problem 2: I think many of these buildings are not just roofs, more likely they are building=house. Unless you don't know for sure just use building=yes.

Ich hab's mal für Dich gemacht:
osm.org/changeset/68973666

OK, dann lösche bitte auch die unvollständigen Relationen.

Moin!
Du hast mit dieser Änderung nicht nur diverse Wege gelöscht, sondern auch diverse Abbiegebeschränkungen zerstört.
Was war der Zweck dieses "Aufräumens"?

Sehe gerade, das es da noch mehr gibt:
osm.org/relation/8081310

Moin!
Kenne mich vor Ort nicht aus.
Bitte prüfe mal die no_u_turn restriction
osm.org/relation/8081309
Zwei Wege mit role=to sind nicht erlaubt. Entweder muss der letzte weg oder der andere ein via werden.

Moin!
Ist etwas spät, aber mir ist hier der Weg nur mit embankment=yes aufgefallen:
osm.org/way/290685861#map=17/53.06101/8.81768
War das Absicht? Das Tag sollte doch eigentlich an die entsprechenden highway=* auf dem Damm, oder?

Wenn Du irgendwo highway=* liest, dann ist damit immer gemeint, dass Du den passenden Typ verwenden sollst, niemals * selbst.
Zu Radwegen schau mal hier:
osm.wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren

Hi,
I wonder why you create the ele tags with such a high precision? The normal usage is to round them to meters.

Thanks for the quick feedback!
I don't like the name tag, and there is probably no need for the source_2 tag on each object, better is to add this information to the changeset only.
Reg. name: It looks similar to use name=house on a building=house or name=Parking on an amenity=parking.
This is why I stumbled over this changeset because I searched for more cases like the above. The next JOSM release will have new tests to flag such wrong uses of name.
See also https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17100

Hi! This looks like an import and I wonder if it was discussed?
The tag name=地下式消防栓 looks like a descriptive name. I don't think that this makes sense here.

Hi, I just checked to see the result of the problems discussed in JOSM ticket 17455. Your work flow should be this: Download data, edit, validate, update, upload. Try to keep that cycle short to avoid conflicts. The update step is optional but helps when others edit the same area. Try also Help -> introduction to get some more basics.

Please download the area again and execute JOSM validator (Shift+V). You should find many errors like duplicated ways and duplicated nodes which were created by you.
You also created some invalid turn restrictions. Please reread the wiki about this: osm.wiki/Relation:restriction
In short: The from and to way have to start or end at the via node.
Hope that helps, happy mapping!

Hi!
Please review building inside building:
osm.org/way/641988224
I guess the inner parts are on top of the larger way? If you want to do 3d mapping please check if buildin:part matches:
osm.wiki/Simple_3D_buildings

Hi nadigatta,
when I changed those roads to tertiary the way 437395676 was also tertiary. Later 437395676 was downgraded to unclassified.
So, yes, tertiary looks wrong for those two ways now. I am not sure if unclassified or residential matches better. I think 518980296 looks like a way that connects small residential areas, so I'd say it is unclassified. The sat image doesn't show clearly whether 437489030 or 437489130 is the continuation of this road.