I know, but normally, we reuse the existing objects to keep the history of it: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

So, instead of just deleting it, it would've been better to do either one of these things:
- keep it as it is (it's already marked as abandoned and still visible in aerial imagery)
- related to the above: change it from abandoned to destroyed to make it clear it was there before but isn't any more now.
- make it building=construction or construction:building and add a fixme for someone to map the new building outline

With over 10 years of OSM experience, I'd expect you to know that just deleting is not the way to go.

Why not building=construction then?

osm.org/way/289248339
ref:parkingpaybag? Andy why change fee to no when there are payment methods? That doesn't make sense.

It is. There are markings on the ground, at least on the bridge. IMO something that says, "hey, you can drive here" should be designated.

Was hat access=no hier genau zu bedeuten?

Aber das Kino ist ja schon hier?
osm.org/node/1028104098

osm.org/changeset/167358844

I don't need to. It is allowed to, based on the signalisation I see on Mapillary. You still didn't answer my question how an only straight on sign mysteriously should become a no left turn. You aren't helping the discussion. YOU are the one who did the edit, it's YOUR responsibility to be able to explain your reasoning behind it, so the community can understand. I can't, that's why I'm asking, and I'm expecting an answer based on facts, not some mysterious mix of existing data, car-centric "logic" and assumptions. Thanks.

destination is a widely used access value. The except key expects access values. Why shouldn't this work? destination is already used almost 200 times in the except key.

Korrigierst du das noch? Ich würde dir für solche Dinge das Gridify-Plugin in JOSM empfehlen, da gehen solche Grids ganz flott.

Warum überlappen sich die Parkplätze?

Yes, they also have to follow the mandatory left turn, the exception is only for buses. Thus, the restriction is not unnecessary. Without it, bicycles would be routed straight on through the way I linked.

Maybe they also want to turn left? But again, the sign shows a mandatory straight on and not a prohibited left turn. These are two different things. Why on earth does it need to be worsened then? It was correct as it was.

So you're basically saying we shouldn't add any detail to the map because it's "hard to maintain"? Just because you don't have any use for this data doesn't mean someone else hasn't.

Of course it can. Just add "destination" to the except tag.

No, it is still necessary, as bicycles are still allowed in osm.org/way/184009334. But the restriction also applies to bicycles, except buses.

Please revert it.

That's not a simplification. That is called making data worse.

It clearly is an only straight on restriction: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?z=17.255262824019447&lat=59.92851290000203&lng=10.71467000000007&pKey=998726841173015&focus=photo&x=0.8387425054729326&y=0.5750005101730723&zoom=2.0609097918272936

Additionally, you removed the bus exception.

Please revert it (and stop mapping solely based on assumptions, please)

Moreover, I'd like to remind you to keep the history, where possible: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history

That doesn't change the fact that the restriction is there. I get it: It doesn't make that much sense, but that's not our problem, that's the problem of whoever thought placing that sign there is necessary. It's our task to map what's on the ground, not to think about how stupid these things might be, hahaha.

It's because they are residents. The white sign allows going straight for residents and bicycles.

Access and turn restrictions are two separate things, they can coexist. The sign is here, so it should be mapped. It's that simple.

Again, this restriction exists and is signposted. Please revert it. https://www.bing.com/maps?cp=48.847567%7E2.394936&lvl=19.0&pi=-1.9&style=x&dir=344.9