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

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=1319040102619410

Again... You are destroying the work of other mappers who have been here in person (osm.org/changeset/129045654). Unless you can prove to us that you've actually been here, of course.

Please revert your change. Thanks.

Well, assumptions are not a great source for OSM ;D Restrictions are (at least in most of Europe) not visible from aerial imagery, they are mostly signposted only on traffic signs. Besides that, the imagery you used here is outdated for these two intersections.

So please don't map with assumptions, map with facts. You can put assumptions into a note and then someone can check it, but just editing it without really knowing is the wrong way. Please keep that in mind.

Happy Mapping
Lezurex

Hi Spaghetti Monster,

Please explain your edit. What is a "fake" restriction? The restriction exists, as visible here: https://panoramax.openstreetmap.fr/?s=fp;s2;p0fbd95d6-e15c-4af3-9597-5a49a1164d85;c134.66/8.06/69;m20.57/47.388312/8.4907671;vd;bs

No satisfying response within 7 days = revert.

Thanks

Hi Spaghetti Monster,

Please explain your edit. What is a "fake" restriction? The restriction exists, as visible here: https://panoramax.openstreetmap.fr/?s=fp;s2;p10d55074-8317-41fb-82d9-25dafbeec278;c98.94/2.78/81;m18.92/47.3806094/8.5122638;vd;bs

No satisfying response within 7 days = revert.

Thanks

Hallo Mystique-1440,

Willkommen auf OpenStreetMap.

Zu deinen Änderungen (auch deine anderen Changesets): Du löschst hier ganz viel Information raus. Praktisch jede Schule (zumindest in der Schweiz) wird ausserhalb der Schulzeiten als "Park" gebraucht. Deswegen taggen wir sie aber noch lange nicht als solche. In erster Linie ist es immer noch eine Schule, sie wurde als Schule gebaut und wird als Schule gebraucht (ich würde mal behaupten, man sieht dort überwiegend Schulkinder, nicht?). Dann die Schule einfach rauszulöschen ist schlicht falsch.

Übrigens: Der building-Tag gibt an, als was das Gebäude gebaut wurde. Ein Gebäude kann also building=school sein, auch wenn es nicht mehr als solche genutzt wird.

Das GZ Loogarten ist bereits hier eingetragen: osm.org/node/5173009855

Ich würde drum vorschlagen, das rückgängig zu machen.

LG Lezurex