kann auch die Browser-Erweiterung OSM Smart Menu empfehlen, damit kommt man direkt zu allen möglichen Tools zur aktuellen Seite

osm.wiki/OSM_Smart_Menu

ist allerdings auch kein Radweg, sondern Fußgängerzone mit Radfahrerlaubnis - habe es entspr. geändert

hier kannst du bspw. besser nachvollziehen, was in diesem CS geändert wurde: https://osmcha.org/changesets/105052204/

über overpass-turbo kannst du auch Daten zu einem gewissen Zeitpunkt abfragen, allerdings konnte ich hier dennoch keinen Weg finden
http://overpass-turbo.eu/?Q=%5Bdate%3A%222021-08-06T00%3A00%3A00Z%22%5D%3B%0Away%5Bhighway%5D%0A%20%20(%7B%7Bbbox%7D%7D)%3B%0A(._%3B%3E%3B)%3B%0Aout%3B&C=47.16971;13.73269;18

Hi,

please pay attention to the warnings you are shown by your editor. You have moved a node and thereby the connected path across the whole settlement, crossing multiple streets and buildings

https://pewu.github.io/osm-history/#/node/1679219776
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/125861753

osm.org/note/3343117
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115767210

osm.org/note/3343117
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115767210

https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/22324

This changeset has been reverted by changeset 125445436: way still exists, see https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=48.037683&lng=16.420668&z=17&pKey=629578315205902&focus=photo

Hallo,

kannst du dir bitte diesen Hinweis ansehen? osm.org/note/3277795

Das Fahren gegen die Einbahn hattest du mit diesem CS schon eingetragen, aber ich weiß nicht, ob das jetzt wirklich auch schon eine Fahrradstraße ist.

the use of arabic numerals corresponds with the description in the wiki and the existing usage

osm.wiki/Climbing#Grading

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/climbing:grade:uiaa#overview
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/116844631

The way Waymarked Trails and cycle.travel handle this case is great and would make it a bit easier and more logical for mappers, but the majority of applications, which have shown this route for years, don't work this way and have no plans on changing that. Of course you could blame them, but as far as I can see, this behaviour isn't even documented, as the wiki explicitly says "The superroute has the same characteristics as the routes regarding route=*, ref=*, network=*, name=*", which may be the reason why I'm not aware of other major issues in this regard with EuroVelos for example.

Hallo,

was soll dieser node mit name=4IN4 bedeuten?

osm.org/node/9937842108

es fehlt bei dem Weg auch der Kreuzungspunkt, genauso wie auch bei diesem:

osm.org/way/1084491423
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/124610023

Hallo,

siehe bitte hier: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=868575#p868575

Hi,

besides adding caves and sinkholes you've also set a climbing route of grade 3+ to highway=path + sac_scale=demanding_alpine_hiking which doesn't fit together, see osm.org/note/3053889
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/115815301

Hallo,

bitte bei Flurnamen etc. aus der basemap etwas skeptischer sein. Abgesehen davon, dass die Position nicht ganz stimmt, ist das Maibründl keine locality, sondern diese Quelle hier: osm.org/node/695430090/history
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/87642312

besides: even for actually signposted routes it's problematic to just use some unknown GPX files. Even when ignoring the legal aspect, EuroVelo routes for example in some areas don't match what's actually signposted, only represent a proposed state without any infrastructure whatsoever or go along tracks that aren't even suitable to drive

You did exactly the opposite and declared the areas as empty. You have even given 3 different sources of aerial pictures - all of which are inferior to the local provider basemap.at, but anyway the forest is clearly recognizable on any of them and you still managed to say that those areas are not part of the forest and contain nothing else.

Whatever, I'm giving up now, that's pointless

It's questionable whether it's simpler for the average mapper if you need more objects, one of them without any tags. The only reason you have given so far, is to get rid of a WARNING in a single QA tool (unlike what you said, it does not raise problems with josm), but didn't name a single application that actually can't handle this case correctly. I don't mind if someone changes the structure while adding new information (maybe I would do it myself) or fixing an actual issue, but don't try to fix it, if it ain't broken, especially if you don't know the region, the language, or even english.

Your change may have eliminated the warning, but broken the data and that's not the first time you did this with such a change (it's only the first time you've responded to comments) - you even made exactly the same mistake at the very same location a few months earlier, so maybe it's not that trivial after all

osm.org/changeset/99633616

https://osmcha.org/changesets/104357642/

Hallo Bernhard,

ein Multipolygon kann nicht aus 2 inner ohne outer bestehen, korrekt sind 2 getrennte äußere Ringe, siehe

osm.wiki/DE:Relation:multipolygon#Zwei_getrennte_äußere_Ringe

Hallo,

hier kann etwas nicht stimmen, die Oberfläche des Kleinen Fuchslochsteigs sind sicher nicht Pflastersteine:

osm.org/way/882404777

osm.wiki/DE:Tag:surface=paving%20stones?uselang=de
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/95499142