Could perhaps surface = compacted be more suitable for these roads?

Ser du har kartlagt windfall på en sti, er det sannsynlig at dette fortsatt er relevant 15 år seinere?
osm.org/node/530869378/history#map=19/59.978518/10.663900&layers=N

Hei,
Har kommet en merknad på at en av stiene du har kartlagt ikke finnes.
osm.org/note/4809849#map=14/59.08481/6.19062&layers=N

Ser du har brukt Kartverket og selv ikke er sikker på om stien(e) finnes eller ei. Jeg har hatt ganske variert erfaring med å bruke Kartverket til stier, og vil sterkt anbefale å heller la være å kartlegge stier man er usikre på fremfor å kartlegge de. I mine øyne er det verre for kartet med feil data enn ingen data.

Hei, vet du noe om skiløypene ved Storelva? Det har kommet ny rulleskitrasé der som også ser ut til å brukes på vinterstid, og flere av løypene som er kartlagt stemmer ikke lengre overens med Strava heatmap filtrert for vinteraktiviteter

Hei,

Ser ut til at du har laget en relation som ikke består av allerede eksisterende kartelementer som veier og stier, men heller har tegnet oppå disse

Hei igjen, har du fått undersøkt stiene?

Hei,

Så vidt jeg kan forstå er det ikke selve stien som heter Grønn rute nr. 5, og jeg tenker at navnet derfor kan fjernes fra stien. Har du noen innvendinger på det?

Seems like parts of way 443124335 doesn't exist, especially from the Robinson Crater and further southeast.

Heim,

Ser ut til at way 48506480 ikke lengre finnes, har du noe imot at jeg fjerner den og erstatter med det som ser ut til å være oppdatert stinett?

Hei,

Er fengsel riktig tag for et slikt formål? Videre ser det ut til at det er Arups gate 3 som er overgangsboliger, ikke Arups gate 4.

Hei, ser du slettet en del veier fordi de var bak en låst port. Ettersom parkeringsplassen of veiene fortsatt finnes, skal de kartlegges i OSM. Om de ikke kan nås kan de gis en access-tag som indikerer dette. Jeg har ikke selv kjennskap til hvorvidt veien er låst eller ei.

Hei, vet du om way 818453567 finnes? Ingen spor i Strava heatmap som sammenfaller med den, til tross for mye aktivitet ellers i området.

osm.org/way/818453567/history

Hi,

Just went out and did the trails in question after a drizzly day here in Bergen. The leaves from last fall are still on the ground, and spring has barely sprung. I hiked up way 1148178587 (currently tagged as demanding alpine hiking), and ran down lower part of 1091940537 (currently tagged as demanding mountain hiking) and way 1194667660 (currently tagged as alpine hiking) so that they were fresh in my mind.

I appreciate the effort you've made to educate yourself on sac_scales, as classifying trails is prone to subjectivity. I acknowledge your experience on the side of Sandviksfjellet, and that your perception of the trails is a valid as anyone else's. It seems like you were in quite a bit of trouble as you spent hours navigating down these trails instead of retreating upwards which I can imagine must've been subpar to say the least.

You state that the trails are "completely invisible", which I found surprising. Did you perhaps accidentally go off route completely? I actually filmed parts of the descents and ascent on the trails in questions because, at least to me, they're clearly visible. I'll admit that sections on rocks can be tricky to see, but I'd argue that it's clear to see where the moss on the rocks has been worn down by people and that you can see the trail pick up on the other side of the rock field. I've also done the trails in the snow, and sometimes find them even more visible then.

At no point does the trails require "full-body-strength crab-scrambling", so I again question if perhaps you were off trail. I don't believe the paths in question fit the description for such a classification. Both alpine and demanding alpine hiking is described in the wiki as being exposed, and that the use of hands and easy climbing is needed. I did the trails without the use of hands what so ever, and believe that T3 demanding mountain hiking where "use of hands for balance" is a more fitting description. T3 can also have portions of the trail exposed with the danger of falling, and it is in my opinion a big difference in danger of falling and exposed terrain. We're also very from needing knowledge of elementary rope, crampons and ice axe techinques. I don't agree that the pictures in the wiki is comparable, as they show a significant exposure and the need for light scrambling. It does however sound like you did experience this on your way down (which admittedly is harder than going uphill), so I understand that you because of this would advocate for a T4 or T5 classification. I would however consider max T3 for these trails. I would like if the Norwegian SOM community weighted in on this matter.

It seems like there's a misunderstanding as you've deleted the older existing way with proper tags. The duplicate way I was referring to was the newer one that you added, which you've decided to keep instead. It's considered best practice to keep older ways in such instances.,Also, highway=bikeway isn't an accepted tag so the way is probably not routable. Lastly, it looks like you're mapping a larger trail. These are much better to add as a relation in which several different ways make up the larger trail. You can look to popular routes such as the Pacific Crest Trail for reference: osm.org/relation/1238538#map=11/34.3905/-117.8954

I'd suggest reverting the removal of way 760427259

Hi,

There's a note related to a change you added many ears ago (osm.org/node/4237520295#map=17/9.489779/100.053064&layers=N).

Link to the note:
osm.org/note/1463682#map=19/9.491245/100.056925&layers=N

Har også sett et par driveways du har kartlagt, ville også sjekket ut wikien for den taggen:
osm.wiki/Tag:service=driveway?uselang=en

Hei,

Ser du har oppdatert tags på osm.org/way/12701667

Slik den er tagget nå som enveiskjørt kan den ikke nås, men det ser heller ikke ut til at veien eksisterer i det hele tatt i andre kartlag. Ville tenkt at viene skal fjernes, men vil høre med deg i og med at du nylig har gjort endringer på den

Hei! Supert at du bidrar til å forbedre OpenStreetMap. Ser du har kartlagt en del parking aisle, men at det ikke alltid ser ut til å bli helt rett. Minner om definisjonen av parking aisles:

"a subordinated way in a parking lot between rows of parking spaces that vehicles use to drive into and out of the spaces"

Hi,

Seems like part of the Arizona trail you mapped (osm.org/way/1344928151) already exists. It now partly duplicates with another way (osm.org/way/760427259/history)
. Furthermore, it does not have a highway tag, so as of now it is not routable.

Takk for påminnelsen, har fikset det nå