Si c'est une propriété mais que les chemins existent, il ne faut pas les effacer mais les tagger en conséquence. Je vais réparer.

Thanks for the reply. Wjat I meant is that some portion of the area might have been drawn with one source and some other with one other source and that it is important to be able to distinguish them. Foe instance, one part might have been mapped with and old imagery of Bing in 2016 and another with a newer LIDAR imagery of 2023. These imageries have different offsets, different otho correction and the landscape itself might have changed with the years. There is a lot of value -to me at least- in distinguishing the different segments as per their source.

I could connect two portions of the forest. I see that in this area, there is also the issue if the various meadows.

Here is the changeset: osm.org/changeset/169310993#map=17/46.378229/7.272874

Hi, Beau and thanks for reaching out.

The reason for the multiple segment is that they have different sources and different quality if you like. Il would be technically possible to reconnect them but we would then lose these important distinction(from an editor's perspective).

I'll see if there are same source portion which I could join.

Excuse me. Did you want to say something?

Y a-t-il vraiment un "arrêt de bus" sur les rails ? osm.org/node/12987650201

Par ailleurs, le "nom" ne devrait pas décrire l'objet.

Merci pour la réponse. Avez-vous une idée de la cause de cet affichage bizarre. Je me demandais justement si je faisait une erreur, mais j'en suis moins sûr maintenant.

Hi, Thans for editing that. What was the problem with the opening hours

Hi, Habi. Thanks for asking. it is old but clearly a mistake from my side. I deleted the tag here osm.org/changeset/167152412

Good day to you.

Thanks for pointing that out. It was obviously a mistake from my side, fixed in osm.org/changeset/166769618

Honestly, I can't remember but it does look weird indeed. Ir could be a copy and paste error or something like that. At the time, I was working there.

You are right, I didn't notice the parent relation. Thanks for fixing.

Hi, wikilux. Why did you delete the way 1288457397 ? It does exist exactly as it was documented.

BTW, I don't share the idea that the source tags are useless. It is quite useful for the future mappers to assess which features were mapped according to which sources and decide to modify them or not. It is always possible to query the changesets but this makes the editing process more cumbersome.

Dear Habi, you are very right, I made a copy and paste mistake. Thanks for correcting.

Hi. Thanks for bringing this up and sorry for the mistake. I think it is fixed now. It was most likely a copy and paste error.

Nice day to you and good mapping.

Thanks for your reply. I had used both Swiss Alti 3D and strava to map because you are of course correct regarding the accuracy of Swiss Topo as compared to Strava.

I have to apologize for the "merged track" story. The track wasn't there before. I'll need to go there and survey where it ends exactly.

Anyway, it's nice to see the map improved. :-)

Hi, Thanks for working on this area. However, the path osm.org/way/1227513001 actually lost some accuracy. In particular if you compare with strava heatmap and also the fact that the separation between the track (still used by the local farmer) on the left is now merged with the path. I will try to fix that.

Bonjour. La partie ouest de votre "chemin de la solitude" est bien le chemin Philippe Allamand

Also visible here: osm.org/edit?editor=id#map=18/46.250199/7.00766025&background=custom%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Ftiles.openaerialmap.org%2F65a8d9c471b11e0001cea7ed%2F0%2F65a8d9c471b11e0001cea7ee%2F%7Bz%7D%2F%7Bx%7D%2F%7By%7D