+ tags corrected on buildings

+ tags corrected

+tags corrected

OK good to know! Thanks!

Contact was done on this changeset: osm.org/changeset/89362219

I am done, all is the same except this secondary road portion osm.org/way/516992644 i did not include. You had included both ways the service and the secondary to create the route whereas normally the bus has to stops on the service road. If there is a reason why you included both, please add it back.

This changeset participated in the resolution of a conflict for the relation 6273719, normally everything should be as user VoyagesWeber had set in the mean time.

OK i just wanted to know if you would still be going on while i am in the same time resolving the conflict.

Hello! Are you finished with RGTR 142? I did a massive edit but i am stuck with a conflict on this relation. So I am waiting that you are done and resolve the conflict with both edits merged.

+ nature reserve should not be a MP

no tags added

+ tags added

+ tags added

+ MP integrations

Hi! Please do not mix up the access tag for all types of mobility (access=*) with specific mobilities (foot=yes), it's not logical and conflicts with each other, it's either all or some but not all and some. osm.org/way/292580739/history

OK i see, thank you, but it was already correct: osm.wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dcommercial

Hello! Why do you change the tagging as governement whereas you are then creating a building area over anotehr one, redndering building where there is no building?
osm.org/way/172587274/history

+ positions enhanced

Yes it is obvious in residential/urban areas, specially when it is in a school area.

Your argument of planning a route for the safeness of kids is precisely my point too. By adding sidewalks, which often renders the whole routing too complex, makes it difficult to follow up "turn by turn". Meaning the automated routing planners will follow complex directions and rather mislead the parents in one direction and then another, distracting their attention from the real danger during their walks. Also at certain places where there is a plotted sidewalk but it is not connected to a crossway in an opposite desired direction, the planner will place the routing over the main road instead of the sidewalk, misleading also the users. Here for example: osm.org/node/7762386161

People are not stupid, they know that in urban areas most often there are sidewalks, and on countryside roads which they will certainly follow anyway if needed, they will pay attention to their kids. If there is a sidewalk in such area, it is great to plot it, like this example i updated recently: osm.org/way/84374588/history

Also did you think about the conflict with hiking routes? Did you pay attention if there any? What if there are any and contributors did not update the route with the sidewalks, certainly because it is a lot of work. How many times i've seen this! This issue will certainly mislead users too!

So, my point here is not decide over everyone else, hence i started with a question, but to talk about what is best for the map to keep it as clear as possible for kind of user. By experience, i know that by making a map too complex with sidewalks going on all direction is not really assisting users who are trying to find their way easily.

That is your sole interpretation. If you've been hurt in your sensitivity, it was not intended. I was pragmatically pointing on a weird error whereas things a clearly explained in OSM's Wiki. So obviously you didn't take the care to check how the data is structured. I just would like to avoid that these kind of elements reach a point where it would take a lot of time to correct. Again, thanks for your understanding.