Yes not in the almighty wiki page, the region value comes though up in the editor drop down list, has 700x used according taginfo. Why the 'Nicht Loeschen' on there? Can't be anyway since it's part of a relation, no roles employed here, but ID Editor too gives warning, can't exit without assigning a meaning to a line which is why I not consciously do anything to those blank lines. Unfortunately ID does not fully pre-save check a large 186 member relation unless it's completely loaded in memory, so on large relations it escapes validation -*pre-save*, but it does during save which then causes a warning listed with the edit set. That's in 2022. What it could and could not in 2020 or 2012 I don't know, well before my active mapping days.

Anyway, I'll see of the combined QA powers of Osmose, OSMI and Keepright throw a fit in the coming days and weeks.

BTW on regions, osm.wiki/Tag:place=region noted as old and rarely used but it does have some 2022 commentary on v.v. natural regions.

Hi,

The way crossing the 'multi-storey' parking is flagged. Aerial suggests your entrances are at different levels but all are tagged level=0 so I can't determine if the north-south way at right is crossing the roof (level=nn) or needs being tagged as a tunnel=building_passage with the appropriate level at which it's crossing.

ciao

PS, whatever happened to the AED. Is it now in the right place and can the fixme be removed?

Hi,

One of these relation lines has been sitting there unnoticed for 2 years with an Osmose alert without any tagging' but your note 'nicht loeschen', until I made the mistake of touching the boundary relation it's part of. I've now added the boundary=region tag to satisfy the system where the relation tag says place=region.

As a rule of thumb, any line you leave in Osmose that shows as a plain white line is a problem. it MUST have a qualification of what it represents. Notes on their own are not.

cheers.

PS I've found ore tagless lines in that, but since I did not touch them I don't get fingered as being co-culprit on those.

Short visit, 12 issues solved \o/

Hi,

what are there tourism=information.... information=guidepost? Please add the information type.

The cascade needs to be part of a line i.e. if you know the route of the fosso delle Farfalle, please add.

cosa ci sono tourism=information... information=guidepost? Si prega di aggiungere il tipo di informazioni.

La cascata deve essere parte di una linea, quindi se si conosce il percorso del fosso delle Farfalle si prega di aggiungere.

grazie

Yup, now it renders.

Hi,

As per the warnings above going with your change set, the buildings relation is not exactly perfect and has in OSM Inspector 6 points of unclosed rings (of building). The result is that 3/4 does not render. I've rebuild them. If you want to combine them, don't use multipolygon but the type=building relation and retag the buildings as building:part of that relation.

The mapped steps are flagged as a floating island i.e. not routable. I've added a way based on sat imagery and added steps at front entrance.
See osm.org/relation/14073807 for the changes.

ciao

ciao.

BTW, why is the Uni grounds area at layer=1?

Hi,

The object is now flagged as having been mapped both as a way and a relation. "Object tagged twice as way and relation
relation 13853764 analyser josm iD edit. I've removed the way and only left the Uni grounds in the relation.

cheers

Hi,

Your edit was flagged in Osmose where the path crosses the Tordino. You put a bridge:support tag there. Bridge supports cannot exist without a bridge so I've changed it to a bridge in the path. If it's just a point where having the walk through the water to the other side the bridge needs to go back to what it originally was, a ford=yes.

cheers

Hi Georg,

Moved all the replicating tags of the sperrstelle to the relation. Added some wood and made some areas inner where appropriate. The result is that of the stelle now all 4 render, all through the relation qualified as dragon_teeth which only 1 of 4 had as feature. looks great to me now
osm.org/way/313913181#map=19/46.71549/8.89423

As for the Uni, it's fine as it is.

ciao
Rob

Buildings on pedestrian areas are invisible in Carto Standard unless made inner to the area. Mapped the post office building on St.Peter's square, never wanted to appear. Roofs OTOH show because they are on layer=1 these days.

cheers

Ein anderes beispiel osm.org/way/510628467

Und andere verwendete tags wie im taginfo https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=high_ropes_course

The sky is the limit. :O)))

(In meinem besten Hackensack-Deutsch ;) Ich habe alle Waldrollen entfernt. Jetzt sollte es in Carto Standard mit Bäumen gerendert werden, aber es ist nicht korrekt. Es wäre besser, den Park durch eine Grenze und einen Knoten in der Mitte mit den Informationen zu ersetzen, jetzt ist es eine Art Mapping für den Renderer. Sehe osm.org/changeset/120093086

'Ignore'? You may, I don't.

After doing an inventory of the wall situation few days ago, I've decided now to park the issue FTM as it requires dedicated time to clean this up, remove all the endlessly and inconsistent information duplication to include name:... language tags etc and post a note to each wall part to only add supplemental info to the relation. As it stands the site relation misses wall parts as well, 5 appear to have the English wikipedia reference most others the Italian and some only the wikidata. There's like 68 'areas' to map. No intend to engage in that endeavour, cleaning up what's there is the first step to take IMO.

I'm sorry if you got that impressions from my words. Past experience, no reaction to a previous Change Set of yours I commented on either, a mapper commenting including a list of the edit sets comments you did not respond to boot it draws a picture.

For your interest, an active list of past comments to your edit sets and your replies is actually public: https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=224342
Up to you to ignore other mapper observations to your edit sets but it did draw the DWG attention.

Meaningful CS closing comments is important to know what was done which you haven't. Another data point from your contribution statistics page:

OSM Notes: Closed w/ comment 248 (w/o 224)

Can that be right, closing 248 map notes and 224 done so without indicating why the note was dismissed? If right that means 224 messages to other mappers went out telling them their map not was closed without a reason given.

I can't erase past comments made, but we can move forward and do better expecting the courtesy to all in the volunteer community of why what change(s) were made to include indicating if something needs revisiting / why left unfinished.

TTYL

Marc

He replied to me via PM where I copied the comment to as well, see PS, given that JOSM mappers somehow do not get the comment message if raised via the ID Editor interface, at least that is the observed quasi pattern.

NB: The layer=2 on the primary road has unknown purpose. Expecting an alert tomorrow about this with no-bridge or something.

Continued: Add turn lane rules and add directions to stop/giveway spots.