OK i Stop e eredità con la pista ciclabile ridipinta. Anche I stradqa e maxspeed=30

bon mappatura

Ciao,

Si prega di ricontrollare la correttezza del tag di senso unico su Via Curtolini. Le immagini aeree dell'ESRI mostrano un punto di sosta nella direzione opposta all'incrocio con Via Fogazzaro

Aspettando la tua risposta

Ciao

Ciao,

In realtà c'è un problema molto più grande qui. La pista ciclabile è stata mappata sopra le vie già esistenti. Se il marciapiede condivide la "nuova" pista ciclabile, allora il marciapiede deve essere rimosso e le etichette foot=yes + segregated= yes o no a seconda della situazione fisica.

https://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=routing&lon=12.11744&lat=45.33640&zoom=16&baselayer=Geofabrik%20Standard&overlays=duplicated_edges

Anche la pista ciclabile in sopra ai sentieri agricoli necessita di sistemazione.

Ciao di nuovo

Per rendere gli angoli degli edifici ben quadrati, fai clic con il pulsante destro del mouse e utilizza l'icona della casella o seleziona il profilo dell'edificio e premi il tasto Q.

ciao

Ciao e benvenuto in OSM

alcune correzioni

1) telefono, prefisso internazionale e spaziatura formato

2) Nome via Viale Colli perché gli indirizzi necessitano di una via con lo stesso nome

3) Numeri civici separati, per convenzione Italiana non sugli edifici. Non ancora fatto.
Vedere osm.org/changeset/130155110

felice mappatura.

Ha, that's one reason why I've more or less stopped using multipolygons for non-bordering areas, residential the going exception. Error prone. Saw the landcover texture difference though and the precise bordering which is the reason I asked.

have a nice day

PS It's likely some island car/all will show up in OSMI as clearly some of what's tagged as path is actually track for vehicle movement. Will await tomorrow's report.

Ciao, benvenuto a OSM

l tuo percorso è stato completamente rifatto quando lo hai mappato sopra i percorsi esistenti, ignorando gli avvisi per includere i passaggi dei corsi d'acqua.

Vedere osm.org/relation/15006737
osm.org/changeset/130144021

Se vedi errori nel percorso fammelo sapere.

Hi, and welcome to OSM

Your route was completely redone as you mapped it on top of existing ways, ignored alerts to include waterway passages.

See
osm.org/relation/15006737
osm.org/changeset/130144021

If you see mistakes in the routing let me know.

ciao

Hi there Otto

Can you tell me if these 2 border sharing heath elements can be merged or if there's a reason they have to remain separate?

Way 1121705149 as outer
Way 1121705151 as outer

They are both part of osm.org/relation/15000029

Presently they are flagged as 2 members of the same heath multipolygon sharing part of their outline and thus signalled with duplicate segment. Merging is done in few seconds with JOSM.

Let me know.

ciao
SekeRob

Sorry, no idea how an edit on Tessel got bboxed to an edit in a forest in Italy. Something must have been lingering in JSOM regardless of clearing all data layers.

Hi,

I've change your boundary type to watershed as per wiki osm.wiki/Relation:watershed

BUT, what exactly were you trying to express with this line which does infer an intend, but does not actually tag actual waterways as you can see in Turbo overpass:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=watershed
Hit the Overpass Turbo link at top-right of screen, zoom into France and hit Run at top-left to see other uses. All 2500 worldwide are tagged on actual waterways.

Please let me know
ciao

Sorry about that.... I go by the rule of "change it, own it". On your suggestion, looked in Turbo overpass and found a wiki link describing type=watershed, 2500 uses. most in France, few in the Americas, none in the Alpine region,
Utilisation does not require a closed loop albeit, the function is truly to capture the different flows that combine into the water collection that goes out the waterway into a lake, sea or ocean.
I have my doubt of the correct use here, it seems to infer a large area outline from where all water runs down eventually into the Med/Adriatic, No actual waterways have been tagged, in fact it would be a monster job to do that.
I see what the originator intended.

Anyway, I've change the type, now I own it and see what nukes will come down.

ciao

Hi,

I don't speak German and you don't speak italian I'm sure given the CS comment, BUT, your 'erstserfassung' of the 'Alpine watershed" osm.org/relation/14461262 is flagged by OSM Inspector with an unclosed boundary alert. Do you have any plans to continue the capture of this watershed area of this now 2 months old entry?

ciao

Hi,

v.v osm.org/way/100607082
You dropped the name off the road Via SP Pedemontana and created a route relation. Latter is fine, but removing the name is problematic because 3 businesses near the junction show this name as their street address, e.g. https://www.italcamion.net/nuovosito/contact-01/ and are now being flagged in QA. so I've restored the name and tagged source:name=address

Users should be able to find something in OSM with addresses, where alt_name does not work either since for that a name is required and QA is only interested in matching addr:street with what's in the name field.

If that a problem for you let me know.

ciao

Hi, could you please select the actual sat imagery as listed in the table as 'aerial_imagery' is zero informative. You can also select automatic in JOSM, but that one will than include all imagery layers loaded, which are always 4 in my setup. The JOSM programmers on my request were not receptive to tracing the actual imagery utilised like ID does. Set a node with ESRI, that one gets listed, set another node in Clarity, get that one listed too. Reasonably useless as mapper feedback. I'd like to know which, and from a Italy chapter discussion it's significant to know so that changes and additions can be made with the same image offset, which as JOSM warns is a Clarity problem, and to some extend to Bing as well.

MGIA

3D ground imagery in fact confirms it's a lined drain.

This object with the questioned link
osm.org/way/1120171874
is more very likely a drain which is whny you wont see a link to the parking side footway.

The reason I mapped the bridge 'area' was because I could not make out any ways. The standard carto does show this area properly.

But now zooming in, the area where the rail crosses probably should be retagged i.e. rail bridge removed and for the road part that goes below that quite wide grass covered section tunnel=yes+layer=-1.

Culverts don't render well in Carto but if there's no roof, considered a surface element.

Hi,

Not sure what layer there was to fix but a bridge on layer 1 and then the road 'cutting' is not considered underground. Now QA is asking for the tunnel tag. IF it's a tunnel, opinions differ,, then the rail bridge has to go.

Anyway, those 2 bridges next to the rail probably serve farm traffic and a underground drain(?), can't make out any track in imagery.

caio

Hi,

You know how the motorway was before, but now Flixbus N403 and 419 show big successive gaps on the motorway A4 going east from Mailand.

osm.org/relation/9424216#map=15/45.5700/9.3819
osm.org/relation/9424216#map=15/45.5700/9.3819

Since at least 1 section of motorway showing version V1 you must have been doing more than just cutting up the road. Anyway, this is what Turbo overpass shows what you touched in this change set

https://dev.overpass-api.de/achavi/?changeset=129785992&relations=true

No idea how the affected 2 Flixbus routes ran here before, straight on or visitng 1 or more stops at junctions.

ciao