Hi again

Absent your response to the CS comments and PM, I've gone ahead and reverted your 2 duplicate way mappings.

If you wish to recreate, here's the OSM wiki link on how to map a route correctly: osm.wiki/Hiking_maps
osm.wiki/Relation:route

Ciao di nuovo

In assenza della tua risposta ai commenti e al PM di CS, sono andato avanti e ho ripristinato le tue 2 mappature duplicate.

Se desideri ricreare, ecco il link wiki OSM su come mappare correttamente un percorso: osm.wiki/Hiking_maps
osm.wiki/Relation:route

Hi again

Absent your reponse to the CS comments and PM, I've gone ahead and reverted your 2 duplicate way mappings.

If you wish to recreate, here's the OSM wiki link on how to map a route correctly: osm.wiki/Hiking_maps

Ciao di nuovo

In assenza della tua risposta ai commenti e al PM di CS, sono andato avanti e ho ripristinato le tue 2 mappature duplicate.

Se desideri ricreare, ecco il link wiki OSM su come mappare correttamente un percorso: osm.wiki/Hiking_maps

Hi Fulvio, welcome to OSM

Can you tell us where you read that hiking paths have to be mapped on top of existing ways? ASking because that is absolutely not done. Hike route tagging, any route tagging is added to existing ways by either additional labels or by route relation.

Let us know urgently. We need to get any such instruction corrected ASAP.

MGIA

Ciao Fulvio, benvenuto in OSM

Puoi dirci dove hai letto che i percorsi escursionistici devono essere mappati su percorsi esistenti? CHIEDERE perché non è assolutamente fatto. Escursione etichettatura del percorso, qualsiasi etichettatura del percorso viene aggiunta ai percorsi esistenti tramite etichette aggiuntive o per relazione di percorso.

Facci sapere urgentemente. Abbiamo bisogno di correggere qualsiasi istruzione di questo tipo al più presto.

MGIA

Hi Fulvio, welcome to OSM

Can you tell us where you read that hiking paths have to be mapped on top of existing ways? ASking because that is absolutely not done. Hike route tagging, any route tagging is added to existing ways by either additional labels or by route relation.

Let us know urgently. We need to get any such instruction corrected ASAP.

MGIA

Ciao Fulvio, benvenuto in OSM

Puoi dirci dove hai letto che i percorsi escursionistici devono essere mappati su percorsi esistenti? CHIEDERE perché non è assolutamente fatto. Escursione etichettatura del percorso, qualsiasi etichettatura del percorso viene aggiunta ai percorsi esistenti tramite etichette aggiuntive o per relazione di percorso.

Facci sapere urgentemente. Abbiamo bisogno di correggere qualsiasi istruzione di questo tipo al più presto.

MGIA

Hi,

Correzione nel CS osm.org/changeset/128582353

problemi: strada sul strada e strada sul edificio.

ciao

Hi,

Multiple correzioni in change set base immagine 7-2022 osm.org/changeset/128581942

ciao

Hi,

v.v. paths, pedestrian street, footways in the Disney zone, you may want to consider adding the virtual=yes tag to those that are technically only for the purpose of satisfying navigation software. There's still some unreachable ways in this park where per OSM inspector there's a need for a path such as osm.org/way/885933246#map=19/33.81155/-117.91927

Mapped by yourself BTW.

ciao

PS, per Turbooverpass

"waterway=water_point
A place to fill fresh water holding tanks of a boat."

i.e. something tagged in marinas and harbours.

Hi,

waterway=water_point changed to amenity=drink_water in the classic cast iron fontanella model seen everywhere in Abruzzo.

ciao

Since I was wetting me knives, took care of the matter, judiciously removed the overlap sections and ways mapped by ruler and mapped a few dozen missing forest inner patches while there.

There's just no replying from trail mappers seemingly anywhere in Italy. Going to search for the origins of this persistent overlap mapping. Suspect somewhere some instructions are written/interpretable as literally having to do it this way. Veneto issue still on the list.

ciao

OK, in fact virtual=yes has a better ring to it, in fact a certain person who maps Disney LA might really like this qualifier.

I'll run turbo overpass and make the adjustment where I did in Italy, maybe a half dozen times, location by location else the community explodes over the large Bbox ;O)

Somewhere that page where I lifted that artificial_path needs a comment suffix.

Something landed in a route master which does not belong there per QA

"Non route relation member in route_master relation
relation 3205578 analyser josm iD edit
name = 1/ Osp. Clinicizzato/Università - Cassa Edile"

repaired route 10 that got broken in the same place. Trick: Select a way directly before and after the edited zone, particularly a roundabout, and hover one by one over all bus routes of the relations summary. It will highlight in blue which routes have a gap after completing the edits.

I notice, many others don't.

ciao

artificial_path means that it's a inferred path way in garage buildings / underground parkings from (oneway) entrances to exits.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/artificial_path

Picked it up in one or the other OSM wiki.

Not Used anywhere else? According turbopass most uses in UK.

And typos are my forté ;P)

Hi,

tagging and roles of grassland and grassland > meadow and role relations were corrected in osm.org/changeset/128515939
Now everything renders.

ciao

PS

1) value of grassland is always with key natural
2) values of meadow and grass is always with key landuse.

There's more to be fixed here to include grass areas that need to be made inner to the 1864 member forest, but JOSM is recommended to do that as ID is just unable to handle this oversized relation properly and swiftly.

Hi,

You say 'nomi' in the topic, but according turbo overpass you broke the forest relation causing the forest to disappear from the map. and changed /added landcover patches.

Has been fixed, but there's still a warning "warnings:disconnected_way:highway" that needs fixing.

ciao from the Abruzzi

Doubtlessly there are Via Cavour's that refer to the town, but usually there will be a context of surrounding streets w/ town names. Stand alone, never would think of a town.

Actually there's a wiki statement that says that: In case of a naming dispute, that what's on the road sign prevails", period, something in that wording. i.e. Via Cavour per the pole sign is indisputable no matter what, I have seen nowhere anytime different for this name, coincidentally day before in Ortona, and updated, etymology and all. When surveying with SC and leaving a mapnote, I will attach a phto of the sign to back it up. Unfortunately SC images disappear about 14 days after the note is marked complete which is why JOSM now gives a warning for links to these images.

PS, I make exception for the initials in street names, so changed e.g. Via D. Pugliese to Via Domenico Pugliese. Also wiki supported (The wall sign actually says Dom. Pugliese). The data consumers are free to abbreviate mechanically if they want. Bar the fat finger typos I leave, the correctors better have a good story.

ciao

The code is the change set number as seen in the CS summary.
There's one in Italy who's comment is only a name acronym and a sequence number, but never telling what he does, another who's always commenting to be adding buildings when most don't. Asked for meaningful comment, no response.

Comments help to determine if they can just be ignored or actually have a subject of interest. No comment or codes invokes suspicion.

The consequence of this action is that addresses that had the full street name are now being flagged in QA with "No street with name "Via Camillo Benso conte di Cavour" found around". That's quite a few.
Also, now short_name and name are the same and the long name was not moved to full_name.

As someone wrote in an argument "mapping should be fun".