Hello zitronenschwarz,

I noticed that you used dirt/sand as value for surface. E.g. osm.org/way/867388191 or osm.org/way/867388192

IMO "dirt;sand" should be used (or a single value). See: osm.wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator

Would you mind changing this?

Cheers

Hello natur_biker,

I noticed, that you sometimes use the surface "dirt/sand". For example here:
osm.org/way/871934798/history
osm.org/way/501231326/history

IMO "dirt;sand" should be used instead. See osm.wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator

Would you mind changing this?
Cheers

Hello makren,

was it just an accident, that you create this way osm.org/way/829250432 with tracktype=path?

Cheers

Hey Micha2307,

in this changeset you edited a strange looking way: osm.org/way/159948694/history

Do you remember what value should be used for "highway"? Maybe path? And remove tracktype?

Cheers

Hello JLOSM,

in this changeset you added tracktype=unpaved to highway=unclassified. Sure you meant to use tracktype here and not surface?

Cheers

osm.org/way/885139095/history
osm.org/way/884988723/history

Hello Navigator111,

thank you for your contributions to OSM! I stumbled over this changeset which has a problem: For all new ways you added, you used tracktype="Feldweg" which isn't a common value. Would you mind correcting them? (Use grade1, grade2, grade3, grade4 or grade5)

See osm.wiki/DE:Key:tracktype for possible values. You also might add a surface osm.wiki/Key:surface (if you want)

Cheers

Hey Astragale-prod,

was it intentional that you added highway=cycleway/cyclewy to those Nodes?

osm.org/node/7892690519/history/ and
osm.org/node/2376803254/history/

Cheers

Ja "grade3" aber nicht "3". Es geht hier um die Schreibweise nicht darum, ob es ein grade2, grade3 oder grade4 ist.

Did you misspell service here? osm.org/way/880021700

Hey Nattfari,

I noticed, you added tracktype=grade1_ruts on some ways (I know, 9 years ago). E.g. osm.org/way/140574488/history or osm.org/way/23183602/history

Would you mind correcting these to tracktype=grade1 and surface=concrete:lanes/surface=asphalt:lanes.... I think this would be better.. What do you think?

Cheers

Hey Pfadfinder2013,

I noticed, that you added tracktype=grade1_ruts to some ways. E.g. osm.org/way/175960155 (from this changeset) or osm.org/way/124710358/history.

Wouldn't it be better to use tracktype=grade1 and surface=asphalt:lanes (or surface=concrete:lanes)?

Cheers

Was it just a mistake, that you added tracktype=3 to this way? osm.org/way/823404474/history

Was it just a mistake, that you added tracktype=3 to this way? osm.org/way/440853781/history

Was it just a mistake, that you added tracktype=3 to this way? osm.org/way/394552076/history

Edit: sry, that wasn't you....

Was it just a mistake, that you added tracktype=3 to this way? osm.org/way/163420659

was it just a mistake, that you added grade=3 on this way? osm.org/way/375428399

was it just a mistake that you added tracktype=3 on this way? osm.org/way/771048159

was it just a mistake, that you used tracktype=3 on this way? osm.org/way/105180475

Hello gd-wg,

firstly, why are you not commenting your changesets? This make it harder to understand what you have changed.... :-(

Now my question: Do you know that tracktype=3 is not a valid option? Because in osm.org/way/218365932 and osm.org/way/92016766. grade3 should be used instead (I guess).

Cheers