osm.org/way/785909692 ozaj ma taky nazov?

A shelter is named after a wine making company? Maybe that is the operator? Or is the company somewhere close? Seems to be at Vtacikova cesta 9536/25

Zdravim, nezabudajte uvadzat zdroje. Na park obeti hraniciarov som nasiel VZN, ale tie dalsie neviem. Ak je to napisane na mieste, tak aspon 'survey'.
Taktiez uz teraz nesuhlasi novy nazov na wikidata,ktore je na objekte. Lebo jedno je park a druhe namestie, takze treba to rozlisit.

Taktiez nazov obchodu z fotiek Bingu nevidite, takze prosim uvadzajte skutocne zdroje.

Zdravim, na budove asi nebude napisana cela tato reklama, a ak aj ano, tak reklamy nemusime prepisovat do OSM. Staci nazov firmy a typ obchodu (co predavaju), co ste nezadali, lebo v texte nazvu to ziadny program nepochopi.

Zdravim, usek chodnika osm.org/way/904992914 nie je vidiet ani v roku 2023 na Ortofotomozaike SR. A uz uplne je divne, aby chodnik prechadzal cez ploty do priemyselneho arealu na ulicu Pri majeri. O co tu ide?

Yes, 'disused:' could be close to 'disabled:'. But 'was:' is clearly wrong.
'disabled' only refers to disabled people when used as a key (at least on osm.wiki/Key:disabled), not as a key prefix.
Still 'disabled:' and 'disused:' may have slightly different meaning. You again wrongly mean 'lights are not used ANY MORE'. But in reality, the lights are 'not used YET'. In such case prefixes like 'proposed:' or 'construction:' could be handy, but they again do not convey the information that the lights are already fully built, just not enabled/used.

These small roads are clearly visible on aerial imagery (like ESRI or Ortofotomozaika SR) as finished (no construction around them). So I will remove the access=no as even though the roads are oneway and end in a dead-end (noexit=yes) in a field, but e.g. pedestrians can go there as they can ignore oneway signs.

Why this change? The traffic signals are still there, just turned off (when you did this change). They are actually enabled at this time. So it was never true that they were unrecoverably removed, which would justify tagging with 'was:'. 'disabled' and 'was' have different meaning. Yes, 'disabled' may be undocumented, which is another reason you should not touch it if you don't know what the original mapper meant.

You provide no source of your change so if you just did a random automatic edit without visiting the place, please refrain from doing such again.

Why are the roads like osm.org/way/995511822 access=no? What traffic sign is there?

Zdravotne stredisko uz je zakreslene ako cela budova. Takze tento nazov je duplicitny.

Zdravim, chodniky popri tychto cestach su uz zakreslene samostatnymi ciarami. V takom pripade sa na cestu dava sidewalk=separate (ze su zakreslene samostatne), nie 'both' (akoby cesta este mala dalsie postranne chodniky okrem tych zakreslenych). Taktiez je potom zbytocne sidewalk:surface (je to duplicita k hodnotam surface=* na jednotlivych chodnikoch).

Zdravim, oba potencialne bunkre, co ste nepomenovali, su podla wikidat zaniknute. Obe miesta poznam a podla mna tam nic nie je.

It is because the website of the building at https://www.apartmany-bernard.sk/ only offers selling the apartments, not renting to tourists. Of course, the permanent owners can then rent them to tourists individually, which is then facilitated via the porter service (that part is on the website too). So if you confirmed that some are indeed rented to tourists, we can now tag it somehow. But not the whole building is for tourists.

Preco je na tie lesne cesty zakaz vstupu pre vsetkych, aj lesnikov?

For access tagging precedence see osm.wiki/Key:access . 'vehicle' is more broad and contains motor_vehicle so if motor_vehicle is specified too, it overrides vehicle.
The problem was that 'designated' means 'road is specifically meant for all motor vehicles'. It does not mean 'only some vehicle types specified on traffic sign'. So it was not disallowing any motor vehicles.
I changed it to vehicle=private which means only the vehicles allowed by owner (possibly via the signs). Still some routing engines ignore this (and route into the area), but it is now more correct.

Nezda sa mi, ze by zelena isla do budovy (pozrite https://www.freemap.sk/#map=19/49.158603/20.224932&layers=X ), ale skontrolujte, ked tam budete. Dakujem.

Yes, is seems the area was rebuilt. There is 5 years old imagery of Ortofotomozaika SR where the parking does not exist. But there exists Ortofotomozaika of 2022, also ESRI that has the parking. mapBox imagery even has the building in different shape. It seems it was all rebuilt.

I understand the building contains apartments/flats for long-term residents, not for tourist. At least the website does not say any thing like that. It is also not tagged tourism=apartments. But you added the parking as access=customers. So what customers are those if on the tourists?

Okrem toho "Tatraheim" 2km ma v OSM len 1.77 km a "Tatraheim 3km" len 2.2km, takze nieco nebude este hotove. Minimalne usek do Gerlachova ma byt asi v relacii trasy dvakrat, kedze sa po nom ma aj vracat. Aspon tak to chapem, lebo stupanie a klesanie ma byt rovnaky pocet metrov.
Ale nechapem ako je mozne, ze na scheme tras na stranke https://tatraheim.sk/ , kde su vykreslene na mapy.cz nejdu tatraheim 2 a tatraheim 3 po rovnakej trase, ale jemne sa odlisuju. Ved mapy.cz to berie z OSM. Ci ma iny zdroj? Je to potom v OSM spravne?

A ak by trasy nesli po existujucich cestach (tak ako tych par usekov, kde idu rovno cez les a nie je tam cesta, tak aj tak musia ist po nejakom fyzickom objekte. Ak tam ziadna cesta nie je tak sa dava highway=piste. Ak trasy nejdu po ziadnej ceste (tak ako to mate teraz), tak vlastne "visia vo vzduchu" a su v podstate v OSM chybne. Treba to teda urcite upratat.