Upon closer inspection, I reverted most of the ways back to highway=residential. However, being within landuse=residential was not the decisive factor. You should be able to find plenty of highway=unclassified in cities and smaller residential areas. Rather, highway=service was more fitting for some highway=unclassified, which previously implied Verbindungscharakter for the reverted streets, just like the nearby highway=tertiary continues through residential areas.

I do understand your conclusion from the wiki. That's why the international highway classification equivalence was born. It turned out to be unfeasible to define the classification for all countries without a lot of ambiguity, inconsistency and confusing wording. I am probably as local as most on the Austrian forum. Es tut ja nicht weh nachzufragen.

Hey Negreheb, as far as I can tell, you are correct that there are no street names. However, I did not add the names. It was guepal 11 years ago. Feel free to remove the names. I only added names by splitting existing ways.

The change from residential to unclassified is according to the international highway classification equivalence of Austria. If you cannot agree that the affected highways have Verbindungscharakter (German term in Wiki), then I am happy to discuss it.

Best regards

Thank you for your time. I can live with what you didn’t restore with changeset 164668069. If you ever have the time and desire, we can discuss some refinements that aren’t necessarily better. My apologies for making you feel the need to please me by restoring everything, instead of simply informing me about the delay. I want to clarify that your wording did not offend me. This is just my way of dealing with confusion, caused by wordings like everything, when in fact not everything was restored.
Have a nice day.

I do not agree that my title was misleading and I doubt that fixing your concerns, which I would have done gladly, would have been worse compared to erasing. Since improving the position of tram switches inherently modifies the tram routes it is part of, I would love to discuss how I can make it less misleading. It would have been difficult to avoid modifications to the tram depot, because it shared nodes with the tram rails. Since the building was topologically inconsistent with the surrounding area and intersections with rails I chose to redraw it and maybe I shouldn't have considered it to be minor. Though it should be reasonable with my prior response to your message about all those edits in mind. Could you please tell me if anything was unclear?

Good catch, thank you for correcting my mistake.

Hi Piagno
Thank you for correcting my mistake and closing those notes. Tracks that are incorrectly imported as abandoned are not uncommon (outside DACH). Usually I only mark them as active if I observe non-stationary trains/wagons across different imageries even though they were marked as abandoned multiple years ago. Both criteria aren't the case here and I shouldn't have relied solely on using the same or newer imagery as the version 1 changeset. I hope you understand that it wasn't just the imagery and agree that more exceptions apply.
Regards jogemu

Etxebarri kalea: highway=residential -> highway:footway
Inaccessible oneways left after changeset. Maybe you intended to change only the northernmost part.

No, problem. Thank you for the explanation. Using the same spelling as the country relation seems logical. Adding Mexico to alt_name:vi of the country relation could be done as well. Since, I am not really qualified I can't make those decisions.

Is Vịnh Mexico more common than Vịnh México? If not I would propose:
name:vi=Vịnh México
alt_name:vi=Vịnh Mễ Tây Cơ;Vịnh Mễ;Vịnh Mexico;Vịnh Mê-hi-cô

In case you agree, could you do me a favor and change alt_name:he to name:he as well? I tried to encourage the mapper to do that and restore alt_name:vi themself in a private message. This learning opportunity for a somewhat experienced mapper meant that you changed it ahead of me. I hope that didn’t bother you and I will change alt_name:he myself if I am mistaken in my assumption that Vịnh México is more common.

You/I can just fix the values with a new changeset. But first I need to confirm that both our suggestions are correct.

Is this what you want?
alt_name:vi=Vịnh Mễ Tây Cơ
name:he=מפרץ מקסיקו
Without alt_name:he
In that case there is no need for a revert.

I don't speak it either but the Vietnamese Wikipedia of México mentions that Mễ Tây Cơ is indeed the Sino-Vietnamese word. The question was directed towards טריסטרם in expectation of some justification in case the removal wasn't a mistake. I assume a not was missing, i.e. you can't say it is correct.

Why was alt_name:vi removed? Maybe you renamed alt_name:vi to alt_name:he instead of adding the alt_name:he.

Please do not change the name of this waterbody without prior discussion. See https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/gulf-of-america-gulf-of-mexico/124571

Danke für dein Feedback, ich habe bereits eine Präferenz für Bavaria vermutet, aber keinen großen Unterschied der Verzerrung bezogen auf Bavaria zwischen Bing und Esri vermutet. Mich würde interessieren, ob du meine Änderungen mit dem alten Schienenverlauf verglichen hast, denn die Position der Schienen war überwiegend ungenauer als jetzt. Ich möchte damit aber nicht die Verschlechterung kleinreden, die Abschnittsweise auftreten, wenn Änderungen weniger als die typischen 8-14 Jahre zurückliegen.

Wie unzufrieden bist du mit der Genauigkeit? Während meiner stichprobenartigen Kontrolle lagen Meilensteine und Signale mit Esri noch innerhalb der Bahnschwellen, während die alten Positionen außerhalb lagen, daher würde ich von einem Revert absehen.

Mein Fehler, sehe ich richtig, dass das mit osm.org/changeset/147588662 behoben ist?

Danke für den Forum-Link. Es ist gut, dass ich von einer täglichen Aktualiserung des OSM Inspectors ausgegangen bin. 12 Stunden sind zwar kürzer aber trotzdem eine lange Zeit zu warten.
LG

Hallo Nielkrokodil,

danke für den Hinweis. Ich wusste gar nicht, dass das mit iD passieren kann. Der Verlauf der fünf Busrelationen sollte mit osm.org/changeset/147467376 und osm.org/changeset/147467888 wieder passen.

Geübt bin ich nicht wirklich, aber halbwegs vertraut. Ich frage mich, wie das in Zukunft verhindert werden kann.

Liebe Grüße
Johannes

Hallo! Danke für den Hinweis. Nach über einem Jahr ist es schwer nachzuvollziehen, warum ich dort Bahnübergänge gesehen habe. Jedenfalls sehe ich jetzt keine mehr und habe sie daher entfernt.
osm.org/changeset/147088707
Wenn ich so etwas bei jemand Anderem sehe wäre ich einfach von ehemaligen Bahnübergangen ausgegangen.

Du hast deinen Fehler zwar schnell erkannt aber beim rückgängig machen ist anscheinend etwas schief gelaufen. Vermutlich hast du vergessen, die Änderung hochzuladen. Daher habe ich den Fluss Tag jetzt wieder entfernt.