Jeg har tilladt mig at tilføje lidt detaljer :)

osm.org/changeset/126835811

Damn, du var hurtigere end mig med Giber Ringvej! :-o

Jeg er selv flyttet til området. I morges var den ikke åben. Her til eftermiddag var den. Jeg havde sådan regnet med at være først til mølle :P

Godt gået! :)

Thanks for you kind and polite response! :)

Now my comment seems so harsh in comparison. It was in no way meant to be :)

Don't put foot=no on crossings where it is actually allowed to cross.

On this highway it is for example perfectly fine to cross the larger road on foot:
osm.org/way/10058305

You have put in fixme=name on the two roundabouts.

Do the roundabouts itself actually HAVE a name? If not, they should not be named.

Er det også dig som har fjernet den trappe som befandt sig inde på konstruktionsområdet?

Jeg har reetableret vejen i osm.org/changeset/122809900

Som tydeligt viser at der foregår et eller andet.

Du har lige fjernet en vej som på ortfotos'ne var igang med at blive etableret.

Og som du kan se fra historikken af vejen var den blevet oprettet 2020-09-05 med en note på vejen der sagde "Vedtaget lokalplan", hvilket viser noget om at dette ikke er en midlertidig vej.

Det korte af det lange er: Vær forsigtig når ortfotos viser noget væsentligt anderledes end det som er tegnet. Vær især opmærksom på hvornår noget er tegnet.

Med det sagt. Jeg har selv været skyldig i at gøre det samme dengang jeg var mere nybegynder.

Har rettet op på området her:
osm.org/changeset/122807782

Denne her vej er forkert. Vi skal ikke tegne vejbaner som separate veje.

What?!!

Hvofor har du fjernet vejen hen over Kennedys Plads?

It IS actually a man made tree, built of LEGO bricks :)

But you are right, the correct tagging is an artwork. I have updated the tags to clarify this and added further details as well.

Thanks for the help, bringing attention to this :)

:)

Hedder broen over Nørreå virkelig "Fladbro Skov"? Det virker som en fejl?

osm.org/way/1014468789

Wulfmorn: So you are telling me you would rather have one rule for lines that are a closed system vs. another rule if it gets connected?

FredrikLindseth: So imagine this scenario in the real world:

A light rail line is connected to a real railway, so the light_rail trains can drive among the "real" trains, thereby saving construction costs while at the same time extending the light rail service. Maybe the light rail now serves stations that the train served before, so the train can have shorter travel times to further away stations.

If we as mappers set a rule that the tracks can only be mapped as one thing for the entirety of the light rail route, then what should it be mapped as here?

Should all the light rail be remapped as railway=rail, as most of the light_rail line is now running on "real" tracks? Hopefully no?

Can you see the problem with that rule?

A lot of highways in Norway uses access=no without being closed for ALL traffic.

For the access mode:

But you still left
foot=use_sidepath
bicycle=use_sidepath
- they effectively blocks foot and bicycle the same way as access=no.

I assume the law states that foot and bicycle MUST use the provided cycleways/sidewalks, when they are available, right?

It is still a tram for all the parts I have mapped - also where it runs in it's own traché along the road.

The main difference is where it crosses the street.

A tram would be part of a normal highway junction (you know, red-yellow-green lights for other vehicles).

A light_rail would require railway crossings more akin to what you see on "real" railways: Blinking red lights (and maybe a bell/sound signal and maybe lift barriers).

See:
osm.wiki/Tag:railway%3Dtram
and
osm.wiki/Tag:railway%3Dlight_rail

Just because it maybe is called a light rail in daily speak, it have nothing to do with how it should be tagged.

The route running on the tracks could fine be light_rail, but the tracks themselves must adhere to signaling-/crossing-types etc.

You find a good example of tram/light_rail tagging here:
https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?style=standard&lat=56.19185431153937&lon=10.218915939331055&zoom=13

Same place in openstreetmap:
osm.org/?style=standard#map=13/56.1919/10.2189

Du har mig overbevist. Vi lader det være en servicevej :)