And: Two shelters here (the one at the line "8" tram stop) have a sticker on them saying "DVB" and a number (180, 181). What does that mean?

The two shelters at the line "7" stop do not have such a sticker.

> AFAIK the shelters aren't owned by DVB, but rather the advertising company.

Yes you are right.

Do you know if this is also true for [this special shelter](osm.org/way/585041931) in the middle of the "plaza"?

And what _is_ the advertising company? (This are still the "old" shelters.)

---

I think it is more correct to tag the advertising company as the operator of the shelter, and Dresdner Verkehrsbetriebe AG as the operator of the information board.

What do you think?

Regards!

Ad osm.org/way/230601794 und osm.org/way/229948335:

Was ist mit "zwar noch zu erkennen, aber wegen Uebersichtlichkeit razed, statt abondoned." gemeint? Welche Übersichtlichkeit? (Remember: Don't map for the renderer!)

Gruß!

Regarding your notes on `railway=razed` saying

> Nach Stilllegung Abbau Ueberbauen der Gleise bitte Kanten nicht loeschen sondern in railway-disused -abandoned -razed aendern!

This is to be disputed. Mapping a feature without any physical, verifiable presence is considered out of scope for OSM. OpenHistoricalMap (osm.wiki/Open_Historical_Map) can be used to preserve history.

However, you also tagged some disued railway lines that are not razed as `railway=razed`. Those of course are within scope to stay.

This changeset introduced a `fence_type=hedge`, which should be corrected according to osm.wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dhedge#Possible_Tagging_Mistake.

Regards!

This changeset introduced a `fence_type=hedge`, which should be corrected according to osm.wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dhedge#Possible_Tagging_Mistake.

Regards!

Here is a `fence_type=hedge`, which should be corrected according to osm.wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dhedge#Possible_Tagging_Mistake.

Regards!

> You can use surface overlay in SCEE to change existing surface

oh, thanks!

> or go to "show/edit tags",

Not possible if no quest is shown at all for the item.

What is the use of the relation osm.org/relation/18813205/? It has `type=boundary` but no further tags.

If it is a real boundary, further tags should describe what it is (osm.wiki/Tag:type=boundary)

osm.org/way/216204085 is mapped with `access=restricted`.

According to the wiki [1], this tag should not be used but replaced with more appropriate tags.

[1] osm.wiki/Tag:access=restricted

Is there a specific reason, or just forgotten, that the `building=*` tag was not removed from the shelter osm.org/way/585041931 in the middle of the "plaza"?

Ahoj @burrscurr,

thanks for your comment.

There actually is a discussion about this at the OpenStreetMap forum where some other person has a different opinion:

http://community.openstreetmap.org/t/129338/2

Maybe you want to raise your opinion there, too?

I currently leave it as it is (SCEE actually does ask this question now again once I removed the tag, so it is easy to be reminded of adding the tag again).

Regards!

Ja, da war ein `/` hinter dem `/t` vergessen.

Korrekt ist: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/128767/2

Ah OK (yes, one reduncancy should have been removed, yes, the one way (your way) or the other (`sidewalk:both=separate`).

There are areas where sidewalks are mapped separately, and I think Berlin is quite strong in it to provide detailed guidance for people in need for accessibility, even when the sidewalk is like here only separated with a kerb.

Instead of deleting the separately mapped footways, it would have been preferrable to set them with `access=no`, too, so they do not get lost and can be re-activated in case the bridge gets operational again.

Physically, the ways are still there.

Regarding `review_requested=yes`:

If the local source confirms that the house number is 60, then I think it is OK!

This steps do not connect to a highway on the upper side, and probably run through a building.

@Eoltec, can you remember how they connect correctly and if so fix it?

Regards!

This steps do not connect to any way on both sides.

@Eoltec, can you remember how they connect correctly and if so fix it?

Regards!

"tourism=camp_site" is for official campsites only.

I cannot find any here.

Can you provide reference? Add the "operator="-tag and add the name of the operator, and add opening hours/ seasons, and if applicable add a "website=" tag.

If it is not an official camping spot but just your personal bookmark of a place for wild camping, then please remove the item.

Regards!

I see you have added some tags
`railway:signal:fouling_point=DE-BOStrab:sh6`

I don't find any definition of them in the OpenStreetMap-Wiki.

Can you introduce definition? If you "invented" this tagging, this is totally fine, but please document it.

Also, I am thinking, if it is worth to make "fouling points" a relation?: Specifying which tracks it belongs to?

Regards!