Addendum:

For the name "Rentnerhügel" I found this more official source: https://archiv.dresden.de/detail.aspx?ID=4101976

Ahoj "DerSachse04",

I see that you named the park south of the tram stop 'Heinrich-Tessenow-Weg' (osm.org/way/70378253) as 'Parkanlage "Rentnerhügel"'.

I have three questions about his -- while the first actually probably is an issue:

* Is the complete string 'Parkanlage "Rentnerhügel"' really the name of it? So is 'Parkanlage"' part of the name? Or did you just add it to whos nicely on the map? (From `leisure=park` it should be clear that it is a park; remember to not tag for the renderer).

* I also know that locals call the area 'Rentnerhügel'. What actually is your information source? Some more official, or also locals? It is completely within the scope to name places as they are known locally, but maybe it can be interesting to note the source of the name if it is only known locally, e.g. in a `note` tag.
I have mapped the peak of the hill (osm.org/node/12851903436), and added a `note=The name "Rentnerhügel" is a locally used name for this small hill.` to let future mappers know that the name actually is valid even if not officially documented.

* Do you know if the Park also is called something with "Rentnerhügel" in it's name, or if it is only the hill?

Regards!

Es gibt wohl inzwischen einen OpenRailwayMap-Klon der Daten von OpenHistoricalMap nimmt/ genommen hat. So kann der historische Verlauf dann wirklich korrekt dokumentiert werden, ohne OpenStreetMap-regeln zu verletzen dass Dinge, von denen wirklich jede Spur weg ist, nicht auf die Karte gehören.

OK.

In der Nähe habe ich übrigens eines von `railway=razed` auf `railway=abandoned` gesetzt, ein weiteres nicht gemapptes `railway=abandoned` hinzugefügt (in beiden Fällen liegen die Gleise noch deutlich sichtbar, auf einer Parkplatzfläche). Und andere `railway=razed` gelöscht, wo inzwischen alles umgegraben ist oder eine Straße drübergebaut ist.

Fixed.

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.