Ciao Alessandro,
Conosco da anni questo parere. È molto ambiguo. Il problema è che questa interpretazione è sicuramente solo conosciuta fra gli addetti al lavoro, sicuramente non presso gli automobilisti normali. Poi bisogna stare anche attenti alla differenza fra "si può attraversarla" e l'aspetto precedenza. C'è chi dice che, si, puoi attraversare in sella, ma non hai la precedenza sul traffico sulla strada, precedenza che hai solo se attraversi a piedi. Se non fosse così, che cosa serve la distinzione tra un attraversamento pedonale e un attraversamento ciclabile? Ci sono segnali orizzontali e verticali diversi per i due casi. Ho deciso di mappare in modo cauto in vista di questo casino.

Per inciso, l'italia è uno dei pochissimi paesi che conosce la differenza fra attraversamento pedonale e ciclabile.

Volker

Sure. Thank you for fixing this.

Hi
what is this:
2IRT (899381621, v1)
?

What is the source of this data?

Hi.
With this changeset you started to add micromapping to the Viadotto Monteroni. I have several comments for discussion / suggestions for corrections.
1) The man_made=bridge polygon should not coincide with the outer highway=footway linear way, rather it should include them. The highway ways should only be connected to the short ends of the man_made=bridge polygon. See the schematics of the man_made=bridge wiki page.
2) The emergency highway=footway have no access points and no emergency stairways on the entire length of the viaduct. In order to reach them the pedestrian has to climb over a guardrail. Also they are very narrow. I would not map them at all. Alternatively one could map the guardrails, including height.
3) If the footways are mapped they should have correct width=* tags
4) You are using area:highway=trunk. That single polygon includes both highway=trunk carriageways. I would interpret the corresponding wiki page as requesting separate area:highway=trunk polygons for each direction.
5) Embankment tags are missing for the ramps that lead to the viaduct.
6) At the southern end the bridge=yes tag extends into the ramp part beyond the end of the emergency footways.
7) At the northern end of the viaduct the bridge=yes tags are present for a further 900m where the road is not on a bridge. Part of that is on an embankment that ends roughly behond the cemetery
8) South of Via Lauretana there is a dirt track that runs all the way under the western carriageway of the viaduct to its southern end. This is not mapped.

Volker (Padova)

Hi. In this changeset you have inserted, *amongst many others I suppose) way 402335175 as members into the two relations Ciclovia del Sole and Eurovelo 7 - Sun Route. As far as I am aware there is no signposting on the ground. What is the basis of your mapping with regards to the relation memberships? Your source information only says "own gpx traces". Volker Padova, Italy

Must be an error. My apoogies. Can you extract the added guideposts before the rervert?
Thanks

Could you please first send me an OSM message ( outside the changeset discussion) describing what your "cleanup" is. One problem I see is that your new "main" route is not obvious. Than there is the problem that we have two different routes in the web-based documentation (Veneto Strade and Regione Veneto) and then, a third one signed on the ground. I suggest we stop both inserting data and first of all agree on what want to achieve, and then agree on how to map it. Maybe we can chat or videoconference on WhatsApp? Not today, however.
.

Sorry about this. But I had kindly asked to freeze that operation. I was trying to update details unrelated to the big picture of how to the I1 route is organized. I had assumed you were pausig. When I tried to upload my rsther big changeset I found a conflict. You were apparently changing the relation to superroute (which may or may not be a good idea),. In orfer to save my details I had to revert your re-arrangement.
Please stop with that intervention, until we have a better picture of what is on the ground. In particular I had corrected the on the ground detailsof the E7 relation exactly where it intersects the I1. In fact in the Regione Veneto documentation of I1 they "use" a part of the E7 that does noot carry any I1 signs (the part that goes to Lago Fimon). In addition the E7 signing on the ground takes a different course on the ground than in the official documentation. I am off for a bike tour now. Please leave things untouched there.

The problem is that the signposted route and the one on the official website do not coincide. I cannot say if the status of the relation before your changes was correct. I know the part form Vicenza to Venice quite well, and I put a large number of guidepost in the relation. I hpe you have not removed or altered any of them, because nearly all of them had been verified on the ground. One thing that is important: conceptually the route did only contain a main route and spurs, but no variants. This may have changed conceptually, but what should count is the on-the-ground signposts. Also be careful with your source: as you can see the link you quote is an archive site, not the official site of the Regione Veneto (https://www.veneto.eu/IT/Garda-Venezia/) , which shows a route that is definitively not in all places in accordance with the sign posts on the grounds

Please wait before doing anything more on this. What's the base for your changes? I looked at your new relation 16478126. At first glance, at least some of these are not part of I1. The I1 route needs to follow the sign on the ground. These signs are admittedly confusing in parts. In particular there are three different routes involved: "I1", "I2", "I1/I2", which partially coincide or overlap. There are also segment where "I1" and "I2" share the same ways, and these segments are signposted also with "I1/I2".
Volker (Padova)

way 1188645879, v2: what kind of permit is requested here? from whom?

Volker

Ciao Davide,
Con questo changeset hai creato la relazione 10704337.
Potresti aggiunger un riferimento web con la descrizione del percorso e della segnaletica.

Grazie
Volker (Padova)

Grazie Marco,
Hai trovato un bell'errore mio. Dovrebbe essere apposto adesso.
Volker

Removed node 9572349875. This crossing node connected the motorway (!) in a tunnel at layer=-1 with a foot-cycleway at layer 0. Please be careful and pay attention to editor warnings when inserting data.

Hi.
in this changeset you modified way 361868924 incorrectly, in my view:
(1) You changed the mapping from highway=service to highway=cycleway - this is not correct. This road is a service road, but without motorized traffic (one conseqeunce is that horses are allowed). Highway=cycleway would imply "bicycle designate", which is not the case - the corresponding road signs are not present.
(2) You removed incorrectly "embankment=yes"
(3) You removed lit=no for no reason
(4) the tag railway=abandoned is wrong here on single way - it is to be used on the route relation
(5) you removed the razed:railway=rail incorrectly. In fact the road uses the old railway bed, but the rails have been remove and replaced by a road-like surface. (6) yo incorrectly removed the smoothness, surface, and width tags. These are useful tags, independently of the main highway=* tag.

I suppose that you have done the same operation on may ways of that ex-railway-now-bicycle route. Please note that the pieces of the ex-railway (including stations, block stations, some bridge bits) are also part of a historic railway relation, which is not a route relation, but an (experimental) site relation.
Before I or you do any changes, let's agree on how to do it outside this changeset discussion (using the user-to-user messaging system of OSM).

In the meantime I realized that the bollards that separated the cycle lanes from the road, and justified the mapping as a separate way, have been removed recently. Therefore I changed the mapping back to the cycle lane scheme tagged on the road way.

Reverting. There is a separately mapped segregated foot-cycle-way

Hi. I suppose Way: 868053258 is an error and can be removed.

Penso che questo, al livello pratico, non è necessario. Tutta linea 3 è appaltata. Io la metterei in costruzione en bloc. La Linea 2 non è ancora in appalto, quindi proposed.