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.

La linea 3 è ufficialmente già in costruzione. Alcuni cantieri sono già stati transennati.
La linea 2 è ancora in fase di progetto.
Ma, attenzione, come già detto, il percorso della linea 3, almeno nella zona Voltabarozzo, è approssimativo.

Ciao Diegomodulo,
quale è la fonte per il percorso del nuovo tram per Voltabarozzo? Manca nel changeset. Inoltre non mi Il percorso non mi sembra giusto almeno nella zona del Ponte di Voltabarozzo

How come that you see a mini-roundabout here?
(I removed it)

Ciao. Vedo che citi OpenTopoMap come fonte. OTM, essendo solo un'altra visualuzzazione degli stessi dati OpenStreetMap non è una fonte valida.

I don't think the tag railway=yard is correct. This building is an ex-railway station, but not an active rail yard (stazione merci). From what I know, discussions are under way to re-enable it as a train stop for some local trains.

Con questo changeset hai messo lock=no e intermittent=yes su alcune waterway a Battaglia Terme. Mi sembra un errore.

Hi. With this changeset you changed the cycleway and footway tagging of Via Padova (way 4042612) from the actual situation of lanes painted on the carriageway to separate ways ("cycleway=track" and "sidewalk=both"). In addition you removed the oneway-for-bicycle information. Please revert the tagging to the situation of 26/04/2022. Thank you. Volker, Padova.

If you feel you can do this, I am happy to do on-the-ground checks for you on request. Also, I presume you have seen that Mapillary coverage is good here.

As I said, the ZTL in Padova is not correctly mapped. I do not consider myself sufficiently knowledgable in the field of complex access restrictions. What I know is that the roads that you have mentioned, are off-limits to me by car, as I am not a permit holder. What is not clear to me, is which additional restrictions apply for permit holders once they are inside the ZTL. I fear that you will not be able to resolve the problem that the local mappers have not solved. Normal routing engines should not allow a car driver to get into the ZTL, most of the time. In addition there are different ZTL zones with different access restrictions and different time tables.