Thanks for your feedback. I will revert my removals of the virtual wind park polygons in Spain since they seem to be valuable to you guys.

But can we please agree on tagging for both the site=wind_farm relation and the virtual outline that prevents duplications? Because right now from the data perspective there are two identical power plants at this location:
Relation: relation/12932853
Virtual outline way: way/965357891

I would suggest to only keep power=plant tagging on the relation, but not sure what the outline should be tagged then. landuse=industrial seems wrong, because it is not the primary use of the land here. Any suggestions?

تشکر می‌کنم

Hi, the outline polygons seem to have been imported from DGA (according to the original changeset comment). Two problems I see with those:
- These are totally virtual boundaries that only exist in DGA and cannot be verified on the ground. E.g. there is no fence barrier or similar that would encircle that area
- They were duplicating the wind park power plant tagging from the site relation. So according to OSM data representation there were actually two wind parks at this location with identical parameters.
That is why I removed those virtual polygons and only left the site relation object.

Do you see a good reason for keeping those outline polygons? How can they be verified on the ground?

Yes, this should be the ideal. I was only fixing stop area membership information back then, but if you can enhance the connection between stops and entrances please go for it.

Hi Amir,
Why did you separate service segments of Metro line 1 and 4 airport branches into separate route_master relations? These are just route variants, but not separate lines.

Ja, stimmt. Dritte Schiene ist wohl der beste Indikator für separates Light rail tagging

Thank you for sharing the details to the China rail wiki tagging convention. Helpful differentiation to understand when to use subway versus rail tagging.
This is corrected now for Hanghai Line.

One of the "schools of tagging" for S-Bahns in Germany is using light_rail tags for their infrastructure and routes (See S-Bahn Hamburg). And light rail tagging is always a grey area since they most of the time use heavy rail infrastrucutre.
I was starting to apply the light rail tagging to the inner city S-Bahn stations in Leipzig, too, with this changeset, but never continued much. Also looking at it now it feels out of place in the regional rail infrastructure, so the light_rail related tagging can probably be removed. Cleaned up here: changeset/182552079

Changeset comment should be: "Updated metro station tagging QA"

Hm... Ich versuche gerade mich zu erinnern, woher ich das damals hatte. Ich glaube, dass ich das von einem anderen Objekt rüberkopiert hatte. Kann es jetzt aber auch nicht mehr nachvollziehen. Danke fürs aufräumen ins description-Tag.

Yes, 100% with the information you provided. Thanks for moving the old German name to old_name:de

Hallo Lukas, danke für den schönen nen Kommentar. Ich habe mich zwischenzeitlich mit dem Mapping Team der InfraGO abgestimmt und bin jetzt auch auf die häufigere Tagging-Variante mit AG umgestiegen.

Hi,
a railway=station object is still needed for a complete metro station relation. the stop positions on the track alone are not sufficient.
I've reverted the deletion of the station in changeset/174859464

Hi,
I still think the correct tagging for the SkyShuttle should be monorail because it does not run on actual iron rails. In fact it is running on rubber wheels and the concrete guiderails serve just as that: guiding the rubber tyred vehicle on the concrete track. See the video here: https://youtu.be/lsh2rcEvBPk?si=ak8vrAVNKLpJxs22&t=132
So I would suggest to revert the tagging from light_rail to monorail
WDYT?

Changeset comment should have said:
"Neue Vorfahrt vor Universitätsklinikum Haus 7"
Source:
Local survey

Hi there, What's your reason for deleting the separate stop areas for the metro and tram stations at Wilhelminaplein? According to the definition of a stop area in OSM I would expect those to be compromised of separate stop areas. One hint is that on Wikidata there's separate items for both:
Metro station: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2169211
Tram stop: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q111430313

I would suggest to revert this change, restore the separate stop areas on the surface (tram+bus) and underground (metro).

Hi,
You have removed the majority of track members for multiple routes as part of this changeset. E.g.
relation/17271811
and
relation/17271812
which are now almost empty. Any chance you can fix that or should I go ahead and revert?

Best,
Claudius

Sorry for inadvertently having moved that polygon and thanks for fixing it again.

Changeset comment should state:
"Fixed railway station tagging #QA"

Thanks for clarification. The different route reference numbers per direction are definitely an oddity which I haven't seen anywhere else. This makes capturing it via OSM data consistenly quite tricky. I would suggest to merge the two route masters for lines 2 and 8 into one because the operation is so intertwined. The route master then would either have no reference or ref=2;8

What do you think?