note/3910837 mentions that there is *no* path on the north side of the building.
Is there really one, or not?

Ciao Jolesh
I'm on a "fixing" spree for changing `amenity=fixme` added with EveryDoor.
Could the Villa B Lanca (node/10180084719/) be a amenity=hookah_lounge?
At least this comes up when looking at their Facebook page.
Greetings,
habi

> I can't see it on Bing imagery, among all images it's only seen on Mapbox, everywhere else it's just a field.

Weird, in JOSM it seems to load different imagery for Bing than in iD.
You're correct that there's only a path visible on one imagery layer.

I was only wondering if it's a 'Wanderweg' since there's a guidepost mapped at the other end of the path.

Maybe needs another survey from below :)

Happy mapping!

Great, thanks!

Ciao Paul
I think that *all* these pools should have been added with `access=private`, as they are in backyards of private residences.
Greetings,
habi

PS: I'm here in the region because of note/3906089 :)

The address data `source` is not in the building.
It has been suggested that tagging the `source` on the changeset is a more "modern" approach than tagging it on each object: source=*#How_to_use_on_changesets

I have set up JOSM in such a way and try to go as far as listing the relevant ZIP file from Simons GWR extracts, as seen here: changeset/141544795

Happy mapping,
habi

Oder, wenn in Geleisenähe eher railway=milestone

highway=milestone wäre evtl. ein sinnvolles Tagging.

Ciao dpolovinkin

The part of the path that you've deleted here is visible on Bing imagery and lights up quite a bit on the Strava Heatmap.

According to this it seems to me that this parth might actually connect way/29264314/ and node/5481161347/, where there's also a guidepost mapped.

Cuold not be that the (informal) path is just currently not visible?

Greetings,
habi

Ciao SG550-1

According to note/3899631 (and the aerial imagery) it seems that the waterfall is not in the middle of the industrial landuse here.

From looking at the map data and a cursory search on the internet the waterfall should probably be closer to node/360918123/
Can you confirm that with your 'local knowledge'?

Greetings,
habi

I'm here in the region because of note/3900622

I'm here in the region because of note/3900622

I'm here in the region because of note/3900622

"Duplicated node without tag"

Sorry for the large changeset, I've missed some stuff lingering in JOSM while I wanted to solve the notes mentioned in the comment.

Danke für die Antwort, und sorry für die späte Rück-Antwort :)
Bei der Geschichte ging's schlussendlich um Löschung einiger Bunker und @Eagleeye_ZRH
Dessen Account ist leider mittlerweile gesperrt, so dass keine weiter Kommunikation in dieser Sache möglich ist.
Gruss,
Habi

Ciao Beat
Du hast dem "Fussweg mit Naturtreppe" keine sog. Tags mitgegeben, sondern nur die Geometrie eingezeichnet.
Zusätzlich war der Weg auc nicht mit dem Stengeli und dem Lagenwilweg verbunden, und wurde dadurch auch nicht fürs Routing verwendet.
Ich habe das Problem in changeset/141417872 gelöst, evtl. müssten noch die Zugangsbeschränkungen erfasst werden, da es für mich 'aus der Luft' so aussieht, als würde der Weg über Privatgelände führen.
E Gruess usem Liebifäud,
habi

I've been made aware of this user note/3887585, linking to fictious data they have added in Switzerland. The original user already has some reverted changesets where they added fictious data to OpenStreetMap, hence I'm reverting the most improbable changesets until they can cite some proper sources.

changeset/141410209

I've been made aware of this user note/3887585, linking to fictious data they have added in Switzerland. The original user already has some reverted changesets where they added fictious data to OpenStreetMap, hence I'm reverting the most improbable changesets until they can cite some proper sources.

changeset/141410140

I've been made aware of this user note/3887585, linking to fictious data they have added in Switzerland. The original user already has some reverted changesets where they added fictious data to OpenStreetMap, hence I'm reverting the most improbable changesets until they can cite some proper sources.

changeset/141410125