Ok, thanks for the info, you're right, sorry for the inconvenience.

From here you can see your changes: https://osmcha.org/changesets/138542517/
For example, your modification highlighted by the blue circle in OsmCha.png (see files in https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1s-THKuoQsQBfd9B5YDO8brD8hOOqY3Em?usp=sharing).

In this case your modification has moved the route from the track highlighted by number 1 to the track highlighted by number 2.
In this case the orthophotos are not useful because no obvious traces are visible, but the strava heatmaps help a lot, and indicate that the right trace looks like the 2.
It is possible to use strava heatmaps on both JOSM and iD, see: https://www.strava.com/heatmap
If you want, you can contact me privately on MicheleOSM3@gmail.com

In general for FVG (Friuli Venezia Giulia) there are orthophoto services, Lidar and others that are much more accurate and reliable than Bing Maps Aerial and .gpx produced by GPS devices. See for example the True Orthophotos in https://eaglefvg.regione.fvg.it, also available as a WMS service.
The Strava Heatmap WMS service can very often also help.

In this specific case, your changes slightly degraded the quality of the mapping
If you need additional information or help, I'm at your disposal. Hi Michele.
In general for FVG (Friuli Venezia Giulia) there are orthophoto services, Lidar and others that are much more accurate and reliable than Bing Maps Aerial and .gpx produced by GPS devices. See for example the True Orthophotos in https://eaglefvg.regione.fvg.it, also available as a WMS service.
The Strava Heatmap WMS service can very often also help.

In this specific case, your changes slightly degraded the quality of the mapping
If you need additional information or help, I'm at your disposal. Hi Michele.

Non conosco Vespucci, quello che vedo sul changeset è che sono state utilizzate le immagini "Bing aerial imagery;Esri World Imagery" che sono poco precise e dettagliate rispetto alle IRDAT.

Allego l'immagine Ortofoto.png in cui puoi vedere la differenza che c'è (usando JOSM) tra la traccia OSM e le ortofoto, allego anche altre immagini per chiarezza, vedi https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Yi2czAQSk5oJeneWBoBz5zMPrzNyJI-M?usp=sharing

Se vuoi usare le ortofoto in JOSM ho scritto 2 righe qui: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xT9aOrJkmDEkPVx4BFhDyMpQhFtM7UOM&authuser=micheleosm3%40gmail.com&usp=drive_fs

Se vuoi usare le ortofoto in iD basta aggiungere la stringa personalizzata:
http://irdat-ortofoto.regione.fvg.it/geoserver/ows?FORMAT=image/png&TRANSPARENT=TRUE&VERSION=1.3.0&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=ortofoto:trueorto_FVG_1720&STYLES=&CRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}

Le ortofoto le puoi vedere anche senza usare il servizio WMS usando il sito https://eaglefvg.regione.fvg.it/eagle/main.aspx?configuration=guest e scegliendo le true ortofoto 2020.

Se vuoi una mano sono a tua disposizione, ciao e buon mapping Michele.

Ciao, ti informo che per il Friuli Venezia Giulia sono a disposizione le IRDAT Ortofoto del 2020 e le IRDAT Hillshade del 2020 che sono molto dettagliate e precise (se ti servono info sono a tua disposizione).
Su OSM le way del Friuli Venezia Giulia sono allineate a queste immagini che sono assolutamente da preferire rispetto a Bing aerial, Esri e altre immagini satellitari che spesso sono imprecise e disallineate.
Nel caso specifico la tua modifica ha disallineato la ciclabile rispetto al resto della ciclabile che è ben allineata rispetto alle ortofoto.
Se non mi rispondi a breve, aggiusterò la ciclabile in base alle ortofoto.
Ciao e buon mapping, Michele.

Hi, I have some doubts about the new path of the CAI-450 trail, I contacted the CAI (Club Alpino Italiano which officially maintains the trail and the trail markers) which confirms that the path of the CAI-450 trail was correct before your change. Have you personally seen the CAI-450 trail signs? Or do you have news from other sources?

The name is already in the "relation":
relation/13571785
The names of the tracks should be set in the "relation" and not on the single "way" which can belong to more than one "relation".

I see you recently updated the parking , it seems to me that OSM and orthophotos are quite matching:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MtV0A2VGoLAsJewcPTYZM0IJTbhNMM2P/view?usp=sharing

Many thanks, which parking?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MqBWmn0wfzgHj0gsSgAZgssPPeOukuGr/view?usp=sharing

in Friuli Venezia-Giulia there are very precise orthophotos and hillshades, quite recent (2020).
For iD just add your custom string:

http://irdat-ortofoto.regione.fvg.it/geoserver/ows?FORMAT=image/png&TRANSPARENT=TRUE&VERSION=1.3.0&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=ortofoto:trueorto_FVG_1720&STYLES=&CRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT= {height}&BBOX={bbox}

But it also works with JOSM
If you want more info or help, I'm at your disposal.

You can see the detail by comparing your changes here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lofudh0CRH3LDl7qznpJzOWMU6U27Aqp/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LoxWhBkmHYghguBs8U0oOfPOSX0KbtVh/view?usp=sharing

Before your changes the path was more precise, now I'm going to correct it.

Hi Michele.

After my split, did you see that 18 relations were lost?
After my split, did you add the 18 missing relations?

Did you detect that 18 routes were lost on v1?
And did you correct them?

I couldn't understand everything you wrote, for example, what is route 188?
About versions, AFAIK a "split" increases the version by a "way" and set the v1 version on the second "way", which is what happened.
The maxweight=5 was there before my "split" and it remained even after.
What I don't understand is:
What errors did you detect?
What errors did you correct?
Has one or more way-relation associations been lost?
Was there a route 188 that is now lost?
So that I can possibly spot problems better in the future.

I have analyzed the two ways (w1,w2) produced by the "split".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LNw96p6_stNMAPw8IXD3A08xDL_XHvX_/view?usp=sharing

r1 is the relation I deleted from w2
r2 is the relation someone deleted from w2
I don't know who eliminated r2, however I tried to analyze r2 as well, apparently it's wrong because apparently the right one is r3.
In conclusion I don't know who eliminated r2, if it was me, I did it unknowingly and without my being able to notice it, but I don't think it was a damage anyway because in my opinion r2 shouldn't exist because r3 already exists.
Did you fix anything after my "split"?
What is broken for you?

You are right, I will pay more attention in the future.

For this edit I used JOSM and I just "split" and removed a "way" from a hiking trail "relation".
Do you think I made a mistake? Or was there another problem?

I'm not sure, but it seems that someone has rightly removed the duplicate relations on a "way".
Perhaps the "split" corrected the situation automatically but only on one of the "ways" while the other "way" maintains the duplicate relations.
What do you think?

Excuse me but I don't understand, why do you say they are broken?
I did a "split" of a way which produced 2 "ways" which kept the relations:
way/223767595 (17 relations)
way/1116858964 (20 relations)
In fact, the difference is 3 relations (20-17) of which 1 I explicitly removed, the other 2 I don't know why he removed them, if you want I'll do a revert and try again.

Lo split di una way non elimina relazioni, non credo sia causa mia.

Come hai ipotizzato tu, probabilmente ho fatto uno split di una way per correggere la relazione "cammino delle dolomiti".
Qual'è il problema?