Hai ragione, "abandoned:route=hiking" è inadeguato, l'ho rimosso.
Riguardo a "state=closed", quello che leggo nel wiki è che è deprecated, mentre usando taginfo non sembra usato.

Hi, you broke relation/13758524, I fixed it.

Many thanks!

Hi, I don't understand this change, I see that this trail now has some missing parts: relation/4782828#map=12/46.5814/13.1731

Ottimo! Ho solo corretto un errore non tuo: dato che hai messo il nome "Sentiero Tellini" nella relation, gli eventuali nomi uguali sulla way andrebbero rimossi in quanto sono ridondanti, in questo caso specifico una way aveva lo stesso nome, ora l'ho rimosso.

Ciao, a me risulta che hai 'rotto' la relazione Cammino di San Cristoforo - Tappa 5:
relation/12255518
Sei consapevole di averlo fatto? Oppure ti serve una mano?
buon mapping
Michele.

Ciao, ho corretto la relazione relation/17188440 che si era ‘rotta’ a causa di alcune tue modifiche, se sei nuovo a OpenStreetMap, non preoccuparti, capita a tutti.
Per imparare a gestire le relazioni, ti consiglio di dare un'occhiata a questa guida: https://osm.wiki/IT:Relazione.
Uno strumento utile che puoi usare è JOSM, un editor più avanzato che ti permette di lavorare facilmente con le relazioni.
Può sembrare un po' complesso all'inizio, ma ti aiuterà molto a fare modifiche più precise.
Una guida per iniziare ad usare JOSM la trovi qui: osm.wiki/IT:JOSM/Guide
Buon mapping, Michele.

Per favore fai attenzione alle relation quando modifichi, nello specifico hai rotto la relation "Via Postumia - Tappa 6". Buon mapping, Michele.

I think you broke 3 trail relations:
- Relation: P3 (14132297)
- Relation: Alpe Adria Path E37 (13805729)
- Relation: Slovenska planinska pot (6443086)

I corrected the first two, the third is a very large relation already broken in many places and therefore I did not correct it.
Please when you change something, pay attention to any trail relations.

good mapping,

Secondo me la modifica che proponi non è molto utile, ma se vuoi farla tu, fai pure.

Il punto è proprio questo "se non sono presenti cartelli o altro con questo numero".
Non ho percorso il sentiero e quindi non lo so, ma ho percorso altri sentieri in disuso, anche molto vecchi, dove i segnavia e i numeri si vedevano benissimo, pertanto lascio a chi lo percorrerà in futuro la facoltà di decidere se eliminarlo o meno.

Mi correggo, hai rotto anche altre 2 relations: "Sentiero Italia Ciclo - tappa A04-A" e "Cammino Celeste Italia - 9 Dogna - Camporosso", comunque le ho messe a posto

Ciao Maicol, hai rotto la relazione del sentiero 611, poco male, l'ho messa a posto io. Buon mapping.

It could be that a flood has eroded something, but you have moved a trail (relation/2458966) on a forest road, from what I see before the path was near the river and the forest road was not mapped, then your edit moved the trail on the forest road. Now anyway the relation of the trail is broken.

Hi, your edit involved these 2 ways: way/184607719 way/1113702085 but I don't think it's correct, in my opinion the 2 ways were fine where they were before, maybe you wanted to add a new road.
Another topic: in FVG (Friuli-Venezia Giulia) almost all the objects are aligned with the IRDAT 2020 orthophotos and lidar which are much more precise and reliable than satellite photos, if you want I can provide you with the information to use them.

Infatti l'ho impostato come inagibile, qual'è il problema?

Sorry but I disagree.

The use of the via_ferrata_scale key is described in the official wiki osm.wiki/Key%3Avia_ferrata_scale
Being a key, the only way to use it is the official one which clearly specifies that the key can only be used on the "way" element, see the symbols under "Used on These Elements".

The wiki page you mention has been a "proposal" type for several years, in fact, it isn't even a real proposal, given that it is in "Draft" status, as you can see:
osm.wiki/Proposal:Via_ferrata#Tagging_as_route=via_ferrata_relation.
Using the via_ferrata_scale key on a "relation" is in clear conflict with what is specified on the official page.
There cannot be different mapping ways for the same key, the only correct mapping way is the one specified on the official page.
Also on taginfo, you can see that the only reference is to the official wiki:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/via_ferrata_scale#wiki

If you want the key to also be used in "relation", you should propose a change to the official wiki.

Also consider that there are excellent viewers that effectively use the tag as described on the official page, including the value of via_ferrata_scale, for example this one:
https://it.mapy.cz/turisticka?q=sella%20nevea&source=osm&id=142561475&ds=2&x=13.4574869&y=46.4218843&z=16
The official mapping method works, works well and can be visualized well.

Ok, but I think it is not a good idea for OSM to use unofficial mappings because it encourages an unofficial mapping instead of the official and commonly accepted one. I think it would have been better to write the global value of the difficulty scale in the "description" tag or in the "note" tag.

It is true that some sites and some organizations attribute a difficulty value to the via ferratas for the entire via ferrata, but in a map we have the great advantage of specifying the difficulties in each section, in a similar way to the sac_scale. In any case the commonly used method accepted is to attribute the via_ferrata_scale to the "way".
In this specific case it is even more useful and important given that the via ferrata is made up of various branches, as you can see in the image: https://ibb.co/KyV4b3s

Regarding the link to the wiki, in my opinion it is not necessary, but if you want, you can do it yourself.

Not exactly: is described on wiki but it is in "proposal draft" status, as you can see:
osm.wiki/Proposal:Via_ferrata#Tagging_as_route=via_ferrata_relation.

The tag used on "way" is different because is official, see:
osm.wiki/Key%3Avia_ferrata_scale

Also usage statistics on OSM the tag on "way" is much more used, see:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/via_ferrata_scale#overview

Furthermore, a via ferrata very often has different difficulty levels that can be set on the "way", similarly to the sac_scale tag